GT3RS 2011 Engine Problems
05-22-2013, 11:02 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
More bad news re: the 997.2 GT3 VarioCam problem.
I was at a lapping day a couple of weeks ago (when my PP failed) and another GT3RS stopped dead on the track (required tow to pull off) -- also a 2011 like mine but later build date.
The problem turned out to be the cam bolts backing out as discussed in this thread. The failure resulted in damage to the engine, which is being repaired (not replaced). Valves were bent, so we're not talking minor repairs here.
I talked to service advisor today and it appears Porsche it taking a hard line on these failures. Specifically, ANY over revs on the GT3/GT3RS will result in the failure NOT being covered under warrantee.
It sounds like Porsche is acknowledging that these bolts can in-fact back out because -- in the advisor's own words -- Porsche recently (late last week) provided a bunch of additional details on the topic.
He went on to say that -- according to Porsche -- the failure is attributable to overrevs. The only cases he's personally seen involve cars that have gotten into Stage 3 overrev or higher, but Porsche is drawing the hard line at any overevs at any stage (even 1 at Stage 1). Here's my issue. If attributable to overrevs, why is this issue affecting just the GT3.2 cars and not the gen 1 cars? AFAIK, there's nothing fundamentally different about their design.
As a side, the advisor also mentioned that for the GT3/GT3RS stage 1 is 500 RPM over redline and can get more easily gotten into because they do not have rev limiters (unlike the non-GT cars). I'm having a problem with statement. If I don't have a rev limiter, what's my engine been doing when 'thought' I was hitting the rev limiter??? I don't do it often, but it does happen.
Checking torque on these bolts is also quite involved, if seeking piece of mind. We're talking in excess of $1,500USD.
I'm pondering my next steps, but figured I'd pass this info along. If I didn't love Porsche cars so much I'd ditch my RS and move on to something else. Porsche truly exemplifies love-hate relationship for me.
I was at a lapping day a couple of weeks ago (when my PP failed) and another GT3RS stopped dead on the track (required tow to pull off) -- also a 2011 like mine but later build date.
The problem turned out to be the cam bolts backing out as discussed in this thread. The failure resulted in damage to the engine, which is being repaired (not replaced). Valves were bent, so we're not talking minor repairs here.
I talked to service advisor today and it appears Porsche it taking a hard line on these failures. Specifically, ANY over revs on the GT3/GT3RS will result in the failure NOT being covered under warrantee.
It sounds like Porsche is acknowledging that these bolts can in-fact back out because -- in the advisor's own words -- Porsche recently (late last week) provided a bunch of additional details on the topic.
He went on to say that -- according to Porsche -- the failure is attributable to overrevs. The only cases he's personally seen involve cars that have gotten into Stage 3 overrev or higher, but Porsche is drawing the hard line at any overevs at any stage (even 1 at Stage 1). Here's my issue. If attributable to overrevs, why is this issue affecting just the GT3.2 cars and not the gen 1 cars? AFAIK, there's nothing fundamentally different about their design.
As a side, the advisor also mentioned that for the GT3/GT3RS stage 1 is 500 RPM over redline and can get more easily gotten into because they do not have rev limiters (unlike the non-GT cars). I'm having a problem with statement. If I don't have a rev limiter, what's my engine been doing when 'thought' I was hitting the rev limiter??? I don't do it often, but it does happen.
Checking torque on these bolts is also quite involved, if seeking piece of mind. We're talking in excess of $1,500USD.
I'm pondering my next steps, but figured I'd pass this info along. If I didn't love Porsche cars so much I'd ditch my RS and move on to something else. Porsche truly exemplifies love-hate relationship for me.
The following users liked this post:
Robocop305 (03-31-2021)
05-22-2013, 11:22 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
The car has a limiter of course. You can sit at 8400 all day long and you will have zero over revs.
Over revs are screw ups.
Porsche will look at over revs but I believe up to type 3 in limited numbers they will still warranty / goodwill the engine if a certain amount of hours went by.
Dont money shift.
Probably the only good reason to have to learn left foot braking and buy a PDK.
Over revs are screw ups.
