Performance Engines That Suck- The Porsche M96

Performance Car Engines That Suck- The Porsche M96

by Mike Kojima

A few months ago we did an article on 5 performance car engines that suck. This story was highly popular, and we have had many requests for more engines that suck. So here we go, in more detail, the next performance car engine that sucks, the infamous Porsche M96 engine.

In 1998, Porsche did a major change to their flat engine line up. Mostly due to tightening emissions standards, they boldly diverted their path from the traditional air cooling to water cooling. Thus was born the M96, Porsche’s first flat-6 water-cooled engine.

We didn’t really know too much about the M96 until a friend bought a 996 911 for what he thought would be a relatively cheap and reliable track car. Boy was he wrong! During the car’s first brisk canyon run days after its purchase, it promptly blew up! Thinking we could help him out, we tore into the engine to find that the M96 is a pretty diabolical nightmare of an engine with many faults, especially the early examples.

Let us show you just how diabolical these engines can be!

Check out our last article on the subject!

 

The evilest part of the M96 engine is the IMS shaft or more, so the IMS shaft bearing system. The IMS shaft is an intermediate shaft that is driven by a sprocket and chain off of the crank at the rear of the engine that passes through the entire engine and drives one the cams at the front of the engine.

The fact that the engine was designed with such a dumb method of driving the cams is dumbfounding to begin with. Why not drive them just by taking the drive from the front of the crank like any other company would?  We think this was done so the same head casting could be used for both cylinder banks. This would save some money but would also add parts and unneeded complexity to the motor, a bad idea.

 

So we got a sprocket and drive chain for the shaft at the rear of the engine that goes through the entire engine right at the sump level to drive two chains that drive the cams at the front of the engine. WTF!  Why is all of that necessary….

Our personal theory is that Porsche previously used intermediate shafts to drive large cooling fans on the top of their engines and with the switch to water cooling, they had to do something with a shaft. That is a joke, well maybe not…

 

What makes the IMS shaft really dumb is that Porsche didn’t use a durable bearing with forced lubrication from the engines oiling system for the shaft. They used a sealed bearing, sort of like a regular industrial bearing, or a skateboard.

The bearing proved to be very underrated for the job. In some cases, the bearing would fail outright. In others, engine oil would penetrate the seals and wash away the grease. With no grease, the bearing would fail. Strangely, failures seem to be more common with cars that are garage queens and sit a lot and cars that are driven gingerly. Cars that are track driven and are driven hard seem to have this problem less frequently.

It seems like about 8-10% of the M96 engines fail like this.  In early M96 engines, the failure rate is much higher. These failures have driven down the resale price of old Boxsters and 996 911’s and they can be had for bargain prices.

The early engines had bearings that would fail right away. When the IMS shaft bearings failed, the IMS shaft would whip around, damaging expensive stuff. Bearing debris would get circulated around the engine, wrecking havoc and finally the cam drives would fail to let the valves hit pistons. An IMS shaft failure would normally claim everything south of the intake manifold.

 

64 comments

  1. If you’re going to purport to offer some technical analysis on why the engine “sucks” you should have researched some fundamental design aspects. In the first page alone there are several glaring inaccuracies about the arrangement of the M96’s main components–it should go without saying that any analysis predicated on these errors is fallacious.

    1. The intermediate shaft (what you call the “IMS shaft,” which is redundant) driving the valvetrain was in no way particular to the M96 and was in fact part of every modern Porsche flat six since at least the 964 model of the late ’80s. This includes vaunted, competition proven motors like the legendary Mezger engine which formed the basis of the GT1 Cup cars. The design is proven to be quite robust.

    2. The intermediate shaft is driven directly by a sprocket on the crankshaft, not by a chain as erroneously stated in the article.

    3. The chains driving each camshaft are on opposite ends of the motor; one chain is toward the front of motor, nearer to the passenger compartment, the other is toward the rear, nearer to the rear bumper. Even a cursory glance of your own photos shows the intermediate shaft with a chain sprocket on either end of the shaft.

    4. Where are you getting your statistics for the IMS bearing failures affecting 8-10% of cars? I’m not aware of any comprehensive database tracking IMS bearing failures–except maybe at Porsche itself.

