Another survey--IMS failure
 

There's been a lot of chatter on pete's board regarding IMS failures and it seems that the frequency of this failure is going up based on the posts I see on it.

How about a survey on this forum, similar to the one on the RMS? There's probably a better way of doing it compared to the last time--i'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

I will keep it simple because I've kept an eye out on this stuff for 2 years now.

3.2L ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE IMS FAILURES MOST OF THE TIME.

Just ask Chris Zang, Dennis(PPBB) and all the 996(3.4L) owners on rennlist what happened to their engines. IMS failures.

The 2.7L tend to be safe because they don't have the same IMS as 3.2L & 3.4L engines.

I've got a 2.7 with 67k on it going strong with no IMS issues. I will be changing the oil in 500 miles and sending it off to Blackstone for analysis. I'll let you know if they say there is a major repair in my future.

Good man, blinkwatt
 

I know these surveys --the online ones--can't be as reliable as the the surveys done by market research companies that are mailed in, but we need a way to keep out bogus info as best we can. Anyway we can get details via the PM messages to make sure the info is qualified somehow?

*********************************

Sorry Blinkwatt, I have to disagree with you on this one. We just had a thread about engine failures at

http://986forum.com/forums/boxster-general-discussions/16822-shortlived-boxster-engines-survey.html

This thread showed about 25 failed engines and of these, 20 were 2.5/2.7L engines. The failures were either slipped cylinder sleeves or IMS failures. The reported MYs ranged from 1997 though 2003 and the mileage reported at time of failure was all over the odometer, some with low miles, others with 60K plus miles. No real pattern.

For the 5 or so 3.2L S model engines that failed, there was no real pattern on the odometer reading when the failure occurred either.

At any rate, with thousands of Boxsters produced, hearing about 25 with failed engines in one thread tells me only one thing... there's not much data here to make a statistically reliable judgment about any of it.

My '02 Boxster S saw a replacement motor and 6-speed under factory warranty at 15k. The records do not indicate a specific reason why, but one can venture a guess. Now, 38k later it runs like a champ.

Read the original post again,the original poster said IMS failures,not cylinder wall failures.

Cylinder wall failures tend to happen to 98'-99' 2.5L,IMS tend to happen to 00'+ 3.2L. Cracked heads have also been an issue with 3.2L,not not anywhere near as bad as IMS failure.

Yes there is a common pattern with these engines,most engine failures on M96 engines happen at 60k or less mileage unless you name in dennis from PPBB where it happened around 65k. Poor guy has had at least 2 engine failures on his Boxsters.

Make friends at shops,track meets, everyone who works on these cars,talk to them,they know there is a problem. I have a friend who was a mechanic at Niello Porsche that said he wouldn't even touch one of these cars off work. He said he sees way too many repair bills for engines costing over $15k.......

I don't see any reliable way to get good stats. The only folks who have a decent shot at doing that are not talking.


So this stays in the land of conjecture.

:D

The problem with an online survey is that your going to get bias results. People who have never had a problem with there car have no reason to google boxster forum and come here, while someone with a problem (say an engine failure) is much more likely to google their problem and come here. Which means that your going to get a lot more people with engine failures posting than people who don't have problems.

There have been something like 200k Boxster's sold worldwide, if you look at all the forum failures reported your still no where near a significant number of failures, even though they shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Also, IMS is very, very rare on pre-'01 Boxsters due to the updated IMS in those and latter cars. But the pre-'01's tend to have more RMS.

Thanks for the replies
 

First off, just like the RMS survey of 3 years ago, there's no way an online survey can provide irrefutable data one way or another. My goal here is to just get an indication, that's all of whether this might be a concern or not. With 100 respondents, I think you might be able to see the beginning of a trend but not much else.

With regard to survey with small samples , the 3 RMS surveys I've seen--one here, one on Pete's board (350 respondents) and one I did with our local club--all had small samplings but the number were in a fairly close range of occurrence--20-25% of cars sampled had RMS problems. I'd say that's more than a coincidence. I guess what I'm saying that if there is a problem, there's a good chance an indication of it show up even in a relatively small sample.


Anyway, the thought here is to provide some info--albeit non-scientific--to the current and prospective owners of the cars prone to this problem. Right now, the only data is the anecdotal reports on all the boards, which can be quite distressing. But the reality is we don't know if it's a minor issue affecting some unfortunate few or one on a larger scale. I'm hoping this effort will provide a little more light on the subject