DIY question

[JFP in PA]

An entirely different can of worms.  The M96/97 engine Porsches (basically all of them with the exception's of the Turbo and GT cars which use a different engine) have an intermediate shaft that is driven by the crank, and which drives the cams.  On the back end of the shaft is a bearing which gets replaced with an aftermarket hybrid ceramic bearing as the OEM bearing is prone to failure.  The process to do this is known as an IMS retrofit.  For a more detailed explanation: http://imsretrofit.com/

[gcp]

Since I'll be removing valve covers and into Cams area for the solenoid swap and installation of new tensioners, can the IMS retrofit be done at home, without removing the engine? How much will the parts cost and can it be done in my garage?

 

JFP, may I please request you cell number so we can discuss the details?

 

Thank you for all your help thus far!!

[JFP in PA]

Since I'll be removing valve covers and into Cams area for the solenoid swap and installation of new tensioners, can the IMS retrofit be done at home, without removing the engine? How much will the parts cost and can it be done in my garage?

 

JFP, may I please request you cell number so we can discuss the details?

 

Thank you for all your help thus far!!

 

If you wish to have an off line conversation, send me a PM.  During normal business hours, I am usually way too busy in the shop to take phone calls.

 

Not to underestimate your capabilities or facilities, but you also need to take into account that all of this work will require a lot of specialized tooling, as well as considerable technical knowledge.  The IMS swap alone will require removal of the transmission, clutch, and flywheel just to be able to see which type the engine is carrying.

[gcp]

I understand, thank you JFP.

[gcp]

As an update, yesterday we tackled this task once more and my new Durometric scanner appears faulty because I am able to read values but not able to activate many of the functions. e.g. the cam solenoids because the tool becomes unresponsive and locks up (with Windows 10 laptop), so I'll have to get back on the phone with tech support today. But beyond this, is the Bank 1 cam position sensor/solenoid on the driver's side (easier to access) or on passenger's side? Also, under the car there was grease/oil crud onto the engine & solenoids/wires so after degreasing and washing it all off we removed/inspected the passenger's side plate o-ring and the solenoid bracket which appears to be aluminum with plastic inserts? All that will need to be replaced to resolve oil leaks but we are still trying to figure out how to go into the engine in order to get to the wear pads and solenoids/sensors.....I am afraid this task will be more than we can handle and we'll have to take car to the stealer.

Edited February 29, 2016 by gcp

[RFM]

Bank 1 is on the driver's side on 996 LHD cars, also the waterpump side.

[gcp]

We finally removed the bank 1 camshaft position sensor, quite the task from taking apart all things in the way, and I am unable to measure resistance between poles 1, 2, 3. It reads open, no matter which poles I read between so, what should the values be? There's a bit of a magnetic effect on this sensor, still.....picks up a bolt from 1/8".

 

I'd appreciate your input before I order a sensor in the morning.

Edited March 17, 2016 by gcp

[Ahsai]

I re-read this thread and I must say I'm very confused. 

 

1) What year and model is your 996?

2) P1325 should be "Camshaft adjustment bank 2" (not bank 1). Bank 2 is the passenger side.

3) P1325 complains about the bank 2 variocam activation not as expected and it can only be tripped if there's no cam sensor errors. the code is not complaining about any sensor!

4) Cam sensor has 3 pins. There's no documented resistance test for those pins but it's irrelevant anyway given the above. Usually you test if the power supply pin gets 5v when the key is ON. The signal pin you have to check it with an oscilloscope when the engine is running.

5) What are the exact codes you currently have?

[gcp]

Ahsai, my 996 is a 2K Cabrio and as listed above the scanner produced the following: P1325 Fault Code 178 – Camshaft adjustment bank 1

 

So, I still don't know if it's the sensor, the solenoid or the tensioner pads as JFP thinks it probably is because my Durametric proved problematic and was sent back for evaluation and essentially I am fault guessing at this stage. My question stands, what should this sensor's resistance measurements be?

Edited March 17, 2016 by gcp

[JFP in PA]

I re-read this thread and I must say I'm very confused. 

 

1) What year and model is your 996?

2) P1325 should be "Camshaft adjustment bank 2" (not bank 1). Bank 2 is the passenger side.

3) P1325 complains about the bank 2 variocam activation not as expected and it can only be tripped if there's no cam sensor errors. the code is not complaining about any sensor!

4) Cam sensor has 3 pins. There's no documented resistance test for those pins but it's irrelevant anyway given the above. Usually you test if the power supply pin gets 5v when the key is ON. The signal pin you have to check it with an oscilloscope when the engine is running.

5) What are the exact codes you currently have?

 

You are not the only one.  This thread  has jumped back and forth on several subjects and posters, which has not helped the clarity, but your synopsis is correct:  P1325 is bank 2, and is a solenoid related problem, probably dirt, or an electrical failure, which I suggested in post #4.  I also suspect wear pad issues because of the excessive deviation values before the VarioCam system activates on his Durametric system.  The OP brought the sensor issue up in post #3, where he commented they had found a bad sensor as well, but did not mention any related codes or details.

 

So at a minimum, there is a solenoid problem, and probable pad wear issues which need further investigation.

[Ahsai]

gcp, please re-read John's and my posts. I believe all your questions have been answered. I think my major confuion is you keep saying P1325 is bank 1 because Durametric indicated bank 1 and you keep looking at bank 1. Per Porsche diagnostic manual, P1325 is bank 2 so it seems Durametric is wrong in that regard.

The cam sesnor is the hall effect type, which needs to be powered before it can be tested properly. Not all electronics components can be checked by a simple resistance test.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Ahsai

[gcp]

_{It was on post #1 when I stated that the Ethos scanner reading was: faulty inlet bank 2 camshaft position sensor (code P1325), and it now appears that this was the correct fault after all.}

 

_{I agree, this thread did become rather confusing, and even though I may have played a role in this I must say, so much for the coveted Durametric scan tool I purchased specifically for this job, & depended upon to help me resolve my car’s issue. Not only has Durametric proven flakey to operate, now you tell me that it falsely reported a problem on bank 1. I’m aghast because of all the work/rework involved!}

 

_{I will tackle bank 2 as soon as I've calmed down.}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by gcp

[Ahsai]

Don't get discouraged by that Durametric mistake (could be just a simple typo on Durametric part. Durametric mistake is quite rare though I must say). Its capability to activate the variocam and reading cam deviations already helped you a lot. Like John said, it's obvious from the Durametric cam readings that you have two problems:

 

1) Cam deviation out of spec (spec is 0 degree with +/-6 degree tolerance. You're way above that on both banks) in BOTH BANKS

2) You have a variocam activation problem in BANK 2 only. Note this problem can be a few things: transistor inside the DME/bad wiring/bad solenoid/bad actuator. You need some strategic troubleshooting to pinpoint the exact culprit.

[gcp]

Simple typos are no permitted because such typos cause me multiple hours of work and skinned forearms. One should be able to explicitly trust a tool he pays good money for! Is this thing even mature enough for the market and can it be trusted with any info it spits out? My Durametric cable went back because it would not operate reliably with any of my computers, and yet  they've been unable to find a problem with it, after testing it. I asked if they hooked it up to an actual car and they said no, they don't have to. They were willing to send me another cable to try but my car is already torn apart for repair so what good will that be, even if the new cable can be trusted. Needless to say I've asked for a refund, in hope of finding something more reliable. I also purchased the Bentley book as a reference let's see how this helps.

 

Quote: 1) Cam deviation out of spec (spec is 0 degree with +/-6 degree tolerance. You're way above that on both banks) in BOTH BANKS

 

If the readings can be trusted and I am not sure that we can. Interesting thing about this is that the car idles fine when first started but then runs rough, not much mind you but still rough, when it warms up and the RPMs fall. Does that tell you something Ahsai?

 

Quote: 2) You have a variocam activation problem in BANK 2 only. Note this problem can be a few things: transistor inside the DME/bad wiring/bad solenoid/bad actuator. You need some strategic troubleshooting to pinpoint the exact culprit.

 

I suspected the solenoid all along but I am all for strategic troubleshooting! What would you do if you were in my shoes? I assume the first thing I'll have to do is put back together all bank 1 components or should I leave things as they are and remove side 2? And since the battery's disconnected another scanner I assume would be of no use?

[Ahsai]

My point was bank1 and bank2 could be a simple typo in the error dscription by Durametric but that doesn't mean all the other cam deviation readings are wrong because it's a lot harder to get those wrong. The reaosn is those values are reported by the DME dynamically in real-time. Durametric just queries the DME and displays exactly what the DME returns.

What have been taken off so far? Based on that I can probably suggest some testing. Also do you still have the Durametric? We could use its variocam activation functions you used before in earlier posts.

[gcp]

Ahsai, as I stated above I no longer own the Durametric because it was sent back  2 weeks ago for testing and ultimately a refund. I do have access to a friend's Ethos scanner but that's it.

 

Bank 1 camshaft position sensor is all I've taken off thus far (and all peripheral parts to be able to get to it), I did not want to remove valve covers to get to the solenoid on either side without known for sure it would be needed. So, please feel free to suggest your recommendations and I'll execute.

 

And since you mention possible wiring/connector issues, including the DME, a while back my rear floor flooded by a clogged vent so I had to vacuum the water out and let dry. Could it be the water that caused this fault? Again, cold it idles fine, does that tell us something? 

