mkaresh

I wanted more up-to-date car reliability information that included actual repair rates. So in late 2005 I started getting people together to make this possible. TrueDelta now updates actual repair frequencies, not just dots, four times a year, to report on new models sooner then track cars closely as they age.

With 350 owners signed up to participate so far, we've started providing reliability stats for the Boxster and Cayman. I would like to do the same for the 911. Just a matter of getting enough owners involved. So I'm grateful to this forum for giving me permission to post about the survey here.

To encourage participation, participants receive full access to all results, not just those for the 911, for free. I'll share results, once we have them, in this thread after each update.

For the details, and to sign up to help out:

Car reliability research


Update: Sorry, I didn't have automatic notification turned on, and so wasn't aware of the following responses. My detailed reply is in post #39, on the third page. The short version: I had formal permission to post here, the sample size will be sufficient, and the methodology is sound.

Wellardmac

Despite your good intentions no conclusion that you come to with data gathered here is statistically significant and you would need a larger sample size for any conclusion to be valid.

You are wasting your time and effort in order to come to a flawed conclusion that will only mislead - regardless of the conclusion that you might think that you have come to.

Graufuchs

Agreed.

Shark Attack

A nobile quest for sure. But you are going to need info from dealers.. 350 owners is not going to give you what you are looking for. ESPECIALLY from the internet. Most people got here BECAUSE of problems that they wanted to find a cheaper fix for.

Wellardmac

As Kyle said, the only way to get statistically significant data is to tie into the dealer network and get real data and to be honest if they disclosed that data without the permission of the owners, then they would have to deal with significant privacy issues. I'm pretty sure the OP knows that.

In re-reading the OP I really do wonder what the purpose of this really is.

Looks to me like this is just another sales effort.... a commercial enterprise doing a half-assed job trying to look statistically significant when in fact it's neither well intentioned, or founded on a significant database. This is about money and no other purpose. This kind of post is not welcome and does not serve the members of this community, it only serves the commercial goals of the OP.

VGM911

+1

Sneaky Pete

Well put guys.

I had a similar feeling about Mr. () Raby's posts. Seems as if he has left the building.

Dennis C

I have a book full of receipts that can give you DETAILED information about reliability of a 2002 996 C4S!

It's a small sample size, but hey, it's something!

Based on my data and sample size, there is a 0% IMS failure rate in the 996. Great news!

garrett376

Regardless of statistical significance, this "study" by design has the lowest level of evidence possible (5), with significant bias. Not something to intelligently base an opinion on.

But, I'd imagine most people these days don't care to look beyond the first thing they hear, so there's probably an audience out there for this kind of work.

Ahmet

When I was looking at 996s before there was an IMS retrofit kit, people were talking about D chunking of the cylinders, the RMS failures, etc. IMS was almost unheard of. A few months after the retrofit kit went on sale, it's all people talk about on the forums.

My personal and professional experience has so far shown the 996 to be an impressively robust platform, but that's neither scary nor sensational...

garrett376

Pete, I assume you're referring to Wellardmac's comment:

Pete, that's a pretty harsh statement for someone who actually does provide a useful service and make useful products we can use to further the enjoyment of our hobbies.

Shark Attack

Ihad someone call my car exotic the other day.... I dont see it as such. but if it is.... for an exotic its realiability is fantastic. You ever been on a F or L forum.. THEY gots little nagging problems

garrett376

I wasn't meaning your statement was harsh, that's why I addressed my comment at Pete! My take regarding Raby is that he sells a part that fixes a broken part! If yours breaks, he has something to fix it. I've never read his site, but I've read his threads on here which Pete was referring to.

Doesn't Raby's site advertise the products he sells? I'll have to go check it out, but I'd imagine it's pretty clear he is selling a product to fix a problem.

Wellardmac

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I deleted my message.

We've had too many of these scaremongers pass through and ones like this one that come here to plug their enterprise (against rennlist rules) annoy me no end. Hopefully he's gotten the message that he's not welcome.

solosailor

Let see.... if I 'give' my data they 'charge' me to see the results? No thanks..... and I'll echo what has been said: most Porsche owners don't spend time on the internet talking about their cars, unless they are enthusiasts or have a problem with their car - which skews the results. The 996 in particular sold in great numbers so to get accurate data you have to have a good percentage of them included.