Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave80GTSi
JFP - Not questioning, but now puzzled.
In trying to find a copy of the noted TSB for reference, my search brought forth an old 2015 thread here on this same subject:
https://986forum.com/forums/boxster-general-discussions/55502-1997-boxster-18-inch-rim-fitment-question.html
This old thread indicates that the reinforced tub came about in the year 1998 in lieu of the year 2000.
I also note that the owner's manual for my 2000 S clearly discusses both 17- and 18-inch wheels, so seemingly this would have been an option ordering box that could have been ticked back in that day.
That all being said, have you ever snapped a picture of a damaged tub? And is this entire issue more applicable for a raced / tracked car vs. one which is strictly street driven?
Thanks - DM |
The copy of the TSB in our files is dated 1999 but maybe an updated version which is not uncommon in their TSB system, and we always discarded the outdated versions when the new ones came out.
To my knowledge, Porsche first acknowledged there was a problem sometime in 1998, which started the process to access it and determine an engineered fix for it. As it turned out, the best fix was to thicken the metal used in the tub bulkheads and suspension mounts to prevent the visible cracking that was the first signs of the problem. In order to do this, Porsche had to make several changes in their internal parts system, which took some time, and quite plainly they were not going to just throw out the thinner tubs after making the TSB known. The transition to the new tub started sometime in model years 1999-2000, and much like the single row/dual row IMS changeover, there was never a clear "de-embarkation" point such as a chassis number or production date, so some of the 2000 tubs were thicker metal, others were not.
When we became aware of the issue from the factory TSB, we began to take special steps when looking at pre 2001 cars. Because our state inspection permit requires us to examine critical suspension attachment points for rust out or other similar failures, and to report them to the state when we found them, we started using a crack detection penetrating fluid that was applied to the suspension mount areas of the early cars that would leave a stain if there was cracking, and we saw it on a couple of cars. During one PPI of an early Boxster, we found the entire rear bulkhead and suspension mount areas to be sprayed with an undercoating material that is not factory, and which the car owner would not allow us to scrape off to test. Suspecting something was amiss, we borrowed and ultra sonic testing device from a neighboring chassis fabrication shop and tested the metal around two of the rear suspension mounting points, both of which indicated the presence of cracking, so we told the prospective buy to walk away from the sale. We heard later that another shop passed the car for PPI for another potential buyer, but when the buyer took it to a dealer for state inspection, they also found the damage and failed the car, which resulted in an ugly lawsuit to get the original sell to buy back the car as the state pulled its registration for being unroadworthy.
As for photos of the type of damage you might find, yes we have copies of them in our computer files, but cannot release them to the public without the prior written approval of the persons that paid for the examination due to our state laws which say such materials are their property, not ours. This the exact reason why in many states, Porsche dealers will not release the service records for a vehicle.