Edited March 18, 2016 by gcp

[Ahsai]

I see now.

 

Variocam works like this. It only activates above some rpm (2k?) and under some other conditions (e.g., oil temp greater than some temp). At idle it's not activated and that explains the engine idles OK despite the CEL.

 

When the key is turned to the last position before cranking, +12v is supplied to pin 1 of BOTH solenoids so you should check you have +12v at the solenoid connector pin 1 (test #1). The DME is connected to pin 2 of the solenoids individually and it grounds each solenoid individually to activate them. That's how Durametric activates each solenoids like you did in post #21. Durmatric commands the DME to ground the solenoid individually. Since the solenoids normally operate only when the engine is not idling, when you activate it during idle, the engine will run rough, which is normal and expected. You wrote in post #21, "Bank 1 start increases idle but not by much, idle is rough. Bank 2 start makes no perceptible difference, idle is still rough" This proves Bank 1 variocam activates correctly and not bank 2. We also saw that bank2 timing was not advanced together with bank 1 in the same post. Further proving that bank 2 solenoid is not activated.

 

3 possibilities:

 

1) The solenoid is not getting either the +12v or the ground from the DME

2) The solenoid gets power alright but it doesn't work

3) DME itself is bad so it doesn't supply ground properly to the solenoid

 

Test #2: unlpug the solenoid and check the resistance of the solenoid pins. Should be ~13 ohms

Test #3: Use a 9v battery to power the solenoid +ve on pin 1 and -ve on pin 2 and try to feel if anything moves inside the solenoid

Test #4: Disconnect the battery and unplug the DME. Check continuity between its plug V/pin 3 and pin 2 of the bank 2 solenoid. You should have continuity. Check short to ground by continuity test between plug V/pin 3 and the chassis. Should have infinite resistance.

Test #5: This will need engine running. Unplug the solenoid and connect a small peanut 12v bulb (3~5w) to it and rev the engine beyond 2k like you did in post #21. The bulb should light up.

Test #6: Unplug the solenoid. When engine is idling, power the solenoid like in Test #3. Engine idle should change.

 

Also check out another post I helped another owner. His uses DME 5.2 (non-egas) so it's a little different than yours (DME 7.2 e-gas) but the principles are the same. http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/815258-variocam-actuator-trigger-voltage.html

 

Photos of DME here http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic/33878-dme-location-for-a-99-996-cabrio/

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Ahsai

[Ahsai]

And since you mention possible wiring/connector issues, including the DME, a while back my rear floor flooded by a clogged vent so I had to vacuum the water out and let dry. Could it be the water that caused this fault?

 

The DME is under t e right rear seat parcel shelf so it's not anywhere close to the floor but it should be obvious once you get to it. You can check for dampness.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Ahsai

[JFP in PA]

Sorry that I have been away from this conversation all day, but I wanted to comment on two things:

 

Ahsai is on the correct path concerning the codes and how to run spot system diagnostic's going forward.

 

I can understand your frustration with the Durametric software, but I can relate that from my own experience that quite often the problems encountered with the system (failure to connect to a vehicle, inability to see or activate individual systems, etc.) are more often related to the computer the software is running on, and quite often the .NET version already installed on the machine.  We have had customers bring cars to the shop that they said they could not get the system to work on at all, and the car immediately connected and obeyed commands when we hooked it up to our system.  And as we are not computer geeks, but simple mechanics, I'm sure that we are not the reason our system works when others do not.  And as program is also a continuous "work in progress", the Durametric system is not perfect, and probably never will be.  It has been the subject of typos and other similar issues in the past, and I am sure it will be again in the future.  But it is still the best Porsche diagnostic tool short of the almighty PIWIS system (which is also known to have typos and other problems itself), and it is also being updated nearly constantly, both to address shortcomings as they are identified and to adapt to changes Porsche makes to their unique diagnostic logic system. 

[gcp]

Ahsai, great info to digest, these are indeed succinct steps I can act upon!! I'll implement your recommendations before I go dropping the engine and tearing into it to get to the solenoids. I'm already at the farm for the weekend but I will tackle next week and report back with the findings.

 

JFP, I am not a fan of Durametric, period. My experience, beyond the scanner's immaturity (with any flavor of windows....I tried 3 different laptops), has been negative all around, to include the way their tech support handles customers, so let's agree to disagree on this. Example, when I asked to speak to the owner to voice my displeasure on their return policy so they further test my cable, a few days past 30 day ownership mind you, I was told that he refuses to speak to his customers. That alone speaks volumes! So, immature product, coupled with immature service and unhelpful tech support irreversibly shaped my opinion of this company.

