back2porsche

Just got the news yesterday that a 2009 997.2 C4S purchase i had been working with a small independent dealer/german performance tuning shop failed the PPI being completed by a local authorized Porsche dealer. Selling dealer had tons of records with the car, all service up to date, serviced by Porsche though the AOS was replaced at an inde shop 12k mi earlier!!! Some smoking on initial cold startup but tech dismissed it as within acceptable limits. I was suspicious going into the ppi due to that replaced AOS about 12k mi earlier. No engine tick noticed, however i pushed for a bore scope simply for peace of mind. Wow .... tech comments, “excessive bore scoring in #3 & 6. Canadian car with about 50k miles (avg 5k/yr ... winter driven, hmmm?)

BUYERS BEWARE. PPI + bore scope even if no signs evident.

yvesvidal

Porsche gave us the DFI but they omitted to fix the plating of the cylinders. Maybe next time... maybe never! That is how you make money.

Yves

back2porsche

I’m completely spooked now. Sold my 996c4s a number of years back due to ims fears. Now this. Having doubts about jumping back in to the casino.

cwheeler

DFI Scoring is so rare, it's hardly even a notable issue.

Cw

cdk4219

only because these are much newer engines. All of the issues with these cars are isolated and rare when they are newer. From 996 turbo cars that only come out if you tracked the car, to 997 turbo people saying it’s not happening to my car because Porsche changes the glue and it’s better. Both false, and let’s not get into the cayenne 955 driveshaft carrier and coolant pipe failure. Give it time and you can say it’s such a small percentage because I love my car so much!

Bruce In Philly

Newer? 2009 was the first year.... that was about 11 years ago. My count on 997.2 bore scores is about.... 2 cars so far. The M96/M97 engines were blowing as soon as when they were first delivered in 1997.... and continues through today.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

cdk4219

According to the 996 guys this engine failure is rare as well. My guess is that you presently own a 997.2, as this is a usual response from an owner of the car in question.

cdk4219

You also must consider the production numbers of these cars took a hard hit from 2009.

Doug H

Post up a link to this car so no one else gets burned.

cdk4219: it has been the response from the guys working on them as well and my buddies that work for Porsche as well. That is not to say long term they won’t all fail. I think Baz addresses why the .1 is so prone to this and what makes the .2 less prone.

I would still like a link to the car. 1st time post for that screen name using all the buzz words and lingo . . .

That said, I put a warranty on my 2012 as I am not 100% confident in anything anymore.

back2porsche

Yes, I'm a first time poster under a new registration. Could not do a password retrieval due to my email address change so I simply re-registerd. I've been a long term PCA member and have owned several porsches since the mid 80's, my first being a 69 S which I traded for a wood boat. The boat sank and we we all know what happened to the 911 S+++. Been away from the brand for 3-4 years and getting back in. Thought I'd be safe with the 997.2 3.8. As i think about my Cayenne S, was a great tow vehicle for my P track car but did the coolant tubes, headlight connectors, glovebox latch failure (cheap plastic), fuel pump. Maybe i should look at a Lotus evora s with a toyota motor??? Heck, just noticed that rennlist connected me to my old registration. That's my 944T S track car as my avator. Interesting.

PV997

Maybe Baz or Jake can weigh in but are you sure that is actually scoring? The photo quality is poor but I can't see any depth in the grooves. There can also be "scuffing" which seems to be common in many engines but isn't the same as scoring. Wear marks on the cylinder that don't have actual depth aren't considered scoring or necessarily a precursor to scoring.

Just spitballing here, any experts out there?

PV997

Completely agree with this plus there are many technical reasons why the 997.2 is less susceptible that Baz Hart and others have documented in detail. Simply claiming we haven't had enough time for the problem to show up completely ignores the steps Porsche took (switching to Alusil blocks at great expense, changing to Ferrotec skirt coating, changing to a closed deck design) to directly address the issues in the 997.2.

That being said, the photos are concerning but it would be good to get an informed analysis. Just because anyone with a $30 Amazon borescope can now look inside doesn't mean they have the experience to interpret the photos.

cdk4219

Please don’t confuse this as I think they are all going to do this, as they are not. When issues arise with different cars they are usually dismissed as a fluke, you ran it in cold weather without warming it up, you tracked it, etc. there are still 996 turbo cars with coolant pipes that haven’t popped out. I reminisce about 996 and 997.1 turbo coolant lines and owners making excuses why they were popping out. A few years ago when I bought my cayenne , no discussions of bore scoring were present, that has changed as well.

I do find it interesting that the newer 911 cars are being fitted with steel liners, as far as I can tell from the information out there.

bronz

If youre in the market for 997.2 C4S, i have one with Jake Rabys stage 2 4.0 liter engine and Nikasil plated cylinders that wont score. I will be listing it for sale soon, contact me if interested.

PV997

The problem with iron liners is that they take up a lot of space. As engine displacement increased there was less room between the cylinders which was one of the driving reasons automakers abandoned them. With the newer smaller displacement turbocharged engines the cylinder bore has shrunk from that used in the normally aspirated engines. IMO, this gave Porsche an opportunity to return to iron sleeves not to mention they are much cheaper and easier to process than using an all Alusil block.