Porsche will look at over revs but I believe up to type 3 in limited numbers they will still warranty / goodwill the engine if a certain amount of hours went by.
Dont money shift.
Probably the only good reason to have to learn left foot braking and buy a PDK.
05-22-2013, 11:33 PM
#33
Rennlist Member
Stage 1's are actually a more-than-passing probability. Denying warranty on a known defect based on that is low. Just low.
One doesn't need a moneyshift to log Stage 1's. It happens in hurried upshifts. As one transitions between WOT and clutch down, letting out the clutch too early will "unload" the engine and allow it to spin ever-so-slightly above the rev limiter. Nothing serious as we all know, but that's how the occasional Range 1 shows up even for cars properly driven.
Back to my point from the beginning of this thread: this is a known manufacturing defect. The way this is being handled is simply not right.
One doesn't need a moneyshift to log Stage 1's. It happens in hurried upshifts. As one transitions between WOT and clutch down, letting out the clutch too early will "unload" the engine and allow it to spin ever-so-slightly above the rev limiter. Nothing serious as we all know, but that's how the occasional Range 1 shows up even for cars properly driven.
Back to my point from the beginning of this thread: this is a known manufacturing defect. The way this is being handled is simply not right.
The following users liked this post:
Robocop305 (03-31-2021)
05-22-2013, 11:49 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
That's indeed how Type 1 happens, but still a screw up to me but completely harmless. If there are a TON of Type in, the previous owner was not very good at shifting I suppose is all its worth.
My first RS with 18K mile has I think 27 Type 1 and a couple Type 2 and I did exactly that and I know exactly where I did it. Screwed up putting the clutch in and let it back out again instead of upshifting when someone did something in front of me that I thought was not going to end well and I screwed up, but kept the car on track.
My second RS with 4K miles had I believe zero over revs. Not sure if I ever seen the PPI when it was sold.
I've known cars with Type 3 and 4 that had warranty done on the drive line as it was over X amount of hours ago.
Never mind a known problem. It should not even be a discussion!
My first RS with 18K mile has I think 27 Type 1 and a couple Type 2 and I did exactly that and I know exactly where I did it. Screwed up putting the clutch in and let it back out again instead of upshifting when someone did something in front of me that I thought was not going to end well and I screwed up, but kept the car on track.
My second RS with 4K miles had I believe zero over revs. Not sure if I ever seen the PPI when it was sold.
I've known cars with Type 3 and 4 that had warranty done on the drive line as it was over X amount of hours ago.
Never mind a known problem. It should not even be a discussion!
The following users liked this post:
Robocop305 (03-31-2021)
05-23-2013, 12:47 AM
#35
if it were mine, I would have the cam bolts torqued and loctited. Question is has there ever been an issue on a .2 GT3 with the dual mass flywheel? I'm still of the opinion this is a harmonic issue that is causing these to "back out on their own".
I paid a bunch to have my .1 coolant fittings fixed, price of admission. I do agree it's pretty low of Porsche to not fix it if it's in range 1? Silly...
I paid a bunch to have my .1 coolant fittings fixed, price of admission. I do agree it's pretty low of Porsche to not fix it if it's in range 1? Silly...
The following users liked this post:
Robocop305 (03-31-2021)
05-23-2013, 12:59 AM
#36
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
If car broke the engine on a racetrack, PCNA should not pay the bill, even if it is a very well known defect (I have 11 recorded 3.8GT3RS and 2 4.0RS with engine failures).
PCNA has been clear, track it, out of warranty. Enjoy it and keep a cash stack for defect repairs.
PCNA has been clear, track it, out of warranty. Enjoy it and keep a cash stack for defect repairs.
05-23-2013, 01:34 AM
#37
Three Wheelin'
If you read the new Panorama magazine this month, in a 991 GT3 interview, they mention that
quote
"we've seen a big increase in track day use in the last two or three years, and the GT3 got so good on track that there are a lot of people buying the car only to track it. But it's not a race car - we never said it;s a race car. It;s a street-legal race car which is capable of some fun laps at a track - perfectly capable. There are a lot of parts that are carried over from the race car, but it's not a race car. Even the race cars that have the same parts are prone to some overhauling procedures.