[Ahsai]

I think in most cases people are happy with Durametric because it's the only economical scanner that can read vital info such as cam deviations. However, when it doesn't work or worse gives wrong info, I can understand the frustration to the user. The way I view this case is a simple typo in the error code description triggered a lot of unnecessary grief making the owner not trusting Durametric anymore. It's just unfortunate. I would think Durametric could have handled it better by as least checking their codes and confirm or deny whether there's a typo or there are other explanations. In fact, if it's truly a typo, Durametric should thank gcp for reporting the bug.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Ahsai

[JFP in PA]

I think in most cases people are happy with Durametric because it's the only economical scanner that can read vital info such as cam deviations. However, when it doesn't work or worse gives wrong info, I can understand the frustration to the user. The way I view this case is a simple typo in the error code description triggered a lot of unnecessary grief making the owner not trusting Durametric anymore. It's just unfortunate. I would think Durametric could have handled it better by as least checking their codes and confirm or deny whether there's a typo or there are other explanations. In fact, if it's truly a typo, Durametric should thank gcp for reporting the bug.

 

Duncan, I completely agree with your perspective, but I can also understand where Durametric is coming from.  They do have a bug reporting program, which I and I am sure others have used in the past, finding Durametric receptive to the observation, and saw the problem fixed in subsequent updates.  And I have spoken with Owen Sutton on more than one occasion, and always found him to be very helpful and interested.  Unfortunately, they, much like Jake Raby and LN Engineering, have started to place some distance between themselves and the general public on some technical support issues simply because they have begun to view some problems as "end user induced" that end up needlessly consuming time and resources in a "no win" situation from their perspective.  And not to disparage GCP or his efforts in getting the system to work, but very similar situations crop up from time to time that do not play out well for anyone involved, and leave me scratching my head.

 

Another Porsche site that I frequent recently had a long time member buy the Durametric system, and not be able to get it to work successfully.  He also tried it on multiple computers before sending the cable back as "defective".  In this case, Durametric tested the cable and said that it checked out fine, but instead of returning it, sent the purchaser an brand new unit (which they said they tested before shipment), and which he also was unable to get to work, again trying multiple computers without success (all of this was posted in a very long thread on the site).  Totally disgusted, the purchaser then publicly completely bitched out Durametric, and then sold the system to another board member for a fraction of what he had paid for it.  The new owner installed the system on his laptop, and it worked perfectly on the very first attempt; he even offered the original purchaser a chance to come over and use it.  So sometimes these problems are not as crystal clear as they might seem.

 

When we recently converted the shop computers over from Windows 7 to Windows 10, our Durametric system completely stopped working.  A phone call to Durametric, and we were told "common problem, uninstall and reinstall the latest version of the software and you will be fine."  We did, and it did.

[Ahsai]

Yes, I understand the cases you are talking about but I think it's more fair to treat these as case by case basis. I cannot comment on the other cases as I have not been following those.

For this case though, all it takes is a simple checking on Durametric side whether it's indeed a typo or not. It does not involve complicated testing of the cable nor the users setup/car. It's not like this bank1 bank2 value can be flipped by the laptop or the cable. It's very simple. Either it's a typo or it's not.

If it's a typo, they can just fix it, benefit all the other DME 7.2 users, got the royalty back from gcp, got a good rep and kudos from the forum. Win-win situation. Why is it so difficult? Is it too much to ask for? Is it fair to gcp?

Remember gcp could read the cam deviations w/o any problems. That means his car, the obdii port, his laptop all work just find so clearly it's not a connection or playform issue. Again, I'm just focusing on this specific case.

[JFP in PA]

Yes, I understand the cases you are talking about but I think it's more fair to treat these as case by case basis. I cannot comment on the other cases as I have not been following those.

For this case though, all it takes is a simple checking on Durametric side whether it's indeed a typo or not. It does not involve complicated testing of the cable nor the users setup/car. It's not like this bank1 bank2 value can be flipped by the laptop or the cable. It's very simple. Either it's a typo or it's not.

If it's a typo, they can just fix it, benefit all the other DME 7.2 users, got the royalty back from gcp, got a good rep and kudos from the forum. Win-win situation. Why is it so difficult? Is it too much to ask for? Is it fair to gcp?

Remember gcp could read the cam deviations w/o any problems. That means his car, the obdii port, his laptop all work just find so clearly it's not a connection or playform issue. Again, I'm just focusing on this specific case.

 

I was referring to his following comment more so than the typo:

 

 

" my new Durometric scanner appears faulty because I am able to read values but not able to activate many of the functions. e.g. the cam solenoids because the tool becomes unresponsive and locks up (with Windows 10 laptop), so I'll have to get back on the phone with tech support today"

[Ahsai]

Fair enough. I think evetually gcp got everthing working and he was able to activate variocam so the only thing left was the bank1 vs bank 2 description.

Perhaps both sides were already too fed up to continue working out the only remaining issue. It's a shame but I can imagine.