3.4L vs. 3.2L...
 

Just fishing and looking for alternatives.

Does the 3.4 have the same potential for an IMS dissaster as the 3.2s are starting to have? Is it a different core/case with fewer problems?

thanks,

kj

2 things, first, IMS is not just starting on the 3.2, there seems to be a high "wave" of fear but this has been a problem (apparently steady), for several years.

Second, the 3.4 has the same potential for all failures as the 3.2 plus more of a propensity for the cylinder walls to D-crack.

The IMS issue can potentially affect all M96 series engines. The earlier, double bearing IMS motors are almost immune, but it seems that the 01-up 2.7, 3.2 and E-Gas 3.4 cars are the most vulnerable when they went to a single bearing IMS. The IMS was updated for the 3.6 and the 997/987 series motors and seems to be much better.

As to the other failures, early 2.5's had slipped cylinder sleeves and D-cracks. The 3.4 and 3.6 have thinner cylinder walls than the 3.2 (same bore spacing, larger bore= less material left for the liner) and have suffered D-cracks also. The 3.2 actually has the thickest liners of all the M96 motors, so hypothetically is the lease likely to suffer from this failure.

As far as where I'm at, if I'm putting any motor in my car, it will be a 3.6, both from a power standpoint, and that it seems Porsche ironed out many of the issues by then.

Patrick

This is pure speculation as there is no data on IMS failures.

It's all speculation since Porsche won't release numbers. I will say that on any of the boards I've never heard of an IMS failure in one of the dual bearing IMS engines. Likewise, I also have not heard of an IMS failure in a 3.6 or 3.8.

Patrick