JDev

Hey guys. This is my first post. The first car I ever really loved the looks of was the original 70's 911 turbo when I was a kid playing with Hot Wheels. So here I am considering a purchase finally of a 911.

To make it a short story. I have an e46 M3 that I've driven probably 4k miles now having 115k. It was dealer serviced and well cared for. I knew it had certain design flaws to fix like the Vanos and subframe and the kinds of maintenance it needed.

After having seriously extensive and invasive fix for the subframe with a custom frame support and sheet metal reinforcement, and then finding out some people have the front shock towers start to flex and separate from the inner fender well, I'm just not inclinded to want to drive this car hard enough and think I'm keeping it long term.

I think what has happened to BMW and probably a lot of companies is they are having a tighter time meeting all the standards gvts are placing on production and still producing a quality product. For the e46, I think crash safety standards were focused on over structural integrity, and weren't able to reconcile the two in budget, or time. My guess. Also, I liked older BMW's but the new ones are not raw enough, and the e46's issues are not what I want in a long term purchase I've decided.

My question is, I can't find any writeups on it, but does the 997 platform, or 911's in general have a history of chassis weakness? Engine issues can be dealt with but if the chassis is prone to failing, you're not going to just bolt on a new floor section purchased from the dealer's parts counter. I'm over it I'm pretty sure...

ktrainman

The 997.2 and 987.2 platforms I think are about as stable as they come in terms of both chassis and drivetrain.

What helps is that the 911 was always a high end sports car to begin with. The e46 and any three series has budgetary constraints because it's an entry level vehicle.

CasperS

I think ktainman is 100% correct on the base platform of the Porsche being built to a higher standard than any mass market car could be.

While I can't speak to the 911, it's just too new to me, my family had a '83 944 until 2010. The car was one of the most reliable, both in terms of chassis and drive train, that they've ever owned.

Quadcammer

So you're ok with a $25k engine failure, but about $4k in chassis reinforcement work is a major issue for you?

That doesn't seem to make sense. The 7 is a good platform, but hardly faultless.

nk215

The E46 M3 is a very stable and time tested platform. Is has is issues but overall, the fixes are not that expensive. In general, M3 with - the same age as 911 – collects many more miles so it was better time tested.

Drive your E46 worry free because that’s how it really is. The engine is very durable.

997.1 has its share of issues. All the minor issue was over shadowed by IMS bearing ($25k fix). When the IMS bearing was corrected in late 05, bore scoring got more attention.

997.2 seems to correct the above 2 major problems but it’s just not in circulation long enough/with enough miles to show the side effects. DFI, in general, has carbon deposit problem as there’s nothing to wash the deposits on the back of the valve. DFI is also very hard in the fuel delivering system.

If you look around, on average, a 997.2 has way less miles than a comparable E9x M3. It may take more years to truly know how stable the 997.2 design are.

The E46 is well known, well tested and well documented (all the way down windows regulator issue). There’s nothing to go wrong and surprise an E46 owner.

Now if you are looking at mezger engine then by all mean go for it.

In summary; if you want to get a 911 for its handling and refinement over your M3 and go for it. It's a better sport vehicle. If you want to switch to avoid vehicle reliability issues then it's not a good move. For every 911, there are many more M3 so naturally you'll hear more about M3 issues.

snake eyes

I can't tell you how many posts like these I have had to correct or people I've run into have had to correct with the 9A1 engine...

First off DFI problems were related to AUDI not GM's V6 nor Porsches Flat six.. (yes not just Porsche solved the DFI carbon issue)
Look Porsche made this handy little picture.

NO ONE has documented on here a flat six that has had "carbon build up issues that needs walnut blasting like the Audi's."

The placement of the injection prevents carbon build up.


The 9A1 is a battle tested engine having been in the market since 2009

Blu311

I have not owned an M3 but I have friends who have and they all seamed to constantly have their cars in the shop for something, don't remember the details, but they have moved on. The more I'm around Porsche people the more I realize how reliable these cars are, especially the 997 and 997.2 cars in particular. The local indy here loves the 997.2 cars and says he barely sees them because they don't have any regular issues. I've lingered the 997 forums for several years and have owned my 997.2 for almost a year (my car has 68k miles) and can say that from my perspective most people have very few issues with their 997s. BTW, snake eyes is correct AFAIK that there are no reported 997.2 DFI carbon build up issues.

With that said, don't switch just for reliability, if you just want reliability go buy an ISF or IS350/RC350. If you switch, do it because you love how the 997 looks/feels/drives and hopefully you'll have better luck than with the BMW. But like with any used car that is out of warranty, big repair bills are possible... Good luck on your search!

OKB

I dont know how many people Ive ever heard of that needed to rework the frame of a car for any reason, probibly the same number as people that have had serious structural and mechanical problems with a 997. But to answer your question, a late model 997 is pretty trouble free

nk215

You may be correct. I do remember flat6 tech (Rob) posted a bunch of pictures on carbon deposit on a 997.2 and Cayenne V8 when i did my research between 997.1 vs .2 before I got my vehicle.

