Video Part 8 "The 3.8L Scoring Duo" is out
12-15-2019, 08:03 PM
#16
You guys make my head hurt. I honestly could give two ****s if my engine blows up tomorrow. Sure, there would definitely be a small moment where I wouldn’t be happy but the thought of my car failing is definitely not something I obsess over. If I ever got to the point where I obsessed about a car breaking, I spent to much $ on it. Enjoy your cars and quit fueling this whole thing!
I do find it odd that for someone who sees “hundreds” of bore scored cars in his shop Jake finds it notable enough to create a thread/video when he has two at once. You would think that would be an every day thing.
I do find it odd that for someone who sees “hundreds” of bore scored cars in his shop Jake finds it notable enough to create a thread/video when he has two at once. You would think that would be an every day thing.
12-15-2019, 08:06 PM
#17
I thought Jake did announce it - warming up your car before driving in a cold environment..... Wasn’t that his big reveal?
It’s best to start the car, wait 20 seconds for the initial start-up sequence to conclude, then drive it immediately.
If you let the car warm up before driving, the extra gasoline introduced into the combustion chamber during warm-up remains unburned and gradually dilutes the motor oil. But if you drive the car immediately, most of the extra gas is burned up because the engine is under load.
The extra gas I’m speaking of is introduced during the warm-up process to heat up the cats as quickly as possible. Hot cats = better emissions. So the source of bore scoring is mostly due to emission standards.
Jake explains all of this in his videos. I found them very informative. I appreciate his expertise. He’s been disassembling and rebuilding Porsche engines for two decades. The rest of us have dissembled a Porsche engine exactly zero times 😂
It’s best to start the car, wait 20 seconds for the initial start-up sequence to conclude, then drive it immediately.
If you let the car warm up before driving, the extra gasoline introduced into the combustion chamber during warm-up remains unburned and gradually dilutes the motor oil. But if you drive the car immediately, most of the extra gas is burned up because the engine is under load.
The extra gas I’m speaking of is introduced during the warm-up process to heat up the cats as quickly as possible. Hot cats = better emissions. So the source of bore scoring is mostly due to emission standards.
Jake explains all of this in his videos. I found them very informative. I appreciate his expertise. He’s been disassembling and rebuilding Porsche engines for two decades. The rest of us have dissembled a Porsche engine exactly zero times 😂
The following 2 users liked this post by snaphappy:
ghunter997.2 (01-12-2020),
Rulaxin12 (12-15-2019)
12-15-2019, 08:11 PM
#18
You guys make my head hurt. I honestly could give two ****s if my engine blows up tomorrow. Sure, there would definitely be a small moment where I wouldn’t be happy but the thought of my car failing is definitely not something I obsess over. If I ever got to the point where I obsessed about a car breaking, I spent to much $ on it. Enjoy your cars and quit fueling this whole thing!
I do find it odd that for someone who sees “hundreds” of bore scored cars in his shop Jake finds it notable enough to create a thread/video when he has two at once. You would think that would be an every day thing.
I do find it odd that for someone who sees “hundreds” of bore scored cars in his shop Jake finds it notable enough to create a thread/video when he has two at once. You would think that would be an every day thing.
This is why I’m a big fan of UOA
12-15-2019, 08:17 PM
#19
Instructor
I thought Jake did announce it - warming up your car before driving in a cold environment..... Wasn’t that his big reveal?
It’s best to start the car, wait 20 seconds for the initial start-up sequence to conclude, then drive it immediately.
If you let the car warm up before driving, the extra gasoline introduced into the combustion chamber during warm-up remains unburned and gradually dilutes the motor oil. But if you drive the car immediately, most of the extra gas is burned up because the engine is under load.
The extra gas I’m speaking of is introduced during the warm-up process to heat up the cats as quickly as possible. Hot cats = better emissions. So the source of bore scoring is mostly due to emission standards.
Jake explains all of this in his videos. I found them very informative. I appreciate his expertise. He’s been disassembling and rebuilding Porsche engines for two decades. The rest of us have dissembled a Porsche engine exactly zero times 😂
It’s best to start the car, wait 20 seconds for the initial start-up sequence to conclude, then drive it immediately.
If you let the car warm up before driving, the extra gasoline introduced into the combustion chamber during warm-up remains unburned and gradually dilutes the motor oil. But if you drive the car immediately, most of the extra gas is burned up because the engine is under load.
The extra gas I’m speaking of is introduced during the warm-up process to heat up the cats as quickly as possible. Hot cats = better emissions. So the source of bore scoring is mostly due to emission standards.
Jake explains all of this in his videos. I found them very informative. I appreciate his expertise. He’s been disassembling and rebuilding Porsche engines for two decades. The rest of us have dissembled a Porsche engine exactly zero times 😂
12-15-2019, 08:20 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Not saying it never happens (we all read Bronze's thread and saw Jake's video on it) but the fact that his incident got so much attention is the exception that proves the rule. We have our own set of issues (such as low speed preignition) but fortunately bore scoring is pretty low on the worry list.
Last edited by PV997; 12-15-2019 at 08:48 PM. Reason: typo
The following users liked this post:
Hindsight2010 (12-17-2019)
12-15-2019, 09:00 PM
#21
Drifting
Iv read all the threads, understand the differences and you made my point. You got a dog in the fight whether you want to admit it or not. Occurrences may be lower now but who knows what will be happening in a couple of years as they age like the m97
Anyways kind of beside the point. The cause(s) will continue to be debated. Guys like me who followed all the "rules" will continue to get scored engines and life will go on
Anyways kind of beside the point. The cause(s) will continue to be debated. Guys like me who followed all the "rules" will continue to get scored engines and life will go on
12-16-2019, 12:05 AM
#22
Racer
I am the owner of a cabinet manufacturing business my wife and I started 14+ years ago, based on what I learned, researched, and experimented with working for a veritable Who's Who of North American cabinet manufacturers over 40+ years. It is not an accident that our company has been #1 in percentage growth in 2019 almost all year, and well in the top 10 for previous years for North America according to the primary continental trade association.
