2008 Cayman engine ticking noise
04-15-2019, 08:28 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Thanks CN! Love my 987.1 Cay S!
04-15-2019, 11:50 PM
#17
7th Gear
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: McCall, Idaho
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for sharing your experience and gained wisdom on this topic LN. For the bore scoring adverse like me, partially because I live in a colder climate and plan to drive my car in winter (skiing), it sounds like either an early 996 or base 2.7 Cayman is the way to go. Certainly there are other problem areas that are out there, but bore scoring seems the most intractable to me - short of a full engine rebuild with Nikasil cylinders .... (or finding a great deal on a 996 Turbo ... ha).
Anyhow, thanks again.
Anyhow, thanks again.
04-20-2019, 10:13 AM
#18
Originally Posted by volkIGS
Thanks for sharing your experience and gained wisdom on this topic LN. For the bore scoring adverse like me, partially because I live in a colder climate and plan to drive my car in winter (skiing), it sounds like either an early 996 or base 2.7 Cayman is the way to go. Certainly there are other problem areas that are out there, but bore scoring seems the most intractable to me - short of a full engine rebuild with Nikasil cylinders .... (or finding a great deal on a 996 Turbo ... ha).
Anyhow, thanks again.
Anyhow, thanks again.
987.1
- 2007–2009 2.7–litre "M97.20" 245 hp (183 kW) flat-six (VarioCam Plus)
- 2005–2006 3.4–litre "M96" 295 hp (220 kW) flat-six (VarioCam Plus). S model
- 2006–2009 3.4–litre "M97.21" 295 hp (220 kW) flat-six (VarioCam Plus) S model
- 2008 3.4–litre "M97.22" 303 hp (226 kW) flat-six (VarioCam Plus) S Sport model
- 2009–2013 2.9–litre "MA1.20" 265 hp (198 kW) flat-six (VarioCam Plus)
- 2009–2013 3.4–litre "MA1.21" 320 hp (239 kW) flat-six (VarioCam Plus and DFI) S model
So volkIGS if I understand you correctly, you'd rather live with the IMS bearing issue than Bore Scoring?
04-20-2019, 07:02 PM
#19
7th Gear
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: McCall, Idaho
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cayman-S Crush, I guess that is probably correct - for the years and models of Porsche I am looking at, bore scoring worries me most. But it probably all comes to perception of risk - and mine may be be distorted. But my thinking goes something like this.
The IMS flaw can be managed (new, after market bearing installed) and the risk of catastrophic engine failure from this cause largely eliminated - except for the M97 motors which must be completely torn down to put in a new IMS. But the stock IMS bearing in the M97 engine, as I understand it, is a better, stronger design than those used from 2001 to 2005. Similarly the 1999 - 2000 M96 engines also had less a vulnerable IMS bearing and a lower failure rate. From what I read the failure rate for the bad years (2001-2005) was around 8% in contrast to a 1% failure rate for years before and after. The good news is that means the all Caymans have a pretty low IMS risk and one that I could personally live with - assuming that these failure rate estimates are at least somewhere in the ballpark.
Bore scoring on the other hand is more problematic in my view. There is not an easy way to correct this weakness (eg, no simple retrofit with a better bearing). For the M97 engines it seems like the only permanent solution is a full engine rebuild with new cylinders and pistons, the cost of which in many cases probably exceeds the value of the car. Given that I live in a 'target rich' environment of bore scoring (cold winters), I don't want to tempt fate by picking a car with one of these more vulnerable engines. Therefore, to my way of thinking, a 2.7 Cayman (or Boxster) with a M97 engine may be the sweet spot - low risk of IMS failure, low risk of bore scoring (compared to the large 3.4, 3;6, and 3.8 motors), and relatively affordable. However, I suppose another alternative would be to jump up market about $10K to $20K and focus on the 2009 and new cars that have the 9a1 motor (no IMS, better design with less bore scoring risk).
