dspill

Charles Navarro

I wouldn't loose sleeve over it. I'd still feel safe recommending one to my parents or a friend.

jumper5836

Cayenne's are used as daily drivers high mileage and driven all seasons. m96 engines are going on 20 years old and are lokasil which is not are strong as alusil. So my take on it is that obviously age, mileage and winter driven cars are going to see the more failures. The 9A1 is still relatively new but many other car manufacturers are seeing bore scoring so I think running ethanol in our gases is also a main aspect to the whole issue. Time will tell but I think as prices fall and more people use the car as a dd for all seasons, age and mileage come into play there will be more popping up.

Balr14

I live in Wisconsin and run a lot of short errands with my 997.2 regardless of the temperature, as long as the streets are clean and dry. I can't help thinking I'm sitting on a time bomb.

Mike Murphy

qikqbn

Unfortunately, based on all the FSI Jake Raby posts I have read going back to 2010 and earlier, is that Jake raised some red flags early on and tried to be open and honest with the 997.2 community by reporting some failures he and others were seeing in the 9A1 engine design back in 2010. Just like he was very vocal and one of the first to report and come up with solutions for the M96/M97 design. For the M96/M97 crowd it was a hard pill to swallow, but we accepted it and wanted solutions to move forward. Unfortunately the 997.2 / 9A1 owners at that time gave such a backlash to Jake for even suggesting these motors had issues. They didn't want to hear it or accept it, to the point of just arguing, ridiculing, and questioning all of Jake's work and research on the forums.

So it is my opinion that due to the backlash Jake and FSI got back in 2010 that they decided to not share and "vowed not to discuss the issues we have found with the 9a1 publicly." "People no longer appreciate the truth and reality. It’s all unicorns and rainbows."
Any further discoveries or information were closed off and the 9A1 crowd has been left with their "rainbows and unicorns" while Jake has been quietly discovering and fixing 9A1 issues for many customers in the background. I see that Jake spends most of his time in other forums, mostly 996/997.1, where owner's are eager and hungry to learn about their cars engines and issues no matter how hard it is to hear. It also makes sense since FSI gets a lot of bread and butter from that engine 996/997.1 group. It's unfortunate the discoveries and work Jake did with the 9A1 early on was not praised back then. A lot of information about the 9A1 issues/fixes has been withheld from the public because of it. Porsche sure as heck won't share that information with us for fear of more lawsuits. They just cart the engines away never to be seen again. The information, wisdom and knowledge FSI has accumulated is important to those who have the misfortune of an engine failure and even to those of us who are long term owners who just want to know what could possibly be avoided or done to make our engines last longer. These are some of the first guys we should be calling if something like this happens. As an M97 engine owner I am grateful to know they are there just in case.

10 years of variables in weather climate, geographic locations, maintenance, driving habits, racing or cruising ownership, DD or garage queens, etc..etc... will all take their toll. 10 years for the first 9A1 engines and as time and miles keep piling on I think we are going to see some issues creep up. It is inevitable. Yes, it will be in smaller numbers than the M96/M97, but it is only beneficial to be open to hearing about the possible issues and how to avoid or fix them in the future.

preelude

Just saw this

Glad you went ahead with a build, your car is beautiful.

ADias

Flat-6 engines (more than others) require proper cold starts. Punch them before oil is at proper operating temp and a price will be paid. This is not new!

I suspect this is why 911s, and other flat-6s, driven in cold climates develop engine problems. Would I drive a 911 in low temps? I would, but I would be very gentle warming the engine and I would always use a solid oil additive like molybdenum. But I would not drive them for short runs.

Bruce In Philly

I just parked my 2009 C2s 130K miles at train station the other day.... single digits. I don't care. A few years ago, I was doing work in norther NJ... parked / drove the car outside for two winters in a row..... spent a ton of time removing snow.... I don;t care. I really don't care. I purchased the car to drive and enjoy ... and I do. Worry? Yes, a bit.... after all I had two engines fail in my Boxster so it is real to me. But there is not way in h--l I am not going to use the car. That is just stupid given my value system. If I can't drive and enjoy the car, I would sell it. BTW, Michelin Alpins rock!

I will say if this engine blows.... I am done with Porsche... and have no problem waving that flag to anyone. I already gave them more than a company deserves.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

Mike Murphy

lowbee

No judgment here, just sitting back and enjoy the story

Fined

This post is ironic to the n-th degree based on the username

Wayne Smith

Ironic? Yes. But I saw no place where Bruce said he treated any of his three motors differently.

I remain anxious to see the findings on the motor and hope that as a group we have matured and Jake can trust us enough to share. It would be really good to have a few data points.

In the meantime, my 2010 C4S PDK with 120K miles remains the most reliable car I have ever owned. I'll admit I don't drive nearly as hard as I used to, but this is still a most impressive ride.

ttreat

It is amusing to see the degree of insanity related to an engine failure. All manufacturers see common modes of engine failures in even the most robust engines. This shouldn't keep us from driving and enjoying our cars. Any information shared is helpful but there is no need for panic fearing that the majority of 9A1 engines are about to self destruct.

sandwedge

I must have missed that but it makes sense. Why waste a bunch of time discussing his findings with people who have a hard time accepting them.

Makes sense too. The first M96/M97 engines are going on 14 years now vs. 10 years for the first 9a1's. More and more .2 owners here report over 100,000 miles on their cars so will be interesting to see how they hold up. By the way, and this observation of mine may be flawed, but doesn't it seem like IMS failures on the M96/M97 engines if they're going to fail do so at relatively low miles? By low miles related to this I'm thinking less than 70,000. I don't recall ever reading about an IMS failure on a really high mileage car. So it almost seems like as miles pile on to the M96/M97 engines the risk of the most dreaded failure of those engines decreases. Contrary to every other part of the car.