Engine Failure 2003 996 C4S 118,000 miles, Gearbox failure and replace

percymon · January 1, 2007

My view is the same as one already posted earlier - the shape and configuration of the darker sections is a metallurgical function of the way the block was originally cast, either to dissipate heat from the molten metal pouring process or as a function of strength during molten metal cooling ( and possibly in use in the car).

eben · January 1, 2007

Very interesting problem....It is difficult to tell from the photos if there is material missing making the indent or if it was peened in. Also are the marks on the bottom or top of the case ( can't tell which way is up ). Its hard to imagine something making those marks due to a passing rotating element. You might expect to see marks travelling in the direction of the rotation. In picture 6691, on the lower bearing, there looks to be some kind of grinder marks like a burr was removed. Like the others, I will be very interested to hear of the cause of the marks. Maybe they are just cosmetic.

There appears to be no ill effect on the crank or bearings so I can't see how this issue would be related to misfiring.

PS the car IS beautiful.

Johnnyceesred · January 2, 2007

Hi Eben,

Many thanks for your comments.

When I saw the engine last week I noted there were some other gouges/grind marks on another part of the engine. I went back again today and took some more photos for comment. The photos are the same part and photographed at both the left and right ends i.e. there is gouging/grinding at both ends. We're not sure whether these are manufacturing marks or anything problem-related. I did notice that on one photo there is evidence of the metal cracking/flaking.

In relation to your question, I can't say which of the two crank block halves are upper and lower (or right and left) but I'm wondering if the one half that shows the gouges & cracks fits into the other part shown in the latest photos and that there is a relationship between these marks.

There are no broken spring valves or anything else that the specialist has seen as broken when dismantling the engine so we can't relate anything back to the metal that was found in the sump yet.

Hopefully the relevant people at Porsche Cars GB will respond soon and I can advise you of further progress.

Best regards

John

wvicary · January 3, 2007

You often find swarf caught in the filter/sumps of a higher mileage engine, doesn't always mean that things are going south. The photo's look like grinding marks to me, I've seen these before in other engines and are done to remove casting seams. I don't see how this would cause a mis-fire.

Please keep us posted as to the outcome.

Johnnyceesred · January 3, 2007

Thanks for your response. The grinding/fettling of casting seams was favoured by the specialist as well. However my thoughts are that they are too random to be factory-based marks as I would have expected anything done at the factory to be far neater.

The OPC that I purchased the car from commented that they had experienced swarf being trapped in tappets causing a misfire to move between different cylinder banks, but that was on a new car. They'd not seen swarf in a car with the high mileage that mine has done.

Rgds

John

Edited January 3, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

Johnnyceesred · January 4, 2007

On a positive note, Porsche GB have confirmed that I can get the car covered by extended warranty for a year before it gets to 125,000 miles, after the faults have been found and fixed and the car inspected and passed by an OPC to the Extended Warranty standard inspection.

Does anyone have any experience of the Porsche policy regarding physically inspecting a problem car to determine the nature of the problem and whether they will only do an inspection of the car (or engine/engine parts as in my case) at an OPC and not if it's at an independent specialist as mine is at the moment.

Rgds

John

Edited January 4, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

Johnnyceesred · January 5, 2007

Tomorrow I'm taking suspect parts to the OPC where I bought the car from for their lead technician to inspect and I'll upate with the results.

Does anyone know if I can edit the topic name to reflect a more accurate situation?

Rgds

John

Edited January 5, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

Loren · January 5, 2007

Tomorrow I'm taking suspect parts to the OPC where I bought the car from for their lead technician to inspect and I'll upate with the results.
Does anyone know if I can edit the topic name to reflect a more accurate situation?

Rgds

John

Only Moderators or an admin can change a topic title "after the fact". I have edited the title here.

Johnnyceesred · January 5, 2007

Tomorrow I'm taking suspect parts to the OPC where I bought the car from for their lead technician to inspect and I'll upate with the results.
Does anyone know if I can edit the topic name to reflect a more accurate situation?

Rgds

John

Only Moderators or an admin can change a topic title "after the fact". I have edited the title here.

Thanks Loren,

Much appreciated.

Kind regards

John

Johnnyceesred · January 8, 2007

Crank cradle taken to OPC on Saturday. Should be delivered to Porsche Cars GB 9th January. We'll know more when they've inspected the parts. I'm preparing myself for the fact that the parts may have to go back to Stuttgart.

Rgds

John

Johnnyceesred · January 9, 2007

Just had the feedback from the OPC. Porsche GB are rejecting any claim and refusing any goodwill and are returning the faulty crank cradle to the OPC on the basis that: -

1. My car is not currently at an OPC (although the OPC did say this was a weak point of argument)

2. The mileage at 118,000 is outside of their goodwill limit of 80,000 and is excessive for the car's age (my response was to ask if in that case then they were saying that the car is not fit for purpose as an everyday business car doing around 35,000 miles per year?)

