poor guy, sold two classics for a junk Porsche

[asifallasleep]

Last year i bought my 74 2002 for $6000. It has just been restored and was beautiful. The guy who sold it to me was really nice. He also had a 1969 corvette. Beautiful car. 6 months later I sent him a text and he informed me that he had also sold the 69 vette and bought a porsche. my first question was what year? He bought a 2001 911 for $13K. I was like, yeah that's about right. $13K. The 996's don't hold their value at all as the verdict is in.

If any of you guys are familiar with Porsche's, the best year to buy is the 993 series (built from 93-98) or any of the earlier models. 993 being the last of the hand made water cooled variants. The worst series to buy is the 996 series (built from 98-05). Among porsche enthusiasts, the 996 is a piece of junk. Major RMS (rear main seal) issues and IMS (intermediate shaft) issues.

So he sold a beautiful 74 2002, a beautiful 69 corvette and bought the worst porsche 911 ever made.

[jrhone]

Well the 996 is a red headed step child....it was the first water cooled 911...and so it was NOT loved by enthusiasts. It all depends on what he wants to do with it...if he wants to DRIVE it and fast...the 996 will beat the 993 hands down in EVERY way...Acceleration, stopping, turning, comfort, RELIABILITY, and cost of ownership. Its lighter and has more power...RMS is overblown...its an oil leak. IMS is also overblown. Funny...its basically the SAME design as the new 987/997, which is not having any issues reliability wise, in fact the Boxster which uses basically the same 3.4L flat six was named the most reliable sports car! Mine was sold running STRONG and driven hard for 150,000 miles looking NEW. Having owned 2 water cooled flat 6 Porsche's (986 and 996) I can say that they are VERY potent sports cars...maybe he'd rather drive the car than look at it? If so he got a bargain...

Here is my 996 C4 Cabriolet...19s and full coilover suspension...so much grip it was near impossible to get the rear end to break traction under any condition...would do every bit of 170 mph...no motor mods....at the time these pics were taken it had 150k miles on the clock...Just looking at these pics makes me miss it...Near supercar performance with everyday driveability. Even my heavy vert was lighter and more capable than a 993. The 993 while stunning and is a "Classic" looking Porsche is EXPENSIVE to maintain. Check an engine rebuild...you can buy an entire 996 in good shape ($15k)...While a 996 rebuild is more like $4k...and the worst 911 was the 964, not the 996. I see you had a 996 in you sig, as well as the 986...driven a 993? I think you would change your tune...My buddy who was NOT a car guy bought a 993 because he was told to...sold it and bought a 996 C4S and LOVED it. The 996 is a car for the masses without all the "quirks" or "character" of an old sports car.

[esty]

so....what does it matter what anyone else does with their 'stuff'...if he wanted to trade his house for a ford pinto, isn't he allowed?

sorry, but i guess i miss the point of this thread...if there is one

[02for2]

I'm often in agreement with jrhone, but this case is an exception.

The 'Modern' Porches are throw-away cars. They're the first Porsche has mass-produced and it shows. The build quality is awful, especially when compared to the 964/993 series which were virtually hand-built. Also, the 996/997, are really big cars! 25% larger than the 964/993 according to Porsche. My 964 was parked next to a 996 Turbo and it was dwarfted by it, it's a different driving experience.

RELIABILITY IS an issue. RMS is widespread, but as jyhone states, it's mostly just an oil leak which can be monitored and corrected when other work, such as clutch work is being performed. By going through 6 variants of the seal, they seem to have it licked - by using the rear seal from a Cayenne. Unless you suffer a catastrophic RMS, which a friend did with his new Boxster S w/ <600 mi. on it - Porsche replaced the motor.

IMS is an entirely different case. The Intermediate shaft drives the timing chains and camshafts. It can become loose due to a failed bearing, slacken the chains and the whole motor grenades. Often at low RPM - I know 2 owners (Boxster, 996) who had theirs go while idling at stoplights.

Additional issues are a poorly designed 'Quasi Dry Sump', clearly a wetsump motor, but one where high lateral Gs cause oil starvation to the crank bearings (a fix is available for $$). Also, as these cars now accumulate mileage, there have been an increasing number of oil cooler (Heat Exchanger in Porsche Parlance) failures which cause the coolant and oil to mix resulting in hydrolock of the motor.

The M96 motor has been out for more than a decade and Porsche has never fully corrected the problem.

I was a tech advisor to a Boxster Forum and had too much experience with these failures, they are much more prominent than anyone cares to mention - Porsche because of recall possibilities, costs and Class Actions, owners because they're trying to protect their investment.

