Jump to content

987s vs 987s 3.4 ?

markabox

By markabox
in 987

Recommended Posts

moneypit

moneypit

Posted
Posted

I went through this same thought process and at the years you're looking at concluded that the 3.2 seems to have noticeably less possibility of having significant engine issues while still providing almost all of the performance of the 3.4 on the road. If I'm getting this right, 2006 was the last year they made the 3.2, 2007 on was 3.4 I think, but there are better informed people than me on here who'll confirm whether or not this is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Menoporsche

Menoporsche

Posted
Posted

2006 is out of the IMS danger zone (and at 100 000 miles, "if it was going to go it would have gone by now"). 2007 may or may not be in bore-scoring danger zone, depending on who you listen to. 2008 may be out of bore scoring danger zone, depending on who you listen to. Risk of bore scoring - whatever that risk is - might be reduced simply by fitting a low-temp thermostat.

We argued for years about IMS risk until finally there was a big Porsche settlement in the US where we got the numbers involved.  There has been no such settlement for bore scoring, so again web subscribers are left arguing over a very small part of the overall picture. Companies who repair engines say they see a lot, "but they would say that wouldn't they".

I think you should have asked about a less contentious topic, like Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie66

Chuckie66

Posted
Posted

It all depends who you ask... the owners of 981's, 987.2's, 3,2's, 986's etc will say there's is the best one...  

They're all good, just some have had hard live's, poorly maintained, thrashed when cold  or just unlucky.

I went through all the deliberations of which model etc, in the end I purchased my 987.1 3.4S a year ago. I certainly didn't want to buy a lemon,  factors which helped me decide:

-  Purchased privately (through auto-trader)  owner had owned it and garaged it for 11years - so buying on trust

- regularly serviced at Indies, phoned the Indie where it had been serviced for last 6  years, all tallied up

- Mot tests tallied with service history 

- the owner test drove her - sweet as a nut

- no tell tale signs of bore score

- 55k on the clock

- Price, 987.1's were way less than 987.2/981 - - maybe because of the "unknown engine issues?"

- 3.2's I was confused whether it had the IMS/RMS issues and weren't many about

In my year of ownership, its the other things to fix:

- exhaust flanges

- debris in the front air vents

- brakes

- timing chain oil leak

- 12 yr major service expense ( replacing ever consumable, filters, gearbox oil, sparks, drive belt etc).

Buy on condition and history, expect to pay for consumables, but don't get too het up bore score - seems to be over hyped IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
markabox

markabox

Posted
  • Author
Posted

wow lots of info cheers. have now bought a black 3.2 s 2006 987 with a miltek exhaust system.sounds amazing .fantastic car love it even with 133,000 miles on it it runs beautifully so my 2001 986 2.7 is for sale now after £2000 spent  on the usual ims,clutch,rms and new discs,pads etc. is a great car but 987 is better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Pothole

Pothole

Posted
Posted

Bore scoring in the 3.4 is a much higher risk than IMS ever was in the 3.2.

It's also worth noting that the IMS stats provided by Porsche are pretty meaningless on multiple levels (they're not externally audited nor qualified by mileage, moreover the class action case decision / verdict was not a comment on the accuracy and quality of the numbers provided by Porsche), so if it's really reliable numbers from dispassionate sources, you aren't going to get it from anywhere on any of these issues.

As it happens, I actually prefer the 3.2, regardless of the reliability. Sounds better, feels revvier. A 3.2 987.1 Cayman would have been awfully nice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cambsnw8

cambsnw8

Posted
Posted

I've had 3x 987.1S 3.2  and loved them. I've also driven a few 987.1S 3.4 and didn't notice much different in power output to be honest.

The 3.2's I had, the first we visually inspected the IMS (there is a small access hole that you can stick a borescope in and see the nut size and the numbers on the casing) and this already had the later IMS so that was fine.

The second had just been upgraded along with a clutch replacement, and the third I had done myself along with a new clutch. 

Personally I'd want proof that it had been upgraded / replaced or do it yourself as part of a clutch change. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
911-32

911-32

Posted
Posted

Can you not determine the 3.2S IMS status via the chassis number?   As per the pinned thread on here.  Insisting on inspection/replacement seems overly cautious as a piece of general advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie66

Chuckie66

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, 911-32 said:

Can you not determine the 3.2S IMS status via the chassis number?   As per the pinned thread on here.  Insisting on inspection/replacement seems overly cautious as a piece of general advice.

The engine changed its number from M96 to M97 with the new 987/997.  You can read this on the bottom of the engine (when on ramps),  the 987 3.4S is where the engine number changed to M97 and deleted the IMS bearing.   The 3.2S is the older M96 with IMS.

I'd want to see receipts of IMS or even clutch changes on the M96, or assume it hasn't been changed and factor in an IMS and Clutch (maybe  RMS too) before parting with cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pothole

Pothole

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Chuckie66 said:

The engine changed its number from M96 to M97 with the new 987/997.  You can read this on the bottom of the engine (when on ramps),  the 987 3.4S is where the engine number changed to M97 and deleted the IMS bearing.   The 3.2S is the older M96 with IMS.

 

Er, no. The M97 still has an IMS bearing. It's the Ma1/9A1 engine with the gen two cars - the 987.2 and 997.2 - that deleted the IMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
moneypit

moneypit

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, 911-32 said:

Exactly, its just the type of IMS you can determine from the chassis number on the 3.2S, which gives an indication of more/less risk.  Or rather, little vs very little risk.

I'd very much like to believe that. Given that what little info is available would indicate mine to have the bigger bearing, but it's seems to be uncertain as to whether going by engine numbers on the 3.2 is a guarantee of anything as far as bearing size is concerned. My view is now, I've bought the car, I spent time worrying, I'm now past that point, enjoy the car. If it goes bang, I'll start worrying again then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
toplad

toplad

Posted
Posted

Dealer at Yorkshire Porsche told me he's never had a 3.4S with bore scoring. 

Also mentioned "you'd have to drag it across the bottom of the sea for there be some wrong with the engine", which I found a strange reference. 

Enjoy the 3.2 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie66

Chuckie66

Posted
Posted
On 4/30/2019 at 1:16 AM, Pothole said:

 

Er, no. The M97 still has an IMS bearing. It's the Ma1/9A1 engine with the gen two cars - the 987.2 and 997.2 - that deleted the IMS.

Oh yes!! Correct M97 has IMS, but with the bigger bearing that’s not easily replaceable right? Luckily seems Porsche got it right this time, as the design is way more reliable than the older single or double bearings they used to have and not seen any horror stories.

Anyway, puts a smile on my face when out on the open road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...