Want to buy a Porsche. How do I do that?

Deleted member 280263 said:
GT2 RS > GT3 RS :D

I wouldn't have either, the engines **** themselves big time, if you've ever taken one apart, which I have. They write the crankshaft off, big time :cry:
Click to expand...

At least they fixed all the bore scoring issues, probably :D

I know someone who looked at an older 911 recently, almost bought it. It looked fine on the outside, but a bore scope revealed the engine was a wreck internally.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
At least they fixed all the bore scoring issues, probably :D

I know someone who looked at an older 911 recently, almost bought it. It looked fine on the outside, but a bore scope revealed the engine was a wreck internally.
Click to expand...

If still have the pictures, I'll upload some, it's hilarious how ****** the crank is!
 
Nasher said:
At least they fixed all the bore scoring issues, probably :D

I know someone who looked at an older 911 recently, almost bought it. It looked fine on the outside, but a bore scope revealed the engine was a wreck internally.
Click to expand...
It's always #6. Cars from 2009 or so onwards do not have bore scoring issues outside of negligence.

The 996, 997.1, 986.1 era was a bad one for Porsche engine reliability with the IMS bearing, bore scoring and so on.
 
Deleted member 280263 said:
Absolute rubbish. Every high compression, high revving N/A engine ends up scoring the crankshaft after writing off the shells.
BMW is no different, look at the V8 M3 and V10 M5.
Click to expand...
It does indeed, but those particular engines in that era have design flaws; the bore scoring issues are well documented. The cylinder walls were not adequately supported due to the open deck design, and there wasn't enough oil to lubricate cylinder #6. Porsche have not confirmed any of this - obviously.

A specialist even has an article on it here: https://www.rpmspecialistcars.co.uk/service/porsche-cylinder-bore-scoring/

Due to the layout of the open deck crankcase on 996/997 models, the cylinder banks are not rigidly supported like the first generation 928, 944 & 968 watercooled engines. The oil spray and cooling flow faces the lower side of the cylinders which means the piston thrust on the right side cylinder runs slightly hotter than the left side. This results in the sixth cylinder becoming oval in shape when thermal and mechanical stresses are applied across the two banks of cylinders.
 
Dyson said:
The record deal finally came through??
Click to expand...

iu
 
Deleted member 280263 said:
The only reason it hasn't happened to the current models, modern engine yet, is because they've not done enough mileage, it's as simple as that.

You're dreaming if you think a powerful high comp, high revving N/A engine will last the mileage of a low comp N/A low power engine - this blind ignorance, reminds me of people who think, that because a car that was brand new has done 50-70K from new from 1 owner, means it's a reliable engine, when that's nothing for an engine :cry:
Click to expand...
I never said these engines will do high mileage unscathed. I never said that the newer Porsche engines will never suffer bore scoring - if any of them do have it now, it will be down to negligence like not changing the oil frequently enough. Shall we start listing every failure that a high comp N/A engine can suffer? It seems my post has been taken out of context. I will clarify:

Finding bore scoring issues on the cars in that era is more common, and it always starts on cylinder #6 due to a design flaw. This flaw is not present in the newer engines. This does not mean that they are immune to bore scoring, or any other possible catastrophic engine failure.
 
EDIT: made a mistake, rectified later on :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 280263 said:
You said the new Porsche engines don't suffer the previous issues, of which I was specifically talking about writing the crankshaft and shells off:


I never mentioned bore scoring, everyone is well aware of those issues, I mentioned destroying crankshafts and shells, ala every high comp/high revving N/A engine.

Anyway, this is going nowhere, take one apart, you'll see. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Nasher said:
At least they fixed all the bore scoring issues, probably :D
Click to expand...
My response was to this^ specific post, then you started saying "absolute rubbish", and now you're saying everyone is well aware of those issues and agreeing with what I said. :confused:

You aren't making any sense. Taking one apart isn't going to help this dicussion at all. You appear to be having a whole other conversation from my perspective. I concur; this is going nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Gibbo said:
I'd say you could get an equivalent R8 V8 S-Tronic in UK for similar money with some haggling as the R8's have been hammered, particular ones with the R / S-Tronic gearboxes. With such a large amount of R8 for sale could be worth trying your luck, its Winter someone will probably bite on a cheeky offer.

Of course I'd always recommend a manual in the R8, it is superb and timeless.
Click to expand...

I'm looking around, and if I end up pulling the trigger I'll blame you and my mid life crisis. :p
 
aaronyuri said:
My response was to this^ specific post, then you started saying "absolute rubbish", and now you're saying everyone is well aware of those issues and agreeing with what I said. :confused:

You aren't making any sense. Taking one apart isn't going to help this dicussion at all. You appear to be having a whole other conversation from my perspective. I concur; this is going nowhere.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry, whoops! That's my mistake :P I mistakenly thought that you disagreeing with me the crankshaft damage.

Sorry about that :)

Bore scoring wise, totally agree :)

My taking one apart was purely to see how ****** the crankshaft scoring is ;) :D And if it's and older engine, you get the bonus of laughing at the bore scoring :P
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 280263 said:
Ah sorry, whoops! That's my mistake :P I mistakenly thought that you disagreeing with me the crankshaft damage.

Sorry about that :)

Bore scoring wise, totally agree :)

My taking one apart was purely to see how ****** the crankshaft scoring is ;) :D And if it's and older engine, you get the bonus of laughing at the bore scoring :P
Click to expand...
It's quite alright. For a moment there I thought I was going crazy; then I remembered that I already am a bit insane...

I think we've both had one too many paracetamols today! :D

Engine teardowns just aren't a thing for me anymore. After battling with my FD and its neverending issues for 3 years, it robbed any joy out of spannering on cars. Now I just do it because I'm tight. :D
 
aaronyuri said:
It's quite alright. For a moment there I thought I was going crazy; then I remembered that I already am a bit insane...

I think we've both had one too many paracetamols today! :D

Engine teardowns just aren't a thing for me anymore. After battling with my FD and its neverending issues for 3 years, it robbed any joy out of spannering on cars. Now I just do it because I'm tight. :D
Click to expand...

Cheers dude :) Haha! Thanks for being so understanding :)

Ha, for me it was far too hot this evening and the heating was making me go a bit daft :cry:

We took apart one on a 996, the piston/con-rod was jammed in the cylinder good and proper "like proper ******, yes Tommy, proper ******!" (IYKYK ;))
The cylinder wall was cringe worthy, and we found chunks of metal in the oil pickup, starving it royally, and the crank had long left the chat :D

I love an FD, FC is more my style, but FD's are beautiful, I loved that FEED kit that had the TVR headlights and F355 rears.

Did you ever see the 90's early VHS of BMI where the guy has a the Levin with the Cosmo's 20B swap, and they roll up on him and he just goes supersonic :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom