As far as replacing an engine because of a rear main, I beg to differ!! The correct fix is to put in the most updated rear main seal. The cost of the seal is about 20 dollars. Although it does require taking the transmission apart from the engine, it is hardly an engine replacement problem.

I found this article helpful:

996 engine failure. Should you be worried? | Total 911

Go over to Rennlist and tell all the people that paid $12-20k to replace their engines that. :rolleyes:

Read that article on the Total 911 website. The 3.4L engine had major design flaws, which explains why they're so cheap. It's similar to why mid-years are cheaper than SCs, Carreras, etc. The price reflects the probability your engine will fail. 3.6L 996s are more expensive - but a lot cheaper than 997s. That difference is explained by the styling/appearance (desirability) and sheer number of cars available for sale.

Wait a couple of years and 997s will drop into the $30k range.

Nearly every 911 model has a major flaw you have to budget for. Head studs, chain tensioners, premature valve guide wear, check engine lights, etc. Pick your poison and have an emergency fund to keep your car on the road.

I'm pretty sure that anyone that paid that much money would have had more wrong with their engine than a faulty RMS. I assume you are referring to an IMS (intermediate shaft) bearing. That most definitely could cause complete engine failure :rolleyes::rolleyes:

hmmm, 997 GT3 RS in Rivera Blue yummy

The RMS is just one of the problems. IMS failure is the one that has caused the reliability concerns. Imagine a 911 motor that runs fine but will go up in smoke in a moment. I've knoiwn of too many 996 motors that were very well maintained that simply blew up due to IMS failure. One of them had just spent 10k on other engine related issues. If anyone here thinks that these problems aren't significant, why did Porsche eliminate the IMS in their 2nd gen 997.

What's crazy is that as weak as the 986/987/996/997 engines are, The GT3 and Turbos are that strong. Probably the best street porsche engines ever.

Just imagine where Porsche would be if they built cars that had these significant problems back in theri early years or were the size of Toyota.

I know that most of these motors will do 200k with no problems but do you want to be the one who pays 25k for a car to have to pay 12k a few days later due to catastophic failure that could not be detected.

"Just imagine where Porsche would be if they built cars that had these significant problems back in theri early years"

What about the 2.7 engines? My '75 Carrera had the engine rebuilt by the prior owner at 60k miles and my 911S 2.7 let go big time at 90k. It wasn't worth rebuilding and replaced with a used 3.2l the blows smoke from worn valve guides.

The 2.7 issue was mainly Cali cars and because of emissions(thermal reactors). Even 3.0 and 3.2s have head stud issues. Big difference between a broken head stud and catastrphic failure due to ims.

At the time I lived in PA, so the 2.7 was not a Cali issue. The '75 Carrera was about 15-20 years ago and it cost the guy $7k to rebuild the engine on a car I bought for $14k. My 911S blew up pretty good, so it was hard to tell what happened, but it looked like it started with a pulled head stud that lifted the head and torqued things around.

I also owned a 930 for 6+ years before my '02 996. A new 996 engine still cost less then rebuilding a 930 motor. Try to find a 930 with over 80k mines that has not had to have the engine rebuilt.

My point was many of the Porsche engines have had issues over the years.

[QUOTE=whiterabbit;5182508]

they are not air cooled and do not have the charisma and style of earlier Porsche 911's, as a day to day driver they are the best choice but as a second or third car to give you classic thrills at the weekend I am not so sure..............

[QUOTE]

Really? Must be the fact that it evolved into what it is today, your statement has been recycled so many times on the board it’s a cliché. 2 different era cars for different purposes, I’ve driving both and both can serve as daily drives and weekend warriors. It depends on your mindset, to me a Porsche is a Porsche

996...
 

It seems that all the bases have been covered here, but to make it a bit easier to read:

#1) IMS failures - it drives great and then %$#@*.
#2) RMS failures - allegedly repairable with an updated seal, but I've heard of failures with those as well.
#3) Other various leaks, porous engine cases, head gaskets, expansion tank leaks, etc..
#4) Transmission issues with some of the early 996's
#5) Looks - the Boxster front end and lack of traditional 911 curves has made no friends.

Oh, and I disagree with the chap about diving a 996 you'll never go back to an air cooled.... I bought a M3 new in '05 (I know they have mechanical/chassis issues as well, no BMW vs Porsche comments sought - mine has been an anvil, knock on wood) which offers a similar driving experience as a 996, yet I love to crank up the old SC and hit the road.

The charm is not necessarily in the overall performance, but in the looks, build quality, lack of electronic gizmo's, and the general classic driving experience. That (and the giant killer racing legend) is why most old 911's (and 356's) will always hold a special place in a true Porsche enthusiasts heart....

I never had a my problems with my 996 over 50,000 miles.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1268495295.jpg

Ultimately, the build quality has let it down. In the 80s Porsche was competing with Rolls Royce for best built car. Now they are no where near and some of this is down to volume but some, honestly, is to profit over quality. Look where weideking has brought this co. Profits are up but at the expense of the company. It is no longer an independent but owned by VW. Porsche should have stuck with what they do best.