997.2 Engine Reliability
#526
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Good questions. I just look at it through the simple lens. A member here since 2007 I've read about far more engine failures of .1 cars than .2 cars. As I've said I can only recall reading about one .2 engine failure here. I may have missed some but they seem very rare. So the points you make about cost savings and overall consumer perception could well be part of the design of the 9A1 but it seems like they also achieved improved reliability along with the cost savings. Don't you think?
One of the clinchers for me was that video Porsche released of the 9A1 under development showing off its oiling system on a simulated Nurburgring run. This was not about its oiling system so I presumed. To me, this was a clear message to the market that this engine was thoroughly tested prior to release. Who was complaining about the oiling system that warrented Porsche releasing this film? There were many things to complain about that lead to failures and maintenance issues such as the water pump. Naw, this was about preparing the market for a new engine platform.
I also made an assumption: Porsche was (and still is) under big competition in the horse power wars, and any weakness in a design will only get worse as you increase stresses on the design. I know, I have no idea what I am talking about, but this was an assumption I made when I chose to get back into the brand.
So far, I am over the moon about my 9A1. Better than I hoped for. Porsche not only addressed the known weaknesses, but seemed to strengthen almost everything about this engine, whether in the core, or stuff bolted on to it.
A provocative comment from my scarred, pedestrian perspective: When I see scope pictures of .1 engines where someone wants to know how good/bad the pics are, and there are "scuff" lines... sorry folks, I gag at this. I have seen opened engines from '60s GM blocks and Ferrari blocks with my own eyes... shiny and smooth. I don't get it. Scuffs... well not for me. Again, I am really skeptical of that platform. I would change my opinion on scuffs, if someone can show me a clutch of 9A1 bores where scuffs are common across blocks and years.
Peace
Bruce in Philly (now Atlanta)
Last edited by Bruce In Philly; 04-12-2022 at 11:10 AM.
The following 5 users liked this post by Bruce In Philly:
Dubbed743 (05-16-2022),
Kineticdg (04-14-2022),
PhillyNate (04-17-2022),
Rallybill (04-13-2022),
Wayne Smith (04-12-2022)
#527
Three Wheelin'
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Are we sure Porsche eliminated the IMS to improve the engine from a failing bearing? That shaft was part of Porsche design since the 60s. The concept of that shaft was not the problem, but the choice to eliminate a constantly oiled bearing with a permanent, sealed one was the issue.
Porsche may have eliminated the IMS simply for cost savings. I remember reading somewhere that the 9A1 engine had way few parts that previous engines. Sounds like a cost reduction strategy to me. This may be an improvement, but I just question the motivation at Porsche that this design was purposefully done to eliminate the bearing problem. Heck, maybe they did this just to improve consumer perceptions, although I doubt this because they kept this bad design for 10 years.
Even strengthening cylinder wall composition may not have been done to eliminate a problem, but just to support higher torque requirements passed down to engineering from the marketing department to support longer-term model plans.
Obviously, I am a little cynical about all of this given the sordid history of the M9X platform... they blew up for many different reasons over their history and Porsche did little except patch the platform despite making a ton of ever-increasing profits. As if I need to remind anyone, I had two blow up long before the 9A1 appeared.
Peace
Bruce in Philly (now Atlanta)
Porsche may have eliminated the IMS simply for cost savings. I remember reading somewhere that the 9A1 engine had way few parts that previous engines. Sounds like a cost reduction strategy to me. This may be an improvement, but I just question the motivation at Porsche that this design was purposefully done to eliminate the bearing problem. Heck, maybe they did this just to improve consumer perceptions, although I doubt this because they kept this bad design for 10 years.
Even strengthening cylinder wall composition may not have been done to eliminate a problem, but just to support higher torque requirements passed down to engineering from the marketing department to support longer-term model plans.
Obviously, I am a little cynical about all of this given the sordid history of the M9X platform... they blew up for many different reasons over their history and Porsche did little except patch the platform despite making a ton of ever-increasing profits. As if I need to remind anyone, I had two blow up long before the 9A1 appeared.
Peace
Bruce in Philly (now Atlanta)
#528
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My understanding is that an IMS has been used because cam chains were not strong enough to drive four camshafts. I believe I had read that Porsche felt they were able to acquire stronger chains which enabled them to eliminate the IMS. Whether these newer chains are that much stronger/durable will be something everyone will eventually learn.
#529
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Good beer hall speculation. If you engage the "way back machine" to the early nineties (last century) Porsche was going through one of its feast or famine economic cycles and at this point they were broke. We all know the story about the fact that the Boxster saved the day for Porsche. Being broke doesn't mean you cannot design great stuff but having a capital/ tooling budget of insufficient size and no time means painful compromises has to be done. If you look at and study the stories of the designers for those cars and the 993 and 996, you will recall that they all discussed the lack of tooling money to carry out the full wishes for their designs. This carried through to the chassis and the new and necessary water cooled engine. Die cast cylinder head tooling is horrendously expensive and if you have to tool up two of them, a right and a left, you are out of luck on having the money or the time to tool up. these were rush projects to save the sinking ship (economically). Using a symmetrical sand cast cylinder head that could be used for both the left and right side was chosen for cost and time reasons. With this, common cylinder head ,the IMS was required to make this work. The fact that it was at the end of the engine with no native oil supply made a bad idea worse. Machining the common casting made the left and right versions of the heads ( easy and cost effective). Also the "not true dry sump " oiling system was based on cost and time, not engineering. Open deck design and crankshaft hardening thickness was also cost driven. Many other parts were designed with the same doctrine that this engine is going into a new street driven vehicle and is not to be considered our "top" sports car. Think 914 for us olde guys. Also remember that in theory the famed "Mezger " engine did not meet its design goals of delivering 160 HP and being capable of future expansion up to possibly 200 HP. It just happened to prove out being way overdesigned.
Porsche did what they could with the financial constraints at the time. Mistakes were made. Brand new designs always have issues. Everybody remember the chain tensioner problems we all had on our early air cooled 911's? 100% failure , no admittance from the manufactured that there was a problem.
Porsche did what they could with the financial constraints at the time. Mistakes were made. Brand new designs always have issues. Everybody remember the chain tensioner problems we all had on our early air cooled 911's? 100% failure , no admittance from the manufactured that there was a problem.
The following users liked this post:
Kineticdg (04-14-2022)
#530
Nordschleife Master
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I also made an assumption: Porsche was (and still is) under big competition in the horse power wars, and any weakness in a design will only get worse as you increase stresses on the design. I know, I have no idea what I am talking about, but this was an assumption I made when I chose to get back into the brand.
Peace
Bruce in Philly (now Atlanta)
Peace
Bruce in Philly (now Atlanta)
My understanding is that an IMS has been used because cam chains were not strong enough to drive four camshafts. I believe I had read that Porsche felt they were able to acquire stronger chains which enabled them to eliminate the IMS. Whether these newer chains are that much stronger/durable will be something everyone will eventually learn.
#531
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
For those who missed it, CAFE requirements were made even more stringent. 49 MPG by 2026. Going to thinner oils for the engine and transmission are the low hanging fruit for quick and easy fuel economy increases. C10 oils are going to be the next thing. Other manufacturers are already running viscosities as low as 0w8... The only way this can be done is have higher permissible wear which will result in shorter component life or require additional processes like DLC coatings to allow these components to survive in this environment.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases...year-2024-2026
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases...year-2024-2026
#532
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi Jake - really interesting comment on 997.1. Would you mind elaborating, please? Thanks so much!