Anyhow, I hope some of this ramble made sense
The IMS flaw can be managed (new, after market bearing installed) and the risk of catastrophic engine failure from this cause largely eliminated - except for the M97 motors which must be completely torn down to put in a new IMS. But the stock IMS bearing in the M97 engine, as I understand it, is a better, stronger design than those used from 2001 to 2005. Similarly the 1999 - 2000 M96 engines also had less a vulnerable IMS bearing and a lower failure rate. From what I read the failure rate for the bad years (2001-2005) was around 8% in contrast to a 1% failure rate for years before and after. The good news is that means the all Caymans have a pretty low IMS risk and one that I could personally live with - assuming that these failure rate estimates are at least somewhere in the ballpark.
Bore scoring on the other hand is more problematic in my view. There is not an easy way to correct this weakness (eg, no simple retrofit with a better bearing). For the M97 engines it seems like the only permanent solution is a full engine rebuild with new cylinders and pistons, the cost of which in many cases probably exceeds the value of the car. Given that I live in a 'target rich' environment of bore scoring (cold winters), I don't want to tempt fate by picking a car with one of these more vulnerable engines. Therefore, to my way of thinking, a 2.7 Cayman (or Boxster) with a M97 engine may be the sweet spot - low risk of IMS failure, low risk of bore scoring (compared to the large 3.4, 3;6, and 3.8 motors), and relatively affordable. However, I suppose another alternative would be to jump up market about $10K to $20K and focus on the 2009 and new cars that have the 9a1 motor (no IMS, better design with less bore scoring risk).
Anyhow, I hope some of this ramble made sense
04-21-2019, 10:06 AM
#21
Cayman-S Crush, I guess that is probably correct - for the years and models of Porsche I am looking at, bore scoring worries me most. But it probably all comes to perception of risk - and mine may be be distorted. But my thinking goes something like this.
The IMS flaw can be managed (new, after market bearing installed) and the risk of catastrophic engine failure from this cause largely eliminated - except for the M97 motors which must be completely torn down to put in a new IMS. But the stock IMS bearing in the M97 engine, as I understand it, is a better, stronger design than those used from 2001 to 2005. Similarly the 1999 - 2000 M96 engines also had less a vulnerable IMS bearing and a lower failure rate. From what I read the failure rate for the bad years (2001-2005) was around 8% in contrast to a 1% failure rate for years before and after. The good news is that means the all Caymans have a pretty low IMS risk and one that I could personally live with - assuming that these failure rate estimates are at least somewhere in the ballpark.
Bore scoring on the other hand is more problematic in my view. There is not an easy way to correct this weakness (eg, no simple retrofit with a better bearing). For the M97 engines it seems like the only permanent solution is a full engine rebuild with new cylinders and pistons, the cost of which in many cases probably exceeds the value of the car. Given that I live in a 'target rich' environment of bore scoring (cold winters), I don't want to tempt fate by picking a car with one of these more vulnerable engines. Therefore, to my way of thinking, a 2.7 Cayman (or Boxster) with a M97 engine may be the sweet spot - low risk of IMS failure, low risk of bore scoring (compared to the large 3.4, 3;6, and 3.8 motors), and relatively affordable. However, I suppose another alternative would be to jump up market about $10K to $20K and focus on the 2009 and new cars that have the 9a1 motor (no IMS, better design with less bore scoring risk).
Anyhow, I hope some of this ramble made sense
The IMS flaw can be managed (new, after market bearing installed) and the risk of catastrophic engine failure from this cause largely eliminated - except for the M97 motors which must be completely torn down to put in a new IMS. But the stock IMS bearing in the M97 engine, as I understand it, is a better, stronger design than those used from 2001 to 2005. Similarly the 1999 - 2000 M96 engines also had less a vulnerable IMS bearing and a lower failure rate. From what I read the failure rate for the bad years (2001-2005) was around 8% in contrast to a 1% failure rate for years before and after. The good news is that means the all Caymans have a pretty low IMS risk and one that I could personally live with - assuming that these failure rate estimates are at least somewhere in the ballpark.
Bore scoring on the other hand is more problematic in my view. There is not an easy way to correct this weakness (eg, no simple retrofit with a better bearing). For the M97 engines it seems like the only permanent solution is a full engine rebuild with new cylinders and pistons, the cost of which in many cases probably exceeds the value of the car. Given that I live in a 'target rich' environment of bore scoring (cold winters), I don't want to tempt fate by picking a car with one of these more vulnerable engines. Therefore, to my way of thinking, a 2.7 Cayman (or Boxster) with a M97 engine may be the sweet spot - low risk of IMS failure, low risk of bore scoring (compared to the large 3.4, 3;6, and 3.8 motors), and relatively affordable. However, I suppose another alternative would be to jump up market about $10K to $20K and focus on the 2009 and new cars that have the 9a1 motor (no IMS, better design with less bore scoring risk).
