987 3.4S - Possible Purchase?!?

[PaulQ]

On 5/15/2019 at 10:38 AM, toplad said:

Speak to people who sell them for a living and its not large issue in Boxster circles 

Define large.? How many dealers have you spoken too, and how many 3.4's have they actually sold.?

Even if the cars did develop problems do you honestly think they would divulge this information if they sell the things for a living.? 

No one knows the actual number of cars that go on to develop problems, so how do you know if the issue is large or not.? 

The only thing we do know is that the 3.4 engine can and does bore score. 

 

[Ralph007]

Just stumbled across this piece which was linked to someone on PH who asking about bore-score, the chap seems to be a well respected person in the Porsche arena and it gives me a little more confidence with my choice - http://philipraby.co.uk/porsche-boxster-996-and-997-engines-the-truth

 

Si

[Pothole]

On 5/15/2019 at 10:38 AM, toplad said:

I agree the Op can hear all views, but some aren't really based on actual numbers, just a misguided representation of the numbers, probably due to an inordinate amount of time spent reading the Internet. Speak to people who sell them for a living and its not large issue in Boxster circles 

Inaccurate information should be challenged

 

What are the 'actual numbers' that your views are based on?

You're right that inaccurate information should be challenged. What is the information you imagine you have?

[Pothole]

1 hour ago, PaulQ said:

Define large.? How many dealers have you spoken too, and how many 3.4's have they actually sold.?

 

This. The 3.4 987.1 Boxster was only sold for a short period and is subject to significant misapprehensions, even in the trade. It's poorly understood. Some in the trade will tell you it's less risky than a 3.4 987.1  Cayman, despite being exactly the same engine in every single detail.

The issue is that the 3.4 987.1 Boxster was built for a short period in small numbers. It is also the only Boxster that is particularly prone to bore scoring. These are facts. The consequence of these facts is that relatively few in the trade will have first hand experience of a 987.1 Boxster with bore scoring.

I'm afraid the reality that the people who get snotty around here about this stuff simply don't know what they are talking about.

[Pothole]

3 hours ago, Scubaregs said:

Significant risk is defined as, ""High-probability risk likely to have a significant impact."
 

Eh? Defined as that by whom?

[Pothole]

16 minutes ago, Ralph007 said:

Just stumbled across this piece which was linked to someone on PH who asking about bore-score, the chap seems to be a well respected person in the Porsche arena and it gives me a little more confidence with my choice - http://philipraby.co.uk/porsche-boxster-996-and-997-engines-the-truth

 

Si

Afraid, when it comes to scoring, it's not a terribly well informed post. It repeats the misapprehension that the 3.8 is more prone to scoring. Again, that's actually down to the numbers built. Porsche sold far more 3.8 997s than 3.6 997s. So you see far more 3.8 failing. That's why the 3.8 has a bad rep while the reality is that's it's unlikely to be much worse.

The logic you often hear on that subject is that the 3.6 is safer because it's less torquey etc. If that was true, the 3.4 would be safer still. But they built a whole load of 3.4 987.1 Caymans in the first two years, so a lot have failed and, presto, the 3.4 987.1 Cayman has a reputation for being risky, while the 3.6 997 does not, despite being torquier than the 3.4!

The reality is that the 3.4-3.8 M97 are best viewed as being similarly prone to scoring

[Scubaregs]

Google it, it is a fair description. You have said high probability. That implies it is more likely to occur than not occur. That implies more than half, are you saying more than half the cars produced are affected? 

If so, where are your numbers and sources?

[Scubaregs]

5 minutes ago, Pothole said:

But they built a whole load of 3.4 987.1 Caymans in the first two years, so a lot have failed

What is "a lot?"

You use terms like "a lot" and "high probability" but give no numbers to back those terms up.

[Pothole]

1 minute ago, Scubaregs said:

Google it, it is a fair description. You have said high probability. That implies it is more likely to occur than not occur. That implies more than half, are you saying more than half the cars produced are affected? 

If so, where are your numbers and sources?

No, I have not said 'high probability'. You just made that up. You've also just plucked a definition out of thin air. If you want to infer something I have not implied, that is your problem, I am afraid.

If you are remotely sensible, you will realise that significant risk is entirely context dependent and also subjective, it's not an absolute. If I was getting on an airplane and you told me there was a 1 in 10 chance it would crash, I would see that as a significant risk and not get on the plane. Maybe you would see that as an insignificant risk and jump aboard, but that would be up to you.

In this context, I would not necessary define a significant risk as a majority. And you cannot impose that upon my when I haven't said that or implied it.

[Pothole]

4 minutes ago, Scubaregs said:

What is "a lot?"

You use terms like "a lot" and "high probability" but give no numbers to back those terms up.

They built 16,000 MY2006 3.4 987.1 Caymans. That's a lot. They built 14,000 987.1 MY 2007 Caymans, but that was a mix of 2.7 and 3.4. MY2006 was 3.4 only. They built fewer still for MY 2008.

Short version, they built a very large batch of 3.4 987.1 Caymans, more than any other 987 Cayman by far. 9897.2 Caymans were built in quite low numbers. It's that big batch of early 3.4 987.1 Caymans that had meant you see a lot of those failing. And that has meant many in the trade have concluded the Cayman is riskier, when in fact (and it is a fact) the 987.1 3.4 Boxster has exactly the same engine.

