Does anyone now why the lawsuit is only for 2001-2005? I have a 2007 and had IMS failure 2 months ago. My Mechanic says in the past 2 months he has seen 3 more post 2005 boxsters come in with complete IMS failure. I'm also curious how if ever these types of repairs get reported back to Porsche so they can get included in the offical number of failures, since they aren't being repaired at the dealerships.

I'm not saying it's acceptable, and I'm not defending Porsche.

But, it is what it is.

There is a $2K aftermarket fix for this. It's really not that big of a deal. If your worried about the bearing then change it out.

If your not worried about the bearing, then just drive the car.

But either way, $2K isn't material in the overall total cost of ownership over time.

Buy the car, replace the bearing (or don't) and drive the car.




/

There have been 0 reported LN dual row bearing failures to date and perhaps 5 single row ones over thousands of installations. That is a completely different track record than the track record of the OEM beating.

The part of the article that puzzles me is the idea that Porsche had a reputation for bullet proof engines and this case will damage it. Probably my age showing but apart from the 3.2 Carrera, their engines have not been that reliable. Head studs, valve guides, chain tensioners, exploding airboxes, carbon buildup and other issues in their history. Even the hallowed Mezger engines are not perfect (coolant hose issues). Not at all defending Porsche on the IMSB case. Just saying for owners it pays to be informed. Lots of info available for awhile now on the IMSB weakness and as noted there are some ways to address it. I still like driving these cars.

Also 928 water pumps that lasted 30k miles max, and magnesium cased 911 engines in the '70s. I had both.

The lawsuit only targets those cars because they were the most likely to fail like stated about 8%.

Can you tell us about the symptoms of your failure? How often you changed your oil? Did you have a manual transmission? Your oil change intervals and driving habits? Did they actually split the engine case to see what was the culprit?

Kram....I'll buy your car. For the right price;)

What would be the right price to you?

I had an automatic with around 50K miles only owned it for 1 year bought it from car max had one oil change drove it as my daily commuter car fairly aggressively. No symptoms until when I noticed when quietly listening to it while it was idling you could here a light crunching noise. At that point the I already had the faliure the shaft was damaged and metal pieces were everywhere including the oil pan. The bearings were pitted the only good thing was the bearings stayed in place. http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1380127808.jpg
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1380127817.jpg

I think people today take false comfort in those 1- 8% figures. Figures that weren't vetted by a third party for unintended and intended ommissions. They can't even tell us which cars have dual or single row bearings with any certainty. More importantly, those numbers are always evolving and were done when most of the cars had not yet reached high mileage. Hence why Porsche often ranks high in reliability surveys. If most 986/996/997.1 Porsches were daily drivers, that 8% would not be 8%, as most owners do not service their cars the way the post-mortem experts advise today.

In the next few days I'll be mailing or emailing the enrollment forms for the class action thing. It galls me to do it. If Porsche had simply acknowledged the obvious and made a semi-reasonable accommodation early in the game, we (and the motoring press) wouldn't be having this sorry conversation.

Back around model year 1998, Mercedes eventually offered an extended warranty on engines when serious sludge issues arose, aggravated by MB North America's continued embrace of mediocre conventional engine oils along with extended service intervals. I just received notice of an extended warranty from VW. GTIs of the vintage of mine (2010) have a predilection for problems with intake manifolds and injectors. Those components are now covered for 10 years and 120,000 miles. VW's hand may have been forced a little because these are considered emissions-related.

We shouldn't expect any company to warranty their product to the end of time or re-engineer every car they have sold, even if it's performing well. And I'm reconciled to assuming responsibility for the maintenance of my car. But Porsche extending the engine warranty to 10 years (even 12 years considering the numerous low-mileage cars) and 100,000 miles for at least the highest risk models would have made a huge difference in perception and customer loyalty.

