What am I getting wrong about sports cars?

[Baldchap]

biggbn said:

Shocking that a company with such a reputation for engineering integrity...my 928 was a prettily shaped block of granite...allowed such basic design faults into production. I'm always amazed when I read of inherent weaknesses on prestigious products.

All engineering decisions (across every industry) these days are commercial decisions first and foremost.

[otolith]

cerb4.5lee said:

The 911/Cayman/Boxster helped to kill TVR off for me, because punters went across to Porsche because they'd had enough of TVR's build/reliability issues. So for their £40k plus money they would rather go to a manufacturer that was perceived as being better built/more reliable with Porsche.

That perception seems to be a lot more bulletproof than their actual engineering! The engine issues they had would have sunk a lot of manufacturers.

[biggbn]

Baldchap said:

biggbn said:

Shocking that a company with such a reputation for engineering integrity...my 928 was a prettily shaped block of granite...allowed such basic design faults into production. I'm always amazed when I read of inherent weaknesses on prestigious products.

All engineering decisions (across every industry) these days are commercial decisions first and foremost.

Yet some companies seem to take more pride in their engineering and manufacturing and less of the piss out of their customers. Porsche were a watchword for engineering integrity, even over base, raw excitement.

All that said, a four pot boxster remains one of the cars I covet the most!!

Edited by biggbn on Tuesday 2nd July 13:51

[Hoofy]

biggbn said:

Hoofy said:

braddo said:

Hoofy said:

IMS is the Archilles Heel of the 996.

No, bore scoring is the much bigger issue. It's this which necessitates so many expensive engine rebuilds.

Right - I think the biggest fear is the engine suddenly going bang thanks to a weak IMS bearing.

On the other hand,

https://lnengineering.com/products/watercooled-por...

Shocking that a company with such a reputation for engineering integrity...my 928 was a prettily shaped block of granite...allowed such basic design faults into production. I'm always amazed when I read of inherent weaknesses on prestigious products.

Love the 928 but I hear they're quite expensive to keep running these days, sadly.

[pheonix478]

plenty said:

...inherently flawed weight distribution.
...

Have you actually driven one? That 'flaw' is a major part of the joy of driving (especially an older) 911 hard. Didn't seem to do it too much harm on the race track for the last 60 years either.

[Oilchange]

Hoofy said:

biggbn said:

Hoofy said:

braddo said:

Hoofy said:

IMS is the Archilles Heel of the 996.

No, bore scoring is the much bigger issue. It's this which necessitates so many expensive engine rebuilds.

Right - I think the biggest fear is the engine suddenly going bang thanks to a weak IMS bearing.

On the other hand,

https://lnengineering.com/products/watercooled-por...

Shocking that a company with such a reputation for engineering integrity...my 928 was a prettily shaped block of granite...allowed such basic design faults into production. I'm always amazed when I read of inherent weaknesses on prestigious products.

Love the 928 but I hear they're quite expensive to keep running these days, sadly.

928s were and are my favourite German sportscars, 944 968 also. If I'd had a 928 with a blown engine I'd seriously consider a replacement crate engine from the states or some other place, possibly a 3.0 Busso. Don't know if they'd come out cheaper or what but I'd certainly consider it regardless of any puritanical busybodies comments...

[cerb4.5lee]

otolith said:

cerb4.5lee said:

The 911/Cayman/Boxster helped to kill TVR off for me, because punters went across to Porsche because they'd had enough of TVR's build/reliability issues. So for their £40k plus money they would rather go to a manufacturer that was perceived as being better built/more reliable with Porsche.

That perception seems to be a lot more bulletproof than their actual engineering! The engine issues they had would have sunk a lot of manufacturers.

There is a lot of truth in all that for sure. I was a bit shocked when I drove my brother in laws 2016 Porsche 911 Carrera S(3.0 twin turbo), because after we'd both had a good blast in it(like we would in any performance car)...I could smell oil, and genuinely the last time I smelt oil in a car was when I used to drive stuff like my XR4x4 and Sapphire Cosworths years ago for example. So it wasn't something that I was expecting from a modern car/engine really.

