Massive mechanical failure. Not a good day...

Airbus is absolutely correct.
I can't speak for the Aircraft industry having never worked in it, however it would not suprise me if they used the same principles used in the Hydrocarbon industry I do work in.
That is Safety Integrity Levels, (SIL) ratings for the "Probability of Failure (PFD) on demand for various equipment and material analysis using expensive software modelling. Other car manufacters have never got this so wrong on this scale. I think you have to remember that your not constantly using all that performance to the limit and that "old chesnut" of performance car costs does not hold strictly true. I keep reading it and wonder who the dealers are out here?

airbus said:

If 0.5% of aeroplane engines failed, I think most people would find that unacceptable. .5 for the 996/997 engine isn't acceptable either. We'll never know the true figure, but we can all agree its too high, surely.

Click to expand...

With all due respect that's hardly the same thing. An engine failing at 10000 feet is not even close to 1 failing on the road.

Plus aircraft engines have to have a full tear down and rebuild every x amount of hours regardless of condition.

Edited to add some 4 seater helicopter stats, think what a passenger airline has to comply with:

The Robinson R44 would be due for a complete overhaul at 2,200 hours. A little known fact for all Robinson helicopters is that they must have a complete overhaul at 2,200 hours or 12 years which ever comes first regardless of hours total time. The cost of the Robinson factory overhaul will be from $200-225,000.

The piston engine must be rebuilt every 2,200 hours of operation at an average cost of $26,000.

Robinson helicopters are also the only helicopters that have a complete life limit that expires on all major components at the same 2,200-hour or 12-year interval, which ever comes first. The major components include (but are not limited to), main and tail rotor blades, all drive train components including the main and tail rotor transmissions, swash plates and control links, and the engine.

Click to expand...

Stuart said:

airbus said:

If 0.5% of aeroplane engines failed, I think most people would find that unacceptable. .5 for the 996/997 engine isn't acceptable either. We'll never know the true figure, but we can all agree its too high, surely.

Click to expand...

With all due respect that's hardly the same thing. An engine failing at 10000 feet is not even close to 1 failing on the road.

Plus aircraft engines have to have a full tear down and rebuild every x amount of hours regardless of condition.

Edited to add some 4 seater helicopter stats, think what a passenger airline has to comply with:

The Robinson R44 would be due for a complete overhaul at 2,200 hours. A little known fact for all Robinson helicopters is that they must have a complete overhaul at 2,200 hours or 12 years which ever comes first regardless of hours total time. The cost of the Robinson factory overhaul will be from $200-225,000.

The piston engine must be rebuilt every 2,200 hours of operation at an average cost of $26,000.

Robinson helicopters are also the only helicopters that have a complete life limit that expires on all major components at the same 2,200-hour or 12-year interval, which ever comes first. The major components include (but are not limited to), main and tail rotor blades, all drive train components including the main and tail rotor transmissions, swash plates and control links, and the engine.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sorry Stuart, I wasn't being literal, as Ocean Blue says there are industry accepted standards of risk for all 'life-ed' aerospace items. I only said this as it underlines my sense of outrage over the contents of this and other threads on 911uk. Porsche are having a bl@@dy laugh at our expense and my liking for the brand has really soured as I know that I have a timebomb sitting on my drive.

Your use of the Robbo to illustrate the point is quite accurate as the average privately owned R44 will only do a couple of hundred hours a year, so by the time you've owned for 10 years its ready for a very expensive (scheduled) rebuild. Hmmm, just like a Porsche 996-7. :floor:

airbus said:

Your use of the Robbo to illustrate the point is quite accurate as the average privately owned R44 will only do a couple of hundred hours a year, so by the time you've owned for 10 years its ready for a very expensive (scheduled) rebuild. Hmmm, just like a Porsche 996-7. :floor:

Click to expand...

I used the example of Robinson as my Dad runs a flight school and they have to rebuild every 2-3 years

Anyway back on topic. The problem here is we all love the marque and hence subscribe to forums. We'll obviously be witness to a higher propertion of failures because we care.

In the grand scheme of things (so far) the failure rate hasn't drawn public attention. However with Hartech's scored cylinder findings associated with the 3.6 & 3.8 engines I think there is a tipping point on the horizon...

:dont know:

In the grand scheme of things (so far) the failure rate hasn't drawn public attention. However with Hartech's scored cylinder findings associated with the 3.6 & 3.8 engines I think there is a tipping point on the horizon...

:dont know:[/quote]

--

It is tempting to call Watchdog or Dispatches or one of those other major investigative journalism programmes. Baz just posted on my other thread that the problems are not limited to 996 (ie newer 997's also have issues) so yes Stuart I think that tipping point is getting dangerously close.