Anyhow, I hope some of this ramble made sense
My challenge is keeping up with the conversation. The way "engine displacement" and/or "engine model#" are referenced in the discussion, I need data tables to keep everything sorted in my brain.
I'm assuming the "9a1" you mentioned is the 2009–2013 2.9–litre "MA1.20" from the data table. => 987.2 Cayman.
The data tables make no mention of the "3.6L" or "3.8L" engines.
I think the 3.6L => S Black Edition (?)
Which Cayman has the 3.8L?
See how you guys are! ...<head exploding smiley here>
Is there a better data table somewhere? A special cipher?
Thanks again. The problem is me not you.
Definitely me.
04-21-2019, 03:31 PM
#22
7th Gear
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: McCall, Idaho
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cayman-S Crush, I can sympathize, the numbers do get confusing and building a table seems like a logical place to start. And yes, the engines that went in the 987.2 Cayman from 2009 to 2013 are referred to as “9a1”. The base Cayman got the 2.9L version, the Cayman S the 3.4L. Pretty robust motors as I understand it and an improvement over the M97 engines that were used in 987.1 Cayman models from 2006 to 2008, 2.7L for the base model and 3.4L for the S.
It is the 996 and 997 versions of the 911 where numbers get complicated in my mind (and the risk of head explosions becomes higher, at least for me). So, as I understand it the first generation 996.1 (1999 to 2001) got the 3.4L engine, but it was not internally the same as the 3.4L that was used in the early Cayman S (987.1). Then Porsche increased the displacement to 3.6L for the 2002 to 2004 model years, aka 996.2. From 2005 to 2008 Porsche revised the 911 to the 997 model (997.1). The base engine was 3.6L and the S got a bump to 3.8L. Neither of these motors were offered in the Cayman (at least for those years).
As if this wasn’t confusing enough most 997s made in 2005 used the older M96 motor from the second generation 996s. It wasn’t until 2006 that the 997 series got the revised M97 engine with the stronger IMS bearing.
The 997.2 models from 2009 on got the same “9a1” design engine as did the Cayman, but with the larger 3.6L and 3.8L displacements. It wasn’t until the GT4 Cayman in about 2015 that Porsche “released” one of these larger engines (the 3.8L) for use in the Cayman….as you can imagine it was a beast.
Another rambling presentation from me here, but hopefully there is some of it that is useful. There are a lot folks here on the forum that certainly know these details better than I, so if I have parts of this wrong or left things out, hopefully they will chime in. Later.
It is the 996 and 997 versions of the 911 where numbers get complicated in my mind (and the risk of head explosions becomes higher, at least for me). So, as I understand it the first generation 996.1 (1999 to 2001) got the 3.4L engine, but it was not internally the same as the 3.4L that was used in the early Cayman S (987.1). Then Porsche increased the displacement to 3.6L for the 2002 to 2004 model years, aka 996.2. From 2005 to 2008 Porsche revised the 911 to the 997 model (997.1). The base engine was 3.6L and the S got a bump to 3.8L. Neither of these motors were offered in the Cayman (at least for those years).
As if this wasn’t confusing enough most 997s made in 2005 used the older M96 motor from the second generation 996s. It wasn’t until 2006 that the 997 series got the revised M97 engine with the stronger IMS bearing.
The 997.2 models from 2009 on got the same “9a1” design engine as did the Cayman, but with the larger 3.6L and 3.8L displacements. It wasn’t until the GT4 Cayman in about 2015 that Porsche “released” one of these larger engines (the 3.8L) for use in the Cayman….as you can imagine it was a beast.
Another rambling presentation from me here, but hopefully there is some of it that is useful. There are a lot folks here on the forum that certainly know these details better than I, so if I have parts of this wrong or left things out, hopefully they will chime in. Later.
04-22-2019, 11:39 AM
#23
Thanks for the clarification! That helped.
