Dispeling M96 engine rumors

[mikefocke]

to do the IMS when you are going to be doing a clutch so as to reduce the expense of the "prevention" by using the clutch replacement engine removal of transmission to gain access.

So assuming you aren't going to just abandon the car when the clutch starts to slip...there are older cars where IMS replacement makes sense.

Would I do it on a '97 with 100k+ miles on it if I didn't need a clutch? No. I wouldn't. But I accept risk well. Others may not. (I also change my '01S's oil 3x more frequently and never drive when it doesn't totally warm up)

Plus there are some who value their cars for emotional reasons beyond strictly rational economics and for them it makes sense to pay $3k to prevent on a $8k car...or even $20k for a new engine for the car.

Not everyone has the same values...now isn't that the understatement of this century.

[landrovered]

I agree completely with combining the IMS with the clutch. If the car has made it close to 100k then you have the luxury of being more opportunistic in your timing.

I have many high mileage engines in my collection. I have 240k on a 94 chevy truck, 214k on a 93 Range Rover and 97k on the Boxster. I consider the Boxster to be the "fresh" engine.

I guess you could say that I value what I buy and take care of it.

I see the high mileage in the Boxster as an opportunity to upgrade the motor when it does meet its demise. But realistically the priorities change when you are approaching the end of the service life.

I did a valve job on a V8 with 168k on it. The bottom end was strong, oil pressure was good, the engine had not been overheated. It made sense.

I have also pulled and replaced motors with a lot fewer miles.

It is a judgement call.

With the Porsche, I think my schekles are better spent on a nice 3.6L that I can blueprint and do the IMS upgrade on the new motor than putting it into the older motor.