I am also the owner of a 2008 C2S which, in a relatively benign climate and meticulous driving habits, suffered bore scoring and was rebuilt as a 4.0-liter engine by a well-respected Seattle-area Porsche expert (i.e., not Jake Raby), using LN Engineering services. I am very, very happy with my revitalized car, and have nearly 15,000 stimulating miles on it. I had originally noticed an increase in oil consumption at about 25,000 miles, and shortly thereafter it was bore scoped and shown to have scoring. I drove it for about 20,000 miles while I saved up to have my engine rebuilt. Many people counseled me to trade it in or sell it without disclosing its issues, but God has rules. Although the oil consumption steadily got worse (down under 500 miles/liter), I never experienced any other symptoms, including the day I dropped it off to be rebuilt two years later.
This background helps me understand where Mr. Raby is coming from. While I think Mr. Raby can be a little over-the-top and perhaps a little overly-exasperated sometimes, the comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them" really offends me as much as it does Mr. Raby. It shows a profound ignorance of how a small business is created and how it is operated. As the economists say, if, in fact, he was making boatloads of cash (i.e., extra-marginal profits), there would be many other entrants into the market, which would drive his pricing down to an equilibrium (i.e., marginal profits).
Assume for a moment that Mr. Raby really is "making boat loads of cash replacing them." So what? Every single one of his customers has come to him by choice, and voluntarily agreed to the sums paid. No one held a gun to their collective heads. They all could have said, "No!" at any time. They all could have found other experienced shops fully capable of restoring their engines. But they *chose* Flat Six Innovations despite significant obstacles of time, logistics, and cost. And the people who do *not* have bore scoring -- well, they don't need to know or care about Mr. Raby.
But, in my experience (because I DID look), Mr. Raby charges not only "what the market will bear," but it is also within bounds compared to what less-experienced and less-developed shops are required to charge in order to make a reasonable return on their very substantial investment and skilled-labor-intensive operation (i.e., marginal profits). If he does get a modest premium for what he provides, it reflects the all the very time-consuming efforts he has spent experimenting with expensive materials (i.e., Porsche engines new and old), developing new and more permanent solutions, making instructional videos, and building his brand. Why does Apple cost more than Dell? Is the delta worth it? It is to many, many people -- just not you, especially if you have never suffered bore scoring in a car you truly loved. One fact that Mr.. Navarro of LNE, Jake Raby of FSI, and I all agree on is that *nobody* in his right mind will spend the required amount to fix up their 10+ year-old car unless they really love it and plan to keep it forever. Maybe then it pencils out. Don't blame Mr. Raby, blame whomever sold you your car. He only exists to help.
But, I can tell you from personal experience that building a capital- and labor-intensive business which will be there in the future when the customer might need it, backs up their products, is still there if they need it again years later, and is constantly striving to improve their own knowledge base takes a lot of money. Most of that money does not go into our pockets to be spent on life's pleasures. Year after year it gets spent on better equipment, better employee acquisition and development, and better communication with the public at large in order to keep the machine running. If you are serious, you tend to only take what you need to get by while plowing the rest back into your own business. The financial planners will all say you are "putting all your eggs in one basket," but I call it "keeping a close eye on all your eggs." This entrepreneurial environment breeds very high levels of intensive focus -- perhaps obsession -- with one's business. You get so used to personally doing without that it is psychologically difficult to draw out any extra money for personal use even after you safely can.
I feel the same way when I get a customer who wants us to supply a cabinet door style I have experience with, have studied, and know for a fact is an engineering disaster waiting to happen. When I patiently explain why that construction is doomed to failure on a very expensive purchase, they stomp off mad and go directly to whatever competition is left that still hasn't figured out the engineering. By the time they realize that I was right and how hard I tried to warn them, the damage was permanently done to their pocket books. It makes me want to cut the conversation short to save both of us time, which I now do if I judge that they are hell-bent on doing something stupid. I have a 47-year successful career in wood engineering, manufacturing engineering, and cabinet and cabinet door manufacturing, but I don't know what I am talking about and they have the (one-time promotional) photo off Houzz to prove I'm wrong.
My wife keeps me out of the showroom for this reason. She designs and sells over 200 kitchens *per year* for 14+ years, yet she gets at least one customer a week who want to do something unworkable (and usually expensive) because "their next-door neighbor" (who has never designed one kitchen and therefore cannot enjoy the huge advantage of experience) thinks it would be better that way. Repeated exposure to idiots is truly wearing. She works hard to help them have a kitchen that is worth the money, and that they will love forever and won't regret, but to no avail. At least she has occasionally gotten cards from people admitting that she was right, and asking for corrective action help. But I think she suffers fools less and less. It is truly wearing, especially in the context of literally hundreds of very happy and appreciative customers.
The comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them." displays a lack of knowledge of what it takes to create, build, and manage a successful business, and is likely going to be offensive to any entrepreneur. We all start out with thick skin and a healthier-than-normal tolerance of risk. We are used to occasional sniping from the peanut gallery, but man, does it grow old over time, especially in light of our obvious success in creating jobs, paying increasing taxes, and pleasing actual customers.
I would encourage all who want to know more to research how Jake Raby started his business, how Charles Navarro started his business, how Mr. Raby was a primary catalyst and driver of the solutions for bore score, IMS failure, and other Porsche engineering problems (Yes, Virginia, there are other problem Porsche engines besides the M97), which he and LN Engineering have developed in a highly symbiotic relationship. I am the thankful beneficiary of this relationship even though someone else rebuilt my engine, and I am greatly appreciate all of Mr. Raby's contributions. This is what free enterprise and the American Dream are all about. This cynical criticism is obviously from people who have *never* walked a mile in our shoes.