[Scubaregs]

You are inferring significant, a lot, where are your numbers as I have asked? You keep banging on about this, with no statistics to back it up.

As far as I'm aware, Porsche's do not fly so your analogy is pointless.🙄

[Scubaregs]

1 minute ago, Pothole said:

They built 16,000 MY2006 3.4 987.1 Caymans. That's a lot. They built 14,000 987.1 MY 2007 Caymans, but that was a mix of 2.7 and 3.4. MY2006 was 3.4 only. They built fewer still for MY 2008.

Short version, they built a very large batch of 3.4 987.1 Caymans, more than any other 987 Cayman by far. 9897.2 Caymans were built in quite low numbers. It's that big batch of early 3.4 987.1 Caymans that had meant you see a lot of those failing. And that has meant many in the trade have concluded the Cayman is riskier, when in fact (and it is a fact) the 987.1 3.4 Boxster has exactly the same engine.

How many built is irrelevant unless you can give definitive numbers that had the fault. 

[Pothole]

1 minute ago, Scubaregs said:

You are inferring significant, a lot, where are your numbers as I have asked? You keep banging on about this, with no statistics to back it up.

As far as I'm aware, Porsche's do not fly so your analogy is pointless.🙄

I'm not inferring anything. You are the one doing the inferring.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of 'infer', nor the point of my analogy. My analogy was to demonstrate that your claim that 'significant risk' must somehow mean 'more than half' is complete nonsense. The meaning of significant risk is entirely dependent on context. It means different things in different context.

[Pothole]

1 minute ago, Scubaregs said:

How many built is irrelevant unless you can give definitive numbers that had the fault. 

No, it's not irrelevant at all. It's entirely relevant to the numbers you'll see failing.

If you think I am wrong, fine. What are your 'definitive' numbers?

[Scubaregs]

You are not inferring? 😂

Put some numbers against your statements then, numbers that can be verified.

Significant risk is simply scaremongering with no facts to back it up.

[Pothole]

By the way, you asked me 'what is a lot'. I said 'a lot' about the build numbers. Then you said build numbers are irrelevant. So why query me on that at all? 

You're being completely unreasonable. Just think for a second about the argument I'm making rather than trying to disagree with everything for the sake of it.

[Scubaregs]

I'm being unreasonable? I'm simply asking what your source material is, numbers, percentage etc. All I'm asking is for you to provide hard data for your stance.

Hardly unreasonable. You believe this to be a major problem, well provide data to show it, otherwise it is simply your opinion.

 

[Pothole]

Just now, Scubaregs said:

You are not inferring? 😂

Put some numbers against your statements then, numbers that can be verified.

Significant risk is simply scaremongering with no facts to back it up.

Why don't you put some numbers up to back up your position?

It's a fact they built a lot more Caymans. It's a fact the engine is the same. So there will be more Cayman engines failing. if you can't understand that, that is your problem. Nothing I am saying is remotely controversial. It's all completely reasonable. But it's standard practice for people who don't actually know anything about this to get snotty and ignore anything that clashes with their world view.

Like I said, calm down, think about what I said, absorb it a little and then respond. I don't expect you to entirely change your mind, but there's a chance you might see that what I am talking about has influenced views on the comparative risks of these engines. If not, so be it. It will be your problem.

[Jason986S]

I’m yawning over borescore chat.... again

[Pothole]

Just now, Scubaregs said:

I'm being unreasonable? I'm simply asking what your source material is, numbers, percentage etc. All I'm asking is for you to provide hard data for your stance.

Hardly unreasonable. You believe this to be a major problem, well provide data to show it, otherwise it is simply your opinion.

 

I've explained myself. What's your source material for your stance? You demand this of me and yet you've provided absolutely nothing. Not a thing. You criticise me for not providing what you deem sufficient information but provide no information of your own. That, is very unreasonable and frankly I'm being far more patient with you than you deserve given your hypocrisy.

[PaulQ]

1 minute ago, Jason986S said:

I’m yawning over borescore chat.... again

Why do you bother reading it then.? 

[Scubaregs]

Where did I say I had a stance?  I've simply asked you for evidence of your oft repeated stance.

You are obviously, absolutely convinced you are correct, so show some data.

Is it roughly 1%, 5, 10, 30, 50, 100?

 

[Pothole]

People just don't want to know. It's head in sand stuff. Which is fine. But the hypocrisy and personal angle people take is pretty pathetic.

If someone says, 'it's all a bit overblown', that's fine. No need to provide any information or 'facts'. Say anything to the contrary and if you don't produce a peer-reviewed research paper, you're a scaremonger. it's complete b*ll*cks.

For the record, I'm fine with anyone thinking the risks are low. I take take personal issue with that.

[Scubaregs]

15 minutes ago, Pothole said:

By the way, you asked me 'what is a lot'. I said 'a lot' about the build numbers.

You also said "you see a lot of those failing."

[Pothole]

Just now, Scubaregs said:

Where did I say I had a stance?  I've simply asked you for evidence of your oft repeated stance.

You are obviously, absolutely convinced you are correct, so show some data.

Is it roughly 1%, 5, 10, 30, 50, 100?

 

Do you disagree with me on my stance?

Answer that first and be reasonable about this for even a moment, and I will tell you what I think the proportions are. I have not done this so far, despite you pretending that I have.