I read where the 2.7 motor blows up for no real reason...

[Silverstreak]

.... and under just normal driving conditions.....most with lower mileage. I read this on another Boxster forum. Is the 3.2 motor at risk for the same thing?

From what I understand the intermediate shaft fails and locks the engine up, and other cases a timing chain failure was mentioned. Since the 3.2 is just a bored and stroked 2.7, it makes me a bit uneasy since my car is out of warranty.

Between the RMS and this motor blowing up thing (if it is true) I find it hard to believe Porsche builts such poorly designed engines. The post 77 911 Carrera motors seem to be ultra reliable, what gives with this Boxster design ?

[racer_troy]

Hey Silver,

I don't have any useful information on the specific failures you're uncovering. Could you provide a link to the data?

Also, FWIW, I'm approaching 78K miles with no issues on my MY00 2.7L.

Additionally, I think the 3.2 achieves it's +500cc with a larger bore...stroke being identical.

Thanks,

--ts

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

.... and under just normal driving conditions.....most with lower mileage. I read this on another Boxster forum. Is the 3.2 motor at risk for the same thing?

From what I understand the intermediate shaft fails and locks the engine up, and other cases a timing chain failure was mentioned. Since the 3.2 is just a bored and stroked 2.7, it makes me a bit uneasy since my car is out of warranty.

Between the RMS and this motor blowing up thing (if it is true) I find it hard to believe Porsche builts such poorly designed engines. The post 77 911 Carrera motors seem to be ultra reliable, what gives with this Boxster design ?

Hi,

Say it ain't so Joe... Unfortunately it is.

The 2.7L (M96/22, M96/23), and the 3.2L (M96/21, M96/24) suffers from a redesign where Porsche added a larger bearing on the Intermediate Shaft (#6 in the Pic below, Flange Bearing on the sprocket end) to supposedly reduce vibration.

As a result, failure of this shaft has become much more prevelant than in the 2.5L - (M96/20). It also affects the M96/77 engine on the 996 to essentially the same degree, and they're starting to see it on the 987/997s as well, so don't feel like you're alone.

What happens is that the bolt which fixes the shaft on the rear (Flywheel side) of the engine breaks allowing the shaft to whip around internally and take out everything in it's path.

This failure takes the #2 spot behind RMS failure. There is nothing you can do to prevent, or forestall, these failures.

But, realize that you are one of the Priviledged Few (yea, right) to own one of these magnificent cars, so what if you have to occasionally flip $1k-$12k for a new motor to keep it running by putting the same design-flawed engine back in it? Stop your whining!

There is NO reason to forgive mediocrety in engine design when a variety of makes (including many American made cars) are able to produce high powered, sophisticated, engines that easily survive 200K miles without leaks or breakdowns.

There are bound to be defenders of the Marque (most of whom have not yet succumbed to these failings I suspect), who'll dispute this in one form, or another. But, Porsche engine reliability is a Myth, pure and simple. They have had Casting and Web failures and flaws going all the way back to the 356 engine, eventually, they will ALL fail, though some of the AC engines will go 200k mi. before doing so.

And because the all-new M96 engines are So Great and so much better than all the old rubbish, Porsche still has to use the old crankcases for their Turbo and GT3 engines. But, you have to shell out the really BIG bucks if you want to play with those...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

My neighbor has an 04 2.7 engine. She replaced the motor at 11K miles due to the shaft failure mentioned above.

Warranty covered it all.

For what it is worth.

[Sammy]

Can someone tranlsate as to what the M96/xx engine refers to? Is it simply the motor that has been used for the 2.7 and 3.2 since the Boxster started using them? Or is it specific to model years or VIN's?

Thanks!

Sammy

[NickCats]

Wow ! I have never been so happy I bought a 1999 !

Nick

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Say it ain't so Joe... Unfortunately it is.

The 2.7L (M96/22, M96/23), and the 3.2L (M96/21, M96/24) suffers from a redesign where Porsche added a larger bearing on the Intermediate Shaft (#6 in the Pic below, Flange Bearing on the sprocket end) to supposedly reduce vibration.

As a result, failure of this shaft has become much more prevelant than in the 2.5L - (M96/20). It also affects the M96/77 engine on the 996 to essentially the same degree, and they're starting to see it on the 987/997s as well, so don't feel like you're alone.

What happens is that the bolt which fixes the shaft on the rear (Flywheel side) of the engine breaks allowing the shaft to whip around internally and take out everything in it's path.

This failure takes the #2 spot behind RMS failure. There is nothing you can do to prevent, or forestall, these failures.

But, realize that you are one of the Priviledged Few (yea, right) to own one of these magnificent cars, so what if you have to occasionally flip $1k-$12k for a new motor to keep it running by putting the same design-flawed engine back in it? Stop your whining!

There is NO reason to forgive mediocrety in engine design when a variety of makes (including many American made cars) are able to produce high powered, sophisticated, engines that easily survive 200K miles without leaks or breakdowns.

There are bound to be defenders of the Marque (most of whom have not yet succumbed to these failings I suspect), who'll dispute this in one form, or another. But, Porsche engine reliability is a Myth, pure and simple. They have had Casting and Web failures and flaws going all the way back to the 356 engine, eventually, they will ALL fail, though some of the AC engines will go 200k mi. before doing so.

And because the all-new M96 engines are So Great and so much better than all the old rubbish, Porsche still has to use the old crankcases for their Turbo and GT3 engines. But, you have to shell out the really BIG bucks if you want to play with those...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

The redesign of the Inter. Shaft was only on the 03 and 04's right?
I've been giving advice to a few friends that 2000-2002 seems to be the
"safest" engine years since they don't have the porous engine blocks of the 97-99
and don't have these I.S. failures from the redesign. All other notorious problems like the RMS seem to happen to all years. I think the Consumer Reports tracking by year backs this up.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Sammy

Can someone tranlsate as to what the M96/xx engine refers to? Is it simply the motor that has been used for the 2.7 and 3.2 since the Boxster started using them? Or is it specific to model years or VIN's?

Thanks!

Sammy

Hi,

Porsche uses the basic engine - the M96 in all Boxsters, Caymans, and 911 Carreras. The last two characters describe which Bosche Motronic version (DME Software) is used. The 2007 Porsche Carerra uses the new M97/01, an M96 derivative, the M97 contains so many newly designed internals as to deserve a new designation according to Porsche. The Carerra GT's V10 is designated the M80.

The 2.5L Boxster uses the M96/20 with Bosch M 5.2.2 Motronic.

The 2000-2002 uses the 2.7L M96/22 and the 3.2 L (S model) M96/21, both with Bosch ME 7.2 Motronic.

The 2003-2007 uses the 2.7L M96/22 and the 3.2 L (S model) M96/24, both with Bosch ME 7.8 Motronic.

Hope this helps...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Sammy]

I might have misread a post below so please excuse my ignorance...

So is or isn't my 2002 Boxster S prone to this failure?

[pecivil]

Hey Jim

What is the callout for a 2001 996 3.4l and which motrinic version does it run??

TIA

[Silverstreak]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Say it ain't so Joe... Unfortunately it is.

The 2.7L (M96/22, M96/23), and the 3.2L (M96/21, M96/24) suffers from a redesign where Porsche added a larger bearing on the Intermediate Shaft (#6 in the Pic below, Flange Bearing on the sprocket end) to supposedly reduce vibration.

As a result, failure of this shaft has become much more prevelant than in the 2.5L - (M96/20). It also affects the M96/77 engine on the 996 to essentially the same degree, and they're starting to see it on the 987/997s as well, so don't feel like you're alone.

What happens is that the bolt which fixes the shaft on the rear (Flywheel side) of the engine breaks allowing the shaft to whip around internally and take out everything in it's path.

This failure takes the #2 spot behind RMS failure. There is nothing you can do to prevent, or forestall, these failures.

But, realize that you are one of the Priviledged Few (yea, right) to own one of these magnificent cars, so what if you have to occasionally flip $1k-$12k for a new motor to keep it running by putting the same design-flawed engine back in it? Stop your whining!

There is NO reason to forgive mediocrety in engine design when a variety of makes (including many American made cars) are able to produce high powered, sophisticated, engines that easily survive 200K miles without leaks or breakdowns.

There are bound to be defenders of the Marque (most of whom have not yet succumbed to these failings I suspect), who'll dispute this in one form, or another. But, Porsche engine reliability is a Myth, pure and simple. They have had Casting and Web failures and flaws going all the way back to the 356 engine, eventually, they will ALL fail, though some of the AC engines will go 200k mi. before doing so.

And because the all-new M96 engines are So Great and so much better than all the old rubbish, Porsche still has to use the old crankcases for their Turbo and GT3 engines. But, you have to shell out the really BIG bucks if you want to play with those...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Great!

All my thrill of owning a Porsche just went out the window. I should have bought the S2000

[Boxtaboy]

I've got an 01 2.7 with 46K miles, and the only mechanical problems I've ever had was a leaking coolant tank that was replaced on warranty. No RMS, no shaft failure, nothing. I have friend who has put over 100K on his 00 3.2, and has never had a mechanical issue on his car either.

In fact, this car has been more reliable than my previous car, a Benz CLK.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by pecivil

Hey Jim

What is the callout for a 2001 996 3.4l and which motrinic version does it run??

TIA

Hi,

That is the M96/05 and it uses Bosch Motronic 7.2...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Boxtaboy

I've got an 01 2.7 with 46K miles, and the only mechanical problems I've ever had was a leaking coolant tank that was replaced on warranty. No RMS, no shaft failure, nothing. I have friend who has put over 100K on his 00 3.2, and has never had a mechanical issue on his car either.

In fact, this car has been more reliable than my previous car, a Benz CLK.

Hi,

That isn't at all rare. It's not like every Porsche M96 engine is gonna implode. It's just that too many of them do, waay more than should from a manufacturer like Porsche.

In fact, the odds are with you, just not to anywhere near the same degree they are with some other choices out there.

RMS affects only about 1 car in 4 (25%) or 5 (20%), and Intermediate shaft Failure probably (total guesstimate here as no polls or such have been done to my knowledge) seems more like 10%-15%. In other words, having the engine implode on you isn't that rare either, unfortunately.

But considering that in a BMW, MB, Honda, MX-5, Lexus, etc. these odds drop to the low single digit %s, this double-digit % failure rate is waay too high for a car with the Price Point and the provenance of a Porsche. And, it's something potential buyers need to be more aware of, rather than less.

The Hood Badge is very shiney, but the reputation and the facts are much less so. Many Buyers cannot see past the Badge, at least not until the reality and possibility of these failures bites them in the *$$.

A lot of Buyers would willingly sacrifice some of the feeling, exclusivity, provenance, and even performance for the sake of greater reliability. A miata may not measure up exactly to a Boxster, but it doesn't have the potential to drain your wallet nearly so fast either...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[ohioboxster]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

Great!

All my thrill of owning a Porsche just went out the window. I should have bought the S2000

Dont worry about it! When I first joined this forum I was afraid to drive my car, some guys had me so spooked. RMS RMS RMS I decided I would just drive the car and have the last year with no problems besides the ones I've caused. Enjoy your car.

[Silverstreak]

Originally Posted by ohioboxster

Dont worry about it! When I first joined this forum I was afraid to drive my car, some guys had me so spooked. RMS RMS RMS I decided I would just drive the car and have the last year with no problems besides the ones I've caused. Enjoy your car.

I guess I have no choice since I bought it already .... I'll just keep my fingers crossed.

I was buying this boxster on the impression it was going to be as reliable as my old 3.2 Carrera engine, which by the way have been known to easily go 250,000 miles or better. Honestly, I guess I didn't do my homework on this one and guess I will just hope for the best.

The few miles that I've driven so far have been good but I may not keep it that long unless I hear some better stats on the failures.

[Boxtaboy]

I don't expect Honda or Toyota reliability from a Porsche (although that's what I'm getting now). Heck, if I wanted that, I'd get a Toyota!

[Perfectlap]

1 in 4 or 5 is WAYYYY too high. Having this in the back of your mind takes allot of the fun out of it. Particularly when you are tracking and autocrossing it. I would be inclined to believe that putting more exertion on the engine will bring a hidden flaw to the surface, whearas casual cruising will delay the onset of an RMS tear.

But Hat's off to BMW and Lexus for simply fixing their problems as soon as its flawed engine designs came to light. But when Porsche is making mo money mo money mo money (albeit less than before) they obviously came more about maximizing profits vs. protecting their reputation.

[Grizzly]

We've had this same discussion over and over. I'll say it again...Cars break. All of them break. If the car breaks, fix it. If you don't want to fix it, sell it. But quit yer friggin' whinin' about it.

You are not a prisoner of the Marque. No one is forcing you to own the car. If you don't like your odds and you find others' failure rates more appealing, by all means trade in your junk and buy one of their offerings.

Oh, it leaks. Oh, it breaks. Oh, it's not quick enough. Oh, it eats tires. Oh, my Pacer was much more reliable. Oh, my Vega never had these problems. Oh, my Ford dealer never put me through this when my Aspire imploded. Blah, blah, freakin' blah.

The car has flaws. The company is not doing enough to correct them. You may have certain difficulties with it. It is an expensive car to fix. It's also the most fun you can have with your clothes on (unless you drive naked and then, well it's immeasurable ).

If bulletproof reliability is what helps you sleep, buy a Camry. I like beige Camrys with brown corduroy interiors. I think they're very attractive. My Grandmother has one. It leaks...and sometimes...it breaks.

[z12358]

"We've had this same discussion over and over."

I agree with Grizzly. Perhaps I'll change my mind when my first big problem comes but I have two things I've been meaning to say that may have been overlooked:

1. The failure statistics (1 in 4 or 5) are just estimates. But even if they were confirmed, one could dollarize them as just another addition to the cost of ownership. We already know that there are plenty of cheaper good cars out there that are also cheaper to maintain, too. But the market seems to be pricing in some sort of performance and quality (other than reliability) attributes in a Porsche that differentiate it from the rest. In other words, people are prepared to pay more for a Porsche (in more than one way, and that includes purchase price, maintenance, and increased dollarized cost of potential repair) than for other "comparable" cars. Personally, I could not replicate the experience of driving my Box in any other car I had driven (not even close) and I found the price of that feeling acceptable. Obviously others have too.

2. It's not fair to compare Porsche to Toyota or most other cars out there. I can't prove this but I have a feeling that, on average, Porsches are driven much harder than most other cars out there. They are simply built and optimized for that -- and they are so darn fun when pushed. I would bet that an average Porsche operates multiple times longer in the 4k+ rpm area than an average Lexus, Toyota, or even a BMW, for that matter. An average Porsche would be exposed to much higher G-forces than all of those as well, subjecting the suspension and the engine with all its fluids to much more stress. These must be taken into consideration when comparing failure and reliability statistics, and then apples to apples the differences may not be so "outrageous".

Z.