It is also popular on these forums to poo-poo the serious potential for bore score in M97 engines a la "Epstein didn't kill himself." Unfortunately, I have seen too many C2Ss on PCA tours with a blackened left tail pipe, new owners nervously asking me what oil consumption is normal for my C2S. Pretty much everyone has a "whistling past the graveyard" phase. The current percentage of failed engines is impossible to know since altogether too many owners sell and resell to the ignorant, recycling problem cars several times before someone has the moral integrity (and financial resources) to do the right thing and either fix or part out the car. This population of bad engines is perpetually hidden even from those who regularly repair/rebuild them for a living. This is why I am not surprised by the spike in demand noted by both Mr. Raby and Mr. Navarro. I suspect Porsche's studied lack of interest in this problem is going to have a noticeable impact on future sales as many brand-new, proud Porsche owners get burned, and remember, and tell others of their bad experiences.
I am also the owner of a 2008 C2S which, in a relatively benign climate and meticulous driving habits, suffered bore scoring and was rebuilt as a 4.0-liter engine by a well-respected Seattle-area Porsche expert (i.e., not Jake Raby), using LN Engineering services. I am very, very happy with my revitalized car, and have nearly 15,000 stimulating miles on it. I had originally noticed an increase in oil consumption at about 25,000 miles, and shortly thereafter it was bore scoped and shown to have scoring. I drove it for about 20,000 miles while I saved up to have my engine rebuilt. Many people counseled me to trade it in or sell it without disclosing its issues, but God has rules. Although the oil consumption steadily got worse (down under 500 miles/liter), I never experienced any other symptoms, including the day I dropped it off to be rebuilt two years later.
This background helps me understand where Mr. Raby is coming from. While I think Mr. Raby can be a little over-the-top and perhaps a little overly-exasperated sometimes, the comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them" really offends me as much as it does Mr. Raby. It shows a profound ignorance of how a small business is created and how it is operated. As the economists say, if, in fact, he was making boatloads of cash (i.e., extra-marginal profits), there would be many other entrants into the market, which would drive his pricing down to an equilibrium (i.e., marginal profits).
Assume for a moment that Mr. Raby really is "making boat loads of cash replacing them." So what? Every single one of his customers has come to him by choice, and voluntarily agreed to the sums paid. No one held a gun to their collective heads. They all could have said, "No!" at any time. They all could have found other experienced shops fully capable of restoring their engines. But they *chose* Flat Six Innovations despite significant obstacles of time, logistics, and cost. And the people who do *not* have bore scoring -- well, they don't need to know or care about Mr. Raby.
But, in my experience (because I DID look), Mr. Raby charges not only "what the market will bear," but it is also within bounds compared to what less-experienced and less-developed shops are required to charge in order to make a reasonable return on their very substantial investment and skilled-labor-intensive operation (i.e., marginal profits). If he does get a modest premium for what he provides, it reflects the all the very time-consuming efforts he has spent experimenting with expensive materials (i.e., Porsche engines new and old), developing new and more permanent solutions, making instructional videos, and building his brand. Why does Apple cost more than Dell? Is the delta worth it? It is to many, many people -- just not you, especially if you have never suffered bore scoring in a car you truly loved. One fact that Mr.. Navarro of LNE, Jake Raby of FSI, and I all agree on is that *nobody* in his right mind will spend the required amount to fix up their 10+ year-old car unless they really love it and plan to keep it forever. Maybe then it pencils out. Don't blame Mr. Raby, blame whomever sold you your car. He only exists to help.
But, I can tell you from personal experience that building a capital- and labor-intensive business which will be there in the future when the customer might need it, backs up their products, is still there if they need it again years later, and is constantly striving to improve their own knowledge base takes a lot of money. Most of that money does not go into our pockets to be spent on life's pleasures. Year after year it gets spent on better equipment, better employee acquisition and development, and better communication with the public at large in order to keep the machine running. If you are serious, you tend to only take what you need to get by while plowing the rest back into your own business. The financial planners will all say you are "putting all your eggs in one basket," but I call it "keeping a close eye on all your eggs." This entrepreneurial environment breeds very high levels of intensive focus -- perhaps obsession -- with one's business. You get so used to personally doing without that it is psychologically difficult to draw out any extra money for personal use even after you safely can.
I feel the same way when I get a customer who wants us to supply a cabinet door style I have experience with, have studied, and know for a fact is an engineering disaster waiting to happen. When I patiently explain why that construction is doomed to failure on a very expensive purchase, they stomp off mad and go directly to whatever competition is left that still hasn't figured out the engineering. By the time they realize that I was right and how hard I tried to warn them, the damage was permanently done to their pocket books. It makes me want to cut the conversation short to save both of us time, which I now do if I judge that they are hell-bent on doing something stupid. I have a 47-year successful career in wood engineering, manufacturing engineering, and cabinet and cabinet door manufacturing, but I don't know what I am talking about and they have the (one-time promotional) photo off Houzz to prove I'm wrong.
My wife keeps me out of the showroom for this reason. She designs and sells over 200 kitchens *per year* for 14+ years, yet she gets at least one customer a week who want to do something unworkable (and usually expensive) because "their next-door neighbor" (who has never designed one kitchen and therefore cannot enjoy the huge advantage of experience) thinks it would be better that way. Repeated exposure to idiots is truly wearing. She works hard to help them have a kitchen that is worth the money, and that they will love forever and won't regret, but to no avail. At least she has occasionally gotten cards from people admitting that she was right, and asking for corrective action help. But I think she suffers fools less and less. It is truly wearing, especially in the context of literally hundreds of very happy and appreciative customers.
The comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them." displays a lack of knowledge of what it takes to create, build, and manage a successful business, and is likely going to be offensive to any entrepreneur. We all start out with thick skin and a healthier-than-normal tolerance of risk. We are used to occasional sniping from the peanut gallery, but man, does it grow old over time, especially in light of our obvious success in creating jobs, paying increasing taxes, and pleasing actual customers.
I would encourage all who want to know more to research how Jake Raby started his business, how Charles Navarro started his business, how Mr. Raby was a primary catalyst and driver of the solutions for bore score, IMS failure, and other Porsche engineering problems (Yes, Virginia, there are other problem Porsche engines besides the M97), which he and LN Engineering have developed in a highly symbiotic relationship. I am the thankful beneficiary of this relationship even though someone else rebuilt my engine, and I am greatly appreciate all of Mr. Raby's contributions. This is what free enterprise and the American Dream are all about. This cynical criticism is obviously from people who have *never* walked a mile in our shoes.
It is also popular on these forums to poo-poo the serious potential for bore score in M97 engines a la "Epstein didn't kill himself." Unfortunately, I have seen too many C2Ss on PCA tours with a blackened left tail pipe, new owners nervously asking me what oil consumption is normal for my C2S. Pretty much everyone has a "whistling past the graveyard" phase. The current percentage of failed engines is impossible to know since altogether too many owners sell and resell to the ignorant, recycling problem cars several times before someone has the moral integrity (and financial resources) to do the right thing and either fix or part out the car. This population of bad engines is perpetually hidden even from those who regularly repair/rebuild them for a living. This is why I am not surprised by the spike in demand noted by both Mr. Raby and Mr. Navarro. I suspect Porsche's studied lack of interest in this problem is going to have a noticeable impact on future sales as many brand-new, proud Porsche owners get burned, and remember, and tell others of their bad experiences.
12-16-2019, 01:15 AM
#24
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Nice Justin... good story. +1 Jake is a good guy from my digging and regardless, I love his vids and posts. Great reading.
I do have one issue .... fine all the way down to the last sentence about Porsche suffering consequences.... they just haven't. That M96/97 platform had issues from the day it was released in the '97 Boxster and they ran it for over 10 years. 10 years! The forums were loaded with stories of failed engines. I had a 2000 Boxster S that had two!!! engines blow... the first under warranty and the second killed the car... sold it as a roller. Porsche even lost a class action suite for engine failures. Cripes.... look what happened. They just continue to raise their prices.. really fast... and sell more and more. Hell, even I purchased another one! (2009 with the new engine.. I gambled ... figured Porsche had to make the new engine good) The power of their brand appears to have no limits. Look, enthusiasts make the brand... posers make the money. The power of the brand and the desire to be seen in one is proving to be too powerful. Whoever in Germany built a brand like this deserves some sort of prize for psychology.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
I do have one issue .... fine all the way down to the last sentence about Porsche suffering consequences.... they just haven't. That M96/97 platform had issues from the day it was released in the '97 Boxster and they ran it for over 10 years. 10 years! The forums were loaded with stories of failed engines. I had a 2000 Boxster S that had two!!! engines blow... the first under warranty and the second killed the car... sold it as a roller. Porsche even lost a class action suite for engine failures. Cripes.... look what happened. They just continue to raise their prices.. really fast... and sell more and more. Hell, even I purchased another one! (2009 with the new engine.. I gambled ... figured Porsche had to make the new engine good) The power of their brand appears to have no limits. Look, enthusiasts make the brand... posers make the money. The power of the brand and the desire to be seen in one is proving to be too powerful. Whoever in Germany built a brand like this deserves some sort of prize for psychology.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
The following users liked this post:
pro1200 (12-16-2019)
12-16-2019, 01:40 AM
#25
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 905 Likes
on
532 Posts
I am the owner of a cabinet manufacturing business my wife and I started 14+ years ago, based on what I learned, researched, and experimented with working for a veritable Who's Who of North American cabinet manufacturers over 40+ years. It is not an accident that our company has been #1 in percentage growth in 2019 almost all year, and well in the top 10 for previous years for North America according to the primary continental trade association.
I am also the owner of a 2008 C2S which, in a relatively benign climate and meticulous driving habits, suffered bore scoring and was rebuilt as a 4.0-liter engine by a well-respected Seattle-area Porsche expert (i.e., not Jake Raby), using LN Engineering services. I am very, very happy with my revitalized car, and have nearly 15,000 stimulating miles on it. I had originally noticed an increase in oil consumption at about 25,000 miles, and shortly thereafter it was bore scoped and shown to have scoring. I drove it for about 20,000 miles while I saved up to have my engine rebuilt. Many people counseled me to trade it in or sell it without disclosing its issues, but God has rules. Although the oil consumption steadily got worse (down under 500 miles/liter), I never experienced any other symptoms, including the day I dropped it off to be rebuilt two years later.
This background helps me understand where Mr. Raby is coming from. While I think Mr. Raby can be a little over-the-top and perhaps a little overly-exasperated sometimes, the comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them" really offends me as much as it does Mr. Raby. It shows a profound ignorance of how a small business is created and how it is operated. As the economists say, if, in fact, he was making boatloads of cash (i.e., extra-marginal profits), there would be many other entrants into the market, which would drive his pricing down to an equilibrium (i.e., marginal profits).
Assume for a moment that Mr. Raby really is "making boat loads of cash replacing them." So what? Every single one of his customers has come to him by choice, and voluntarily agreed to the sums paid. No one held a gun to their collective heads. They all could have said, "No!" at any time. They all could have found other experienced shops fully capable of restoring their engines. But they *chose* Flat Six Innovations despite significant obstacles of time, logistics, and cost. And the people who do *not* have bore scoring -- well, they don't need to know or care about Mr. Raby.
