slicer

No the X51 kit is a step up from what I had. My kit only increased the capacity by 0.5qt and retained the stock baffle.

slicer

I see your point but I think the same thing can be said about some of the reactions and advice from members of this forum. Many are blinded by their love for their 996 and unwilling to accept that the M96 might not be all that they think it is. I think Porsche cut corners on this era of car. As Jake said, it was probably driven by the need / desire to make a profit.

Some of you may not know that the most durable Porsche engine can be found in the GT3 and Turbo (Mezger Engines). The block and dry sump system in that engine (even up to the latest 997 GT3's and Turbo's) dates back to the air cooled cars. That's the engine to have for track use.

slicer

Thank you! You are the first person on the forum (other than Jake from FSI) that seems to understand my perspective on the car. I guess it takes having to be one of the unlucky members of the blown-engine club to understand.

slicer

I was cornering at mid throttle but I was in the upper rev range (never over-revved). The smoking immediately stopped after the corner(s). No oil light ever came on throughout the day. Only the CEL came on and at that point it was too late. I think the smoke was probably due to the Air Oil Separator (see the text in this link: http://www.suncoastparts.com/product...manperformance)

I didn't top off the oil prior to my first stint. I only added 1/2 quart to take it to the upper / middle of the range. I had never added oil to the car before so I didn't know how much volume the min / max range represented. I did not want to over-fill the oil so I tried to take it to the mid level. After the smoking occurred I was still above the "min" level so I wasn't overly alarmed. I then decided to take it all the way to maximum to be safe.

Jorge Moreno

Newbie here who just acquired a 1999 996 through estate settlement, how can I tell if engine is m96?

slicer

It is.

Macster

First, I'm not blinded by my love of my 986 with its similar engine. It is certainly a good engine in a good car (02 Boxster) and the car and its engine has been everything I expected it to be. But one thing I did not expect it to be was a race car and a race car engine.

Second, I'm not unsympathetic to anyone that loses an engine for almost whatever the reason, even if it a stupid reason (though I'm not saying this is the case in your situation). We all are stupid at some point and some just have the unfortunate luck to be stupid at the wrong time.

What I'm not willing to do is out of hand condemn these cars simply because a few owners with track dreams learn the hard way speed costs money. Which brings the question: How fast do you want to go?

If Porsche built engines that could go from the street to the track and back again the market size for these cars would smaller, and maybe small enough that Porsche would not survive.

BTW, while I also own a 996 Turbo and love its engine it is not a race engine either.

Just ask those that have found out the hard way about those coolant fittings...

Also, even if the fittings last once in awhile a Turbo engine "blows" up.

Also, while I'm at it let us clear up what a race engine means or doesn't mean in this limited context.

What it doesn't mean is the engine is immune to failure.

No engine (race engines in particular) is immune from catastrophic failure.

While the basic engine may be sound, nigh on bullet proof, it is only as good as its weakest component. The engine's longevity rests upon the smallest part in the engine holding together. Every one of the numerous cam chain pin/rollers in the engine is nearly as critical to the engine's continued good health as the rod bolts.

slicer

I agree with most of what you are saying. I have certainly learned over time that every motor / car has its weaknesses. Some have more prevalent weaknesses than others. My opinion is that the M96 is one of those engines with more prevalent weaknesses. After my experience, I would (and have) simply choose one of the better engines made by Porsche. My research says that the GT3, Turbo, and 09+ engines are better. Obviously you pay for the improvements and each of those engines still has weaknesses (some of which are probably yet to be known in the case of the '09+ motors). I was lured into the 996 mk1 by it's low price point. I owned the car for 1 year and in the end, I probably could have ran a 997 GT3 for one year for the same cost of the 996 (after all of the repairs and value loss due to engine failure).... Some people have had better experiences than I. More people than you may realize have had similar experiences to mine - even outside a track environment.

rpm's S2

While I may respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions, your experience is one of those awful outcomes that do happen. And no matter the actual causation, be it M96 basic design or an aftermarket modification (ironically intended to offset a perceived design flaw), this just sucks.

Thanks for documenting your story so thoroughly. I am sure that we are all glad you stayed in the Porsche family!

TroyN

Not that we're debating this particular point but during the period of time these cars were being produced, Porsche was the highest-profiting (sp?) car manufacturer. Should they have spent a little more money making a motor that could be used in a sporting manner without fear of blowing up (talking about dry sump oiling, not IMS design)? I think so.

BruceP

And this is where I start pounding my head against the desk.

When someone has a problem with their car like this, it's natural to resist the idea that it was bad luck or that they made some kind of mistake. It's self-affirming to direct the blame toward an engine that has not entirely fairly acquired a reputation for problems (even if your issue didn't happen to be caused by one of the reputed weaknesses). Add in the voice of an enthusiastic marketer of engine insurance, and you have a perfect storm. The 'bad m96' meme takes on a life of its own, taking some of the pleasure out of owning one and destroying resale value.

The OP's experience was a valuable contribution and a cautionary tale for trackies. Trying to jam the whole thing into this dubious meme isn't. I think Macster got it about right.

BruceP

Not exactly. By the end of the 996 run, they were doing very well indeed. But at the beginning, they were fighting for their lives. The 996 made a significant contribution toward saving the company.

Also, bear in mind that the "most profitable" claim is per unit, not corporate profit. Toyota sells 15 million vehicles a year, BMW 1.5 million. Porsche, moving roughly 20,000 911s a year at the time bloody well should have had the highest per unit margins. It's just common business sense.

sprintamx

There really isn't any such thing as out-of-the-box / street-track perfection, from any factory. C5 vettes had ferocious oil starvation issues in the sweepers and under heavy braking, and Chevy knows how to design/build race motors. Anyone familiar with tracking GT3s will know about the glue/press coolant fittings that frequently fail (wanna know how much welding those suckers costs, or why Porsche hasn't changed the design?). Not to mention the many other high running costs of a GT3, GT2, including the mythological 100 hour rebuild. BMWs used to have fuel starvation issues. Etc, etc, etc. Point is, the 911 is a street production car that is one of the most trackable factory cars ever--in any era, in any specific version--even if it isn't "out of the box" perfect. And, what high power, high performance car is perfect for all uses?

Yes, dry sump is "better" than wet sump. But, if you're not tracking with high sweepers, oil starvation is not a huge issue. If you are, then accusump that sucker. Its a known issue and concern, frankly for any motor. Even true air cooled race cars use remote reservoir systems to maintain oil level and pressures. Anyway, the M96 motor is not a congenital or catastrophic failure of a motor. Like any motor, it has its strong and weaker points, and build your car accordingly.

My particular beef with the motor is the same gripe I have with every 911 motor--they fail my personal cost/benefit/value calculation. It simply pains me to no end that a good performance build for anything north of 300 hp--on any version of a 911 motor--is more than $15k, and usually far more than that. A good 1990s era or later BMW build is half that or less, as is an American V8. Ok, so that's maybe apples to oranges, but it is a personal thing and maybe worthless in the general discussion here.

DreamCarrera

+1


Wow, it took you this long to ...I admire your restraint.

DreamCarrera

Way to turn this case of user error(no different than me installing an undersized/incorrect water pump in my 996 and then crying because the engine developed a hot spot and cracked a head) into another one of your infomercials…



To the OP, I feel bad for your loss but the fact is you DIRECTLY caused the loss. It was not caused by Porsche due to a faulty engine design. Your choice to use an incorrect mix of aftermarket parts caused this failure(a spun crank bearing due to oil starvation), plain and simple. Your crying here about Porsche’s faulty design is serious misplaced blame.