Porsche 911 UK Enthusiasts Online Community Discussion Forum GB

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

MA1 bore scoring as well?

Have a search through some of Bazhart's old posts if you feel the need.

I wouldn't worry about it as it's pretty rare.
 
You can also find information about the MA1 engine in our free report on the 4 main engine problems with earlier and later engines (contact [email protected]) but there is a specific difference mentioned and that is that ALL the MA1 engines we have seen or read about with piston and bore damage have score marks on both sides of the piston which means they seized (piston betting bigger than the bore either because the bore has shrunk or the engine got too hot).

The thermal forces causing a seizure result in pressures between the piston and cylinder wall are much higher than those under normal driving conditions delivery torque and are much higher therefore than those that can score one side of a piston while leaving the other side unmarked (even with its soft plastic coating) and that is one of the clues to be able to work out something completely different and unusual must be going on with bore "scoring" but which is then easily resolved when you attribute the cause to a hard and sharp piece of silicon breaking free from the cylinder wall and becoming stuck temporarily between the piston and the cylinder bore while it is rubbing up and down with only the oil film to keep the two components apart.

It becomes even more convincing when you realise the silicon particle can be bigger than the bore clearance.

It becomes a no brainer when you also accept the words of the original manufacturers that "Lokasil will only work with a hard coated piston".

Ask yourself why when under all normal operating conditions pistons do not actually touch the bore (they wouldn't last more than a few seconds if they did) and it is and has always been the oil film that keeps the two metals apart. Why would you need a hard iron coated piston in that case? unless it was to resist being punctured or damaged by a hard silicon particle before it gets washed away in the oil to be collected by the oil filter?

Some early Ma1 seized engines we have seen have experienced the bottom of the already very tight piston clearances reduced due to age related stress relieving, some later ones that have not seized seem to have slightly bigger clearances but also don't seem to stress relieve the same - so it might have been a manufacturing issue that was resolved or a change in tolerance that helped - only time will tell.

The Ma1 Alusil bores are less prone to silicon release anyway and the new piston coating used with them (Ferrotec) seems better than "Ferroprint" used on the earlier engines after "Ferrostan" (the hard iron coated pistons) were replaced (we understand due to health and safety restrictions or the cost of changes in production to accommodate those new restrictions) - the two changes in the Ma1 solution combined resulting in a much better solution and longer life expectancy.

Baz
 
bazhart said:
You can also find information about the MA1 engine in our free report on the 4 main engine problems with earlier and later engines (contact [email protected]) but there is a specific difference mentioned and that is that ALL the MA1 engines we have seen or read about with piston and bore damage have score marks on both sides of the piston which means they seized (piston betting bigger than the bore either because the bore has shrunk or the engine got too hot).

The thermal forces causing a seizure result in pressures between the piston and cylinder wall are much higher than those under normal driving conditions delivery torque and are much higher therefore than those that can score one side of a piston while leaving the other side unmarked (even with its soft plastic coating) and that is one of the clues to be able to work out something completely different and unusual must be going on with bore "scoring" but which is then easily resolved when you attribute the cause to a hard and sharp piece of silicon breaking free from the cylinder wall and becoming stuck temporarily between the piston and the cylinder bore while it is rubbing up and down with only the oil film to keep the two components apart.

It becomes even more convincing when you realise the silicon particle can be bigger than the bore clearance.

It becomes a no brainer when you also accept the words of the original manufacturers that "Lokasil will only work with a hard coated piston".

Ask yourself why when under all normal operating conditions pistons do not actually touch the bore (they wouldn't last more than a few seconds if they did) and it is and has always been the oil film that keeps the two metals apart. Why would you need a hard iron coated piston in that case? unless it was to resist being punctured or damaged by a hard silicon particle before it gets washed away in the oil to be collected by the oil filter?

Some early Ma1 seized engines we have seen have experienced the bottom of the already very tight piston clearances reduced due to age related stress relieving, some later ones that have not seized seem to have slightly bigger clearances but also don't seem to stress relieve the same - so it might have been a manufacturing issue that was resolved or a change in tolerance that helped - only time will tell.

