notbostrom

I've done a search and educated myself on the IMS and RMS issues on the 996 but nothing has told me if these same issues exist with the Turbo motors. Same potential for failure or do the turbos have diff parts in those key areas?

Thanks

Macster

The 996 Turbo engine is a different engine than the NA 996 engine.

AFAIK, RMS leaks and any problems with the IMS in the Turbo engine are rare. That is my research into this model turned up no worrying numbers of reports of any problems.

Sincerely,

Macster.

notbostrom

Thanks for the reply, guess that makes a turbo a no-brainer.........

BostonDuce

Check Kevin's post back in Dec'10...

"Why you want to check your oil filter".

BD

Macster

Well, no, or not exactly.

While the consenous is the Turbo has the better engine and of course has other positives to offer over its lesser siblings the Turbo is a more expensive car to own and operate.

While the Turbo engine doesn't have the weak IMS the NA 996 engine has, neither the Turbo engine and car are immune to the problems the NA 996 enginesand models can develop.

The engines and cars share many common (if not the same then common in function) components such as throttle bodies, plugs, coils, water pumps, radiators, transmissions, clutches, running gear, and so on.

The Turbo of course also has two turbos.

In other areas the Turbo has a more complex system. For instance the fuel tank/fuel delivery system in the Turbo vs. the other models (save for maybe the 4S).

Also, generally speaking the Turbo costs more to service.

So, one must consider the running costs and potential repair costs should something serious happen outside of any warranty before selecting one of these cars.

Sincerely,

Macster.

notbostrom

yikes

Macster

'yikes' is an understandable response. But BFD is, too. IIRC Kevin stated that the problem was an extremely rare event.

IIRC the oil pump housing bolts backed out. The damage/etc arose from this. Correction: The bolts holding the gear wheel to the IMS backed out.

The Turbo engine is a robust engine. But as I think I mentioned in an earlier post it can still fall prey some of the ills that all engines car. Improper assembly (which I would classify this failure as being caused by) is one.

Also, I believe the failure occurred at relatively low miles, though because many of these cars have their warranty expire on time and not miles might not have been covered by a warranty.

So a low miles car sans any warranty is a bit of a risk.

Getting sucked out a jet airliner during a flight is a 'yikes' (to say the least) event, but this possibility doesn't keep me from getting on a plane. (The overall poor service and less (extremely) less pleasurable experience that is now the norm for air travel has me avoiding any air travel unless I must cross oceans. And even then I balk.)

Sincerely,

Macster.

larry47us

I think that the story comes down to what do you want in a car? If you are happy with what a 996 NA provides, then buy one, fix the IMS before it goes ka-flunky on you, and enjoy your ride.

If you have driven a Turbo, and like what that provides, then go ahead and buy one of those.

The corollary is that the more complex a car is, the more it is likely to need repairs. Just face it. The turbo has 4 wd, and two turbos and all the other things that make it the car that it is. The 996NA was designed to be a more trouble-free car with a longer maintenance cycle. Porsche succeeded, kinda. Without the IMS/RMS issues it probably is a very trouble free car.

But, for me, I am willing to pay the higher price for the maintenance of the Turbo (at least for now) because I am enjoying the HELL out of the car. It is a whole different animal than a 996 NA. Anyone who buys a 996NA while thinking about a Turbo, but never driving one has done themselves a disservice. Not that everyone will buy a Turbo, because they are more expensive to buy. But it's just that experiencing a car and it's siblings before you take the dive is just logical car buying. (Is there anything "logical" about buying a Porsche of ANY kind?) Prolly not.

larry

Macster

Exactly. I drove a NA 996 and even a NA 997 and found neither example lacking in any way, shape or form. They are both good examples of modern Porsches. I had just had a Cayman S and it too was a fine car, a very fine car.

But I decided I wanted to a Turbo and found a good one and bought it. And like you I'm willing to bear the expense of owning a Turbo. As some point I might decide to get rid of it, but right now, no way.

As if I needed some justification, some of the desire to own a Turbo was to own a car with a better engine than the NA cars. I was sick of reading about IMS this and IMS that (and this even though my 02 Boxster has so far after all this time and miles has not had any IMS problems).

Also, another justification was when I road trip I sometimes drive through areas of high altitude. (So far highest I've been in the Turbo is a bit over 7700 feet (just west of Flagstaff on I-40) but I intend this season to hit the higher elevations in areas like Colorado, maybe even take a drive up Pike's Peak.) Thus I wanted a turbo-charged car that is less affected by altitude. But given how infrequently I encounter high altitude driving this justification is about on par with carrying an elephant gun just in case I run into an elephant. But hey, you come up with your reasons to buy a Turbo and I'll come up with mine.

To me the Turbo provides a car that I can use for my work commute, grocery shopping, running about town if I want, short pleasure trips or if I want to head out cross country on a multi-thousand mile road trip covering sometimes 500 to 800 or more miles per day for several days on end, it handles that well too.

But so too I believe would a 997, or a NA 996, or a Cayman S. In fact, my lowly 2.7l Boxster did all of the above, and continues to do all of the above even now, and after several hundreds of thousands of miles.

As an aside and probably off topic a bit, personally, I think the best bang for the buck Porsche is a base Boxster or Cayman. They are inexpensive to own (relatively speaking), offer superior balance in terms of cost, acceleration, braking, handling and servicing/running costs and are very comfortable. In short they are very very good automobiles.

Even so, I'm hanging on to my Turbo for a while longer yet.

Sincerely,

Macster.

notbostrom

all good points, coming from Ferrari world cost of ownership is nothing new although I had mine for 6 years and repair cost for non maint items was $0.00. I think the modern NA cars would be enjoyable to own but would always leave wanting for just a bit more. Given the price for the TT cars is not that much of a premium over the NA cars I was hoping the RMS IMS issues not being as prevalent in the Turbo's would just be a bonus. It still may be but I've learned a lot already. The only reason The Ferrari went away is a new baby. If a 2 seater were an option, I can't think of any other car that has a much bang for the buck as Boxster or Cayman. Short of a Maserati Gransport (and it's known issues and weaknesses) I don't know of anything that could be this much fun as a TT and still have room for a baby seat.

Kevinmacd

The M96 engine used in the base Carrera, S and 4S has a different IMS setup. It is supported by a ball bearing either single or double row on the rear of the engine below the main shaft. The TT engine does not use this type of bearing , and is therfore not known to destruct. The RMS also on the M96 engine was considered a problem do to crankshaft alignment, but on those that just had the seals go the Porsche new seal seems to fix the problem. With that being said, my last car was an M96, for precaution sake I had the IMS changed out with the L&N Engineering retrofit kit that had a better bearing than the Porsche part. I noticed filings in my oil filter. The bearing once removed was starting to become loose but not to the extent that iminante failure would be seen soon. With that being said The 996tt GT1 derivative comparison to the M96 is comparing apples to oranges.