Porsche are the masters at marketing, and giving a positive perception of their brand as you say, and folk just fall for it all I reckon.

[plenty]

pheonix478 said:

plenty said:

...inherently flawed weight distribution.
...

Have you actually driven one? That 'flaw' is a major part of the joy of driving (especially an older) 911 hard. Didn't seem to do it too much harm on the race track for the last 60 years either.

I've driven a 997 and a 993, and while I didn't dislike them I wasn't especially taken with them either, whereas I really liked the 968 I owned and Boxsters I've driven.

But these were only brief drives and not enough to draw conclusive opinions. Maybe the 911 layout is a grower whereas the 986/7 impresses more quickly. I know about trail braking and getting on the power early, etc. But it still all strikes me as learning to drive around an fundamentally unbalanced layout. I do tend to prefer the feel of an even F/R weight distribution (hated the handling of the Audis and Fiat Coupe I've driven with the engine in front of the front axle).

I'm afraid that race pedigree is irrelevant to a fun road car as I'm concerned, other than to illustrate that people are buying into the 911 brand as much as they are buying the car.

[biggbn]

plenty said:

pheonix478 said:

plenty said:

...inherently flawed weight distribution.
...

Have you actually driven one? That 'flaw' is a major part of the joy of driving (especially an older) 911 hard. Didn't seem to do it too much harm on the race track for the last 60 years either.

I've driven a 997 and a 993, and while I didn't dislike them I wasn't especially taken with them either, whereas I really liked the 968 I owned and Boxsters I've driven.

But these were only brief drives and not enough to draw conclusive opinions. Maybe the 911 layout is a grower whereas the 986/7 impresses more quickly. I know about trail braking and getting on the power early, etc. But it still all strikes me as learning to drive around an fundamentally unbalanced layout. I do tend to prefer the feel of an even F/R weight distribution (hated the handling of the Audis and Fiat Coupe I've driven with the engine in front of the front axle).

I'm afraid that race pedigree is irrelevant to a fun road car as I'm concerned, other than to illustrate that people are buying into the 911 brand as much as they are buying the car.

Fiat Coupe doesn't have engine in front of axle, well ceetaonly no more so than other mass produced fwd cars. Big heavy engine for sure but mine handled very well for a fwd car with basic underpinnings

Edited by biggbn on Tuesday 2nd July 17:03

[plenty]

biggbn said:

Fiat Coupe doesn't have engine in front of axle, well ceetaonly no more so than other mass produced fwd cars. Big heavy engine for sure but mine handled very well for a fwd car with basic underpinnings

It's been a few years, but I remember looking at the 20VT lump under the bonnet and being struck by how far forward it was positioned. And a quick search shows the weight is distributed 66F/34R. It certainly drove like it - by far the most front-heavy car I've driven, and I've owned lots of FWDs.

Despite this I did like it - it was characterful and that 20VT motor was a peach.

[Ken_Code]

I don’t like how 911s drive.

After a few test drives which did nothing for me I decided that surely the journalists couldn’t all be wrong, and so bought a brand new 997 to give it a proper try.

I really did do everything to find what others found in it, tried all sorts of driving styles, but while it was fast, comfortable, and a nice place to be, it just never delivered in terms of driving enjoyment. It turns out that different people do like different things, and I don’t like any of the 911s I’ve tried.

Strangely I found the Emira with a similar weight distribution to be a delight to drive.

I’d like to try one of the more extreme versions, to see if they are better, but it’s not particularly easy to be able to take one out for a proper drive.

[braddo]

plenty said:

But it still all strikes me as learning to drive around an fundamentally unbalanced layout.

But the layout comes with certain dynamic advantages as previously mentioned. That's not to say it's the best layout, but it has proven itself to be very effective. An early 996 and a late 986 Boxster S with similar power to weight, tyres/brakes and springs/dampers would be fairly similar around tracks but each would have advantages in different places and weather conditions. It would be an interesting experiment.

plenty said:

I'm afraid that race pedigree is irrelevant to a fun road car as I'm concerned, other than to illustrate that people are buying into the 911 brand as much as they are buying the car.