I like how they twist the wordings but probably sounds right coming from Porsche. I think if you get a letter stating that to deny warranty.. what else can we say? We just fix out of our pocket...
quote
"we've seen a big increase in track day use in the last two or three years, and the GT3 got so good on track that there are a lot of people buying the car only to track it. But it's not a race car - we never said it;s a race car. It;s a street-legal race car which is capable of some fun laps at a track - perfectly capable. There are a lot of parts that are carried over from the race car, but it's not a race car. Even the race cars that have the same parts are prone to some overhauling procedures.
I like how they twist the wordings but probably sounds right coming from Porsche. I think if you get a letter stating that to deny warranty.. what else can we say? We just fix out of our pocket...
05-23-2013, 04:08 AM
#38
Rennlist Member
RE: Porsche quote from above...
<rant>
I bugs the snot out of me when people refer to GT3RS as a street-legal racecar (and same folks referring to lapping as racing) so I'll take what Porsche says and up their ante ... the GT3RS is not a racecar -- period. No need to qualify as street-legal. 'Street-legal racecar' is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned.
</rant>
Not sure what their point is though. I've taken plenty different and less than street-legal-racecars to teh track and didn't need to worry about my wheels falling off, dumping coolant and taking myself and others out in the process, having my engine seize up because I bounced off a rev-limiter once, etc.
Having said that, I partly agree w/ quote. You start driving a car on the track regularly and stuff is going to break. Goes with the territory. However, IMO, Porsche is out of bounds not addressing (or at least covering) the cam issue. Cam sprocket bolts should not be backing out even if the motor over reved. Period. This is a manufacturing or design flaw, and I think the former since Metzger is a motorsport derived and time proven engine. I can tolerate (even forgive) the CL, coolant fitting, PP/clutch issues, but this ones different. Apparently Hans was drinking on the job and now we're all going to be stuck having to foot the bill for new motors that were assembled during Octoberfest.
If I didn't love my RS so much, I'd dump it and get something else. Too bad it's so damn good and there's nothing else I'd rather have.
<rant>
I bugs the snot out of me when people refer to GT3RS as a street-legal racecar (and same folks referring to lapping as racing) so I'll take what Porsche says and up their ante ... the GT3RS is not a racecar -- period. No need to qualify as street-legal. 'Street-legal racecar' is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned.
</rant>
Not sure what their point is though. I've taken plenty different and less than street-legal-racecars to teh track and didn't need to worry about my wheels falling off, dumping coolant and taking myself and others out in the process, having my engine seize up because I bounced off a rev-limiter once, etc.
Having said that, I partly agree w/ quote. You start driving a car on the track regularly and stuff is going to break. Goes with the territory. However, IMO, Porsche is out of bounds not addressing (or at least covering) the cam issue. Cam sprocket bolts should not be backing out even if the motor over reved. Period. This is a manufacturing or design flaw, and I think the former since Metzger is a motorsport derived and time proven engine. I can tolerate (even forgive) the CL, coolant fitting, PP/clutch issues, but this ones different. Apparently Hans was drinking on the job and now we're all going to be stuck having to foot the bill for new motors that were assembled during Octoberfest.
If I didn't love my RS so much, I'd dump it and get something else. Too bad it's so damn good and there's nothing else I'd rather have.
The following users liked this post:
Robocop305 (03-31-2021)
05-23-2013, 10:25 AM
#39
Rennlist Member
That's indeed how Type 1 happens, but still a screw up to me but completely harmless. If there are a TON of Type in, the previous owner was not very good at shifting I suppose is all its worth.
My first RS with 18K mile has I think 27 Type 1 and a couple Type 2 and I did exactly that and I know exactly where I did it. Screwed up putting the clutch in and let it back out again instead of upshifting when someone did something in front of me that I thought was not going to end well and I screwed up, but kept the car on track.
My second RS with 4K miles had I believe zero over revs. Not sure if I ever seen the PPI when it was sold.
I've known cars with Type 3 and 4 that had warranty done on the drive line as it was over X amount of hours ago.
