^^My 1st 997 was a 2005 997S manual tranny. - Great car

 

I believe both of those scored cars on Raby;s recent video, the black and silver 997.1s, were Southern cars. I think he kind of dispelled that Southern, Northern thing on that video or in that thread about the video.

I dealt with 964 oil leak and had top end rebuilds on NA 3.2, 964 and 993s. I swear, in late 90s to mid 2000s, I was paying $3k to $4k for top end rebuilds and discussed a couple of them on here as they were happening 15 + years ago. A 993 in 1996 was worth more $10k and shouldn't if have been covered by warranty in 1996? I raced SCs from 83 until 89. They were solid and never really had mechanical issues with the 915 tranny back then. Replacing synchros is not that expensive and probably to be expected in a 30 plus year-old transmission.

This OP is probably curious about 997.1 engine reliability and could give 2 shytes less about 1st and 2nd gear synchros in a 1980 Porsche 911 or if all air cooled engines need full rebuilds after 10 years. Your just building a better case that Porsche makes a shytty product and that the M97/97 engine in the 996 and 997.1, like all that preceded it, are going to fail and need costly rebuilds sooner than later.

Lol, I wouldn't purchase anything Porsche older than uhm . . . new and still covered by the manufacturer's warranty after reading all those problems you write about (100% failure on just about everything).

 

You dont really need me to blow holes in Groozilas thesis but I would love to see where he came up with his numbers. I mean actual factual support and citations for his IMS and bore scoring claims. Someone has already accepted them as factual and this is how faulty info gets spread here.

I have never seen anyone, including Raby/Hartech, come up with numbers they can stand behind. He just throws around a lot of deflection (would be a great addition to the trump defense team )

 

Im not sure if your referring to me, but his claims are as factual as anyone else’s in this thread or on this forum for that matter who claims the other way. nobody knows for sure.

 

Bore scoring is a statistically insignificant issue on the 997.2

If someone can show me evidence of a greater than 0.1% issue, then I would reverse this position. The market of course reflects this. Anything else is the definition of scaremongering.

 

No sorry, they are not. Bore scoring is a real issue, its a fact and no one is disputing that (are you?). He is tossing out percentage figures as "facts". Facts (usually!!) require supporting evidence. Would like to see the support. Otherwise its a guess and no different then if I claimed bore scoring accounts for 15% of 997's

 

Bore scoring is a statistically significant issue on the 997.2
If someone can show me evidence of a less than 0.1% issue, then I would reverse this position. The market of course does not reflect this. Anything else is the definition of sticking your head in the sand.

See what I did there??? You cant prove it one way or the other so whats the point of these kinds of statements??

It has so far been less of an issue with the .2's and I hope it remains so. But this is simply anecdotal evidence so far. Maybe some day there will be real numbers to support an argument one way or another

 

I indeed did see what you did there. It is a basic logical fallacy. Look up Russell's teapot.

Someone has to prove to me that there are material numbers of failures. Given that failures get a lot of attention, and disproportionate attention on the internet, it is safe to say that the failure rate is <0.1%. Backed up by my experience with service techs, and finally backed up by market values.

 

I was not implying that it’s not a thing. I was suggesting there is no statistical data for either the .1 or .2. There was some data on the old smaller IMS, but to this point other then this sort of banter I have yet to see anything factual that indicates what percentage of .1s have had bore scoring.

 

Ah right, once again using your theory that your anecdotal evidence is proof that it is a fact. Someone has to prove to me that there are not a material number of failures; go ahead give it a shot or is it because the internet told you? And it is nowhere near safe or remotely accurate to say that the failure rate is less than 0.1% based on that nonsensical logic. BTW I am still waiting for you to provide numbers (yes actual facts and numbers) to back up your "fact" that the 991 is a bigger car (other then your feelings and that it looks bigger ). Seems the same approach you take on everything.

Anyways, debating facts with the fanboys is like

Adios muchacho (practicing my spanish for next week)

 

I think you are confusing my logical assertions with your logical fallacies. Please, again, look up Russell's teapot for an explanation of where your logic fails. In summary, I don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove the existence of the "thing" we are discussing. That thing is bore scoring in 997.2 cars. Can you please show me 50-75 cases of proven bore scoring in 997.2 cars? Can you point me to factual data suggesting half that? A quarter of that? A fifth of that?

As for the 991 size, here you go: https://www.total911.com/997-vs-991/

Want to dispute this? That is fine, dispute it. Just make sure it is apples to apples (including or excluding bumperettes, etc). I can point out that the size of the car's interior (volume) is larger than a 997. I can point out it has a higher beltline as well stretching to the rear bumper and a longer wheelbase, both, especially in combination, increasing actual volume while also making the car even look bulkier.

To me larger = more voluminous. The 991 is more voluminous than the 997. Both exterior and interior.

Now, can you please go and show me the 50-75 bore scoring based failures for 997.2 cars?

 

I apologize to my fellow RL'ers for my rude remarks - vern1 has displayed poor manners in other posts and I don't consider him worthy of an apology.

My point was Porsche cars over the years have had significant issues. It's not comparing apples to apples in terms of cost relative to market value. I get it.
Sure you can recommend a 997.2, but considering most are not manual transmissions and god forbid OP was to buy a PDK, what about the significant PDK transmission issues and costs related to repairs??
I think it's beating a dead horse to say any particular model is superior unless it is a Turbo with the Mezger engine which seems to be bullet proof.

I've been really happy with 997.1 ownership and 96% of all 997 owners share the same happiness of owning their cars.
It's unfortunate 4% of 997 owners have had engine related issues. I'm not trying to **** on their hardships, just defending the 997.1 for what it is to 96% of all owners.

 

Don't forget second gear popouts on some turbos ... I drove 5 or 6 996 turbo manuals and 2 of them had popout (or some high number). Cost was not horrible vs. other issues but still several thousand dollars ($5K+ potential cost?) So not even Mezger era turbos are immune.

 

Of course you all know that life is short.

All the bore-scoring talk, while meaningful to an extent, is contributing to brain-scoring - which I believe has proven to reduce ones total day-count on earth.

I propose to take a break - listen to the following, and forget for just a minute or two about the bore scoring stuff...

 

Lots of philosophy, suppositions and observations but once again, no facts
A gentleman such as yourself should not display poor sportsmanship when bested. But pls, once again, where are the facts supporting this 4% number ?