Race pedigree can mean the manufacturer learns better how to build and tune a good drivers car. Some homologation specials are the ultimate proof of how motorsport can elevate the base car!

[biggbn]

plenty said:

biggbn said:

Fiat Coupe doesn't have engine in front of axle, well ceetaonly no more so than other mass produced fwd cars. Big heavy engine for sure but mine handled very well for a fwd car with basic underpinnings

It's been a few years, but I remember looking at the 20VT lump under the bonnet and being struck by how far forward it was positioned. And a quick search shows the weight is distributed 66F/34R. It certainly drove like it - by far the most front-heavy car I've driven, and I've owned lots of FWDs.

Despite this I did like it - it was characterful and that 20VT motor was a peach.

Weight distribution doesn't really point to how far forward the engine is, just how bloody heavy it is!! Look at any fwd car with a transverse engine and it will sit somewhere similar to the fiat. The Audis were different because they were a longitudinal engine for a long time and did, indeed, let it all hang out!! Hand on heart I never found my 20vt to be an understeering beast, it was very grippy, cornered flat and I miss it every day. Italian gt car for pennies, although they are climbing now.

[pheonix478]

Ken_Code said:

I don’t like how 911s drive.

Fair enough. That's different to claiming they are "inherently flawed", they're just different.

Ken_Code said:

...it’s not particularly easy to be able to take one out for a proper drive.

this is very true but if there's ever a chance of getting behind the wheel of a GT3/2, any of them, take it. They are very special cars.

[biggbn]

pheonix478 said:

Ken_Code said:

I don’t like how 911s drive.

Fair enough. That's different to claiming they are "inherently flawed", they're just different.

Ken_Code said:

...it’s not particularly easy to be able to take one out for a proper drive.

this is very true but if there's ever a chance of getting behind the wheel of a GT3/2, any of them, take it. They are very special cars.

Never driven one but one of my dream cars, albeit I always lusted after an early, basic 912!!

[cerb4.5lee]

biggbn said:

pheonix478 said:

Ken_Code said:

I don’t like how 911s drive.

Fair enough. That's different to claiming they are "inherently flawed", they're just different.

Ken_Code said:

...it’s not particularly easy to be able to take one out for a proper drive.

this is very true but if there's ever a chance of getting behind the wheel of a GT3/2, any of them, take it. They are very special cars.

Never driven one but one of my dream cars, albeit I always lusted after an early, basic 912!!

I'd love a go in a GT3/2 to see what they're like as well. I've only driven a Carrera S, so the equivalent of an old Sierra GL for example. Whereas I'd imagine that the GT3/2 are more like the Sierra Cosworth if you know what I mean.

[ATM]

biggbn said:

911Spanker said:

As a 1 car solution, the 996 is fantastic. Get a good one, spend some money on making it "yours" and you have a winner..

I love these, and the idea of them...but keep reading about engine issues? How much of a problem is this really?

Bore score is the main risk with the engines in these. But the earliest 3.4 engine had a special coating on the pistons which means these are the least likely to score. These were 97, 98 and 99. Then I THINK the coating was dropped. So that's why I sort out an earlier car. Beyond this piston coating the risk is then directly related to the engine size as the bigger it is then the more heat and forces involved which all lead to scoring risk. So the worst is the 3.8 in the 997. There is also some chit chat Internet rumour about service intervals switching from 12,000 or 12 months to 20,000 or 24 months when the 9x7 cars were launched around 2004. But some of the later 9x6 cars had the longer service intervals too. Which could be why scoring is prolific in the 987 3.4 - they sold lots of them. In the early days Porsche were replacing engines quietly under warranty. That's a good short summary I think / I hope.

There are plenty of other risks. The biggest I didn't know about is the gearbox which is a well known weak point to the better educated 996 nerd. A decent rebuild will cost you 4 grand but it depends what breaks inside. A complete box from Porsche, they still sell them, is over 10 grand plus VAT. Mine disintegrated and had a couple of damaged cogs so it was cheaper to buy a 2nd hand used box. Look on ebay at G96 boxes for sale to get an idea of prices. I paid 2500.

