TIPEC

The TIPEC Forum
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:13 am
Asset Trust


All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:34 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Milton Keynes
TIPEC membership: 6661
Skype ID: garyahoward
Seems the C4S has "engine damage" following the cut out just prior to the Silverstone Classic.
Will be heading to Silverstone Porsche on Saturday to hear the full low down ....

Already sounds expensive :(

_________________
Gary
1989 944 S2 Cabriolet Guards Red
2003 911 C4S Cabriolet Arctic Silver
2017 Jaguar XF R Sport
2017 Vauxhall Insignia Elite (Hers)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 5412
Location: Rochester, Kent
TIPEC membership: 911
Ouch, I hope it's not terminal mate.

_________________
Chairman/Advertising/Events

Join the Club

Simply Porsche Show

Silver 1989 911 Speedster
Midnight Blue 2004 996 C4S Cab
Tahoe Blue 1990 964 C2
Zenith Blue 1998 Boxster (winter project)Sold
Guards Red 1992 944 S2 Cab gone but not forgotten
Italian Red Jaguar XF


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:34 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Milton Keynes
TIPEC membership: 6661
Skype ID: garyahoward
Sean Smallman wrote:
Ouch, I hope it's not terminal mate.


Seems it is .... engine has ceased apparently. Only had a phone conversation and haven't seen the diagnosis, but tech says its a new engine :(

_________________
Gary
1989 944 S2 Cabriolet Guards Red
2003 911 C4S Cabriolet Arctic Silver
2017 Jaguar XF R Sport
2017 Vauxhall Insignia Elite (Hers)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 5412
Location: Rochester, Kent
TIPEC membership: 911
That's unlucky mate, I feel for your pain.

Send it to Hartech

_________________
Chairman/Advertising/Events

Join the Club

Simply Porsche Show

Silver 1989 911 Speedster
Midnight Blue 2004 996 C4S Cab
Tahoe Blue 1990 964 C2
Zenith Blue 1998 Boxster (winter project)Sold
Guards Red 1992 944 S2 Cab gone but not forgotten
Italian Red Jaguar XF


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:43 pm
Posts: 12115
Location: Chatham, Kent
TIPEC membership: 4190
Sean Smallman wrote:
That's unlucky mate, I feel for your pain.

Send it to Hartech

I'd agree with this!

_________________
Jim

http://tipec.net/region_southeastlondon.php

2005 Porsche Cayenne S
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Now sold!
2010 Mazda MX5 Mk3.5 2.0 Sport Tech
2000 Porsche Boxster S SOLD!
1987 Porsche 944 2.5


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 4814
Location: Emsworth Hants
TIPEC membership: 993
Might be worth considering a short engine from Porsche too, think they are available and may save some time if you need the car on the road?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:43 pm
Posts: 12115
Location: Chatham, Kent
TIPEC membership: 4190
sam wrote:
Might be worth considering a short engine from Porsche too, think they are available and may save some time if you need the car on the road?

The problem with this is you end up with an engine with all the underlying M96/7 issues. Whereas the full Hartech option fixes the vast majority if not all of them, even some of the longer term ones.

_________________
Jim

http://tipec.net/region_southeastlondon.php

2005 Porsche Cayenne S
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Now sold!
2010 Mazda MX5 Mk3.5 2.0 Sport Tech
2000 Porsche Boxster S SOLD!
1987 Porsche 944 2.5


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 4814
Location: Emsworth Hants
TIPEC membership: 993
Yes of course you may Jim, but I don't believe that Porsche will supply an engine under their exchange system now where the issues have not been addressed? may get expensive for them if they supply two duff engines for the same car!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:43 pm
Posts: 12115
Location: Chatham, Kent
TIPEC membership: 4190
sam wrote:
Yes of course you may Jim, but I don't believe that Porsche will supply an engine under their exchange system now where the issues have not been addressed? may get expensive for them if they supply two duff engines for the same car!!

Some of the issues are inherent, like bores going out of round. I also understand that a replacement will be close in age & build to the original, so could still have IMS issues which weren't designed out until 2009. Some of the issues Barry at Hartech has worked on & I guess Porsche wouldn't incorporate into a replacement engine, like flowing the water ways to give better cooling. And yes it has happened even when they were under warranty, the replacement goes bang as well.

Interesting in that they've said Gary's has seized. That is an unusual failure, generally it is IMS collapse or bore scoring.

_________________
Jim

http://tipec.net/region_southeastlondon.php

2005 Porsche Cayenne S
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Now sold!
2010 Mazda MX5 Mk3.5 2.0 Sport Tech
2000 Porsche Boxster S SOLD!
1987 Porsche 944 2.5


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 4814
Location: Emsworth Hants
TIPEC membership: 993
tr7v8 wrote:
sam wrote:
Yes of course you may Jim, but I don't believe that Porsche will supply an engine under their exchange system now where the issues have not been addressed? may get expensive for them if they supply two duff engines for the same car!!

Some of the issues are inherent, like bores going out of round. I also understand that a replacement will be close in age & build to the original, so could still have IMS issues which weren't designed out until 2009. Some of the issues Barry at Hartech has worked on & I guess Porsche wouldn't incorporate into a replacement engine, like flowing the water ways to give better cooling. And yes it has happened even when they were under warranty, the replacement goes bang as well.

Interesting in that they've said Gary's has seized. That is an unusual failure, generally it is IMS collapse or bore scoring.


I don't believe Porsche would sell you a s/exchange motor, with a warranty, fitted with the old style piston rings and dodgy IMS, some of the cooling issues and certainly the bore ovality have been caused by poor maintenance procedures and lube selection and changing intervals......................there are after all many thousands of those engines with several hundreds of thousand of miles with perfect bores? Think Gary said ceased rather than seized?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:34 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Milton Keynes
TIPEC membership: 6661
Skype ID: garyahoward
Thanks for all the support, comments and sharing of my pain in what is an obviously distressing time.

I did in fact not check the spelling, as I had tears in my eyes at the time but it has in fact seized according to the OPC tech. I too was wary of this and until I get in there I am not sure of the full diagnosis. It didn't feel like a seize, it felt like an electrical failure under hand, foot and arse.

One thing is for sure both options are gonna hurt the wallet but I agree, it needs doing once and once correctly. I agree Sam, a short engine is an option for a couple of reasons, mainly financial, and that is presently what OPC are suggesting as you would expect. For sure I want it warranted that historic and known engine issues. Im waiting for that option to be costed an then I can consider the Hartech route

All in all, not a happy place

_________________
Gary
1989 944 S2 Cabriolet Guards Red
2003 911 C4S Cabriolet Arctic Silver
2017 Jaguar XF R Sport
2017 Vauxhall Insignia Elite (Hers)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:43 pm
Posts: 12115
Location: Chatham, Kent
TIPEC membership: 4190
sam wrote:
tr7v8 wrote:
sam wrote:
Yes of course you may Jim, but I don't believe that Porsche will supply an engine under their exchange system now where the issues have not been addressed? may get expensive for them if they supply two duff engines for the same car!!

Some of the issues are inherent, like bores going out of round. I also understand that a replacement will be close in age & build to the original, so could still have IMS issues which weren't designed out until 2009. Some of the issues Barry at Hartech has worked on & I guess Porsche wouldn't incorporate into a replacement engine, like flowing the water ways to give better cooling. And yes it has happened even when they were under warranty, the replacement goes bang as well.

Interesting in that they've said Gary's has seized. That is an unusual failure, generally it is IMS collapse or bore scoring.


I don't believe Porsche would sell you a s/exchange motor, with a warranty, fitted with the old style piston rings and dodgy IMS, some of the cooling issues and certainly the bore ovality have been caused by poor maintenance procedures and lube selection and changing intervals......................there are after all many thousands of those engines with several hundreds of thousand of miles with perfect bores? Think Gary said ceased rather than seized?

Loads of documentation elsewhere (Barry has posted reams on PH) but oval bores are poor design nothing to do with oil or servicing, just high miles when they go. Scored bores are piston coating & localised over heating. There are fixes especially for the overheating (low temp stat) but Porsche don't approve. The IMS is difficult to fix, even the ceramic bearing from LN is not a 100% fix. It was only in 2009 when Porsche changed the whole design that it no longer became a problem.

_________________
Jim

http://tipec.net/region_southeastlondon.php

2005 Porsche Cayenne S
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Now sold!
2010 Mazda MX5 Mk3.5 2.0 Sport Tech
2000 Porsche Boxster S SOLD!
1987 Porsche 944 2.5


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 4814
Location: Emsworth Hants
TIPEC membership: 993
Jim, I am not going to get into a debate with you over this, I simply don't have the time nor the inclination! Just on the oval bores, you are I am afraid talking drivel, the incidence of oval bores is, of course, a concern for the owners of those cars afflicted, but as I said earlier there are thousands of those engines with very high mileages that have perfectly round bores, and again some around 50 thousand miles with oval ones!...............................design fault???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:43 pm
Posts: 12115
Location: Chatham, Kent
TIPEC membership: 4190
sam wrote:
Jim, I am not going to get into a debate with you over this, I simply don't have the time nor the inclination! Just on the oval bores, you are I am afraid talking drivel, the incidence of oval bores is, of course, a concern for the owners of those cars afflicted, but as I said earlier there are thousands of those engines with very high mileages that have perfectly round bores, and again some around 50 thousand miles with oval ones!...............................design fault???

My last post on this. You can call it drivel but sad to say it is fact. Go look at Barry Harts website. He now has a production line dealing with M96/97 issues, including banding the bore tops. Yup some go to astronomic miles my Boxster was at 93K when it went. That did have dual row IMS though. Others fail at low miles I know a 997 that was badly bore scored, treated with kid gloves, OPC serviced 38K!
I now have a Cayenne, quite a few of which have been written off because of bore issues amongst other problems. Hopefully heavier oil & no short journeys will stop it happening to me.

_________________
Jim

http://tipec.net/region_southeastlondon.php

2005 Porsche Cayenne S
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Now sold!
2010 Mazda MX5 Mk3.5 2.0 Sport Tech
2000 Porsche Boxster S SOLD!
1987 Porsche 944 2.5


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The C4S is very poorly
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 4814
Location: Emsworth Hants
TIPEC membership: 993
Jim, we have all seen Barry Harts work, and excellent engineering it is, the failure rate on those motors compared to the numbers produced whilst devastating for the unfortunate owners is relatively small, there are many many cars that have covered very high mileages, the engines of which are still perfect whilst there are a few which have failed at relatively low miles, some under 50,000, how come? are some manufactured on a Friday, maybe from better quality material, assembled by better quality robots? You suggested it was a design fault that the bores became oval, I am saying that the way some of those engines have been serviced and lubed, whilst broadly in line with the factory schedules have failed because the schedules may have been "stretched" a bit plus maybe the oil and coolant specs recommended by the factory were not as robust as they could have been, and I expect some just were not looked after well enough by their owners?
My suggestion to consider a factory service exchange short engine was based mainly on the fact that there could be a considerable delay for a resolution to an owners problem due to Barry's workload.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group