But, in my experience (because I DID look), Mr. Raby charges not only "what the market will bear," but it is also within bounds compared to what less-experienced and less-developed shops are required to charge in order to make a reasonable return on their very substantial investment and skilled-labor-intensive operation (i.e., marginal profits). If he does get a modest premium for what he provides, it reflects the all the very time-consuming efforts he has spent experimenting with expensive materials (i.e., Porsche engines new and old), developing new and more permanent solutions, making instructional videos, and building his brand. Why does Apple cost more than Dell? Is the delta worth it? It is to many, many people -- just not you, especially if you have never suffered bore scoring in a car you truly loved. One fact that Mr.. Navarro of LNE, Jake Raby of FSI, and I all agree on is that *nobody* in his right mind will spend the required amount to fix up their 10+ year-old car unless they really love it and plan to keep it forever. Maybe then it pencils out. Don't blame Mr. Raby, blame whomever sold you your car. He only exists to help.
But, I can tell you from personal experience that building a capital- and labor-intensive business which will be there in the future when the customer might need it, backs up their products, is still there if they need it again years later, and is constantly striving to improve their own knowledge base takes a lot of money. Most of that money does not go into our pockets to be spent on life's pleasures. Year after year it gets spent on better equipment, better employee acquisition and development, and better communication with the public at large in order to keep the machine running. If you are serious, you tend to only take what you need to get by while plowing the rest back into your own business. The financial planners will all say you are "putting all your eggs in one basket," but I call it "keeping a close eye on all your eggs." This entrepreneurial environment breeds very high levels of intensive focus -- perhaps obsession -- with one's business. You get so used to personally doing without that it is psychologically difficult to draw out any extra money for personal use even after you safely can.
I feel the same way when I get a customer who wants us to supply a cabinet door style I have experience with, have studied, and know for a fact is an engineering disaster waiting to happen. When I patiently explain why that construction is doomed to failure on a very expensive purchase, they stomp off mad and go directly to whatever competition is left that still hasn't figured out the engineering. By the time they realize that I was right and how hard I tried to warn them, the damage was permanently done to their pocket books. It makes me want to cut the conversation short to save both of us time, which I now do if I judge that they are hell-bent on doing something stupid. I have a 47-year successful career in wood engineering, manufacturing engineering, and cabinet and cabinet door manufacturing, but I don't know what I am talking about and they have the (one-time promotional) photo off Houzz to prove I'm wrong.
My wife keeps me out of the showroom for this reason. She designs and sells over 200 kitchens *per year* for 14+ years, yet she gets at least one customer a week who want to do something unworkable (and usually expensive) because "their next-door neighbor" (who has never designed one kitchen and therefore cannot enjoy the huge advantage of experience) thinks it would be better that way. Repeated exposure to idiots is truly wearing. She works hard to help them have a kitchen that is worth the money, and that they will love forever and won't regret, but to no avail. At least she has occasionally gotten cards from people admitting that she was right, and asking for corrective action help. But I think she suffers fools less and less. It is truly wearing, especially in the context of literally hundreds of very happy and appreciative customers.
The comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them." displays a lack of knowledge of what it takes to create, build, and manage a successful business, and is likely going to be offensive to any entrepreneur. We all start out with thick skin and a healthier-than-normal tolerance of risk. We are used to occasional sniping from the peanut gallery, but man, does it grow old over time, especially in light of our obvious success in creating jobs, paying increasing taxes, and pleasing actual customers.
I would encourage all who want to know more to research how Jake Raby started his business, how Charles Navarro started his business, how Mr. Raby was a primary catalyst and driver of the solutions for bore score, IMS failure, and other Porsche engineering problems (Yes, Virginia, there are other problem Porsche engines besides the M97), which he and LN Engineering have developed in a highly symbiotic relationship. I am the thankful beneficiary of this relationship even though someone else rebuilt my engine, and I am greatly appreciate all of Mr. Raby's contributions. This is what free enterprise and the American Dream are all about. This cynical criticism is obviously from people who have *never* walked a mile in our shoes.
It is also popular on these forums to poo-poo the serious potential for bore score in M97 engines a la "Epstein didn't kill himself." Unfortunately, I have seen too many C2Ss on PCA tours with a blackened left tail pipe, new owners nervously asking me what oil consumption is normal for my C2S. Pretty much everyone has a "whistling past the graveyard" phase. The current percentage of failed engines is impossible to know since altogether too many owners sell and resell to the ignorant, recycling problem cars several times before someone has the moral integrity (and financial resources) to do the right thing and either fix or part out the car. This population of bad engines is perpetually hidden even from those who regularly repair/rebuild them for a living. This is why I am not surprised by the spike in demand noted by both Mr. Raby and Mr. Navarro. I suspect Porsche's studied lack of interest in this problem is going to have a noticeable impact on future sales as many brand-new, proud Porsche owners get burned, and remember, and tell others of their bad experiences.
I am also the owner of a 2008 C2S which, in a relatively benign climate and meticulous driving habits, suffered bore scoring and was rebuilt as a 4.0-liter engine by a well-respected Seattle-area Porsche expert (i.e., not Jake Raby), using LN Engineering services. I am very, very happy with my revitalized car, and have nearly 15,000 stimulating miles on it. I had originally noticed an increase in oil consumption at about 25,000 miles, and shortly thereafter it was bore scoped and shown to have scoring. I drove it for about 20,000 miles while I saved up to have my engine rebuilt. Many people counseled me to trade it in or sell it without disclosing its issues, but God has rules. Although the oil consumption steadily got worse (down under 500 miles/liter), I never experienced any other symptoms, including the day I dropped it off to be rebuilt two years later.
