996 C2 Manual Coupe Values

[Macca]

Penrite HPR5 5W 40 is my go to also. 

[dan_189]

RMS failure and IMSB failures do not have any correlation. However there was mention by Jake that non symmetrical cases do affect the IMS (not to be mistaken by the IMS bearing). I don't think it's really an issue with RoW cars and if it was they would have been replaced under warranty. 

[Peter M]

My understanding of what the Rabster is saying is that it's the extra vibration 'load' on the bearing from an out of round shaft and/or bore centre that is the primary cause of bearing failure, not the actual bearing itself. I haven't seen mention if the out of round shafts/bores occurred evenly across the 996/early 997 range but if so I guess it would suggest that the small single row cars just didn't cope as well with the extra vibration as the dual or larger single row.

How would that occur?  The bearing fits into a machined housing in the IMS sprocket which I would think to be unlikely to be out of round.  If it was out of round it would only result in the axial loading on the IMS bearing varying as it rotated which is no different and less than the loading from driving the cam chain.  Ball bearings are also designed with some clearance between the balls and the races to allow for misalignment. 

That failure has to do with a fire in one of the engine factories forcing the production into a different factory. Engines that were produced came out with slightly unsymmetrical RMS areas. Most of these engines from what I've read were replaced under warranty. However if it wasn't nothing can be done but the symptoms are an RMS seal that refuses not to leak.

Aren't the crankcases die cast so if the dies meet specification, surely you couldn't have to much variation in one case to the other?

...unless the factory-shift affected cars had both out of round RMS bores and out of round IMS bores? Seems far fetched and I don't remember Jake mentioning any correlation between the two, but maybe I've missed something, it's happened before!

The IMS bearing runs inside the IMS sprocket and the inside of the bearing is supported by separate Bearing "cover" that bolts to the outside of the crankcase.  ie the IMS bearing doesn't touch the crankcase at all. Can't see how the roundness of either the RMS or IMS holes in the crankcase would effect the bearing. 

Makes me think Raby still doesn't really know why some IMS bearings fail and most don't.

[TINGY]

I would like to see an "out of round shaft", how does one manufacture one of these.

 

[dan_189]

Maybe the original dies were destroyed? I don't know, I only know the story not the exact details.

[P-Kay]

yep....story...

219K and still going strong

[D2000]

Going back to value, called my insurer today to look at increasing my insured value.  Aside from the fact that they wouldn't let me change the insured value without starting a new policy (and therefore losing a time with them bonus), the maximum value they would insure it for was less than the maximum value they would insure it for at commencement of my policy in July last year (then c$53K, now c$44K).  For clarity, this is a 2001 996.1 C4 with 78,000kms (and IMS Solution).  I've told them I'll be changing insurers and taking all my policies (about 7 between house and cars) with me.

[P-Kay]

Going back to value, called my insurer today to look at increasing my insured value.  Aside from the fact that they wouldn't let me change the insured value without starting a new policy (and therefore losing a time with them bonus), the maximum value they would insure it for was less than the maximum value they would insure it for at commencement of my policy in July last year (then c$53K, now c$44K).  For clarity, this is a 2001 996.1 C4 with 78,000kms (and IMS Solution).  I've told them I'll be changing insurers and taking all my policies (about 7 between house and cars) with me.

Give Ben a call at Famous

[Mike737]

Going back to value, called my insurer today to look at increasing my insured value.  Aside from the fact that they wouldn't let me change the insured value without starting a new policy (and therefore losing a time with them bonus), the maximum value they would insure it for was less than the maximum value they would insure it for at commencement of my policy in July last year (then c$53K, now c$44K).  For clarity, this is a 2001 996.1 C4 with 78,000kms (and IMS Solution).  I've told them I'll be changing insurers and taking all my policies (about 7 between house and cars) with me.

I was easily able to up my value a month ago. Shannons, Lumley or Famous you shouldn't have an issue with.

[Diamond911]

Yeah, Famous and Lumley I've had no problems increasing my insurance with supporting photographs. Effortless.

[DT]

How would that occur?  The bearing fits into a machined housing in the IMS sprocket which I would think to be unlikely to be out of round.  If it was out of round it would only result in the axial loading on the IMS bearing varying as it rotated which is no different and less than the loading from driving the cam chain.  Ball bearings are also designed with some clearance between the balls and the races to allow for misalignment. 

Aren't the crankcases die cast so if the dies meet specification, surely you couldn't have to much variation in one case to the other?

