98 Boxster base or 06 base?

[brjak]

Originally Posted by RandallNeighbour

Plus, the 06 will have two very important things you may not realize you'll get: a glove box and a rear glass window in the convertible top. The lack of interior storage is crazy on the early models and that plastic window is a pain in the arse to get out and fold manually each time the top is lowered, not to mention the fear of cracking the plastic when it's cold.

I agree the lack of interior storage can drive you nuts, But, whats this "get out every time you lower the roof" I have a 97, Never have I had to "fold" or get out of the car.
the 06 is by far the superior car. But, if you are buying a car to drive on weekends. a 97,98 is a great option. The IMS failure is minimal at around 1% as opposed to the 99-05 at roughly 8%.

THe 98 is a great option providing maintenance has been kept up. You can't beat a 10K price for a Porsche.. leaves you plenty of room/money to play with.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by brjak

The IMS failure is minimal at around 1% as opposed to the 99-05 at roughly 8%.

To the OP, and not to be a jerk brjak, but these numbers though often cited for 2000-2004, are as reliable as ENRON accounting. 96-99 IMS bearings are dual row and fail a lot less often than the single row found in most 00-04 cars. That's all you can really say with any certainty. Those who try to put a number on the number of single row (2000-20004) failures are doing with with woefully incomplete data, and not to mention that the probability of failure has in great part to do with the maintenance and driving habits of 00-04 owners. No two 00-04 Boxsters (still on their original factory bearings) were subjected to the same treatment, especially when a car has changed ownership numerous times. Also, since most 00-04 Boxsters did not have their IMS bearings replaced when the clutch was replaced as well, the likelihood that we will see an even greater number of IMS failures, for both single and dual row cars 96-04 is great.
Given enough time, neglect and mileage, even a dual row bearing will fail and with more potential for destruction than a single row.

Point being that if you have a 00-04 car, you should get the IMS replaced while the oil is still free of metal debris and not make the mistake of procrastinating if long-term ownership is the plan. If you have a 96-99 car, you should not pass up the opportunity when the clutch has to come out.
Dual row does not mean ever-lasting row.

[stephen wilson]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

To the OP, and not to be a jerk brjak, but these numbers though often cited for 2000-2004, are as reliable as ENRON accounting. 96-99 IMS bearings are dual row and fail a lot less often than the single row found in most 00-04 cars. That's all you can really say with any certainty. Those who try to put a number on the number of single row (2000-20004) failures are doing with with woefully incomplete data, and not to mention that the probability of failure has in great part to do with the maintenance and driving habits of 00-04 owners. No two 00-04 Boxsters (still on their original factory bearings) were subjected to the same treatment, especially when a car has changed ownership numerous times. Also, since most 00-04 Boxsters did not have their IMS bearings replaced when the clutch was replaced as well, the likelihood that we will see an even greater number of IMS failures, for both single and dual row cars 96-04 is great.
Given enough time, neglect and mileage, even a dual row bearing will fail and with more potential for destruction than a single row.

Point being that if you have a 00-04 car, you should get the IMS replaced while the oil is still free of metal debris and not make the mistake of procrastinating if long-term ownership is the plan. If you have a 96-99 car, you should not pass up the opportunity when the clutch has to come out.
Dual row does not mean ever-lasting row.

Even Jake has mentioned that the big bearing '06+ has a greatly lower failure rate on the street. They have a higher failure rate when tracked.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

Even Jake has mentioned that the big bearing '06+ has a greatly lower failure rate on the street. They have a higher failure rate when tracked.

Yes the "perma-bearing" that Porsche began using after 2004 addressed durability. But the problem there is that it can't be serviced anymore without splitting the engine open, an expense that does not make financial sense for most. Which makes me wonder if there aren't derivative issues (since the root cause was not addressed), in the long-term of a non-serviceable bearing that may surface before the engine needs to be rebuilt.

[brjak]

With all the fearful information out there regarding the WHAT IF!! I'm surprised anybody wants to buy a Porsche from 97-04.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by brjak

With all the fearful information out there regarding the WHAT IF!! I'm surprised anybody wants to buy a Porsche from 97-04.

Well there are a few reasons not to buy a Porsche but IMS failure is not one of them.
Thanks to the hard work of a few guys, we have a way of removing this problematic component without having to remove the engine. You have to wonder how many engines have been saved because someone figured it out... without any help from Porsche.

Or how many more engines could be saved if people changed the water pump with more frequency than waiting for it to fail (which I'm guilty of as well). Point is both of these so-called reasons not buy, IMS grenading and head cracking, can be addressed with worthwhile results.

[brjak]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

To the OP, and not to be a jerk brjak, but these numbers though often cited for 2000-2004, are as reliable as ENRON accounting. 96-99 IMS bearings are dual row and fail a lot less often than the single row found in most 00-04 cars. That's all you can really say with any certainty. Those who try to put a number on the number of single row (2000-20004) failures are doing with with woefully incomplete data, and not to mention that the probability of failure has in great part to do with the maintenance and driving habits of 00-04 owners. No two 00-04 Boxsters (still on their original factory bearings) were subjected to the same treatment, especially when a car has changed ownership numerous times. Also, since most 00-04 Boxsters did not have their IMS bearings replaced when the clutch was replaced as well, the likelihood that we will see an even greater number of IMS failures, for both single and dual row cars 96-04 is great.
Given enough time, neglect and mileage, even a dual row bearing will fail and with more potential for destruction than a single row.

Point being that if you have a 00-04 car, you should get the IMS replaced while the oil is still free of metal debris and not make the mistake of procrastinating if long-term ownership is the plan. If you have a 96-99 car, you should not pass up the opportunity when the clutch has to come out.
Dual row does not mean ever-lasting row.

Please see the 8th paragraph below.

IMS 101

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by brjak

Please see the 8th paragraph below.

IMS 101

^These figures cited during the class action litigation are not representative of the total number of IMS failures, nor do the plaintiffs' lawyers, or Porsche the defendant, claim so.

The plaintiffs lawyers in that case were using figures that Porsche produced during discovery of documented failures as part of their engine replacement program. Porsche did not replace a majority of the engines that have gone down due to the IMSB failing and Porsche did not claim that they were alerted to all of the failures that occurred during the scope of that ligation. Nor is there any certain basis to assume that IMS failures continued at those rates after Porsche reported those figures internally.


All that we know for sure, is that single row failures for 2000-2004 are far worse than 1996-1999 Boxsters. When the internet forums throw numbers out there for the purposes of guesstimating how likely one is to experience a failure in a single row bearing, we are not dealing with reliable data or reliable conclusions.