As with the Mercedes program, a fairly small percentage of total cars sold would likely have been involved in major repairs. We would be thanking them, instead of wondering why Porsche management of the recent past squandered so much attention and resources on foolishness like their attempted swallowing of VW Group. But no "what ifs" are going to change anything now.

A lot of people in new car sales tell me to simply lease cars for no term longer than the warranty. That concept of throw-away machines goes against the grain of my many years of collecting, enjoying and preserving fine cars, but they might be right. I can take some solace that my 2004 Boxster S has (as of this morning) been one of the most trouble-free and enjoyable automobiles I've owned.

Gil

Somewhere around Less than half you paid.:p I wouldn't do that to you though. Drive that Boxster like you stole it. It would break your heart to see me come over there and burn the tires all up pulling out of your drive way as I take it home. Thats how I would feel even if someone borrowed mine for a day!! . :barf::barf::barf:

Getting closer every day to finally pulling the trigger on a Boxter purchase. Cannot say how pleased I am about the topics / readings on this blog; the education is priceless. I think Jack Raby and Pedro have done an enormous service for us all; I for one would like to thank them both.

Please understand I am not a technical type – I am only pondering the IMSB situation and fixes, and asking questions. I hope someone with a much better technical grasp of the situation can explain some things.

If Pedro (Pedrosgarage) is correct and a small amount of oil weeps (seeps?) through the original sealed bearing into the shaft, (which in turn turns acid), why can’t drain holes be drilled into the shaft? Would it weaken the structure? Would oil, which might be slung outwards from inside the shaft, cause havoc somewhere else in the engine?

Utilizing the DOF fix, the bearing has one end “uncovered” (for lack of a more technical term) in order to have pressurized oil from the engine. If the other side of this bearing stays sealed (is it?), wouldn’t the pressure from the oil system eventually force even more oil past the sealed end of the bearing and into the tube? Why is this a good thing?

Another question I am wondering about – perhaps someone who has experienced the process can supply an answer. Regarding the Flat Six Innovation / LN Engineering fix: when suspect bearings are removed from the shaft, does oil in fact come out? How does car mileage affect the quantity of oil in the shaft?

Please excuse my lack of knowledge here. As stated, I have just been pondering and how I will handle it all when I do finally buy a Box. Thanks in advance.

Concerning the DOF. Pedro said the bearing spins the oil out in a second and with the bearing moving while the DOF is working, I don't think that would be an issue. I may get corrected on this.

Joey this is awful looking pictures. Can't imagine how pissed you are right now. Do you know what you are going to do with the car? There is a thread on this forum about a sale on refurb engines. Might want to source a used engine if your still in love with this car. Can your Indy do a rebuild?

Gil (riverside986) couldn't have put it better: many manufacturers have given extended warranties on engines which have proven to have problems and Porsche not only could have, but should have done this once they became aware of the issues with the IMS. Ultimately, standing behind your products is not expensive - it is the cost of doing and staying in business. Who knows what this will ultimately cost Porsche in terms of damaged reputation and lost business, but the fact that publications such as Autoweek are continuing to report on it suggesst that the bleeding is far from over for Porsche.

Brad

Not very much. The average person who owns a Porsche now doesn't know that engines went down or even know what an IMS is. Namely because they are increasingly Pana and Cayenne buyers. Porsche could completely stop selling Boxsters/Caymans and Carreras and still be an extremely successful company. And From what Jake Raby has posted, the Cayenne engines are not at all plagued with these m96 issues. Also, Porsche doesn't make their bread and butter from people who hold onto their cars long enough to see the error of their engineering ways. Porsche is firmly a luxury brand now and that sort of buyer gets antsy when their car seems like its old hat. Luxury car brands making mediocre cars as far as durability and longevity is not a ground breaking achievement for Porsche. Just look at the other German brands losing half their values before the warranty is even up.