I am fortunate in that I should be able to future proof my engine by having it rebuilt. The necessity to rebuild, however, is the issue. One of the guys on the Forum took issue when I suggested that if I bought ANY £12 - 15K car I should not expect it to experience massive mechanical failure. His point was that Porsche are different, these engines go 170 mph and are built for speed and so cannot be held to the same criteria as other engines.

Why not? I would suggest that if Porsche are going to charge 50-60K for these cars (old prices for 996) and even more for 997s (with recurring problems similar to 996's) then the price alone should guarantee reliability. Is it really acceptable to expect engine failure on these cars? If you over engineer something it should be stronger not weaker, and if (like the metaphor with planes) you build things in the knowledge that customers will travel at high speed in them then there is the added need to provide proper components.

And if they screw up, then do the right thing, put your hand up, admit liability, and (like Jag) do a mass recall and replace them. Don't sit there keeping schtum!

I love 911's I really do, but Porsche's policy on this makes me mad as hell! :wack:

Stuart said:

airbus said:

Your use of the Robbo to illustrate the point is quite accurate as the average privately owned R44 will only do a couple of hundred hours a year, so by the time you've owned for 10 years its ready for a very expensive (scheduled) rebuild. Hmmm, just like a Porsche 996-7. :floor:

Click to expand...

I used the example of Robinson as my Dad runs a flight school and they have to rebuild every 2-3 years

Anyway back on topic. The problem here is we all love the marque and hence subscribe to forums. We'll obviously be witness to a higher propertion of failures because we care.

In the grand scheme of things (so far) the failure rate hasn't drawn public attention. However with Hartech's scored cylinder findings associated with the 3.6 & 3.8 engines I think there is a tipping point on the horizon...

:dont know:

Click to expand...

Sigh, well a flight school is hardly 'privately' owned, is it? I need to get a new witticism writer. :lock:

all good stuff guys and food for thought - i'm less confident than i was and may have to reconsider long term ownership which i was planning with my current 6 year old model

any update on the engine jfb??

For those of you who feel Porsche are in the wrong...

When it comes to selling your 996/997 (non-turbo/GT cars, and not already fettled by Hartech or similar), would you be prepared to have the car inspected, off your own bat, by Hartech or similar (i.e. thorough, boroscope and compression test job), and then volunteer the results of this test to all prospective buyers?...

...or would you prefer to ignore the known and serious fault (allegedly), not have it inspected and sell it as is, not drawing attention to the fact that you know that there is a problem with the car (allegedly)?

Would you draw attention to the potential problem (allegedly), or keep quiet and hope for the best?

As culpable as Porsche or not?

Discuss.

When I bought mine, I knew the risks, made sure it had a Porsche (or similar) warranty, and enjoy relaxed and joyful ownership.When (if) I sell, I will leave it up to the buyer to do their own homework.

Cars go wrong. Expensive cars can cost a lot to put right when they go wrong. Cars over a certain age/mileage are more likely to go wrong, and it is not reasonable to expect the manufacturer to stand by their product indefinitely, goodwill aside for being a loyal OPC customer/non-modifier.

I'll continue to make a personal decision as to whether or not I'm better off funding a warranty or taking the risk, and when I no longer have the warranty option (9yrs 125k miles) I'll take a view of that risk vs cost of buying a replacement warrantable vehicle.

I am under no illusion that running a 911 is a cheap business, and I certainly don't blame Porsche. I have a great relationship with my OPC, always make sure I benchmark any costs (within and without the network) and have no complaints about the service I receive.

A Happy Customer!

Caveat emptor.

c4srmsims said:

Caveat emptor.

Click to expand...

Hardly!

Since when has random engine failure been a case of buyer beware. Porsche have made a couple of major design mistakes with these engines and some of those are only just coming to light now...

Stuart said:

c4srmsims said:

Caveat emptor.

Click to expand...

Hardly!

Since when has random engine failure been a case of buyer beware. Porsche have made a couple of major design mistakes with these engines and some of those are only just coming to light now...

Click to expand...

If it's a major design mistake then it isn't random, so it definitely is caveat emptor (allegedly) - thanks for making my point! Naturally you will be pointing out these major design mistakes if you sell your car?

c4srmsims said:

Naturally you will be pointing out these major design mistakes if you sell your car?

Click to expand...

Exactly, give it 9-12 months and you'll see my advert with exactlty this issue raised and that's a promise... And I bet mine sells quicker than most.

I don't think this really applies to you, does it? :hand:

c4srmsims said:

I don't think this really applies to you, does it? :hand:

Click to expand...

Ah, but does it?, that's your assumption...

...what warranty will you offer?

c4srmsims said:

...what warranty will you offer?

Click to expand...

The one that comes with the car when I sell it...