Yes and no, yes because that is what is believed to be the case, I think, to be honest I dont quite understand this either. No, because the article states there is only one way to be sure and its a pain.

When was your car built? That might give you some indication...

Jason

 

I agree with you. It may be being blown way out of proportion. And what you summed up is good info on 06 cars, oils, etc.

My point is that no matter what the % is that a buyer has to face the reality that something can happen.

So I'm in the corner of facing the potential problem as real and being ready with either a good warranty or extra cash to back it up.

I am concerned about posters who claim don't worry about CPO; just do a PPI and a DME scan. Or get an after market warranty...I wonder how many of these claims have been refused since its pre-exsisting condition.

 

Not a VIN, it is engine number.

If you did PPI you will have all part numbers in that report, if you do not have report you will need to look at engine to find this. I am not sure if any other document has engine number on it.

I was a bit confused with notation to what engine model those numbers apply but I do not think Porsche has different numeration system for different engine models. Most likely it is same sequence.

So, if your engine number is higher - you should have single row bearing that sort of should be a good thing. Hopefully.

 

i am very concerned , i just purchased a 2005 997s .So if i have a cpo on my pcar and the engine goes kaboom , the dealer will fix it for free of charge"replace the engine". please shed some light on cpo because i am new to porsche world.

 

I believe IMS related engine failures are so common that Porsche on CPO cars does replacement with no question asked.

You should refrain from installing non-stock headers and cats, as well as you`ll need to keep ECU at stock to avoid possible complications in 'kaboom' scenario.

Mufflers, plenums, rest of stuff around, air intakes etc should not matter much on warranty decisions. Some folks here say that even more mods are allowed, based on my conversation with service manager I have contact with I would recommend to follow my advice.

 

thank u utkinpol for the info.

 

That was a great decision to buy one that had the engine replaced. The holy grail for me would've been finding an '05 997S launch edition that had its engine replaced. It ended up costing me more to go with an '06 model to ensure I had the updated IMS (C4S was my second choice but wasn't made in '05). From what I've read, the replacement engines Porsche provides seem to come with the updated/strengthened IMS.

 

I tend to agree with the OP. RMS/IMS failures do occur but they are fewer than what the 'Web' claims.

Garage queens do not make more reliable engines. Frequent complete temp cycling is good and full rev range coverage, without exceeding redline and never missed shifts.

 

It was indeed a great decision, he closed the deal less than an hour ahead of my call to purchase it from the owner. It was literally my perfect car, a 2005 2S, with a replacement engine. I was ready to buy much earlier, but some completely unexpected delays that day caused my offer to be late.

The sad part is that I now doubt there is any chance that I will ever find a comparable deal. And honestly, having just sold my M3, I will have to find a 911 to purchase in the next few weeks, or lose the opportunity. The winter weather here in Michigan, at least where I live, has shut down my sports cars no later than November 16th, over the last 5 years. If I can't drive the car I just purchased for at least 8 weeks, what's the point, not to mention paying tax, insurance, etc.? And, conversely, if I don't buy a 911 now, given the fact that at least the media believes the economy is growing stronger, the prices of used 911's are already rising, and by spring, I simply will not be able to afford one. And this was literally my one chance to own one.

John

 

Thanks. I'll have to go find the engine number...

 

5% is the second estimate of M96 failure odds I have read. The other being the 20% from Excellence last year, although the Flat 6 Innovations folks surmise some of the IMS failures could actually be cam tensioner failures. I suspect the true number is probably closer to the Excellence estimate although the cautions and procedures mentioned above certainly will improve the odds.

I must confess this issue stopped my search for a used 996; paranoia is a powerful inhibitor. It is one thing to own one and deal with the issue....something entirely different to buy into it after the fact.

Given that used 996 prices appear to be falling more rapidly than one would expect (especially when compared to the last of the 993's), would it feasible for one to consider pricing in an engine modification/rebuild into the bid-price for a out-of-warranty 996?....drive it straight to a shop for a fix/upgrade?

...either that or start looking for a turbo...??

The empty bay in my garage has been talking to me for over a year.

GCH

 

Just a couple things to clear up. That Excellence article was about Flat 6 Innovations, the company that actually sells and produces some of the "fixes". But all the data is from the same place, LN Engineering. I read the Excellence article. It actually started me on my search for answers. However, I am not sure I read anything that said 20%. I will have to go back and find my Dec issue to double check. However, I know that LN stated that based on some work with the double row IMS bearing they estimate a 10% failure rate by 90K miles. Of course all this data and even the Excellence article is mostly referring to the M96 2.5L and 2.7L in early Boxsters.

Prices on 996's are so low that I think figuring another 1 or 2K into the price tag to have the IMS upgrades done is not a bad idea. And yet I remember several articles in magazines like Excellence that tout the 996 as an affordable and reliable DD. Of course they cite the isssues/concerns but any vehicle that has been around long enough is going to have a history.

For example, If someone told me they wanted to buy a 95-99 E36 M3, I would tell them its a great reliable car. If they asked what the issues were I would tell them that the E36 M3 suffered from head gasket leaks, faulty cooling system components that could lead to overheat and engine failure, transmission issues as a result of under engineered parts, and problems with the VANOS unit. That makes the M3 sound not so reliable but really all I am doing is pointing out the weak spots in the engineering that "could" show their angry face. However, at 140K miles I have not had any major problems with mine.

I guess I am just trying to make the point that chances are really good that you could buy a 996 and drive the pants off of it and never have a problem.

Jason

 

I'd love to read the article in Excellence that you're citing. If you're able to find your December issue, could you scan a copy of the article and post it here? It would be very informative for me and the rest of the folks on this thread to read.

Thanks in advance!

 

Could someone point me to a summary of the IMS itself, it's function, location and result of failure? I'm still not sure what all this means. And, in that context, the 1K-2K you cite as an cautionary repair, is it 'near' other serviceable items (e.g. clutch, flywheel)? Sorry for my severe lack of knowledge here.
Separately, and FWIW, it's shocking that any auto company could still be in business if 10% of engines in their lead/iconic brand catastrophically failed. The expense, the marketplace blight. It would be absolutely incredible.

 

Thanks for all the info, Jason. Good of you to also point out that the data Excellence cited is sourced from the company that has produced the fixes. Like you, I've read that article and do not remember it ever suggesting the failure rate is as high as 20%. Also as you've stated, the article's data set is based on the M96 2.5L and 2.7L engine. Though the early 05's 997 engines share the same IMS part, it's not a clear indicator that the failure rate due to this particular component should be assumed to be the same as the M96.

The bottom line is that there are no clear survey and data set that may allow us to quantify the probability for early 05' 997 owners to encounter this issue. It goes without saying that there are simply not enough high mileage 06-08 out on the street to suggest that Porsche has solved the problem.

The bizarre thing is that in another Excellence article I've recently read where they compared the 996 GT3 and the 997 GT3, the author recommended the 996. Among the reasons for his recommendation, one of which is that he cited the 996 GT3's RMS is less likely to fail than the 997 GT3. This is an issue that you'd think Porsche has put to bed, certainly for the 997 GT3 engine...but in this case, it sounds like it has regressed!

I agree with you, the 05' owners should know where potential issues may lie. However, true failure rates is probably much less than what folks have led on. There does not appear to be an absolute "bullet proof" model/year, etc. As you've wisely stated, "drive the pants off it"!