I owned a 1st Gen Boxster. It was a lovely car to drive, though it was 'gelded' by Porsche to keep the 911 on top as the Flagship. But switchgear, interior and such (all 996 gear forward of the 'B' Pillar) was not worthy of a $48k or $85k car.

I sold mine after 5 yrs. because it was like having the Sword of Damacles over your head. As it's resale value dropped, it got to the point where the cost of replacing the motor exceeded the resale value of the car. Engine rebuilds have only been possible the past couple years and are in the $10k range, not $4k as rep[orted.

I found a one-owner 1990 964 Cab w/ only 20k on the Odo, and bought it for only $2k more than I got for my Boxster, which went for what was likely the highest price for a '99 Boxster that year.

The 993 is a nice car, but most purists agree that the 964 is the better car. It has better build quality - closing the doors is like closing a Bank Vault. It uses the same M64 motor as the 993 (though better Motronics give a slight power increase to the 993). It is lighter than the 993 and the fenders, doors and hood will interchange all the way back to 1966, so the lineage is clearly there.

When it 1st came out, it was also shunned because it had MacPherson struts and coil springs instead of the traditional torsion bars. And also came out originally as a C4 - the 1st production all-wheel drive Porsche - derived from the 958 Rally Cars (not the 959 as often thought). Critics at the time cited excess weight (though Porsche posts the same performance #s as the C2) Too neutral steering - on a rear-lump Porsche when is this a bad thing? And forecast the Tranny - G64 to be a maintenance headache and weakspot - it's actually bullet-proof with few reported failures.

These same critics have revisited the 964 20 yrs. later and found none of these things to be true, now hailing the car as perhaps the best 911 ever built. And, prices on nice examples are rising.

The 996/997s have their good points too, but they're not nearly the same car as the earlier variants and have lost value faster than any previous 911, mainly for the reasons stated. But, you also need to include the fact that so many of them were produced. Porsche grinds them out like link sausages, so they're not nearly so rare.

Cheers!

[jrhone]

Yes I never said the 996 or 997 were collectors items...but DRIVERS cars! You drive them and use them, they wont rise in value as they are produced in large numbers. I agree with you on alot of points. Maybe I had alot of luck with my 986 and 996. No RMS on either after 250,000 trouble free miles! No IMS failures and no major issues other than it going through coolant tanks ever 2 years. A minor annoyance. While the 996/997's are big, the cars are lighter than 993s and yes they are mass produced, but is that a bad thing? Not really for the most part. Yes the M96 has a wet sump, but again, unless you are a track junky it shouldnt be an issue, and there are M96 engines out there with over 200k miles on the clock. Anyway its off topic for this forum and it will be argued to death! Enjoy the 964! One thing I'll say....I dont think Porsche has ever made a BAD car....I've driven alot, my sister had a 924 and a 944 and while different than the usual Porsche experience, they were AMAZING cars and again got a very bad rep that wasnt warranted. Gorgeous 964!

[02for2]

@jrhone,

Agree... even a bad Porsche is a good Porsche... lol

Cheers!

[asifallasleep]

Well the 996 is a red headed step child....it was the first water cooled 911...and so it was NOT loved by enthusiasts. It all depends on what he wants to do with it...if he wants to DRIVE it and fast...the 996 will beat the 993 hands down in EVERY way...Acceleration, stopping, turning, comfort, RELIABILITY, and cost of ownership. Its lighter and has more power...RMS is overblown...its an oil leak. IMS is also overblown. Funny...its basically the SAME design as the new 987/997, which is not having any issues reliability wise, in fact the Boxster which uses basically the same 3.4L flat six was named the most reliable sports car! Mine was sold running STRONG and driven hard for 150,000 miles looking NEW. Having owned 2 water cooled flat 6 Porsche's (986 and 996) I can say that they are VERY potent sports cars...maybe he'd rather drive the car than look at it? If so he got a bargain...

Here is my 996 C4 Cabriolet...19s and full coilover suspension...so much grip it was near impossible to get the rear end to break traction under any condition...would do every bit of 170 mph...no motor mods....at the time these pics were taken it had 150k miles on the clock...Just looking at these pics makes me miss it...Near supercar performance with everyday driveability. Even my heavy vert was lighter and more capable than a 993. The 993 while stunning and is a "Classic" looking Porsche is EXPENSIVE to maintain. Check an engine rebuild...you can buy an entire 996 in good shape ($15k)...While a 996 rebuild is more like $4k...and the worst 911 was the 964, not the 996. I see you had a 996 in you sig, as well as the 986...driven a 993? I think you would change your tune...My buddy who was NOT a car guy bought a 993 because he was told to...sold it and bought a 996 C4S and LOVED it. The 996 is a car for the masses without all the "quirks" or "character" of an old sports car.