This background helps me understand where Mr. Raby is coming from. While I think Mr. Raby can be a little over-the-top and perhaps a little overly-exasperated sometimes, the comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them" really offends me as much as it does Mr. Raby. It shows a profound ignorance of how a small business is created and how it is operated. As the economists say, if, in fact, he was making boatloads of cash (i.e., extra-marginal profits), there would be many other entrants into the market, which would drive his pricing down to an equilibrium (i.e., marginal profits).
Assume for a moment that Mr. Raby really is "making boat loads of cash replacing them." So what? Every single one of his customers has come to him by choice, and voluntarily agreed to the sums paid. No one held a gun to their collective heads. They all could have said, "No!" at any time. They all could have found other experienced shops fully capable of restoring their engines. But they *chose* Flat Six Innovations despite significant obstacles of time, logistics, and cost. And the people who do *not* have bore scoring -- well, they don't need to know or care about Mr. Raby.
But, in my experience (because I DID look), Mr. Raby charges not only "what the market will bear," but it is also within bounds compared to what less-experienced and less-developed shops are required to charge in order to make a reasonable return on their very substantial investment and skilled-labor-intensive operation (i.e., marginal profits). If he does get a modest premium for what he provides, it reflects the all the very time-consuming efforts he has spent experimenting with expensive materials (i.e., Porsche engines new and old), developing new and more permanent solutions, making instructional videos, and building his brand. Why does Apple cost more than Dell? Is the delta worth it? It is to many, many people -- just not you, especially if you have never suffered bore scoring in a car you truly loved. One fact that Mr.. Navarro of LNE, Jake Raby of FSI, and I all agree on is that *nobody* in his right mind will spend the required amount to fix up their 10+ year-old car unless they really love it and plan to keep it forever. Maybe then it pencils out. Don't blame Mr. Raby, blame whomever sold you your car. He only exists to help.
But, I can tell you from personal experience that building a capital- and labor-intensive business which will be there in the future when the customer might need it, backs up their products, is still there if they need it again years later, and is constantly striving to improve their own knowledge base takes a lot of money. Most of that money does not go into our pockets to be spent on life's pleasures. Year after year it gets spent on better equipment, better employee acquisition and development, and better communication with the public at large in order to keep the machine running. If you are serious, you tend to only take what you need to get by while plowing the rest back into your own business. The financial planners will all say you are "putting all your eggs in one basket," but I call it "keeping a close eye on all your eggs." This entrepreneurial environment breeds very high levels of intensive focus -- perhaps obsession -- with one's business. You get so used to personally doing without that it is psychologically difficult to draw out any extra money for personal use even after you safely can.
I feel the same way when I get a customer who wants us to supply a cabinet door style I have experience with, have studied, and know for a fact is an engineering disaster waiting to happen. When I patiently explain why that construction is doomed to failure on a very expensive purchase, they stomp off mad and go directly to whatever competition is left that still hasn't figured out the engineering. By the time they realize that I was right and how hard I tried to warn them, the damage was permanently done to their pocket books. It makes me want to cut the conversation short to save both of us time, which I now do if I judge that they are hell-bent on doing something stupid. I have a 47-year successful career in wood engineering, manufacturing engineering, and cabinet and cabinet door manufacturing, but I don't know what I am talking about and they have the (one-time promotional) photo off Houzz to prove I'm wrong.
My wife keeps me out of the showroom for this reason. She designs and sells over 200 kitchens *per year* for 14+ years, yet she gets at least one customer a week who want to do something unworkable (and usually expensive) because "their next-door neighbor" (who has never designed one kitchen and therefore cannot enjoy the huge advantage of experience) thinks it would be better that way. Repeated exposure to idiots is truly wearing. She works hard to help them have a kitchen that is worth the money, and that they will love forever and won't regret, but to no avail. At least she has occasionally gotten cards from people admitting that she was right, and asking for corrective action help. But I think she suffers fools less and less. It is truly wearing, especially in the context of literally hundreds of very happy and appreciative customers.
The comment "Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them." displays a lack of knowledge of what it takes to create, build, and manage a successful business, and is likely going to be offensive to any entrepreneur. We all start out with thick skin and a healthier-than-normal tolerance of risk. We are used to occasional sniping from the peanut gallery, but man, does it grow old over time, especially in light of our obvious success in creating jobs, paying increasing taxes, and pleasing actual customers.
I would encourage all who want to know more to research how Jake Raby started his business, how Charles Navarro started his business, how Mr. Raby was a primary catalyst and driver of the solutions for bore score, IMS failure, and other Porsche engineering problems (Yes, Virginia, there are other problem Porsche engines besides the M97), which he and LN Engineering have developed in a highly symbiotic relationship. I am the thankful beneficiary of this relationship even though someone else rebuilt my engine, and I am greatly appreciate all of Mr. Raby's contributions. This is what free enterprise and the American Dream are all about. This cynical criticism is obviously from people who have *never* walked a mile in our shoes.
It is also popular on these forums to poo-poo the serious potential for bore score in M97 engines a la "Epstein didn't kill himself." Unfortunately, I have seen too many C2Ss on PCA tours with a blackened left tail pipe, new owners nervously asking me what oil consumption is normal for my C2S. Pretty much everyone has a "whistling past the graveyard" phase. The current percentage of failed engines is impossible to know since altogether too many owners sell and resell to the ignorant, recycling problem cars several times before someone has the moral integrity (and financial resources) to do the right thing and either fix or part out the car. This population of bad engines is perpetually hidden even from those who regularly repair/rebuild them for a living. This is why I am not surprised by the spike in demand noted by both Mr. Raby and Mr. Navarro. I suspect Porsche's studied lack of interest in this problem is going to have a noticeable impact on future sales as many brand-new, proud Porsche owners get burned, and remember, and tell others of their bad experiences.