The Ma1 Alusil bores are less prone to silicon release anyway and the new piston coating used with them (Ferrotec) seems better than "Ferroprint" used on the earlier engines after "Ferrostan" (the hard iron coated pistons) were replaced (we understand due to health and safety restrictions or the cost of changes in production to accommodate those new restrictions) - the two changes in the Ma1 solution combined resulting in a much better solution and longer life expectancy.

Baz
Thanks Baz

How would explain why turbo,gt2 and gt3 engines dont have these problems?
Different materials?
If that is case why Porsche dont put same materials like in these engines and solve the problem forever?
 
Post from 6 years ago:

monster said:
If you want the definitive answer Barry Hart is your man - try reading some of Hartechs technical guides!

Briefly, I believe its a combination of things, but primarily, Nikasil was the coating used to finish the mating face of the liners in the Mezger engines and older air cooled engines, this was durable and long lasting. Whereas the std 996 /997.1 Carrera engines, had their liners plated with Lokasil to reduce costs and this has over time proved considerably less durable.

Combine the above with poor design of the cooling system, that cools one half of the engine better than the other, and a removal of the 'closed deck' system to the liner tops and all these things conspired to give us a less reliable and durable engine than we had previously expected form Porsche!

Hopefully Baz will be along to refine my crude interpretation of his findings!

In the meantime, if you have the time, you will find the answers to all your questions in these guides of his:

http://www.hartech.org/porsche_996_997_Boxster_free_car_buyers_guide.html
 
The link will have expired now. Posted the quote as it explains the difference between turbo and non turbo liners.
 
It's weird that Nikasil is spoken of as the better option in Porsche engines, yet in older BMWs it's a bit of a curse.
I've owned 3x E36 328 Sports and the first question you always ask is 'Is the motor Nikasil or Alusil?". If it's the former you run for the hills.

But back on topic, OP I'd sleep a lot easier a night owning a gen2 997 than a gen1. Yes the later engines may have some issues but they are much rarer.
 
Marky911 said:
It's weird that Nikasil is spoken of as the better option in Porsche engines, yet in older BMWs it's a bit of a curse.
I've owned 3x E36 328 Sports and the first question you always ask is 'Is the motor Nikasil or Alusil?". If it's the former you run for the hills.

But back on topic, OP I'd sleep a lot easier a night owning a gen2 997 than a gen1. Yes the later engines may have some issues but they are much rarer.

E36 328i lump was never made with Alusil. It was either Nikasil or steel liner.
 
Marky911 said:
It's weird that Nikasil is spoken of as the better option in Porsche engines, yet in older BMWs it's a bit of a curse.
I've owned 3x E36 328 Sports and the first question you always ask is 'Is the motor Nikasil or Alusil?". If it's the former you run for the hills.

But back on topic, OP I'd sleep a lot easier a night owning a gen2 997 than a gen1. Yes the later engines may have some issues but they are much rarer.

I had a few e36s and remember the issue well. The issue with Nikasil was exasperated by poor fuel quality IIRC, which presumably is no longer an issue.
 
Munzy said:
Marky911 said:
It's weird that Nikasil is spoken of as the better option in Porsche engines, yet in older BMWs it's a bit of a curse.
I've owned 3x E36 328 Sports and the first question you always ask is 'Is the motor Nikasil or Alusil?". If it's the former you run for the hills.

But back on topic, OP I'd sleep a lot easier a night owning a gen2 997 than a gen1. Yes the later engines may have some issues but they are much rarer.

I had a few e36s and remember the issue well. The issue with Nikasil was exasperated by poor fuel quality IIRC, which presumably is no longer an issue.

BMW blamed 'Supermarket" fuel. I believe the high sulphur levels exacerbated the issue, but the same fuels were supposedly lacking some other useful additives found in the likes of Shell, BP, Esso etc.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
124,574
Messages
1,446,444
Members
49,721
Latest member
Markyp
Back
Top