Porsche: Not made for the track
10-04-2011, 11:15 PM
#121
I currently run royal purple 5w-40 in my 05 997.
After reading the LN engineering article they mention using higher quality oils with frequent changes. Has anyone here used royal purple? It was recommended to me by my friend Sol at perfect power (perfectpowerinc.com) He uses it in all of the Porsche's they service, including all track cars. Any thoughts?
After reading the LN engineering article they mention using higher quality oils with frequent changes. Has anyone here used royal purple? It was recommended to me by my friend Sol at perfect power (perfectpowerinc.com) He uses it in all of the Porsche's they service, including all track cars. Any thoughts?
10-05-2011, 12:45 AM
#122
58,000 miles...and BOOM. The engine blew on my 2006 Carrera 997S. Intermediate shaft bearing (IMS) failure...a known problem for the 997. No missed shift. No over-rev. No warning. Just BOOM.
Replacement engine: $33,532.56 (less $17,445.33 for the core return) plus $1,875 labor, plus tax ($1,188.49).
The car was out of warranty, and unfortunately, the engine blew during a DE. And here's where it gets interesting. According to Porsche North America, and I'm quoting here: "These cars are not meant to be tracked. The only car we recommend for track use is the GT3."
Be advised. According to Timken Bearing, a leading manufacturer of engine bearing systems, Carrera owners can expect a 10% failure rate in the first 90,000 engine miles. The percentage increases if the engine is exposed to high-temperature environments (track use).
Porsche knows this. The Carrera IMS assembly is NOT lubricated. Only the GT3 block receives oil flow to the intermediate shaft bearing assembly.
A $19,150.72 lesson learned the hard way.
Porsche normally warrants a replacement engine for two years. They say if the car is tracked, the warranty is voided.
Replacement engine: $33,532.56 (less $17,445.33 for the core return) plus $1,875 labor, plus tax ($1,188.49).
The car was out of warranty, and unfortunately, the engine blew during a DE. And here's where it gets interesting. According to Porsche North America, and I'm quoting here: "These cars are not meant to be tracked. The only car we recommend for track use is the GT3."
Be advised. According to Timken Bearing, a leading manufacturer of engine bearing systems, Carrera owners can expect a 10% failure rate in the first 90,000 engine miles. The percentage increases if the engine is exposed to high-temperature environments (track use).
Porsche knows this. The Carrera IMS assembly is NOT lubricated. Only the GT3 block receives oil flow to the intermediate shaft bearing assembly.
A $19,150.72 lesson learned the hard way.
Porsche normally warrants a replacement engine for two years. They say if the car is tracked, the warranty is voided.
BTW, I believe that tracking the car is a bad idea under warranty no matter what the manual says about anything. I would not do it until the car is out of the warranty. I have tracked my car many times. I hold myself totally responsible for the car that day. Every year we hear about someone who has his car destroyed for one reason or another. Just my opinion.
Good luck when you sell the car. I have no idea what the value of these will be with or without remanufactured motors.
10-05-2011, 01:01 AM
#123
I've attended one of Charles' (head of LN Engineering) oil seminars and IIRC the so called "higher quality oils" are ones with more robust additive packages and ones that don't (for lack of a better term) break down as quickly as other oils do.
10-05-2011, 01:05 AM
#125
One could also make the assumption that if the motor in your car was replaced in 2008, Porsche has replaced it with the latest IMS bearing, shaft and flange design that was in production since 2006. Therefore, you may not be able to change out that IMS bearing unless the motor is dissassembled.
10-05-2011, 01:11 AM
#126
Oh, a certain auto manufacturer is now recommending a certain vendor's upgrade kit. But, you didn't hear that from me...
10-05-2011, 01:34 AM
#127
Pro
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blowing up anything in your car sucks so sorry to hear to the op. $19K is a very nice all inclusive 5 nites at the four seasons in kona over christmas their most expensive time of year (ask me how i know). so it's not just $19K it's like $19k worth of life opportunity cost or in my example priceless memories to last a lifetime. an engine.
the entertainment value is high in this thread. grown men, who are likely educated, displaying, in some cases, certain lapses in the ability to think logically?
so above the din, all i hear is the cash register at LN going cha-ching. you guys are gettin' played.
the entertainment value is high in this thread. grown men, who are likely educated, displaying, in some cases, certain lapses in the ability to think logically?
so above the din, all i hear is the cash register at LN going cha-ching. you guys are gettin' played.
10-05-2011, 02:24 AM
#128
Rennlist Member
10-05-2011, 08:07 AM
#129
One could also make the assumption that if the motor in your car was replaced in 2008, Porsche has replaced it with the latest IMS bearing, shaft and flange design that was in production since 2006. Therefore, you may not be able to change out that IMS bearing unless the motor is dissassembled.
10-05-2011, 10:17 AM
#130
Rennlist Member
probably this thread
https://rennlist.com/forums/997-foru...s-bearing.html
but i am not positive about its credibility so i did not quote it.
https://rennlist.com/forums/997-foru...s-bearing.html
but i am not positive about its credibility so i did not quote it.
10-05-2011, 10:37 AM
#131
10-05-2011, 11:01 AM
#132
Beyond IMS/RMS failures, a 5th to 4th downshift messed up into a 5th to 2nd downshift at 140mph will be hard on any engine... It is all part of the risk.
But this is really becoming two threads IMHO:
1- PCNA not addressing IMS/RMS beyond a car's warranty period
2- Porsche as a brand giving the impression that these cars are made for the track
On the first one:
I used to have a 2002 and had the engine swapped for a small oil leak around the IMS bearing. In those days the IMS "issue" wasn't well documented in the public domain so I had no clue. My dealer just changed the engine even though they certainly knew I was tracking the car - they did my alignments, tech inspections, mods, etc. If they hadn't swapped the engine under warranty, it would certainly have been a big letdown for me and probably would not have gotten another p-car. If it had happened after warranty and they did not do it for free, I would probably have paid for it but changed my behavior regarding p-cars.
I certainly feel for people who get hit by this issue either because the cars loose value or because of the cost of after warranty repairs but, at some point, every car has "weaker points". When that "it's all part of the lore and character" period begins is the question. For example, if you buy a used early 1980's 911SC today and your airbox blows up, will Porsche cover it? It is a known issue and, if you choose to get into that car today, you should know what to expect.
On the second one:
What bothers me about the OP's post is that Porsche's marketing is alluding to these car's being able to go to the track and then saying that any engine suffering any failure while on the track will not be covered (note the use of "will not" and not "may not"). So when I calculate the risk of going on there - and there always is - I take that into consideration. If the Porsche warranty says that I cannot go to the track, then I have to reassess the risk and add the possibility of a major mechanical failure. All this after the fact since I already bought the car based on marketing assumptions. Had I known this beforehand, maybe I would have had enough reason to get a GT3RS or maybe I would have bought a beat up or salvaged 996/997 and modded it to the gills.
But at what point does this become false advertising?
T.
Old track saying: "Never bring a car on the track that you can't leave on the track...".
10-05-2011, 11:02 AM
#133
Sadly, I didn't get this impression from their latest series of ads...soccer mom picking up kids from school in a yellow turbo, tired exec decompressing in his white GTS, roughneck picking up fertilizer at the Home Depot in his silver Cayman. That's not a message that implies that these cars are meant to be driven in a spirited manner. Instead, the ad seems to say that Porsches are very utilitarian cars that can be quite useful for everybody on a daily basis for everyday tasks.
My question is if these cars are not meant to be tracked, why does PCNA use stock 997's for the PSDS and then resell them after they are done with them? That seems contrary to the whole voiding of the warranty issue.
My question is if these cars are not meant to be tracked, why does PCNA use stock 997's for the PSDS and then resell them after they are done with them? That seems contrary to the whole voiding of the warranty issue.
10-05-2011, 11:07 AM
#134
Rennlist Member
as of 'porsche and track' - too many 996 and 997 street cars were bought to 'compete' with gt3 cars so now dealers really backfire at owners looking for any excuse to deny warranty claims, and if a dealer shows any favor then PCNA rep comes into play and denies a claim.
I just see it as a part of new corporate strategy they started to enforce 3-4 years ago. most logical outcome of this should be to make it backfire at them. no manufacturer should claim 'it is your own fault' if your rod breaks through engine block or gets disconnected from a piston at normal RPMs. it is total BS. same about bearings coming apart an sending its marbles into motor`s moving parts. it`s called bad design, and nothing else.
I just see it as a part of new corporate strategy they started to enforce 3-4 years ago. most logical outcome of this should be to make it backfire at them. no manufacturer should claim 'it is your own fault' if your rod breaks through engine block or gets disconnected from a piston at normal RPMs. it is total BS. same about bearings coming apart an sending its marbles into motor`s moving parts. it`s called bad design, and nothing else.
10-05-2011, 11:58 AM
#135
+1.
But this is really becoming two threads IMHO:
1- PCNA not addressing IMS/RMS beyond a car's warranty period
2- Porsche as a brand giving the impression that these cars are made for the track
On the first one:
I used to have a 2002 and had the engine swapped for a small oil leak around the IMS bearing. In those days the IMS "issue" wasn't well documented in the public domain so I had no clue. My dealer just changed the engine even though they certainly knew I was tracking the car - they did my alignments, tech inspections, mods, etc. If they hadn't swapped the engine under warranty, it would certainly have been a big letdown for me and probably would not have gotten another p-car. If it had happened after warranty and they did not do it for free, I would probably have paid for it but changed my behavior regarding p-cars.
I certainly feel for people who get hit by this issue either because the cars loose value or because of the cost of after warranty repairs but, at some point, every car has "weaker points". When that "it's all part of the lore and character" period begins is the question. For example, if you buy a used early 1980's 911SC today and your airbox blows up, will Porsche cover it? It is a known issue and, if you choose to get into that car today, you should know what to expect.
On the second one:
What bothers me about the OP's post is that Porsche's marketing is alluding to these car's being able to go to the track and then saying that any engine suffering any failure while on the track will not be covered (note the use of "will not" and not "may not"). So when I calculate the risk of going on there - and there always is - I take that into consideration. If the Porsche warranty says that I cannot go to the track, then I have to reassess the risk and add the possibility of a major mechanical failure. All this after the fact since I already bought the car based on marketing assumptions. Had I known this beforehand, maybe I would have had enough reason to get a GT3RS or maybe I would have bought a beat up or salvaged 996/997 and modded it to the gills.
But at what point does this become false advertising?
T.
Old track saying: "Never bring a car on the track that you can't leave on the track...".
But this is really becoming two threads IMHO:
1- PCNA not addressing IMS/RMS beyond a car's warranty period
2- Porsche as a brand giving the impression that these cars are made for the track
On the first one:
I used to have a 2002 and had the engine swapped for a small oil leak around the IMS bearing. In those days the IMS "issue" wasn't well documented in the public domain so I had no clue. My dealer just changed the engine even though they certainly knew I was tracking the car - they did my alignments, tech inspections, mods, etc. If they hadn't swapped the engine under warranty, it would certainly have been a big letdown for me and probably would not have gotten another p-car. If it had happened after warranty and they did not do it for free, I would probably have paid for it but changed my behavior regarding p-cars.
I certainly feel for people who get hit by this issue either because the cars loose value or because of the cost of after warranty repairs but, at some point, every car has "weaker points". When that "it's all part of the lore and character" period begins is the question. For example, if you buy a used early 1980's 911SC today and your airbox blows up, will Porsche cover it? It is a known issue and, if you choose to get into that car today, you should know what to expect.
On the second one:
What bothers me about the OP's post is that Porsche's marketing is alluding to these car's being able to go to the track and then saying that any engine suffering any failure while on the track will not be covered (note the use of "will not" and not "may not"). So when I calculate the risk of going on there - and there always is - I take that into consideration. If the Porsche warranty says that I cannot go to the track, then I have to reassess the risk and add the possibility of a major mechanical failure. All this after the fact since I already bought the car based on marketing assumptions. Had I known this beforehand, maybe I would have had enough reason to get a GT3RS or maybe I would have bought a beat up or salvaged 996/997 and modded it to the gills.
But at what point does this become false advertising?
T.
Old track saying: "Never bring a car on the track that you can't leave on the track...".
As much as I enjoyed driving them on the street, my 996 and Cayman (and Cayenne) were sold because of issues I don't think I should spend the $ to address prematurely and because of the eventual effect to their values as a result of these issues (whether perception or reality).
Now, I'm down to just one pre-90 Porsche. I've been disappointed with Porsche as they have leveraged yet deteriorated the brand by offering less track worthy vehicles.
I'm hopeful that the 9A1 and PDK hardware prove to be reliable enough over time to be track worthy.