beautiful car but i've done extensive research on the rms issue and it is not overblown. you say rms like it's an oil leak that's very minor. its a leak in the rear main seal that causes catastrophic engine failure. there are no symptoms of the leak. you're driving along and your car suddenly loses power and your engine is gone. thousands of people worldwide have had their engines blown because of it. you say it's overblown because it hasn't happened to you? i've personally spoken to numerous independent porsche mechanics and they all agree that it is a design defect. consider yourself one of the lucky ones who's had no problems with a 996. tell the guys who've had their engines die for no fault of theirs, with no help from Porsche, that it's a rare occurrence. the only 996 series with little or no rms issues is the turbo and the gt series cars. different engine block.

996 cars and onward models are less raw, more comfortable, faster, and made more for the masses to use as a daily driver. i have driven a 993 and prefer it over my 996 and my 986. it is a raw sports cars, with the quirks, tailspin, danger element, sound of that aircooled engine, etc. a completely different driving experience from a 996. it's not always just about which car is fastest. If that were the case i'd buy a nissan skyline which for a 3rd of the price blows the doors off a 911 Turbo, GT2 and GT3. you were extremely lucky, a 996 with over 150K on the clock and no issues. truly an exception to the rule. You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of those cars still on the road with that kind of mileage. 993's are much cheaper to maintain than any of the newer Porsche's. Those cars require very little maintenance and never break down. Change the oil ad that's it. At some point you may need a valve job which is pricey but that's maybe once or twice in the life of the car.

[tiiCarrera]

The argument of which is the best 911 has been going on since the introduction of the longer wheel base in '68. Some say the last true 911 ended with the longhood in '73. Others claim that it ended in '89 with the last of the impact bumper styling, others yet the '87-89 Carrera due to the G50 transmission, and of course others claim the 993 because it's the last of the pre-H20 and that it's the last "driver's" 911 and sure to be the most collectible.

The fact of the matter is they all have great and extremely quirky attributes. Heck, who would have thought that an (extremely) rear-engined sports car would have the longevity of the 911.

I love the Porsche marquee and have owned several 911s. My current 911 is an '87 Carrera Coupe. I love it. Would I want to drive it avery single day....nope. The streets of New Orleans are the worst streets in the country. I practically have to have my back realigned and my teeth implanted back after driving the car to work. But guess what......I still love the car. Everything about it. Even with the quirks. Drove it today as a matter of fact.

I would defintely consider a 996 for for a daily driver. For the simple reason of it's a tremendous value. I'm even considering a Cayenne as my next DD. Now THAT'S sacriledge!

P.S. EVERONE knows the last true 911 is the '83 SC. The proof is on the decklid. Have you seen any other 911 since actually with a factory emblem marked "911"? aha!

[jrhone]

Very true...we can go on and on....I am one of the (maybe few) water cooled 911 fans...the value is amazing, and in my opinion the build quality was top nitch....I did have a car stickered at over 90k with full leather and just about every option...got a STEAL on it! My brothers 79 911SC is an amazing car and he has not touched the engine in 15 years except oil changes...Some say that was the best 911...all have the pros all have their cons...at the end of the day they are the best pure sports cars made.

[asifallasleep]

i've driven an 83 as well. and to further illustrate my point of a raw sports car, imagine comparing an SC to a present day model. apples and oranges. not a huge fan of the 915 tranny, preferring the G50. but you're right. the debate rages on. i think the 993 combined the rawness of the early cars with a wee bit of comfort and refinement. A blending of the two philosophies and generations of the 911's. going forward, i think we all can agree that the cars will get even more comfortable and less raw to appease the masses. which i believe is unfortunate.

[asifallasleep]

Very true...we can go on and on....I am one of the (maybe few) water cooled 911 fans...the value is amazing, and in my opinion the build quality was top nitch....I did have a car stickered at over 90k with full leather and just about every option...got a STEAL on it! My brothers 79 911SC is an amazing car and he has not touched the engine in 15 years except oil changes...Some say that was the best 911...all have the pros all have their cons...at the end of the day they are the best pure sports cars made.

applause. people who really know cars know that the water cooled models are tanks, amazing cars, the best porsche's. if you got a bunch of dough and wow, i gotta have a porsche, don't really know the history of the car.......well, two different camps. lol.

[02for2]

@asifallasleep,

Sorry, while not at all insignificant, the RMS issue is mostly a progressive failure, not a sudden, catastrophic one.