Never mind a known problem. It should not even be a discussion!
My first RS with 18K mile has I think 27 Type 1 and a couple Type 2 and I did exactly that and I know exactly where I did it. Screwed up putting the clutch in and let it back out again instead of upshifting when someone did something in front of me that I thought was not going to end well and I screwed up, but kept the car on track.
My second RS with 4K miles had I believe zero over revs. Not sure if I ever seen the PPI when it was sold.
I've known cars with Type 3 and 4 that had warranty done on the drive line as it was over X amount of hours ago.
Never mind a known problem. It should not even be a discussion!
Agreed the vario cam issues should be covered under warranty this seems to be a design or assembly flaw the other are maintenance issues. They have to draw the line somewhere as a mfr...
05-23-2013, 10:42 AM
#40
If you read the new Panorama magazine this month, in a 991 GT3 interview, they mention that
quote
"we've seen a big increase in track day use in the last two or three years, and the GT3 got so good on track that there are a lot of people buying the car only to track it. But it's not a race car - we never said it;s a race car. It;s a street-legal race car which is capable of some fun laps at a track - perfectly capable. There are a lot of parts that are carried over from the race car, but it's not a race car. Even the race cars that have the same parts are prone to some overhauling procedures.
I like how they twist the wordings but probably sounds right coming from Porsche. I think if you get a letter stating that to deny warranty.. what else can we say? We just fix out of our pocket...
quote
"we've seen a big increase in track day use in the last two or three years, and the GT3 got so good on track that there are a lot of people buying the car only to track it. But it's not a race car - we never said it;s a race car. It;s a street-legal race car which is capable of some fun laps at a track - perfectly capable. There are a lot of parts that are carried over from the race car, but it's not a race car. Even the race cars that have the same parts are prone to some overhauling procedures.
I like how they twist the wordings but probably sounds right coming from Porsche. I think if you get a letter stating that to deny warranty.. what else can we say? We just fix out of our pocket...
05-23-2013, 10:51 AM
#41
Rennlist Member
Tcar, did check over revs on 3.1 and it had minor zone 1s and 1 zone 2 if memory serves...
Agreed the vario cam issues should be covered under warranty this seems to be a design or assembly flaw the other are maintenance issues. They have to draw the line somewhere as a mfr...
Agreed the vario cam issues should be covered under warranty this seems to be a design or assembly flaw the other are maintenance issues. They have to draw the line somewhere as a mfr...
05-23-2013, 10:56 AM
#42
Rennlist Member
They sure seemed to be pretty flippant about the CL issue also. (paraphrased quote about "internet community leading everyone to believe there were 250 incidents with all 4 wheels spontaneously falling off). They appeared to be directing the blame at the Owners and Rennlist members.
http://50years.porsche.com/50-years-of-911/items/18909/
05-23-2013, 11:16 AM
#43
Rennlist Member
If you read the new Panorama magazine this month, in a 991 GT3 interview, they mention that
quote
"we've seen a big increase in track day use in the last two or three years, and the GT3 got so good on track that there are a lot of people buying the car only to track it. But it's not a race car - we never said it;s a race car. It;s a street-legal race car which is capable of some fun laps at a track - perfectly capable. There are a lot of parts that are carried over from the race car, but it's not a race car. Even the race cars that have the same parts are prone to some overhauling procedures.
I like how they twist the wordings but probably sounds right coming from Porsche. I think if you get a letter stating that to deny warranty.. what else can we say? We just fix out of our pocket...
quote
"we've seen a big increase in track day use in the last two or three years, and the GT3 got so good on track that there are a lot of people buying the car only to track it. But it's not a race car - we never said it;s a race car. It;s a street-legal race car which is capable of some fun laps at a track - perfectly capable. There are a lot of parts that are carried over from the race car, but it's not a race car. Even the race cars that have the same parts are prone to some overhauling procedures.