    Come to think of it, there is no statistical data supporting any of your claims about the M96. Yes, some have had IMS bearings give out; some have had cylinder liners fail; some have had cracked blocks. That’s part of mass production; there will be the occasional worm in the coke bottle. The proliferation of horror stories on internet fora is not a sound foundation for such sweeping conclusions. The nature of these aberrations tends to skew toward disproportionate reporting. That is to say that an owner who suffers an engine self-destructing due to IMS bearing failure is far more likely to share his experience with a community than one whose car is running hunky-dory.

    Dried out leaky oil seals? Disintegrating plastic water impellers? These are common , age-related afflictions on any modern motor. Not design flaws.

    The M96 is not perfect. But it’s hard to think of many other contemporary production engines that offer the same combination of performance/character/fuel economy/ease of maintenance as the M96.

    1. The unique way that the IMS shaft rides on non-pressure fed bearings is unique to the M96 and one of the reasons why it is failure prone. It is driven by a chain from the crank, you are wrong it is not a gear drive. The IMS shaft does drive the cams on opposite sides of the engine, what is your point, I never said it didn’t. Having dealt with the M96 first hand I know it is a pile, ask any professional Porsche engine builder and they will tell you the same thing. Ask anyone who tried to track an M96 powered car, especially an early one. Look at all of the many aftermarket companies who make IMS bearing replacement kits, how do they survive if this engine was not problematic. The other failures are due to a poor design they fail prematurely. I am pretty sure by your statements you have never worked on one of these engines and have never seen one taken apart. Most off, look at the poor resale values of any Porsche with this engine.

      1. You are wrong. The earliest engines have better IMS because they have a double row bearing and the later ones are single which gave more issues to their owners. Google it, all the articles and 986/96 forum’s will tell you this. Before writting an arricle you have to do a research and not generalize it based on your unfortunate experience.

        1. All of the ball bearings are prone to failure no matter which of the 3 revisions that were done. The last iteration seems to be more reliable. From an engineering standpoint, it is dumb to have a dynamic bearing on one side of a shaft and a ball bearing on the other and the whole engine is a bad design for the reasons stated in this article. Like I said ask any Porsche Motorsports mechanic and maybe actually work on one of these engines. I am pretty sure you have never assembled and disassembled one of these engines and don’t have any experience with other engines to know differences in engine design. You probably own one of these cars and didn’t like what you read. Sorry.

      2. You are wrong. Period. I have tracked M96 equipped cars since 2000 and have NEVER had an IMS issue. Trailer queens have more of an issue than cars that are driven the way Porsche intended. The failure rate is LESS THAN 2%. What makes it an issue is the cost. As far as resale values, how many 15 year old cars with over 80,000 miles still routinely sell for over 30k?

        1. So your car is an outlier, there is such a thing. These engines do commonly fail catastrophically, any Porsche repair shop is full of said examples. Because yours hasn’t failed doesn’t mean that your engine has a good design. The Porsche’s with this engine have a much lower resale value than other models. A lot of you Porsche owners can’t get over the fact that your favorite company engineered a turd in their first attempt at making lower cost production water cooled motor.

  2. The 986 Boxster as well as 987 Boxster and Cayman have been plagued by catastrophic engine failures.[61] Porsche settled a class-action lawsuit regarding the failures in 2013.[62]

    Some Boxster models manufactured between 4 May 2001 and 21 February 2005 have suffered catastrophic engine failure due to a fault with the intermediate shaft (IMS) bearing, which has resulted in a class action lawsuit against Porsche Cars North America (referred to as Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America). A settlement was agreed in March 2013, subject to court approval. Other types of engine failure experienced in the Boxster are not addressed by this suit. Additionally, the issues are not limited to the model years covered in the suit, or to the Boxster; the Cayman and 911 share the same type of engine and are also affected. In fact, all model years of Boxster, Cayman and 911 manufactured between 1997 and 2008 (with the exception of the 996 and 997 turbo models) are subject to the now-notorious IMS bearing failure.

    1. First of all they have not been “plagued by catastrophic engine failures” Less than 2% have been affected. And most of the 2% are trailer queens. . If you were a real engine builder you would know this. I have tracked M96 and M97 equipped cars since 2000 and have never had an IMS issue. My daily driver has never had an IMS issue either. Sound like you are not Porsche fan and probably drive a Scion.

    1. Well, as a pro engine builder that has had to deal with these issues like IMS shaft failure and D chunk failure as well as lubrication failure, I can certainly tell you that these problems are for real even if you cannot acknowledge them.

      1. I stick close to the Porsche community, especially the 996 guys/gals, and people aren’t having issues with the engines. For 15-20 year old cars, they are providing a lot of joy and reliability for people all over the world.

        1. Statistically, about 7-10% of these cars experience this sort of failure. It would be higher but most people and Porshe mechanics know to maintain that IMS shaft. When these cars are track driven the percentage goes up a lot unless the car is prepped. As any Porshe race shop about these engines.

          1. The cumulative failure rate is much higher, enough to support several aftermarket companies.

  3. please…stop it… InterMediateShaft shaft bearing… why the redundance?
    It’s not just the 3.2 boxster s that suffers less from the D chunk failure, the cylinderwalls on the 2.7liter standard boxsters are even thicker. never heard one of those fail.

  4. What an awful review. This guy has no idea about technical details of engines. Maybe an LS engine is the most advanced engine in the world for him.

    1. Actually, perhaps you are butthurt because you own one of these engines in your golden chariot Boxter or 996! How dare anyone criticize your perfect machine. It’s pretty obvious that you don’t work on engines internals, particularly this one and have no clue on engine design or engineering or any direct experience with any engine.

  5. Garbage article. A lot of assumptions and one sided representations of a problem that has proven to be no more or less obvious than any other manufacturers’ engine issues does not make for intelligent writing.

    You haven’t broken any ground here or stated anything interesting and worthy of discussion. So, basicallly, this article is a completely useless read (a la National Enquirer).

    I own a 99 C2 with an original unmolested M54. 70k miles and no hint of impending doom. These engines REQUIRE far more frequent oil changes than others and to be run at higher revs during operation. Of course they do, they’re race engines fitted to street cars.

    Lose the doom and gloom crap and realize the application of such a motor and stop rehashing useless knowledge and find some thing insightful to write about. Writing isn’t simply stringing phrases together; it’s about conveyance and the performance of ideas.

    1. Another butt hurt owner of one of these shit engines that has never worked on one, never seen the insides of one and has no engineering knowledge of engines. There are facts, a high warranty rate and tons of aftermarket solutions developed for out of warranty repair. An entire large aftermarket with multiple suppliers has sprung up around fixing these engines issues. If it was not an issue, the economics would not support these businesses!

      As an engine builder, I have been involved with fixing some of these crap piles. From working on, developing for racing and competing with plenty of other engines from Porsche and yes other manufactures you would know that this engine has many bad design features that we covered here. Ask any reputable builder of racing Porsche engines and they will roll their eyes when you talk about potentially racing one of these. I would say you understand very little about engines, don’t work on your car internally and don’t do much with your car beside tool around in it. Or maybe not when you consider that the M54 is a BMW engine.

      1. The M96/01 and M96/03 (Carrera-engines) are no racing engines. They are sports car engines which can take occasional tracking. If you want to race there is the M96/70 engine aka Mezger. Have you ever tracked 928? Do you have any idea of the oil problems of the old air cooled ones?

        I am quite sure that statistically the M64/01 (964) has caused more trouble to owners than M96/01. Almost all M64s needed new sleeves – and exactly all of them drip oil.

        If you still want to race a Carrera-engine you should go for the X51 options with deeper pans and better baffles. And you should always run an M96/01 and 03 close to top oil level. Long corners are the bad ones. On roads you do not find curves that turn well over 90 degs. On race tracks yo you can have over 200 degrees easily. They starve most engines out of oil. Have you ever heard that it is different horses for different courses? There is a 911 called GT3.

        And “ask any reputable Porsche …”. That is like running out of good arguments. I for one really dont have to ask anyone. I did my homework.

        1. The Mezger is an entirely different engine with a way more robust design. The M64 is a different engine. A 928 is an entirely different engine and car. This is an article about the M96 engine. About your comments about oil starvation and the fixes, well no shit I wrote about the exact same thing and how to fix it in the article, maybe you should read it again. The 996 GT3 has a Mezgar engine which is not an M96. You didn’t do your homework, you are vomiting stuff that has nothing to do with the premise of the original story.

  6. Mike, given your dislike for M96’s, why not do something else for a living and enjoy yourself. By the way, I own a 2004 996 Carrera, 45K miles, have only had to replace the water pump, 10K miles ago.

    Sorry you were mistreated as a youth.

    1. It’s not a matter of having a like or dislike to a mechanical thing. Some things are designed better than others. The M96 is not a very good design. It was Porsche’s first foray into water cooled engines and they didn’t have the experience. If you have one of these Porsches and do brisk but not racing sort of driving and drive it frequently you have a good chance of it lasting longer. If you do track days and really drive your car hard, the chances of issues go up. Think about it, there is a whole lively industry of companies that specialize in fixing these engines issues, not to mention class action lawsuits, etc. Think about it, if this was a solid engine would this be so? Economics would not allow this.