Essentially, it's a shaft seal - the oil seal between the crankshaft and block.

Shaft seals are a long-known technology - think water wheels, rudder shafts, propeller shafts, etc.

But, the seal in the M96 engine was inadequate. Not because the seal itself was necessarily a poor design, but because of casting issues with the M96 block. Adopted from Audi, Porsche used a casting method designed to minimize or eliminate post-cast machining of the block - a cost saver.

Many of these blocks had their crank girdles cast untrue which caused a misalignment with the crank and the bore axis of the block - the cranks were slightly off-center and abraded the seal to one side.

This caused a slow leak, detectible by an oil drip right down the middle of the block, where it mated with the transmission. This leak would get worse with time, and if ignored, would result in an excessive leak where the proper oil level could not be maintained - the oil would come out faster than you could put it in.

When performed under Warranty, Porsche would first measure the eccentricity of the crank rotation to determine whether the fault was so severe that it could not be corrected - they even developed a special gauge to measure this. If a particular engine measured outside a given range, it was simply replaced. If within spec, a new, more pliable seal was used. This seal went through 5 itinerations before Porsche (through independent specialty shops) found the Cayenne seal to be both large enough and pliable enough to correct the majority of the failed seals for good.

Many owners, discovering the signs of an RMS leak, would monitor it (usually checking the oil level or placing a drip card under the car in the garage). They would then add an RMS swap at the next clutch service/replacement interval since 90% of the same labor was performed for both.

Your description sounds much more like the IMS issue. While there are tell-tales of pending failure (such as timing chain tensioner bits - black or green plastic, found in the oil filter), the failure itself is sudden and disasterous.

The early M96 motors were immune to this failure because a pair of bearings controlled the spin axis of the intermediate shaft. Sometime in 2001, Porsche eliminated one of these bearings citing excesss engine vibration - but most people think it was for cost-reduction reasons (there's an addage that the pre-modern Porsches were designed by engineers, while the modern Porsches were designed by accountants). Additionally, this single replacement bearing was sealed and greased internally.

All the while, this sealed bearing operated submerged in hot engine oil. The effect was to have the plastic sealing the bearing degrade and fail. Engine oil was an insufficient lubricant (especially at low RPMs when oil pressure was lowest) and the bearing would eventually fail introducing a wobble, or eccentric rotation of the shaft as well as excessive torque on the mounting and mounting bolts.

If the eccentricity was great enough, slack in the timing chain would be introduced and cause an engine failure. If not, the exess torque would eventually shear off one or more of the mounting bolts and then the shaft became un-anchored at one end - this introduced enough slack in the timing chains to cause the mechanical timing to fall out of sync, creating a 'dating service' for the valves and pistons. In other words: 'Adios Senor Engine'!

Two guys named Jake Raby (Flat 6 Innovations) and Charles Nevaro (LN Engineering) took on the issue and created a bearing which withstood the forces acting on it. It's an intensive fix due to having to break down the motor to install it. About $1000, but a true fix. Many owners now install this fix pre-emptorally.

Cheers!

[m-racer]

I have owned 7 911's including a RUF CTR, 993's and a 1999 996. I prefer the watercooled versions as it is easier to trace them in lineage, sound and feel to the early cars. I put 60k on a 996 with very few issues. I did have the RMS problem but it was corrected under warranty. I sold it in 04, so don't have a feel for how it aged after 60k. I special ordered the car to be as light as possible and to have very few electronic annoyances. It was a splendid car and I drove it pretty hard. It handled better than a 993. I also had a couple of late 90's BMW's. They were easily worse than the Porsche in build quality and design and had a much higher cost of maintenance. Comparing a 996 to a 993 is a bit like comparing an E39 to an E28. Different cars. I like the E28 better, but no question the E39 was a leap forward. All depends on what floats your boat, I suppose. I don't see the issues noted with the 996 to be all that different than the BMW's of the same vintage that have cooling systems that fail at 60k or subframes that rip loose. If you are making the argument that 80's vintage euro cars were great, I agree. Unfortunately, it's 2011. BMW has lost me as far as the new models are concerned. Porsche on the other hand...............not so much.

[Kpeters]

so....what does it matter what anyone else does with their 'stuff'...if he wanted to trade his house for a ford pinto, isn't he allowed?

sorry, but i guess i miss the point of this thread...if there is one

HAHAHAHA thanks for making me laugh. Good post.

[RayC911]

996s is a good value right now if you know it's issues. My only gripe with the early 996 is that you can't tell from the front if it's a 911 or a Boxster! (don't mean to offend Boxster owners)