I do agree that Audi had it much worse.

The picture Porsche posted is just that, a picture. In reality, fuel didn't quite hit the piston the way shown in Porsche picture. Here's a picture of a 2010 piston at 30K miles showing that the fuel hit the center of the piston better and effectively cleaned the center out. Not the the edge as the picture seems to indicate.




Here's another picture showing deposits on the same 2010CS, doesn't look like any issue to me but note the low 30K miles.




In general, there are 3 issues related to a vehicle.

1) Garage queen
2) DD
3) Rust

In general, 911 - even those made in 09 - do not see the miles M3s in the similar age do. I would not consider an 09 porsche time tested when the majority of those are not even in the 60K miles range yet (just my estimate when I was looking for a 911). It's my experience that German cars have too many plastic parts what will go bad with many heat cycles due to miles.

There are many 10 years old 911 with less than 40K miles for sale every day. It's very hard to find an 10 years old M3 with similar miles. That's why i said in general M3 is more time tested than 911.

alexb76

NOT TRUE! Come tell that to my Indy shop who's starting to see carbon deposit on 997.2 cars! Yes, Audi/VW being first DFI engines out of the gate had the issues at much lower milage and definitely more issues, but it's the same thing across the board.

Marvinta

Milage being equal I don't buy that an E46 M3 is less reliable than a 997. I think you need to avoid early build cycle of both cars, but I think that maxim is true for all cars. I drove an E46M3 for 4 years every single day and at the track . I literally drove it from one end of this country to the other with zero problems. Not one, in four years. Was I lucky? Of course, though I'm pretty crazy about maintenance on my cars. (or at least I was, nowadays I'm more likely to let the dealer do the job whereas before I would never trust them to even change the oil).

MaddMike

I have owned 3 E46s: A coupe, a wagon, and a M3. No major issues with any of them.


I still miss that M3. If it was a manual I would have kept it, but it was a SMG. The E46 chassis is a time tested chassis and there are plenty on the road with 200k+ miles. I don't think there are many 997.2 that can say the same.


If you are worried about maintenance costs, the P brand is not really your best option. If you want a car that should age gracefully and still look good in 10, 20, 30 years that I would say a Porsche is a good bet.

Dennis C

Buy a Porsche because you want a Porsche.

If you justify a Porsche purchase as a way to avoid problems, then there is a good chance that you won't be happy with your puchase in the long run.

alexb76

As others said, you seem to be focusing on the wrong thing. If your e46 M3 is a Lemon, then change it, if not and the maintenance done so far is typical of your car mileage then you should keep the car.

Get a 997 IF you want a 997, not just for supposed less maintenance, which may or may not be true.

JDev

Thanks all for the replies. A good online community is another consideration when buying a car. It adds a lot of value to a car.

I'm quoting you to cover two topics, but have read everyone and thank you again.

I may not have been clear enough, but it's not maintenance costs I want to avoid. It's the 20-30 years of ownership that I've lost confidence in and I'll explain why. I would be about as happy with a 930 turbo as a 997, but am not prepared to spend 6 figures that childhood dream car, not yet anyway. I'm looking for a timeless sports car to keep alive forever because I'm that connected with how I drive and fit with the car.

I've become a relative expert on the e46 chassis problems. It's not the engine or chassis maintenance that bothers me. What owners who drive and sell these cars miss is their axle panels are cracked and don't know it, and they also don't know all the various hidden areas the chassis are cracking in. Lesser Understood is the front shock towers flex and in some cases tear from the fender well. The extent of problems that occur over the course of those 200k miles depending on severity of usage are being still discovered. I want my car to last a million miles with no chassis fatigue.

The common fix for the racp is to weld sheet metal plates to help the subframe bushing load. However, within recent months it's becoming more clear that the top of the trunk needs to be cut into to address cracks that aren't visible in the top front mounts as well. I welded in both the sheet metal patches and added a frame load path addition that was designed recently in the garage of an engineer in Sweden. It may also be interesting that the e9x chassis had many of the chassis metal types upgraded to harder metals over the e46. Also bmw over the years has had other various chassis failures as far back as the e30 from what I understand. I don't gather this has been the case with the 911.

That's really what I'm asking about is how solid is the history with the fatigue and cracking of the 911 chassis. I can work with preventative ims design failure issues, engine swaps, etc, but the ongoing discovery of the nature of failures in the e46 that I otherwise very much like, I think has turned my dream car into something you drive for a while and sell, not stock pile discontinued parts for and keep running.

Those are some high level details about the e46 chassis and what I'm looking for. If these chassis are stable, I may pick up the 2/4s or the metzger turbo. I will eventually become that old guy with the classic sports car in his garage that everyone wants a ride in and that I know how to drive like its part of my own body.