I like how they twist the wordings but probably sounds right coming from Porsche. I think if you get a letter stating that to deny warranty.. what else can we say? We just fix out of our pocket...
it means - they blueprint and design street car using street car limits and specs. it is not designed to sustain limits of stress cup car designed to sustain and therefore anybody with well working brain realizes that if you track your GT3 as cup car you better follow cup car maintenance schedule before your ride will fall apart.
nevertheless, I started reading lot about 2010 3.8l engines as I was thinking to make myself a present for my upcoming 40 yr birthday - is variocam issue serious enough to avoid those cars? I am not very inclined to shell out additional $ to drop off motor immediately after purchase to open it up and attend this issue preventively and even less inclined to track it waiting to motor to give up and then have a discussion with dealer of it this 'track damage' going to be covered by warranty or not.
how many cars have had this problem? is it something to be really concerned about or just a usual skeleton in a closet like IMS bearing in my current M96 motor?
Or is it, well, just a simpler and safest approach now to forget about 2010+ cars and just shop for a 997.1 RS car instead with old 3.6L motor?
05-23-2013, 12:13 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
it is purely $ induced dilemma for me.
on one side I can give my M96 to LN Eng shop to turn it into stage3 M96 and it will get it close to 3.6l gt3 torque wise and rpm wise, on other side to go with widebody car has its own advantages.
I really liked how 997.2 gt3 and RS drives and looks like but do not have budget for .2 RS as they all seem to sit in $140k area and now reading about motor stuff in all 3.8L cars it is not very promising as essentially I get into same timebomb issues there that I already have with stock M96. As I do not race it I do not really care about power to be an exact match for same class cars - my car runs perfectly fine and I did 2.18sec laps at WGI with aim to drop it down to 2.10 this season if I`ll learn track well, at LRP car does 1.03 - 1.02 sec laps so it is hardly 2-3 sec slower than a comparable gt3 car there, on NT01 rubber compared to 997.1 gt3 on R6. so it is quite a difficult decision to make, thinking of a 'streetable' 997.2 gt3 car with front lift option it is a $100k+ car, so, at least of $60K cash out, I can do it but it is kinda discouraging to think about additional immediate expense to drop off engine at my mechanic shop to open up variocam, even IF he will agree to work on it. As I understand it is really not even a serviceable item, correct?
So compared to $60K cash for NB 997.2 car Jack Raby`s stage 2/3 M96 motor will be about of $25k-$30k fun. that will last plenty of years without a danger to blow up but that means to stick with this old NB chassis.
or just spit on all of that stuff altogether, trade in my old wheels and get new 991 gt3 and start entire investigation/rebuild process from a scratch on a brand new car. probably also going to be quite a lot of fun.
on one side I can give my M96 to LN Eng shop to turn it into stage3 M96 and it will get it close to 3.6l gt3 torque wise and rpm wise, on other side to go with widebody car has its own advantages.
I really liked how 997.2 gt3 and RS drives and looks like but do not have budget for .2 RS as they all seem to sit in $140k area and now reading about motor stuff in all 3.8L cars it is not very promising as essentially I get into same timebomb issues there that I already have with stock M96. As I do not race it I do not really care about power to be an exact match for same class cars - my car runs perfectly fine and I did 2.18sec laps at WGI with aim to drop it down to 2.10 this season if I`ll learn track well, at LRP car does 1.03 - 1.02 sec laps so it is hardly 2-3 sec slower than a comparable gt3 car there, on NT01 rubber compared to 997.1 gt3 on R6. so it is quite a difficult decision to make, thinking of a 'streetable' 997.2 gt3 car with front lift option it is a $100k+ car, so, at least of $60K cash out, I can do it but it is kinda discouraging to think about additional immediate expense to drop off engine at my mechanic shop to open up variocam, even IF he will agree to work on it. As I understand it is really not even a serviceable item, correct?
So compared to $60K cash for NB 997.2 car Jack Raby`s stage 2/3 M96 motor will be about of $25k-$30k fun. that will last plenty of years without a danger to blow up but that means to stick with this old NB chassis.
or just spit on all of that stuff altogether, trade in my old wheels and get new 991 gt3 and start entire investigation/rebuild process from a scratch on a brand new car. probably also going to be quite a lot of fun.
Last edited by utkinpol; 05-23-2013 at 12:50 PM.