Welcome to 911UK
The only place for Porsche, 911uk is the definitive enthusiast and resource site for the Porsche 911.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so join up today for full access to the site and benefit from latest member offers.

Porsche Classifieds
Porsche Buyers Guides
Sell Your Porsche on 911uk
Create a Free Classified Advert
Search Ads
Classified Adverts FAQ
Trade Classified Information
Buyer & Seller Fraud Protection
Pre Purchase Inspection (PPI)
Porsche Car Sourcing
Porsche Cars Wanted
Model
Stock
Porsche 911
991 : 2011- 9
997 : 2004- 66
996 : 1997-2005 45
993 : 1993-1998 11
964 : 1989-1993 4
Carrera 3.2 : 1983-1989 0
Carrera SC : 1977-1983 0
930 Turbo : 1975-1989 0
Early 911 : 1964-1977 2
Porsche Other Models
Classic : 1950-1965 1
Boxster : 1997- 15
Cayman : 2005- 13
Cayenne : 2003- 10
Macan : 2014- 1
Panamera : 2009- 3
912-914-924-928-944-968 3
959 - CarreraGT - RaceCar 1
Car Parts For Sale & Wanted
Other Items For Sale & Wanted
Wheels Tyres For Sale & Wanted
Number Plates For Sale Wanted

Porsche Services
Porsche Body Shop Repair
Paint Protection & Body Wrapping
Porsche Classic Insurance
Porsche Classic Parts
Porsche Classic Restoration
Porsche Design Collection
Porsche Engine Gearbox Rebuild
Porsche Heritage & History
Porsche News
Porsche Picture Gallery
Win a New Porsche 911

Porsche Parts
Body Parts, Body Styling
Brakes, Clearance
Electrical, Exhausts
Engine Cooling, Engine Electrical
Engine Rebuild, Heating Cooling
Interior Incar, Lighting
Rubber Seals, Service Parts
Steering, Suspension
Transmission, Workshop Tools
Early 911, 911 - 930, 928 - 968
964 - 993, 996 - 997, Boxster
Cayman, Cayenne, Panamera

Porsche Model Range
911 [991] 2011-Current
Porsche 911 [991]
911 [997] 2004-Current
Porsche 911 [997]
911 [GT] GT1-GT2-GT3
Porsche 911 [GT]
911 [996] 1997-2005
Porsche 911 [996]
911 [993] 1993-1998
Porsche 911 [993]
911 [RS] RS-RSR
Porsche 911 [RS]
911 [964] 1989-1993
Porsche 911 [964]
911 3.2 1983-1989
Porsche 911 3.2 Carrera
911 SC 1977-1983
Porsche 911 SC
911 [Early] 1964-1977
Porsche 911 [Early]
Boxster & Cayman
Porsche Boxster & Cayman
Cayenne & Panamera
Porsche Cayenne & Panamera

911uk Site Partners

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thumb Thanks.
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:15 pm    Post subject: Re: ims Reply with quote

Storm996 wrote:
For those on here who want to read further something similar that has been done to death quite a few times on Pistonheads




further reading

Has your 996 or 997 engine had a major rebuild? started 2011
http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=1052310&mid=403971&i=0&nmt=Has+your+996+or+997+engine+had+a+major+rebuild%3F&mid=403971

There is also a 15 page one titled 996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here! started in 2007


Will be good to compare this against present data.
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
porschefan777
Newbie


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 27
Location: NW London


PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

good luck Alex!


date inputted: 04/03/2015
member: porschefan777
model: C4 Man
engine size: 3.4
purchased: July 2014
registered: Sept 2000
mileage at purchase: 75000
mileage now: 80000
bearing: original
Comment: Get in - turn key - drive - smile Smile
_________________
996 C4
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Thumb
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
955matt
Trainee


Joined: 28 Mar 2014
Posts: 78



PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

good luck Alex!


date inputted: 04/03/2015
member: 955matt
model: targa
engine size: 3.6
purchased: July 2014
registered: Sept 2003
mileage at purchase: 59876
mileage now: 65789
bearing: original
Comment: speaking to more than a couple of porsche garages they say ims and bore scoring are not that common , mostly blown up on the Internet on forums ( what a surprise ) working in a landrover garage as a manager I dread the words I've been on the forums because they are full of rubbish. I'm not saying is doesn't happen just its not a common as people would make out.

The more we make of this the more it will hurt our pockets

Sorry just my two pence worth , I'll get my coat now

Matt
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
New997buyer
Yas Marina


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Posts: 8165



PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahem.....

A few passing comments have been made about the USA figures under the umbrella of 'fact'. Here's some fact%.

1) The figures quoted are for engine failure 'claims' not 'IMSB failure' rates. Anyone wanting to appreciate the difference either read some previous threads or a book and reliable data. ('Reliable data' is a clue).
2) The figures illustrate a 'claim' variance from 4% to 8% without stating how this is spread. So quoting 4% or 8# is just plain wrong. It's between 4-8%.
3) I point this out not to suggest IMSB isn't a very rare but serious event (which is where I think the debate should end). Instead it is me highlighting the lack of reliability in that data. That's good scientific method where you acknowledge the limitations in your approach. There are significant limitations in the USA data that affects its reliability. Just as there are in this poll and the one on pistonheads site.

Here's an extract from the Harris Case. Feel free to read it all:



The challenge with this whole issue is not just the lack of data, but the human incapability to process risk. And we have lots of reliable data on this. 1% and 7% will 'feel' the same to most as they fixate on the 'loaded chamber'. For more information on human cognition and flaws in interpreting and accepting risk read some behavioural economists like Thaler. For basics on heuristics and biases like Kahneman. For other related cognition flaws read behavioural psychologists such as Ariely). But to reiterate the problem isn't just with the problem in confirming if it's 1% or 10%. It's flaws in coping with risk itself. It's the inability to rationally deal with it. That's why you get these huge threads.

And much of the confdence held by some in their views on IMSB arise less from data and more from worldview.

Nothing on here will change that as it hasn't arisen because the data is unreliable (or where it has been collated reliably) but because humans are just rubbish at this stuff.

But it's a nice fun exercise so good luck with it. And it's nice to see thread extolling the many wonderful virtues of the 996. For me the low price of purchase is actually one Thumb
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Mr Scruff
Trainee


Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 79



PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

May be a bit early to enter my stats as only just bought the car but...


date inputted: 05/03/2015
member: Mr Scruff
model: C4 Man
engine size: 3.4
purchased: Feb 2015
registered: 1999
mileage at purchase: 69,000
mileage now: 70,000
bearing: original - as far as I know. Nothing to say been changed
Comment: Leaking RMS changed but otherwise good as gold!
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

955matt wrote:
good luck Alex!

.....

The more we make of this the more it will hurt our pockets

Sorry just my two pence worth , I'll get my coat now

Matt


Thanks Thumb & don't be silly, wise words. All comments & thoughhts are relevant.

Thanks also Mr Scruff thumbsup
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
coomo
Spa-Francorchamps


Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 361
Location: Essexboy at home.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont worry about this.However, chatting with my Very well known and respected Indy, when I collected my car after service.
I TRIED to spend some more money to have my IMS replaced.He told me not to bother.He couldnt even remember, replacing one, or rebuilding an engine due to IMS failure.That was enough for me.Im off the meds now, and drive my car with arrogant impunity!
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a quick update from myself from the data collected as yet:

15 members who are current owners have provided data.
0 of them have had IMS issues within their ownership (0%). 2 owners have had bearings replaced as a safety measure and 1 owner has been led to believe it has (12 still believe they're on the original).
The average owner has owned the car for 441 days & covered an average of 6,165 miles.
The total miles all these cars had covered when purchased was 1,153,766 miles and have since covered 92,476 miles (1,246,242 miles to date).
The average mileage of these cars when purchased was 76,918 and to date is 83,083.

Engine size split is 3.4 - 33%, 3.6 - 67% (of which 47% standard & 20% X51 345hp).

I am totally aware that this data is not a true reflection of all ownership, but it is a snapshot in time of ownership of contributing members.


The more data we get off members, the more clearer the situation becomes for people (especially potential buyers who've had the heeby-jeebies scared out of them by typing porsche ims into google).

From this exercise, if nothing else, it will point potential buyers in the direction of who to buy a 996 off (contributing members) Grin

Thank you to all contributing members, anybody who hasn't contributed relevant data, in the interest of process capability and 996 market value, please do so Smile

(apologies if I've made any mistakes in my reporting).
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

New996buyer wrote:
Ahem.....

A few passing comments have been made about the USA figures under the umbrella of 'fact'. Here's some fact%.

1) The figures quoted are for engine failure 'claims' not 'IMSB failure' rates. Anyone wanting to appreciate the difference either read some previous threads or a book and reliable data. ('Reliable data' is a clue).
2) The figures illustrate a 'claim' variance from 4% to 8% without stating how this is spread. So quoting 4% or 8# is just plain wrong. It's between 4-8%.
3) I point this out not to suggest IMSB isn't a very rare but serious event (which is where I think the debate should end). Instead it is me highlighting the lack of reliability in that data. That's good scientific method where you acknowledge the limitations in your approach. There are significant limitations in the USA data that affects its reliability. Just as there are in this poll and the one on pistonheads site.

.........

But it's a nice fun exercise so good luck with it. And it's nice to see thread extolling the many wonderful virtues of the 996. For me the low price of purchase is actually one Thumb


Thanks for your input Paul. Interesting to read about the American stuff. Which makes me think - did Porsche use the IMSB as a get out for bore-scoring?? What I mean is - did Porsche know bore-scoring was the big issue, but brushed it under the IMSB umbrella, knowing that they would then only have to pay out for engines that had gone pop with the IMSB and not for bore-score (which would have gost them $$$$$$ more?).