3. The car may have been on trackdays and hence subjected to abnormal conditions/performance (the nearest the car's been to a track is the car park at Donington Park)

4. The car has no extended warranty (true and accepted)

My objectives are to understand why the one half of the crank cradle has the faults that it has anyway and I would at least expect an explanation from Porsche if nothing else. Also I want to pursue the "fit for purpose" angle with as senior Porsche person that I can meet with, as I'm in the area of Porsche GB's HQ on Thursday. I'd also like to get a "yes" or "no" as to whether the problem/s would have been fixed under extended warranty anyway. That way I think all of us can learn and understand the true value of extended warranty. I'm also going to seek some advice from any relevant Consumer Advice organisations and see what useful info I can obtain.

Any other suggestions?

Regards

John

PeterK · January 9, 2007

That way I think all of us can learn and understand the true value of extended warranty. I'm also going to seek some advice from any relevant Consumer Advice organisations and see what useful info I can obtain.
Any other suggestions?

Regards

John

That really sucks. Sounds like porsche is saying that their engines are not meant to last over 100K. Submitting this as a case to a consumer protection organization is a good idea that might have a long term payback. You would think that eventually there will be sufficient evidence to start a class-action law-suite. At that point, your case might be used for court proceedings.

Johnnyceesred · January 10, 2007

Hi Peter,

I spoke to Annette Barbara Wilke in Stuttgart today and as I suspected she cannot overrule Porsche GB's decision but did take the time to listen and apologise.

I also asked about getting an analysis of the cracks and score marks on the crank cradle and an explanation as why the engine suffered the symptoms with misfiring etc. She confirmed that this wasn't normal practice but if I wanted to put my request in writing and agree to pay the costs of any further analysis they would consider it.

I can understand Porsche's position regarding goodwill outside of warranty as if they are too flexible in this regard it reduces the value of extended warranty and that wouldn't please those owners who have taken out such cover.

So the bottom line is I've ordered an exchange engine this afternoon for delivery in 7 days which comes with 2 year's parts warranty and common sense says buy the extended warranty for the other items that are coverable. The OPC gave me a 10% discount as goodwill from them. I don't think they'll get anything back from Porsche to cover this. This make the price £7,326 including tax. I've got all the labour for engine removal and fitting new one on top to cover as well.

The way I see the situation is that I probably would have had had some preventative work done on the engine at some point anyway given its high mileage so I'm just spending the money (or possibly less) than that would have cost but paying it early and getting a new engine with warranty. Can't wait to get it back on the road now.

Thanks to all who have commented.

Best regards

John

Edited January 13, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

PeterK · January 10, 2007

Sad, indeed. Sounds like porsche wants to move into the market of sports cars with disposable engines, too bad that ferrari already cornered it.

What really strikes me odd is how little aftermarket industry there is for rebuilding of 996 engines. In US, you're basically tied to the official dealers. 993 owners have a wide variety of options when presented with the need for engine rebuilding.

Johnnyceesred · January 12, 2007

I made another very useful contact yesterday and took the faulty crank cradle to show him. He noticed that the metal was flaking off one part and I've attached two photos to show this. I'm now more convinced that the metal that was found in the sump was off this particular part. Whether it was the cause of the misfire we'll never know but I doubt it was. He also said that the grind marks in my earlier posts would definitely have been done at the factory. It looks like they were trying to grind off some material from the casting process.

Also you will see from the other attached photo that another part of the cradle is showing fractures in the surface metal which I'm sure in time would have gotten more severe and flaked off as well.

My thoughts are now that it's probably a good thing that the engine was dismantled to discover this. If it the msifire had been identified and cured without engine dismantling, more metal could have broken off and caused a major engine failure whilst I was on the motorway or other fast road.

Given the evidence I've accrued, I'll write/e-mail to the Director of Engineering or equivalent in Stuttgart and see what response I can get from the Quality Control angle.

Best regards

John

norton-sp · January 13, 2007

sorry to read about all your woes john..and i admire your strength and the lengths that you are going too. im just a working man and not a rich porsche owner, but last year forked out 11,200 euros for a new engine which blew after only 80k km. i wish i had had the strengh and will to take it as far as you are.

i posted my woes back then....maybe you would like to read.

http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?s...amp;#entry42236

wish you lots of luck.

kelvin

Johnnyceesred · January 13, 2007

sorry to read about all your woes john..and i admire your strength and the lengths that you are going too. im just a working man and not a rich porsche owner, but last year forked out 11,200 euros for a new engine which blew after only 80k km. i wish i had had the strengh and will to take it as far as you are.
i posted my woes back then....maybe you would like to read.

http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?s...amp;#entry42236

wish you lots of luck.

kelvin

Hi Kelvin,

Thanks for your sympathetic reply. I read your topic and hope your new engine's performing well. I too am a working man and I need the car for my business. I had a BMW M3 (3 years old, 78,000 miles, no problems) before my Porsche which blew me away when I saw it. Yes, love at first sight really happens!!! So I was used to driving performance cars for business and covering significantly more than average mileage without a hitch,

It seems you and I also have something in common, red Italian motorbikes!!. We must exchange a few more details on that point, by PM perhaps?

I had a letter from Porsche GB today confirming what they said on the 'phone to me. My point back to them will be that the component I am questioning has defects and grinding that were present at the point of manufacture and as such is not a component covered by their statement "it is an unfortunate fact that failures may occur within mechanical components at some point during a vehicle's lifetime". My argument is that the component was faulty and was subject to grinding/peening at the time of manufacture and therefore should not have been fitted in the first place. It also shows fractures as you will have seen from the photos, which you would not expect from a non-moving part. We have legislation here called "The Sale of Goods Act, 1979" which covers a product's "fitness for purpose" for 6 years from the date of purchase. As I don't believe the crank cradle was fit for the purpose it was designed for because of the fractures and the grinding, which I'm sure caused the flaking metal that we discovered, I will use this legislation to base my further arguments on.

Anyway I'll keep the topic updated with further developments.

Best regards

John

Edited January 13, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

Johnnyceesred · January 13, 2007

I met with the independent who's doing the work for me and he's going to sort a senior engineering/quality control contact in Stuttgart to write/e-mail to.

Rgds

John

Edited January 13, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

norton-sp · January 14, 2007

hi john

yes, my new engine goes well...i sometimes think not as good as the old one but good enough. i give it lots of stick cos i have a porsche warranty on it so im daring it to fail. :angry: i dont really need my porsche but i tend to drive it most of the time cos i just love too...its hard, noisy and not very practical..but i just love driving it and thats what its all about isnt it?

im really glad you have the grunt to talk to porsche about all this...and i support what has been said in another blown engine case in this forum that its about time that a few lawyers earned some money taking legal action against porsche. i would be very willing to take part in it too.

yes we do have somthing in common apart from engine probs if you like fast italian bikes :-) i own a small sideline business constructing and re-selling exclusive parts for ducati´s and mv´s...its really just a hobby, but it enables me to pay for my cars and bikes...and if anyone is interested i also have a few porsche 996 carbon (cosmetic) parts on my website which i also manufacture... excuse the advertising :oops:

best regards

kelvin

911dark · January 16, 2007

... yes we do have somthing in common apart from engine probs if you like fast italian bikes :-) ...

:offtopic: Sorry off topic, but count me in! It's interesting having a Porsche 996 and a Ducati 996. :thumbup: http://www.shekari.org/ducati.php

Johnnyceesred · January 16, 2007

I sent a lengthy letter and 13 other supporting photos showing the grind marks in close-up and more detail and a further imperfection in the bearing support metal to Customer Assistance (now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one!!!) in Reading today. I quoted the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and stated that the marks on the crank cradle could only have been done at the point of manufacture or assembly and certainly before the car's normal lifetime began. I also pointed out that only areas that had cracks in showed signs of grinding. Hence the part in question was and still is, not "fit for purpose".

The photos I included clearly show ancilliary marks left by a grinding tool on the curved parts of the crank cradle section involved. (Example attached).

Their attitiude was that's just your opinion, prove it and we're not changing our decision. They invited me to get an independent inspection done if I wanted to pursue the matter but there would be no guarantee that they would change their decision.

They suggested I contact the Institute of Automotive Engineering Assessors www.iaea.uk.com for an independent assessment. The assessor I eventually talked to said that I'd be better off contacting the Institution of Mechanical Engineering as my situation was more metallurgy based than the situations the IAEA advise on.

I was also advised by Dave Griffiths that his contact in Stuttgart's experience was that sending any complaint direct to the Engineering or QA departments would probably be unproductive.

It makes me think a direct approach to Dr. Wiedeking might be worth trying!!! Who knows??

Rgds

John

Edited January 16, 2007 by Johnnyceesred

Lee Quave · January 17, 2007

I sent a lengthy letter and 13 other supporting photos showing the grind marks in close-up and more detail and a further imperfection in the bearing support metal to Customer Assistance (now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one!!!) in Reading today. I quoted the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and stated that the marks on the crank cradle could only have been done at the point of manufacture or assembly and certainly before the car's normal lifetime began. I also pointed out that only areas that had cracks in showed signs of grinding. Hence the part in question was and still is, not "fit for purpose".
The photos I included clearly show ancilliary marks left by a grinding tool on the curved parts of the crank cradle section involved. (Example attached).

Their attitiude was that's just your opinion, prove it and we're not changing our decision. They invited me to get an independent inspection done if I wanted to pursue the matter but there would be no guarantee that they would change their decision.

They suggested I contact the Institute of Automotive Engineering Assessors www.iaea.uk.com for an independent assessment. The assessor I eventually talked to said that I'd be better off contacting the Institution of Mechanical Engineering as my situation was more metallurgy based than the situations the IAEA advise on.

I was also advised by Dave Griffiths that his contact in Stuttgart's experience was that sending any complaint direct to the Engineering or QA departments would probably be unproductive.

It makes me think a direct approach to Dr. Wiedeking might be worth trying!!! Who knows??

Rgds

John

John,

How long did it take for them to response to your letter? Did they call you, e-mail you or send you a reply in writing? I’m just trying to figure out when I should expect them to respond to mine.

Thanks for your assistance.

Lee

Lee Quave · January 17, 2007

John,

Sign In

Welcome to RennTech.org Community, Guest

Engine Failure 2003 996 C4S 118,000 miles, Gearbox failure and replace

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information