I had a chat with someone selling a 3.4 car that needed a replacement crank. Half way through the rebuild his engine guy measured it and said it was out of spec. They were trying to source a good used crank but couldn't find one. A used engine is about 6 grand - look on ebay for m96 engine. It all starts to add up.

The car I linked which sold recently on ebay had what I would estimate is a good 10 to 15k worth of work done. Potentially a bit excessive but if you buy a pup you'll get shafted. You're basically buying the stuff which has been done to the car in the last 5 [ to 10] years. So if nothing has been done that's alarm bells.

In summary parts are not cheap and these are old cars. So I'd suggest you buy a good one rather than a cheap one.

There is no such thing as a cheap Porsche and a 98 car is now over 25 years old. Do the math.

If you like your cars to be perfect, just don't buy one of these.

[Ken_Code]

pheonix478 said:

Ken_Code said:

I don’t like how 911s drive.

Fair enough. That's different to claiming they are "inherently flawed", they're just different.

Ken_Code said:

...it’s not particularly easy to be able to take one out for a proper drive.

this is very true but if there's ever a chance of getting behind the wheel of a GT3/2, any of them, take it. They are very special cars.

On the first point I mainly agree, but do think that Porsche have cars with engines in the back for mainly historical rather than engineering reasons.

I suspect that if they were designing a car with the 911’s design brief nowadays it’d not be rear-engined.

[biggbn]

ATM said:

biggbn said:

911Spanker said:

As a 1 car solution, the 996 is fantastic. Get a good one, spend some money on making it "yours" and you have a winner..

I love these, and the idea of them...but keep reading about engine issues? How much of a problem is this really?

Bore score is the main risk with the engines in these. But the earliest 3.4 engine had a special coating on the pistons which means these are the least likely to score. These were 97, 98 and 99. Then I THINK the coating was dropped. So that's why I sort out an earlier car. Beyond this piston coating the risk is then directly related to the engine size as the bigger it is then the more heat and forces involved which all lead to scoring risk. So the worst is the 3.8 in the 997. There is also some chit chat Internet rumour about service intervals switching from 12,000 or 12 months to 20,000 or 24 months when the 9x7 cars were launched around 2004. But some of the later 9x6 cars had the longer service intervals too. Which could be why scoring is prolific in the 987 3.4 - they sold lots of them. In the early days Porsche were replacing engines quietly under warranty. That's a good short summary I think / I hope.

There are plenty of other risks. The biggest I didn't know about is the gearbox which is a well known weak point to the better educated 996 nerd. A decent rebuild will cost you 4 grand but it depends what breaks inside. A complete box from Porsche, they still sell them, is over 10 grand plus VAT. Mine disintegrated and had a couple of damaged cogs so it was cheaper to buy a 2nd hand used box. Look on ebay at G96 boxes for sale to get an idea of prices. I paid 2500.

I had a chat with someone selling a 3.4 car that needed a replacement crank. Half way through the rebuild his engine guy measured it and said it was out of spec. They were trying to source a good used crank but couldn't find one. A used engine is about 6 grand - look on ebay for m96 engine. It all starts to add up.

The car I linked which sold recently on ebay had what I would estimate is a good 10 to 15k worth of work done. Potentially a bit excessive but if you buy a pup you'll get shafted. You're basically buying the stuff which has been done to the car in the last 5 [ to 10] years. So if nothing has been done that's alarm bells.

In summary parts are not cheap and these are old cars. So I'd suggest you buy a good one rather than a cheap one.

There is no such thing as a cheap Porsche and a 98 car is now over 25 years old. Do the math.

If you like your cars to be perfect, just don't buy one of these.

Perfection? I think it was Tolstoy who suggested if we seek perfection we will never be content. I'm all about the perfectly imperfect man. But not engineered that way...

[CABC]

otolith said:

That perception seems to be a lot more bulletproof than their actual engineering! The engine issues they had would have sunk a lot of manufacturers.

I see modern Porsche as 2 distinct brands: vanilla/VW accountant driven or GT series. The latter have bespoke engines and more recently double wishbones all round. Wine bar spec Pork is quite sad.