Question
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
New997buyer
Yas Marina


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Posts: 8165



PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex yates wrote:

Which makes me think - did Porsche use the IMSB as a get out for bore-scoring?? What I mean is - did Porsche know bore-scoring was the big issue, but brushed it under the IMSB umbrella, knowing that they would then only have to pay out for engines that had gone pop with the IMSB and not for bore-score (which would have gost them $$$$$$ more?).

Question


That's the problem with the Harris Case data. It's not just unreliable but it has significant issues of validity as well. Examples? Well you've mentioned some plus customer service pressure (it's the same time as the Cayenne was being heavily pushed with a 'can do attitude' being strongly enforced in the global dealer networks), the IMSB cases would have proven worrying / puzzling for service teams (for all the reasons mentioned on here and other places) so panic and poor categorisation may have occurred, other issues may have been getting lumped in for 'convenience' / ease, corporate arrogance / fear of failure etc etc etc etc. And all these are stated in the documents which state the source of the data on claims.

Now NONE these things could have happened and the Harris data is indeed an EXACT (though vague) measure of IMSB failure alone. But as presented that is a very big leap and those who make that claim are rightly challenged on reliability and validity. In other words as empirical data from which to generalise it is highly flawed.

Then we get into the whole secondary debate about can it be generalisable for the wider world from the USA. I'm NOT wanting that debate and it's NOT the point of this thread.

But in short I'd not want my GP working from such a poor evidence base as the Harris case data if he / she was prescribing treatment for me that's for sure. And let's not forget the way this whole thing works is if any one makes a claim (in this case it is a particular percentage of failure) then they have to back it up with appropriate evidence.
(Sorry Soap Box Get Me Coat )
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New996buyer wrote:

(Sorry Soap Box Get Me Coat )


Don't be! Thanks for your input. Thumb

Now come on fellow members - over a 1100 views in 24 hours and only 15 people can supply me with data Dont know
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
New997buyer
Yas Marina


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Posts: 8165



PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers! Thumb

I'd love to add mine but it wouldn't be current Sad

(But it was 53k flawless and wonderful miles in a 2001 996.1.5 manual over 3 and a half years Cloud 9 )
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
jonttt
Reims


Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 4205
Location: Liverpool


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have scared them off Alex Hand

On a serious note it is an interesting thought re the Bore Score being the real issue and assumed IMS failure data being skewed by that Question

I have always likened the Porsche IMS bearing issue to the BMW spinning shells failure in the S54 series ///M engines around 2001. Even more so given the recent thread which logically argued that manufacturing tolerance where a factor in early failures.
In the case of the S54 real world examples existed but the situation that the 996 now finds itself in was avoided by BMW "doing the right thing", admitting a manufacturing tolerance defect and retrofitting a fix under warranty FOC to early owners ie the issue, worry, impact on values, etc..... was nipped in the bud before it started.

How Porsche could effectively find a way to actually re-engineer the problem still beggers belief.

It is genuinely good to hear that so many current forum owners have not been affected by this Thumb
_________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" Einstein

1997 Porsche 911 993 C4S My Journal
2014 Porsche Boxster GTS My Journal
2017 BMW 740e Msport
2017 RR Evoque Autobiography
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
medicus
Albert Park


Joined: 21 Oct 2014
Posts: 1518



PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is more like it Alex, WELL DONE.
its not superstition or scaremongering, its real world input from real world drivers, whilst full understanding its far from exhaustive or complete, as you pointed out its relevant to us and this forum, figures might well change, but I can now (for the time being) take the "galaxy" badge of the back, and replace with a frys Turkish delight one. Thumb
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Lee H
Trainee


Joined: 26 Oct 2014
Posts: 78
Location: Manchester

2002 Porsche 996 Carrera 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

date inputted: 05/03/15
member: Lee H
model: 996 2 C2
engine size: 3.6
purchase date: 01/11/14
date registered: 27/04/02
mileage (at purchase): 73850
mileage (now): 74295
bearing (orig./replacement): Original
failure data (if applicable):
Comment: previous owner on here had car for 2 years and 14k miles with no issue. I've hardly used the car due to poor weather.
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
alex yates
Shanghai
Shanghai


Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 11141
Location: Lancashire

2000 Porsche 996 Carrera 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Lee Thumb
_________________
2000 Manual 996 C4 Arctic Silver Convertible

 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Chris_in_the_UK
Paul Ricard


Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 3480
Location: Harrogate


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can a humble Gen. 1 Cayman S play?.....
_________________
2006 Cayman S PCCB's
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
New997buyer
Yas Marina


Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Posts: 8165



PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jonttt wrote:


'real world examples existed but the situation that the 996 now finds itself in was avoided by BMW "doing the right thing", admitting a manufacturing tolerance defect and retrofitting a fix under warranty FOC to early owners ie the issue, worry, impact on values, etc..... was nipped in the bud before it started.



One thing we do know for certain from the Harris Case is the number of claims. The figures are of claims paid out. Isn't this evidence of Porsche 'doing the right thing'..........? Question

(Sorry, Alex, I know that this isn't the point of this thread...... Embarassed )

Jonttt - feel free to PM me your response? Thumb
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 3 of 20

 
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum