Shortlived Boxster engines survey

[Mcassola]

For what it's worth..I purchased a 1997 model with 19k on it about 4 years ago and blew an engine at about 37k. I'm pretty sure it was the sleeve issue as opposed the shaft going bad. Anyway, thank God I purchased an extended warranty through the local porsche dealer (Tech Serve Tech 4 policy) for about $2.7k that pretty much covered everything on the car except the convertible top.

The extended warranty paid the roughly $15k for the new engine after their inspector came out to look at the engine a few times to make sure i was not flogging the hell out of it....or an accidental mechanical over-rev.

[B]My point is this: Do not even think about buying/owning any German car (i.e., BMW, Audi, VW or Porsche) unless it is under warranty. I have bought several of these cars in my lifetime and the extended warranty has always paid for itself many times over. Spend the extra money and get the warranty....you will sleep better at night knowing that if something goes wrong, it's going to cost you NO more than the $100 deductible and that's it. These warranties are also transferrable to a new owner when you go to sell it. The new owner can buy the car worry free. You may also cancel the warranty and the company will send you a pro-rated refund based on time and miles left.

Happy safe motoring to everyone who reads this.

MRC

[Bobiam]

I'm a firm NON-believer re extended warrantees, but this engine failure thing scares me and reviewing available warrantees may be worth my time. I believe in self-insuring for such things but with an '01 car, a replacement engine is over half the value of my car! I can't find the one that was refered to by the above member. More info please.

Bob

[Cloudsurfer]

Anyone have any first hand knowledge of LN Engineering? Their prices for a rebuild (which should be better than factory, hypothetically) are certainly attractive.

Patrick

[Bob O]

LN's prices ARE attractive. But read their warranty and disclaimer (link on the bottom of the page)

"The products sold by LN Engineering are designed primarily for off highway use. Check State and Federal laws and emission regulations. Not legal for sale or use on pollution controlled vehicles."

Wonder why that's the case?

Bob

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Bob O

LN's prices ARE attractive. But read their warranty and disclaimer (link on the bottom of the page)

"The products sold by LN Engineering are designed primarily for off highway use. Check State and Federal laws and emission regulations. Not legal for sale or use on pollution controlled vehicles."

Wonder why that's the case?

Bob

The reason is stated there. These modified engines (pistons, timing and whatever else) may have different emissions outputs, and therefore, the manufacturer takes no responsibility for the vehicle passing an e-test.

[Bob O]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

The reason is stated there. These modified engines (pistons, timing and whatever else) may have different emissions outputs, and therefore, the manufacturer takes no responsibility for the vehicle passing an e-test.

I don't see that stated anywhere on their page. Did I miss something? If this is a rebuild, to the same specs, just using different materials why would emissions be affected? A rebuild with larger pistons, altered timing etc could possibly, probably, affect emissions but a straight rebuild? And not only do they not take responsibility for passing the test, they state that use in a pollution control car is illegal!!! Maybe I'm missing something.

Bob

Sorry about hijacking your thread.

[ghha]

18 months ago - had no problems since touch wood. I was very non-confrontational in my approach (after all, I had everything to gain and they had absolutely no obligation to me) and basically leaned on their desire to preserve their reputation....my wife wanted to kick butt but I persuaded her to let the letter do its work. I was told that my patient approach was what won them over.....unusual for me, as I am the proverbial bull in the china shop...

[johnsimion]

Take a look at Consumer Reports guide, "Best and Worst of 2009 Cars", now on newstands. They rate reliability of cars in numerous categories based on owner surveys of their membership. If they don't receive enough surveys, they simply won't give a rating. Their major engine repairs category is the one that would apply if there was a blown engine. The Boxster has ratings for almost all years from 1999 to 2008. It is rated "Much Better Than Average" reliability for major engine repairs for 1999 and 2001, and "Better Than Average" for 2000. I forgot the other years' ratings but none were worse than average. Overall the Boxster is rated as highly reliable across all categories in all years.

I do think that if the readers of Consumers Reports were having a statistically significant problem with blown engines, the magazine would be raising a huge outcry about it.

If I understand things right, there have been something like 200,000 Boxsters produced. If 3% of them had a blown engine, that would be 6000 blown engines. It seems like there are a lot of reports of blown engines in these pages and in other forums -- but nothing remotely approaching even a couple of hundred.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are 200 reports of blown engines on the various forums here and elsewhere (which is probably an exaggeration). Let's also assume that that number represents only 10% of the actual number of blown engines (which is also an exaggeration, because most likely anyone who has a Boxster is an enthusiast who reads these forums and will raise h3ll about it). Nevertheless, using those assumptions we can hazard a guess that there have been no more than about 2000 blown engines. That figure would then represent about 1% of the total production.

Most of us would be prepared to accept a 99% reliable car that is rated "Much Better Than Average" in the Major Engine category from Consumer Reports.

God, I hope I'm right . . .

[Bobiam]

Originally Posted by johnsimion

Take a look at Consumer Reports guide, "Best and Worst of 2009 Cars", now on newstands. They rate reliability of cars in numerous categories based on owner surveys of their membership. If they don't receive enough surveys, they simply won't give a rating. Their major engine repairs category is the one that would apply if there was a blown engine. The Boxster has ratings for almost all years from 1999 to 2008. It is rated "Much Better Than Average" reliability for major engine repairs for 1999 and 2001, and "Better Than Average" for 2000. I forgot the other years' ratings but none were worse than average. Overall the Boxster is rated as highly reliable across all categories in all years.

I do think that if the readers of Consumers Reports were having a statistically significant problem with blown engines, the magazine would be raising a huge outcry about it.