04-23-2019, 09:50 AM
#25
Not to hijack the thread, but I have a question for Charles (or anyone).
Do the newer 2.0/2.5T motors have these issues like bore scoring, lifting issues, total rebuilds, etc?
I know data is limited since the engines are new, but I was wondering what the early returns are so far.
Do the newer 2.0/2.5T motors have these issues like bore scoring, lifting issues, total rebuilds, etc?
I know data is limited since the engines are new, but I was wondering what the early returns are so far.
04-23-2019, 12:08 PM
#26
Hey no worries, the OP is long gone and the inmates have taken over the prison.
I've been watching a video series on Porsche Engine Bore Scoring By Rennvision
Very informative. It's really great to have this kind of detailed technical info. about a car before you buy and get deeper into ownership.
I've been watching a video series on Porsche Engine Bore Scoring By Rennvision
Very informative. It's really great to have this kind of detailed technical info. about a car before you buy and get deeper into ownership.
04-23-2019, 01:00 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
Not to hijack the thread, but I have a question for Charles (or anyone).
Do the newer 2.0/2.5T motors have these issues like bore scoring, lifting issues, total rebuilds, etc?
I know data is limited since the engines are new, but I was wondering what the early returns are so far.
Do the newer 2.0/2.5T motors have these issues like bore scoring, lifting issues, total rebuilds, etc?
I know data is limited since the engines are new, but I was wondering what the early returns are so far.
From everything I have discussed with Oerlikon, it's very highly resistant to scoring, like nikasil.
I would presume all the engines will end up with SUMEbore at some point. The 918 Spyder was the first Porsche to receive the process.
04-23-2019, 02:14 PM
#28
Hey no worries, the OP is long gone and the inmates have taken over the prison.
I've been watching a video series on Porsche Engine Bore Scoring By Rennvision
Very informative. It's really great to have this kind of detailed technical info. about a car before you buy and get deeper into ownership.
I've been watching a video series on Porsche Engine Bore Scoring By Rennvision
Very informative. It's really great to have this kind of detailed technical info. about a car before you buy and get deeper into ownership.
This is is what I’ll do during my lunch break lol.
maybe I should open up my own Indy shop
i love learning about this stuff
04-23-2019, 02:24 PM
#29
The 718's engine uses a SUMEbore iron-ceramic composite coated bore, rather than Alusil like the MA1 engine from which the four cylinder was derived. I do not know which version they used, but we are in the process of testing the process on an M96 engine using their F2071 ID-APS coating.
From everything I have discussed with Oerlikon, it's very highly resistant to scoring, like nikasil.
I would presume all the engines will end up with SUMEbore at some point. The 918 Spyder was the first Porsche to receive the process.
From everything I have discussed with Oerlikon, it's very highly resistant to scoring, like nikasil.
I would presume all the engines will end up with SUMEbore at some point. The 918 Spyder was the first Porsche to receive the process.
But just so I understand...
You’re saying it is confirmed that the 718 uses the SUMEbore iron ceramic coating that is highly resistant to bore scoring, but also that the engine was derived from the earlier boxter/cayman MA1 engine?
Also so what did you mean by “I do not know which version they used?”
sorry if this sounds very basic, but I’m genuinely curious.
Thanks
04-23-2019, 02:34 PM
#30
Rennlist Member
Charles, thanks for the reply.
But just so I understand...
You’re saying it is confirmed that the 718 uses the SUMEbore iron ceramic coating that is highly resistant to bore scoring, but also that the engine was derived from the earlier boxter/cayman MA1 engine?
Also so what did you mean by “I do not know which version they used?”
sorry if this sounds very basic, but I’m genuinely curious.
Thanks
But just so I understand...
You’re saying it is confirmed that the 718 uses the SUMEbore iron ceramic coating that is highly resistant to bore scoring, but also that the engine was derived from the earlier boxter/cayman MA1 engine?
Also so what did you mean by “I do not know which version they used?”
sorry if this sounds very basic, but I’m genuinely curious.
Thanks
My comment about the 718 being based on the MA1 is that the block in many ways resembles its six-cylinder cousin.
The 991.2 also uses iron coated bores, eliminating the inherent long term wear issues with Alusil and still promoting excellent heat transfer as the iron-ceramic coating is only .004-.005" thick.