I have no issue what so ever with capitalism and making money My comment had zilch to do with that which should be apparent if you read the 2 sentences that preceded my comment. Here are those sentences with a typo corrected that I tried to correct, but had small window pop us saying could not edit as closed . . .
"??? I agree. Failure should not happen on a 12 year old car, especially with only 40,000 miles and well maintained. I personally find it a ludicrous statement to imply that bore scoring on a low mileage 12 year old, well maintained engine IS NOT A bad thing. Perhaps I would feel differently if making boat loads of cash replacing them.""
SIMPLY PUT, scoring is very bad for M97 owners and not bad for guys who fix them. How you extrapolate me saying he is charging to much is beyond me.
12-16-2019, 02:23 AM
#26
Nordschleife Master
They pretty much are immune, the rate of reported "scoring" on the 9A1 is a tiny fraction of that seen in the M96/97's and it's a completely different phenomena. Baz Hart at Hartech has written extensively on this and he's the expert on this subject. The phenomena seen in 9A1's is "seizing" (the piston temporarily gets stuck in the cylinder because it's too big) whereas the M96/97's "score" (the piston rocks in the cylinder and scrapes the walls). Because of this it appears that 9A1's are less likely to seize as miles increase because tolerances open up. In contrast the M96/97's are more likely to score over time. In addition the 9A1 has a much more favorable rod length to stroke ratio than the M96/97 (less rocking), has Alusil rather than the Lockasil cylinders used in the M96/97 (stronger), and has a superior piston wall plating (less likely to delaminate). Jake himself has said 9A1 owners shouldn't even bother with his bore scoring series as what he describes doesn't apply to our engines.
Not saying it never happens (we all read Bronze's thread and saw Jake's video on it) but the fact that his incident got so much attention is the exception that proves the rule. We have our own set of issues (such as low speed preignition) but fortunately bore scoring is pretty low on the worry list.
Not saying it never happens (we all read Bronze's thread and saw Jake's video on it) but the fact that his incident got so much attention is the exception that proves the rule. We have our own set of issues (such as low speed preignition) but fortunately bore scoring is pretty low on the worry list.
12-16-2019, 03:00 AM
#27
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 905 Likes
on
532 Posts
Again, am I dreaming this up or didn’t Jake and Baz both talked about piston angle or rod angle in M97 and that being corrected in 9A1? I, and I am sure others, has asked Jake several times how many 997.2s he has personally worked on that had scoring. No answer.
12-16-2019, 05:43 AM
#28
Interesting reports demonstrating how many different opinions there are and confusion in the market about causes of failures with this engine range and I agree that what Jake and Charles have done for their American customers is excellent - and you guys are lucky to have their commitment.
Over in the UK we too have conducted a lot of research into the causes of both the M96/7 engine failures and the Gen 2 9A1 engines that we have rebuilt and come up with some differences in our conclusions. However I think our solutions are all much the same and clearly all work well for our markets.
I have often repeated that it is not really so important to understand the exact cause of a failure - to come up with a satisfactory solution - what matters is the reliability and longevity of the solutions - however - for anyone interested in considering the evidence we have uncovered into these various failures - we have prepared a long detailed technical report that is available FOC from our Sharon on admin@hartech.org
To receive this report - there is a non disclosure agreement to simply accept by e-mail - that is intended to prevent recipients from copying the content and using it for their own promotional purposes or to claim as their own research - which has upset a small number of interested parties. Can I just make the point that it does not stop anyone from repeating what is common knowledge (which is just about everything in it - being available anyway on our web-site www.hartech.org ) nor does it prevent criticism or debate on the merits of the outcome or differences of opinion and if anyone is simply interested in reading about the results and making up their own minds about the validity or otherwise of the conclusions reached there is no reason I can see why they should not agree to it. I can however understand why those marketing different solutions or intent on using the content for other purposes might want to cause problems over this simple self protection of our intellectual property rights.
The reports into the 4 main causes of these engine failures provides an alternative opinion on causes and repair options and is intended to inform rather than criticise on the basis that all knowledge is beneficial to anyone needing engine repairs or interested in the subject of the failures.
The reports are long because it is impossible to demonstrate their validity without delving into different technical areas and provide evidence of the conclusions reached and solutions available. The conclusions can easily be shortened but that would not allow any differences of opinion to be considered in depth and authenticated - it is therefore only for those with real engineering interest in the topics.
Although nowhere near as appealing as videos, there are various graphs, pictures and charts to support the written content.
There is also another report available (into the oversized engines we supply and the reasons why they make such great improvements in the performance of this engine range) and more to follow on other connected subjects.
For those interested I hope they provide another source of research, conclusions and product specifications - for them to consider.
Baz
Over in the UK we too have conducted a lot of research into the causes of both the M96/7 engine failures and the Gen 2 9A1 engines that we have rebuilt and come up with some differences in our conclusions. However I think our solutions are all much the same and clearly all work well for our markets.
I have often repeated that it is not really so important to understand the exact cause of a failure - to come up with a satisfactory solution - what matters is the reliability and longevity of the solutions - however - for anyone interested in considering the evidence we have uncovered into these various failures - we have prepared a long detailed technical report that is available FOC from our Sharon on admin@hartech.org
To receive this report - there is a non disclosure agreement to simply accept by e-mail - that is intended to prevent recipients from copying the content and using it for their own promotional purposes or to claim as their own research - which has upset a small number of interested parties. Can I just make the point that it does not stop anyone from repeating what is common knowledge (which is just about everything in it - being available anyway on our web-site www.hartech.org ) nor does it prevent criticism or debate on the merits of the outcome or differences of opinion and if anyone is simply interested in reading about the results and making up their own minds about the validity or otherwise of the conclusions reached there is no reason I can see why they should not agree to it. I can however understand why those marketing different solutions or intent on using the content for other purposes might want to cause problems over this simple self protection of our intellectual property rights.
The reports into the 4 main causes of these engine failures provides an alternative opinion on causes and repair options and is intended to inform rather than criticise on the basis that all knowledge is beneficial to anyone needing engine repairs or interested in the subject of the failures.
The reports are long because it is impossible to demonstrate their validity without delving into different technical areas and provide evidence of the conclusions reached and solutions available. The conclusions can easily be shortened but that would not allow any differences of opinion to be considered in depth and authenticated - it is therefore only for those with real engineering interest in the topics.
Although nowhere near as appealing as videos, there are various graphs, pictures and charts to support the written content.
There is also another report available (into the oversized engines we supply and the reasons why they make such great improvements in the performance of this engine range) and more to follow on other connected subjects.
For those interested I hope they provide another source of research, conclusions and product specifications - for them to consider.
Baz
12-16-2019, 06:29 AM
#29
Instructor
Interesting reports demonstrating how many different opinions there are and confusion in the market about causes of failures with this engine range and I agree that what Jake and Charles have done for their American customers is excellent - and you guys are lucky to have their commitment.
Over in the UK we too have conducted a lot of research into the causes of both the M96/7 engine failures and the Gen 2 9A1 engines that we have rebuilt and come up with some differences in our conclusions. However I think our solutions are all much the same and clearly all work well for our markets.
I have often repeated that it is not really so important to understand the exact cause of a failure - to come up with a satisfactory solution - what matters is the reliability and longevity of the solutions - however - for anyone interested in considering the evidence we have uncovered into these various failures - we have prepared a long detailed technical report that is available FOC from our Sharon on admin@hartech.org
To receive this report - there is a non disclosure agreement to simply accept by e-mail - that is intended to prevent recipients from copying the content and using it for their own promotional purposes or to claim as their own research - which has upset a small number of interested parties. Can I just make the point that it does not stop anyone from repeating what is common knowledge (which is just about everything in it - being available anyway on our web-site www.hartech.org ) nor does it prevent criticism or debate on the merits of the outcome or differences of opinion and if anyone is simply interested in reading about the results and making up their own minds about the validity or otherwise of the conclusions reached there is no reason I can see why they should not agree to it. I can however understand why those marketing different solutions or intent on using the content for other purposes might want to cause problems over this simple self protection of our intellectual property rights.
The reports into the 4 main causes of these engine failures provides an alternative opinion on causes and repair options and is intended to inform rather than criticise on the basis that all knowledge is beneficial to anyone needing engine repairs or interested in the subject of the failures.
The reports are long because it is impossible to demonstrate their validity without delving into different technical areas and provide evidence of the conclusions reached and solutions available. The conclusions can easily be shortened but that would not allow any differences of opinion to be considered in depth and authenticated - it is therefore only for those with real engineering interest in the topics.
Although nowhere near as appealing as videos, there are various graphs, pictures and charts to support the written content.
There is also another report available (into the oversized engines we supply and the reasons why they make such great improvements in the performance of this engine range) and more to follow on other connected subjects.
For those interested I hope they provide another source of research, conclusions and product specifications - for them to consider.
Baz
Over in the UK we too have conducted a lot of research into the causes of both the M96/7 engine failures and the Gen 2 9A1 engines that we have rebuilt and come up with some differences in our conclusions. However I think our solutions are all much the same and clearly all work well for our markets.
I have often repeated that it is not really so important to understand the exact cause of a failure - to come up with a satisfactory solution - what matters is the reliability and longevity of the solutions - however - for anyone interested in considering the evidence we have uncovered into these various failures - we have prepared a long detailed technical report that is available FOC from our Sharon on admin@hartech.org
To receive this report - there is a non disclosure agreement to simply accept by e-mail - that is intended to prevent recipients from copying the content and using it for their own promotional purposes or to claim as their own research - which has upset a small number of interested parties. Can I just make the point that it does not stop anyone from repeating what is common knowledge (which is just about everything in it - being available anyway on our web-site www.hartech.org ) nor does it prevent criticism or debate on the merits of the outcome or differences of opinion and if anyone is simply interested in reading about the results and making up their own minds about the validity or otherwise of the conclusions reached there is no reason I can see why they should not agree to it. I can however understand why those marketing different solutions or intent on using the content for other purposes might want to cause problems over this simple self protection of our intellectual property rights.
The reports into the 4 main causes of these engine failures provides an alternative opinion on causes and repair options and is intended to inform rather than criticise on the basis that all knowledge is beneficial to anyone needing engine repairs or interested in the subject of the failures.
The reports are long because it is impossible to demonstrate their validity without delving into different technical areas and provide evidence of the conclusions reached and solutions available. The conclusions can easily be shortened but that would not allow any differences of opinion to be considered in depth and authenticated - it is therefore only for those with real engineering interest in the topics.
Although nowhere near as appealing as videos, there are various graphs, pictures and charts to support the written content.
There is also another report available (into the oversized engines we supply and the reasons why they make such great improvements in the performance of this engine range) and more to follow on other connected subjects.
For those interested I hope they provide another source of research, conclusions and product specifications - for them to consider.
Baz
12-16-2019, 10:26 AM
#30
Rennlist Member
I'm sure I already posted this on another thread, but I released last month a year's worth of research on Al-Si cylinder systems (i.e. Alusil, Lokasil, etc) and the mechanism behind bore scoring. It's not limited just to our application and can affect other engines using this technology.