Pothole Posted January 11, 2019 Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 The the right (correct) side of the engine for bore scoring. And the right cadence. Sounds a little different to the noise my 3.4 made with scoring, but that's probably the audio. I imagine the seller knows there's a problem. Always surprised that are willing to pass this kind of thing off. When it comes to houses and cars, moral compasses seem to go out of the window! I think you're making the right decision, Jason. The M97 3.4 is a tricky engine to buy. It's a pity they didn't some early Caymans with the 3.2, which doesn't score. Anyway, for essentially the same reason as you I went with a 3.2 Box even though I'd probably prefer the Cayman. Risk of scoring is just too high. You could have one checked, buy it and still get hit by scoring down the road. Only think I'd question on the Box you're considering is the 'big bearing' thing. What's the exact reg date of the car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason986S Posted January 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 @Pothole this Boxster in question is registered 01/07/2005 on an 05 plate. Viewing that ropey Cayman sure made me re-think a 3.4 purchase. A 3.4 boxster could’ve statistically been slightly safer, but pointless when I could get a little to no-drama 3.2 which is a peace of mind and noably cheaper VED road tax as a 2005 car. I’ve been categorically told it has been inspected and has the larger/safer IMS and the RMS is not leaking and only has a very mild sweating, so has been left well alone. I wanted the Cayman for the coupe look and the swooping rear hatch. But I can’t turn my nose up at roof down Boxstering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothole Posted January 11, 2019 Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 Personally, I think it's extremely unlikely going on impossible with that reg date that it left the factory with the big bearing, which isn't the same as saying it doesn't have the bearing. It could have had a new engine. I'd say it would have to have been regged in September at the earliest and possibly October to have the big bearing from new. The big bearing (if indeed the 3.2 ever got it, which is another debate, but we can leave that one for now...!) is a MY2006 feature. That car will have been built in June, so it will be a MY2005 car. MY transition is around September / October. Another factor to consider is that I have read that it's possible to have an engine with the large IMS flange cover but a small bearing behind. So, the car is 'inspected' with the transmission off and an incorrect assumption can be made if the the flange isn't removed to directly view the bearing. Might be worth asking if the flange was removed and testing their knowledge in that area. Having said all that, the IMS isn't hugely likely to fail, whatever spec it is. Scoring on the 3.4 is much more widespread. And I don't think the 3.4 Boxster is any safer. They only made it for a short period and therefore there aren't that many around - so fewer are seen to fail. For this reason, some think it's safer. In fact, it's exactly the same engine with the same risks. It's a similar story with the 997 3.6. People think they're safer than the 3.8, the argument being lower torque etc so less likely to fail. But in reality, they just sold fewer of them, so fewer are seen to fail. Moreover, if being smaller capacity made a tangible difference, the 3.4 in the 987 would be safer even than the 997 3.6 and I think we all know that's not true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason986S Posted January 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 @Pothole some very fair points! You may be correct about the larger IMS flange assumption, especially based on the MY/reg-date. But hey it’s on 70k, no signs of any drama, meticulous history and expense, i’m fairly comfortable with it all things considered. I agree on the ratio of 3.4 gen1 Boxster to Cayman point, as less on the road is less the fail, logically. The 997’s are too scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothole Posted January 11, 2019 Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 Yeah, I ended up with a 2005 3.2. I was trying to get a MY2006 with the hope it had the big bearing, but couldn't find one I was happy with, so went with a small bearing car. I don't lose much sleep over it. I would / did lose sleep over the 3.4, which is ultimately why I sold it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason986S Posted January 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 @Pothole I wasn’t instant on any specific year. This one just fitted the bill, fairly local (under an hour away) and happened to be an 05 car (with the kinder VED rate). Either way I have an 04 private plate for it so cosmetically that doesn’t phase me. It would be good to have the big bearing, but looking through the nice fat invoice/history folder earlier today, there were a few hefty £2-3k OPC bills 07-2011, but I don’t recall seeing any bearing related work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothole Posted January 11, 2019 Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 You won't see any bearing-related bills from an OPC. Only relevant OPC bills would be for either block or full engine change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toplad Posted January 11, 2019 Report Share Posted January 11, 2019 I wouldn't worry to much about the engine on 3.4. It's unlikely to be a problem in reality. I'd be worried about the suspension, brakes, rads and leaks. This is were the maintenance costs are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneypit Posted January 12, 2019 Report Share Posted January 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Pothole said: Yeah, I ended up with a 2005 3.2. I was trying to get a MY2006 with the hope it had the big bearing, but couldn't find one I was happy with, so went with a small bearing car. I don't lose much sleep over it. I would / did lose sleep over the 3.4, which is ultimately why I sold it! Have you seen Richard Hamilton's post on engine numbers relating to small / big bearing transition times? I have an early -ish 2005 3,2, as far as engine numbers are concerned, his findings indicate that mine has the larger bearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothole Posted January 12, 2019 Report Share Posted January 12, 2019 I have. Am unsure on his source / accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneypit Posted January 12, 2019 Report Share Posted January 12, 2019 His source appears to be Porsche's own literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason986S Posted January 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2019 8 hours ago, toplad said: I'd be worried about the suspension, brakes, rads and leaks. This is were the maintenance costs are It’s just had new shocks, springs, top hats, lower coffin arms, then discs and pads all round too. All in the last 10 months. You can see how i’m slightly more comfortable buying this car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toplad Posted January 12, 2019 Report Share Posted January 12, 2019 Sounds good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothole Posted January 12, 2019 Report Share Posted January 12, 2019 19 hours ago, moneypit said: His source appears to be Porsche's own literature. Appears to be is nice. Actually is the source would be better! To put it another way, is the crossover of engine numbers explicitly for the big bearing? Or could it be a generic crossover for, say, MY2006 and an assumption has been made that this means big bearing, as it does with with M97 engines. The 3.2 never got an M97 engine code and there are well informed people in the US who say the 3.2 never got the big bearing. I don't know which is correct, just making observations. I've not seen anything myself that I thought was 100% definitive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Shead Posted January 13, 2019 Report Share Posted January 13, 2019 I looked at the add and seems he hasn’t had it that long and states sold as seem. Myself I definitely think he knows it’s got scoring so make sure if you go for it price it for a engine. The owner hasn’t bothered replying to my interest in it. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason986S Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2019 He probably knows that “you know”. Sold as seen is definitely a “your problem now mate” clause. Probably dodging a bullet with that one! Jas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.