The IMS bearing runs inside the IMS sprocket and the inside of the bearing is supported by separate Bearing "cover" that bolts to the outside of the crankcase.  ie the IMS bearing doesn't touch the crankcase at all. Can't see how the roundness of either the RMS or IMS holes in the crankcase would effect the bearing. 

Makes me think Raby still doesn't really know why some IMS bearings fail and most don't.

After opening up the IMS pandoras box I'm gonna tap out...having never pulled one apart I really don't know what I'm talking and I'm making assumptions that are perhaps skewing the 'story'. This is one of the pages from Rennlist that talks about the shaft/bore out of round, there was more mention of it but I can't find it at the mo:

http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/739103-ims-bearing-failure-for-your-996-y-or-n-tell-us-yr-996-mk1-or-mk2-failure-mode-50.htm

[Peter M]

I would like to see an "out of round shaft", how does one manufacture one of these.

It's actually a length of tube that has had a sprocket pressed on each end.  I understand they don't even weld the sprockets on but rely on a press fit.

[vl gra]

Going back to value, called my insurer today to look at increasing my insured value.  Aside from the fact that they wouldn't let me change the insured value without starting a new policy (and therefore losing a time with them bonus), the maximum value they would insure it for was less than the maximum value they would insure it for at commencement of my policy in July last year (then c$53K, now c$44K).  For clarity, this is a 2001 996.1 C4 with 78,000kms (and IMS Solution).  I've told them I'll be changing insurers and taking all my policies (about 7 between house and cars) with me.

Are you able to advise what insurance company are playing these games with our ( the customer ) money?

[Peter M]

After opening up the IMS pandoras box I'm gonna tap out...having never pulled one apart I really don't know what I'm talking and I'm making assumptions that are perhaps skewing the 'story'. This is one of the pages from Rennlist that talks about the shaft/bore out of round, there was more mention of it but I can't find it at the mo:

http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/739103-ims-bearing-failure-for-your-996-y-or-n-tell-us-yr-996-mk1-or-mk2-failure-mode-50.htm

Hi DT,

Thanks for the link to the post from old mate.  If he was so clever surely he would publish his tolerance and how out of spec he has found a small number of cases to be..  He'd also explain the failure mechanism.  I don't discount he does good work but this appears to be more fear mongering for his own profit.

I think Baz at Haltech seems to the most credible of all the engine rebuilders.

I apologise if you thought I was having a go at you.  That wasn't my intention.

Regards 

[TINGY]

Without wishing to open up the IMSB pandora's box and recognising I'm a newbie here, this quote from Jake Raby, of Flat6 Innovations on the Rennlist forum makes a lot of sense to me:

'The spec that we have seen come into play most isn't the shaft (though it does happen) but more the bores that are machined into the crankcase to mount the IMS flange, and to hold the crankshaft carrier.'

 

Can anyone explain the failure mechanism that Raby is expousing now?

Just sounds like another way for Raby to put his hand in the pockets of anxious 996 owners!

 

 

That failure has to do with a fire in one of the engine factories forcing the production into a different factory. Engines that were produced came out with slightly unsymmetrical RMS areas. Most of these engines from what I've read were replaced under warranty.

So in a nutshell is it that some of the machining of the engine components were not up to standard because of a fire in a factory which then forced production to another area.

The holes that were bored to house the component that holds the IMS bearing may have been in the incorrect position forcing the shaft to run slightly out of its intended position as well. This would (maybe) then cause wear to the shaft and ultimately the bearing causing failure.

Can't explain how this would cause multiple year cars having problems, were all the engine components made together then stored until ready to use?

I'm no expert by the way, just trying to make some sense of all this, it's such a mystery as to why it's happening to some cars and not others.

It's such a shame that this issue has tainted such a great car and put so much doubt into buying one of these cars.

[DT]

Hi DT,

Thanks for the link to the post from old mate.  If he was so clever surely he would publish his tolerance and how out of spec he has found a small number of cases to be..  He'd also explain the failure mechanism.  I don't discount he does good work but this appears to be more fear mongering for his own profit.

I think Baz at Haltech seems to the most credible of all the engine rebuilders.

I apologise if you thought I was having a go at you.  That wasn't my intention.

Regards 

No worries Peter, you threw up some valid points which made me realise I was in no position to argue for or against any theory on IMSB failure.

I think Jake is a great asset to the 996 community, although I agree he can sometimes come across a bit fear mongery.

His spin on oil filter adaptor, magnetic drain plug and low temp thermostat made sense to me, as did moving away from Mobil 1. All relatively cheap and easy modifications that for me at least, so far, appear to be positive.

Re the IMS/B, the general idea of the shaft/bore being out of round/misaligned and causing the bearing to fail made sense to me. It also makes sense to me that this and to a lesser extent lack of lubrication could be the primary cause of bearing failure and could be the reason why some bearings went very early and some are still coming to light. Apparently there are quite wide variations between these out of round bores/shafts, some are out a bit, some are out 'a lot'. So it makes sense to me that a single row bearing with 'a lot' of misalignment would go early whereas a single with a little misalignment would go later, a dual with a lot of misalignment and the seal not 'broken in' would go later whereas a dual with a little misalignment and the seal broken in may last the life of the engine.

Oil change intervals and how the car has been driven seem to have an influence, and tiptronic's are apparently more prone than manuals. Which to me seems to point to lubrication being a factor. I'm wondering if cars that are driven as intended from new - cars that see plenty of revs, (mk1's - dual rows - revvier engine than the mk2) had their bearing seals wear enough to let a reasonable amount of oil into the bearing and if this car continues to be rev-driven rather than lumbered throughout its life and has its oil changed regularly to 'flush' the bearing, it stands a much better chance (particularly a dual row bearing) of withstanding any potential misalignment issues. 

Wow, I just opened the box again with my mumblings, I really should shut up.

If you're looking at buying a 996 it's worth remembering that there was only a small percentage of cars (1% I think for mk1's and 8 or 9% I think for mk2) with this issue. I wouldn't let it influence the decision to buy a 996, they really are an incredible car and an incredibly underated car. I wouldn't have any hesitation in jumping in mine and doing a few laps around Oz in air conditioned luxury. If you have a certain amount of 'mechanical sympathy' or 'feel' it doesn't take long to recognise that apart from the odd chink to be aware of they're very, very well engineered and put together cars.

 

[smit2100]

Give Ben a call at Famous

+1 on Famous in term of their quotes coming way out in front based on agreed market.  Anyone had to make a claim under a Famous policy and can comment on their experience

[Pokiou]

Lumley for me, its 1000 a year for me and i live in the northern suburbs and ages 37.

[quasio]

back to values for a sec. i thought this was interesting:

https://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/SSE-AD-4522147?WT.seg_4=PriceAlert

originally listed at 44,999 has just increased to 51,300.

 

[t888]

back to values for a sec. i thought this was interesting:

https://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/SSE-AD-4522147?WT.seg_4=PriceAlert

originally listed at 44,999 has just increased to 51,300.

 

On most stats it doesn't seem too badly priced, assuming the ad is correct and the "no drivers other than me" is a reality not an excuse to not allow test drives. 

Except for kms. It's pretty high at 160k by modern 911 standards. Seems like the market really loses interest quickly as kms rise. All the data i've collected shows this.

[D2000]

back to values for a sec. i thought this was interesting:

https://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/SSE-AD-4522147?WT.seg_4=PriceAlert

originally listed at 44,999 has just increased to 51,300.

 

Probably got too many low balls and so raised the price in the hope that the low balls would end up closer to his real asking

[Rod C]

back to values for a sec. i thought this was interesting:

https://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/SSE-AD-4522147?WT.seg_4=PriceAlert

originally listed at 44,999 has just increased to 51,300.

 

Happens all the time on car sales it's their way of a bump. There is a 2002. 996 that's been for sale roughly 2 years and it's price has gone up and down like a fiddlers elbow.

[P-Kay]

On most stats it doesn't seem too badly priced, assuming the ad is correct and the "no drivers other than me" is a reality not an excuse to not allow test drives. 

Except for kms. It's pretty high at 160k by modern 911 standards. Seems like the market really loses interest quickly as kms rise. All the data i've collected shows this.

Agreed on the higher k's less interest. Regarding only driver, I have put the same caveat and in my case, this is to discourage joy riders, so I suspect the same applies.

[quasio]

Yeah totally fine with not allowing others to drive, makes sense, and you can learn a lot by seeing how the owner drives it. (weirdly my previous few car sales, the buyers didn't even want to drive the car. They only drove it after they handed over the cheque)

Personally i think his previous price was quite fair, his new price, initially my thought was he's getting greedy, but i agree, probably to get rid of low ballers and find real buyers.  

For watercooled, the >100K kms price drop still applies, I guess besides the IMS etc. assuming they are ok, how long do these engines generally last before a rebuild? - 200K kms? more?

 

[Pokiou]

Its hard to say, depends on the how the car was used. There is alot of owners with over 250.000km on the clock without engines being replaced or having any IMS issues. My engine was replaced by Porsche under warranty. The original had only 13.000km and no issues. My current one has 155.000 nothing wrong with it.