Porsche 911UK Forum

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRED***

but this wont produce "facts" as you keep going on about Alex, all it will produce is data from those who could be bothered to input them.
and if you get only people who have had dramas, your facts will be no more that speculation and rumour, as they are now.
facts will never be known, because not everybody with every 996 will be reporting, so again its just speculation and to obtain facts then every fact has to be entered.
if 20 people reply all who have had faults, then you are going to get a 100% fail rate, that is not a fact, its nonsensical.

good idea, but massively flawed.
 
Er I dont know how to get the list??
Anyway 2003 3.6 tippy ,mileage at purchase feb last year 96,000
Mileage today, 107k, original ims.
 
Anybody who had any pride in their 996 would enter their data and the higher the sample size - the more reliable the data would be.

It's up to you guys how flawed you want it to be.


Here's me trying to promote the model and enhance resale value, talk about negativity.


Thanks Coomo
 
Alex, seriously mate, I was honestly trying to be supportive but getting MORE flawed data becomes just that... More flawed data.

You need to get a random sample to ensure that you have a representative spread of the issue / non-issue.

If you can get that, it'd be a gold mine and fair play to you for doing so. I'd love to see it and honestly believe it's a smaller issue than people make out, as a percentage anyhow, not to the people who are affected.

Happy to support the investigation but let's re-think how you get the randomness factor right.

Jim
 
I thought porsche had done this in disclosure during the usa legal case. If anything they would have down played the stats disclosed not played them up. I can't see how you are ever going to get better than that in terms of reliable stats :cop:
 
jonttt said:
I thought porsche had done this in disclosure during the usa legal case. If anything they would have down played the stats disclosed not played them up. I can't see how you are ever going to get better than that in terms of reliable stats :cop:

I agree with that. :thumb:
 
jonttt said:
I thought porsche had done this in disclosure during the usa legal case. If anything they would have down played the stats disclosed not played them up. I can't see how you are ever going to get better than that in terms of reliable stats :cop:

Maybe all the bad ones have failed. Maybe one will never fail again,:dont know:
all I'm trying to understand is - what's the situation with IMS bearing failures in today's climate cos I've never seen one yet! But I know it's reputation has crippled the model.

If every member who owned a 996 responded to this post with data on their car it would represent what was happening. There must be at least 200 members with NA 996s.
 
alex yates said:
jonttt said:
I thought porsche had done this in disclosure during the usa legal case. If anything they would have down played the stats disclosed not played them up. I can't see how you are ever going to get better than that in terms of reliable stats :cop:

Maybe all the bad ones have failed. Maybe one will never fail again,:dont know:
all I'm trying to understand is - what's the situation with IMS bearing failures in today's climate cos I've never seen one yet! But I know it's reputation has crippled the model.

If every member who owned a 996 responded to this post with data on their car it would represent what was happening. There must be at least 200 members with NA 996s.

I agree Alex, and im not dissing your reasoning or enthusiasm,
all I was saying is you said the word FACTS
while it would never be a fact, it would just be data biased on those who submitted them.
 
medicus said:
alex yates said:
jonttt said:
I thought porsche had done this in disclosure during the usa legal case. If anything they would have down played the stats disclosed not played them up. I can't see how you are ever going to get better than that in terms of reliable stats :cop:

Maybe all the bad ones have failed. Maybe one will never fail again,:dont know:
all I'm trying to understand is - what's the situation with IMS bearing failures in today's climate cos I've never seen one yet! But I know it's reputation has crippled the model.

If every member who owned a 996 responded to this post with data on their car it would represent what was happening. There must be at least 200 members with NA 996s.

I agree Alex, and im not dissing your reasoning or enthusiasm,
all I was saying is you said the word FACTS
while it would never be a fact, it would just be data biased on those who submitted them.

David, please can I have your data on your car. The more we join together in this, the better understanding potential new buyers and forum members who read this will have. My car hasn't gone pop and as far as I'm aware neither has yours. Lets shut the non believers up and prove what a fantastic relieble car they can be :thumbs:
 
date inputted: 04/03/15
member: medicus
model: 996-2 Targa
engine size: 3.6
purchase date: 017/03/13
date registered: 02/09/04
mileage (at purchase): 77000
mileage (now): 81000
bearing (orig./replacement): Original (as far as I know)
failure data (if applicable):
comment: I was told it had been done, however I have no paperwork or proof of this, so im thinking it hasn't.

no dramas Alex, thank you.
 
Flawed...

How do you account for the previous 996 NA owners that were members but IMS went pop and have since left the forum due to the experience? They won't be included in the sample. People on this forum may not represent a true sample population of 996 NA owners so any results have a bias.

While your motivation is good The logic is fundamentally flawed therefore the results are meaningless.

I would reference the outcome from the class action in the USA.
 
Re: Flawed...

str12 said:
How do you account for the previous 996 NA owners that were members but IMS went pop and have since left the forum due to the experience? They won't be included in the sample. People on this forum may not represent a true sample population of 996 NA owners so any results have a bias.

While your motivation is good The logic is fundamentally flawed therefore the results are meaningless.

I would reference the outcome from the class action in the USA.

Your missing the point totally. The original post stated - current times, not what's happened in the past. If you ask me all the failures have failed and the ones left probably won't do. All this exercise is for is to see if the issue is anything like it used to be and to give people an understanding of current climate.
 
medicus said:
date inputted: 04/03/15
member: medicus
model: 996-2 Targa
engine size: 3.6
purchase date: 017/03/13
date registered: 02/09/04
mileage (at purchase): 77000
mileage (now): 81000
bearing (orig./replacement): Original (as far as I know)
failure data (if applicable):
comment: I was told it had been done, however I have no paperwork or proof of this, so im thinking it hasn't.

no dramas Alex, thank you.

Thanks David :thumb:
 
Alex

I'll simply answer your original request as any comment I would make would be seriously statistically flawed by the fact I know absolutely nowt about statistics!

As requested:
date inputted: 04/03/15
member: moorhouse
model: 996 40th Anniversary (effectively C2 with X51 engine wise)
engine size: 3.6
purchase date: 07/02/13
date registered: 15/01/04
mileage (at purchase): 42,000
mileage (now): 49,800
bearing (orig./replacement): Original (assumed, see below)
failure data (if applicable): N/A
comment: have full service history (OPC first 8 yrs & then Hartech last two) with no mention of replacement so assume original.

Hope this helps - Cheers........
 
:thumb: Cheers.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,354
Messages
1,439,458
Members
48,711
Latest member
Silage
Back
Top