  7. Some of the replies by the author of this article just goes to show how un-professional and ill informed he really is. I was actually laughing out loud the majority of the the way through it bless him

    1. Laughing at what, the accuracy of the issues? Can I ask you what your experience with these engines is? I can probably guess you own a Porsche with one of these engines but you neither compete or work on it yourself.

  8. I have been working on high performance motorcycle and automobike engines for 40 years. BMW to Honda to MB , turbo and normally aspirated. As much as your Porsche owner wants to believe that these cars can be tracked and then used as a daily driver without enhancements to the drivetrain your a hopeless romantic. For the average driver that enjoys the comfort of ac, power seats, cruise and a peppy little engine these cars are great. You start beating on them as if they were purpose built track cars somethings gonna give. I have installed several dozen IMS bearings upgrades along with chain tensioners,wster pumps, deep sump kits and cooling system upgrades on m96 engines with under 35k miles. Of the people I keep in touch with have not had a failure. Some with 200k miles. They are cool cars and a good value. They will break eventully , but to avoid the kaboom fix the ims and reverse the stigma.

  9. I have a 02 c2 cab with 130k worry free miles. Regular oil changes with redline and nothing on the filter element. The m96 issues are very over stated. As reliable as any car I’ve owned and certainly more reliable than an air cooled 911, I’ve owned 4 and still own 1.

  10. Im guessing this article is based on one if not two things:
    1. Content is sponsored by LNE
    2. A M96 banged your gf (or bf) repeatedly and better than you.
    Either way this is a poor piece.

    1. Reality check, there are a quite a few other people that make parts to fix these engines issues besides LNE. Lots of aftermarket support to fix issues equals engine with problems. Lots of warranty and a class action lawsuit means issues. Sorry to insult your perfect car by presenting some facts about its engine. Even Porsche messes up sometimes.

      1. So by that standard every single car that is worth collecting is shit right? Not saying this is a collector car but your standard seems totally off.
        And yes there are several companies that make aftermarket products for isdues as any robust hobbiest car group has. Where uour tainted review is showing its colours is by stating all these disastrous ills are solvable by buying parts from lne.
        Youre not evenyellow journalism youre total shit and out for a buck. Plain and simple.
        That and the m96 is a better ride than you for your gf/bf

  11. “It seems like about 8-10% of the M96 engines fail like this. In early M96 engines, the failure rate is much higher. ”

    This quite the contrary. There is good reliable data from the Eisen Class Act documents based on over 50 000 US import M96-cars (Boxsters and 996 Carreras) and Porsche warranty statistics.

    [ http://www.eisenimssettlement.com/docs/1921413_1.PDF , Chapter I, paragraph B ]

    The earlier double row IMSB had a failure rate of <<1 % where as the later single row IMSB had 4-8% depending on the Porsche Center. In California there was one anomaly with 10%.

    The load capacity of the later single row is half of the original double row. The later bearing is simply underdimensioned.

    This is not an opinion nor beliefs. This is credible data! A good journalist does his homework!

    1. This is data that is several years old and the cumulative failure rate increases greatly with time as the population is not growing.

      1. That is true but you still did not do the homework. The early double row is not a problem and it is fail-safe in its nature. The trend still goes. The ones that break are mostly the 3.6 liter engines, not the early double rows. The IMS problem of the early ones is the shaft. Not the bearing. But all and all, go ask Jake Raby or Charles Navarro and they will tell you that the early double row is not a problem.

        There are so many mistakes in your article … beliefs rather than actual verified data.

        1. That the OEM double row does not fail is not based on data, that is your belief. In the Porsche racing community, these are known to fail as well. A double row bearing can have more load capacity but it does not change the fact that the IMS shaft has a pressure fed plain bearing at one end and a ball bearing on the other. The floating plain bearing will cause axial stress on the ball bearing which only has one degree of freedom in its movement. It is not a good design. Speaking of errors, you throw out the names of the owners of Flat 6 and LNE as a back up to your supposition that the OEM bearings do not fail but they are talking about their own aftermarket heavy duty double row retrofit kits, not OEM parts. This does not support your arguments at all if anything it just supports what I said.

          1. If you go to the pages of LN and Flat6 you will find a statement that says the double row bearing is not a problem like the single row. And the numbers do back this up. Raby had to do this to remain credible after the Eisen Class Act documents surfaced up. This is not an opinion or a view like you are representing. You are spreading rumors and gossips and repeating forum beliefs.

            The following is Jake Raby’s statement.

            “FROM 1997 TO 1999, PORSCHE USE A DUAL ROW INTERMEDIATE SHAFT BEARING WHICH HAS PROVEN TO BE AS ROBUST AS THE LARGER SINGLE ROW USED FROM 2006 THROUGH 2008 MODEL YEARS. THE IMS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST PORSCHE REVEALED THE FACTORY DUAL ROW WAS MUCH STRONGER THAN THE SINGLE ROW USED FROM 2000-2005.”

            [ http://imssolution.com/ims-101/ ]

            You are doing your homework badly!

            M96 leaking oil. Can happen but consider the aircooled the M96 keeps the garage floor clean.

            AOS ! What kind of a problem is that? It is a device that has a life span just like plugs or water pump. AOS can fail in any car where it is. It does not produce any fatal failure.

            I kinda bet that you have never worked on an M96 and the skin on your hands are soft and clean.

          2. Mike having hands that are soft and clean? You obviously don’t know who Mike is and his history in this industry.

          3. What Jake Raby is saying is referring to stock OEM parts. He still advocates and makes a good living by replacing all OEM IMS shaft bearings with heavy duty ceramic bearings on every engine he builds. Also are you saying the M96 is air cooled? I am pretty sure you dont understand the function of the AOS with this particular engine and what implications that its internal failure can have on this engine.

          4. Ian, you are right I dont know who Mike Kojima is but he certainly does not know his stuff. Did you read what he wrote about the wrist pins. Yeah, the wrist pins require an IQ higher than 84, that is true, but then how was it done in the air cooled ones.

            This Mike something simply does not have the facts right!

          5. Installing the wrist pins and retaining clips through a long hole through the cylinders in sequence with specialized tools and a borescope is not how the wrist pins are installed in the air-cooled motors. In those, the wrist pins are installed conventionally or with the rod on the crank with the cylinders lowered down on them. I don’t think you have worked on either of these motors.

  12. Mike,

    Thanks for publishing this article. Having owned two 1999 996 cars (both of which had replacement crate engines) it’s refreshing to hear somebody speak some truth about the M96 engine. Both of the engines replaced in my cars were from bore scoring on cylinder six. Fortunately, I never had to pony up the money for either of the $20,000 engines. I enjoyed my cars, maintained them and sold them when I wanted something new.

    I think a lot of the readers of this article are missing the point. The M96 engine isn’t perfect and it needs a lot of aftermarket work in order to make them truly bulletproof. I’ve met Jake Raby multiple times and I’ve never seen him drive a car with an M96 engine. Coincidence? Probably not. The fact that he’s made a fortune off of these motors either means that all of these engines need his parts or it is all fear mongering. I think it’s a combination of both.

    I’m sure you all are going to hate me for this but sometimes the truth hurts. Either way, I hope everyone enjoys their cars and maintains them well. The 996 is a great value—but it’s a great value for a reason.

    1. Thank you! At last, someone who gets it, and understands logic! The way people unlogically defend the attributes of their material property in a personal way never ceases to amaze me!

      1. Listen Mike, Ive produced you real facts with references. You have done nothing but promoted forum beliefs. Dont talk about logic, dont think that you represent a scientific view here. You are promoting beliefs and legends rather than reality. I got a 30 your bg in science and engineering both theory and practise.

        Do your homework better!

        1. You are not presenting facts, just expressing your opinion. I actually worked on one of these shitpiles along with many other engines. I am sure that you do not work on this engine other than possibly changing your oil and basic maintenance. I did my homework and carefully state in the article what it takes to build a bulletproof M96. You seem to suffer from selective understanding.

    2. Jake Raby produces excellent parts! No question! Absolutely! And LN Eng is at the top of the cream. Absolutely!

      But Raby is also the worst bad mouther of the 996. Follow the money! Why? Because he is promoting his business. He always says he doesn’t make any money of these producst and patents … but just open your eyes and see what he does for living!

      “If your engine ticks – it is scored! Bring it to us!” BS!

      Yeah, M96 (01 and 03) are not perfect engines. They need love and taking care of and they are is engines for someone with soft skin in his hands. They are also about 15-20 years old! Porsche made learning mistakes with them – but M96/01 is still a lot better engine than , say, 3.8 M97/01.

      And really, RMS, an issue!

      Do you guys realize that you can buy 10-15 996 Carreras with the price of a single new GT3 RS. Now is the 991 GT3 RS 10 times better. It is more powerful, it is faster but not 10 times and in a B-road 996 Carrera is much better option than the rather big and stiff 991 GT3 RS.

      1. Again what you are talking about has nothing to do with the premise of the original story, that the M96 is a poorly designed engine as is the M97.

        1. You obviously do not have any scientific or academic bg cause you can not differentiate facts from opinions, nor references. You have not done your homework.

          The best credible data we have is from the Eisen Class Act. And that is statistically good data. It proves beyond any doubt that the early M96/01 double row IMSB is not a real issue where as the M96/03 single row is. You also have Raby’s statement. Your understanding of the wrist pins, AOS and RMS is amazing and totally mixing kettles with pans.

          You also fail to understand that M96/01 and 03 engines were built around 165 000 or so. Even if you have 100 D-chunks that is like 0.6 per mille and that is like 0.06% which is pretty much normal in this power class engines. This is also something that Raby (deliberately ?) forgets all the time.

          Im telling you M64 has certainly been more problematic if you really look into the statistics. And mind you, evern Mezgers fail at times. I agree that M96 Carrera engines are not perfect and not the best what Porsche has created but also not the worst. They are much better engines than their forum rumor based, rabies amplified reputation is.

          1. You keep saying the same things over and over. So I will repeat myself as well for one last time. Your assumptions are flawed, you are looking at 5-year old data from a population that is shrinking so the current occurrence rate is much higher. You are also pulling some statistics like cylinder cracking out of your ass. In a population of automobiles, 5 years is a long time for a fixed size population. It is clear you have no understanding of the implications of other failures or how to assemble an engine, or how to control tolerances in an engine when machining, rebuilding and blueprinting. This engine is pretty hard, so expert, how do you align bore this particular engine? Also, where is your vetted statistical evidence to your claim that the air-cooled engines are super problematic since you like throwing this out as evidence of you doing your “homework”. The engine issues that Tony Calles one of our locals sees on the M64 are relatively minor, such as valve guide wear, oil leaks and distributor belt failure and none are catastrophic like you see on the M96.

  13. mike you don’t know any real porsche mechanics. maybe some, I’ll tune your car and bolt some shit on mechanics. What PMNA mechanic works with you. Show us your porsche race car and not your purple gt3 with shitty bolt ons you got for free. You should stick with your shitty nissans, Mike kojima is full of shit.

    Ian, whats up with mike soft hands how would you know how his hands are does he stroke you off. Bunch of idiots writing.

    1. I know most of the guys at PEC down the street from us, BBi, Vision Motorsports, Essa Autosport, Bismoto Engineering. I don’t currently own a Porsche race car but I have worked on GT3 RSR, admittedly not for engine stuff but then again that’s not this engine.

      1. uhhhh, PEC is not PMNA, BBi used to build average exhausts systems (don’t know how good or bad of a shop they are, vision motorsports dwaine was a low level wrench monkey at andial, mike essa don’t know if he’s a porsche dude, and really Bisimoto are f/ing kidding me bisi barely started playing with porsches. WOW there are so many hardcore porsche guys in SoCal/LA and those are who you listed off….. what a joke. Sir you really don’t know too much.

  14. I think somehow people need to write without thinking, possibly the article is slightly silly so here goes ,where I live I am surrounded by Porsches many use this engine ,some have problems as said in article however the resale does not reflect that they are perceived as grenade engines .I Germany there are some who are rebuilding the engine case ,and again how many ? So I think acticle is accurate but at the same time drama helps sell and the more drama the better …by the way ebay.de shows that you sold 4 kits ,so yes there is a demand .

  15. This article is bang on. As the past owner of a 2000 Porsche 911 (now affectionately called ‘boat anchor’), it failed well before 70K and Porsche said “too bad, so sad”. Even though it was bought there brand new and serviced regularly. They then quoted us 30K to fix through them. Lowest quote we’ve gotten locally is 15K. That’s a whole chunk of change! Porsche settled a class action lawsuit against these engines – class action means many people involved. Just because it didn’t happen to you, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

    1. I wonder if there is a business model to swap 9A1 engines into cheap 996 chassis with blown engines that are plentiful to make good drivers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*