Autoweek's reporting of this issue did not do us, the present owners, any good. For very obvious reasons of heightening the drama they chose not to tell the readers of this piece that there have been fixes for this issue since 2010. Read the comments and you'll dozens of people saying "oh I will never buy a used Porsche now". Either Mandel is very very sloppy in doing his research or Autoweek deliberately presented this as a "no remedies that will cost Porsche and owners untold fortunes". If it was meant to inform, particularly those time-out of the settlement, then he at the very least could have provided links for LNE, Pelican or other experts who can carry out preventative maintenance on the issue or that you can instal a simple dash-mounted device to alert you a impending failure -- a simple mod that could have saved the owner a total loss on the car's purchase price.. This is type of IMS reporting we can all do without: Partial facts and no shortage of dramatics and colorful language.

Perfectlap, I wasn't suggesting that the reporting in Autoweek did current owners any favour; I also agree that the article was anything but 'balanced' and comprehensive. My point related solely to the ongoing damage to Porsche's reputation by such reporting and I stand by that assertion. I still maintain that this episode will damage Porsche's reputation in terms of both quality and their willingness to stand behind their products.

Could Porsche be profitable without sports cars? No doubt. However, the Porsche image, even for its sedans and sport-utes, is inextricably bound up with, or at least enhanced by the company's reputation for high-performance sports cars and by their racing heritage. Eliminate that connection and I have little doubt that eventually, sales of even the sedans and sport utes will suffer. Why do you think that Porsche builds cars such as the new 918? Why are they said to be re-entering the prototype fray in endurance racing next year?

While you are correct that Porsche's 'bread and butter' is not from purchasers who hang onto their cars long enough to see the error of their engineering ways, nevertheless, many purchasers of new Porsche Boxsters, Caymans and Carerras put on very low annual mileage and hang onto their cars for a very long period. I suspect that many of their prospective purchasers will be concerned when reading about Porsche's response to an obvious engineering flaw in their sports cars, albeit one that is apt to only appear after the warranty expires. I suspect that many will also be concerned about the impact that this is having on resale values, as eventually that will effect everyone.



Brad

Autoweek is a "breaking news" focused publication, formerly weekly, now bi-monthly? I believe. Dutch Mandel's column is limited to a single page like most of the editors in Autoweek. The column was about Porsche's acknowledging the IMSB issue is a problem. Endorsing a aftermarket product without some form of proof would be like publishing a test drive evaluation without actually driving the vehicle.
Dutch includes his E-mail address at the end of every column.


Autoweek's reporting of this issue did not do us, the present owners, any good. For very obvious reasons of heightening the drama they chose not to tell the readers of this piece that there have been fixes for this issue since 2010. Read the comments and you'll dozens of people saying "oh I will never buy a used Porsche now". Either Mandel is very very sloppy in doing his research or Autoweek deliberately presented this as a "no remedies that will cost Porsche and owners untold fortunes". If it was meant to inform, particularly those time-out of the settlement, then he at the very least could have provided links for LNE, Pelican or other experts who can carry out preventative maintenance on the issue or that you can instal a simple dash-mounted device to alert you a impending failure -- a simple mod that could have saved the owner a total loss on the car's purchase price.. This is type of IMS reporting we can all do without: Partial facts and no shortage of dramatics and colorful language.[/QUOTE]

Fine, make no mention of LNE or Pelican. But at least inform the reader that a simple Google search or poke in any Porsche forum for the letters IMS will reveal that the specific owner he profiled had options available to him. Options that would have saved his car had he taken the time to stay informed rather than waiting around for Porsche to provide him with that info. It seems that the years of ad nauseum forum threads and magazine articles on this one issue still weren't enough?

But adding this one line about proven options to address this issue would have taken much of the reader outrage right out of his article. That was an accidental ommission? I dont think so....It's very aparent that in trying to rile up the crowd against Porsche on this issue he chose to keep the crowd deliberately underinformed on what's been going on in the aftermarket for over three years now. He chose only the certain facts that inflame rather than the basic facts that best inform. He should be working in partisan cable news instead.