If I understand things right, there have been something like 200,000 Boxsters produced. If 3% of them had a blown engine, that would be 6000 blown engines. It seems like there are a lot of reports of blown engines in these pages and in other forums -- but nothing remotely approaching even a couple of hundred.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are 200 reports of blown engines on the various forums here and elsewhere (which is probably an exaggeration). Let's also assume that that number represents only 10% of the actual number of blown engines (which is also an exaggeration, because most likely anyone who has a Boxster is an enthusiast who reads these forums and will raise h3ll about it). Nevertheless, using those assumptions we can hazard a guess that there have been no more than about 2000 blown engines. That figure would then represent about 1% of the total production.

Most of us would be prepared to accept a 99% reliable car that is rated "Much Better Than Average" in the Major Engine category from Consumer Reports.

God, I hope I'm right . . .

But, as you and CU stated, these ratings are based on recent model years. Most of the major complaints are for late 90s and early 2000s cars.......which make up a lot of this forun's readership. And for those folks with a recent model failure, most have a warrantee........so they are inconvenienced but get a new engine paid for by Porsche.
I'm sure that Porsche has corrected the deficiencies that cause blown engines, but we'd like to have them accept responsibility for the massive failures that older Porsche owners are experiencing at almost any milage. We can't afford to spend $10K or so on the low milage creampuff that we have cared for that is now only worth $20-30K.

[johnsimion]

Consumer Reports' "Best and Worst" issue on the newstand included ratings of the 1999, 2000, 2001 etc. cars (they don't have ratings pre-1999). Similar ratings are included in the 2008 and 2009 Buying Guides. The two Guides don't go as far back as 1999, but the ratings on the Boxster that they DO contain are not the same as those in the "Best and Worst" issue. This could indicate a mistake, or it seems more likely that the "Best and Worst" issue is a compilation based on an average of all the annual reports (?) over a period of years. For example, the 2001 Boxster is rated "Better than Average" for Engine Major in the "Best and Worst" issue, but "Much Worse than Average" in the 2008 Buyer's Guide. Either the "Best and Worst" issue is outright wrong or it is based on a compilation of several years of better than average surveys. The latter seems more likely. If so, it's also statistically more significant than a one-year sample.

Don't misunderstand me -- I do think ANY engine failure more than a tiny, tiny fraction (i.e. a lot less than my speculative failure rate of 1%) is unacceptable and I completely support efforts to make Porsche take care of the problem. Just two weeks ago, I bought a 1999 with under 15K miles, then I read these forums and scared myself silly. I was ready to resell the car and get an S2000, but since then I have calmed myself down. The odds seem to favor me and so I'm learning to live with that 1% risk. However, I'm already planning for the worst: Raising heck with Porsche and trying to save for the 350 HP Raby engine if and when my engine does blow. "Well, honey, I have to replace the engine and this was all they have available." Hehehe

[Bobiam]

Originally Posted by johnsimion

Consumer Reports' "Best and Worst" issue on the newstand included ratings of the 1999, 2000, 2001 etc. cars (they don't have ratings pre-1999). Similar ratings are included in the 2008 and 2009 Buying Guides. The two Guides don't go as far back as 1999, but the ratings on the Boxster that they DO contain are not the same as those in the "Best and Worst" issue. This could indicate a mistake, or it seems more likely that the "Best and Worst" issue is a compilation based on an average of all the annual reports (?) over a period of years. For example, the 2001 Boxster is rated "Better than Average" for Engine Major in the "Best and Worst" issue, but "Much Worse than Average" in the 2008 Buyer's Guide. Either the "Best and Worst" issue is outright wrong or it is based on a compilation of several years of better than average surveys. The latter seems more likely. If so, it's also statistically more significant than a one-year sample.

Don't misunderstand me -- I do think ANY engine failure more than a tiny, tiny fraction (i.e. a lot less than my speculative failure rate of 1%) is unacceptable and I completely support efforts to make Porsche take care of the problem. Just two weeks ago, I bought a 1999 with under 15K miles, then I read these forums and scared myself silly. I was ready to resell the car and get an S2000, but since then I have calmed myself down. The odds seem to favor me and so I'm learning to live with that 1% risk. However, I'm already planning for the worst: Raising heck with Porsche and trying to save for the 350 HP Raby engine if and when my engine does blow. "Well, honey, I have to replace the engine and this was all they have available." Hehehe

Thank you....I stand partly corrected!! The 4/08 CR issue rated the 911 and Boxster back to '02. WE know that there isn't much difference between the engines in the two cars except liters and HP. The Porsche earned "worse than average" marks in '02 through '05 when both cars are viewed together. But we don't know the sample sizes or enough to comment much more than that. So, like I said above, the newer cars are improved. On the next page is the data for Toyota.....I wish that Porsche had Toyota making their engines!!!!!!! And a few pages away is that other Boxer style engine car, the Subaru. They have a substantially better record than Porsche and you don't need a fortune to maintain them.
I love my Boxster, but there is no good reason that an engine that expensive should have a major failure when cared for and driven reasonably.

Bob

[Bobiam]

I broke down and bought an extended warranty. 3 yrs coverage for$1600 or $1800 (I forget!), but it will let me sleep at night......

I'm retired and simply could not afford to replace an engine if I suffered a catistrophic engine failure such as discussed in this thread.

This goes against my usual car care principles and prevents me form doing my own maint, such as oil changes, to honor the warranty, but I feel safer now.

Much thanks to all that have contributed to this thread.

[rivermanphillips]

It seems like I have a unusual 1998 Boxster. It has 220,000 miles and going strong. , One clutch, oil seperator replaced and regular maintaince. Driven on highway mostly.IT SCARES ME TO READ OF EARLY FAILURES.