NevilleNobody

To be frank, I'd walk and find another 10k and get an accident free or small claim car instead. The headache you're going to get selling this one day is not worth the grief.

I'm being a tad harsh but the market is soft, still insanely expensive but the escalation has stopped for now. Look around, look national or even in Canada and choose carefully. its not like this car is a rare colour or something.

Wayne Smith

Groove, really? Have you ever been under a 997.2? Ever changed the plugs? Not taking the mufflers off the car doesn't mean not removing all of the bolts in order to "bend" them out of the way. The rusted bolts were why the bore scope was being delayed. Needing to fully remove the mufflers or not doesn't matter. And if you ever changed the plugs on a .2 car you would know what an absurd method "bending" the mufflers would be.

As has been pointed out, the title states 997.2. That's what this thread should be focused on. Anything else is noise, distraction, and obfuscation. It does not add to the topic. It does a disservice to the community.

groovzilla

^^Wayne just repeating what the other 997.2 owner posted in not having to remove muffler to get to plugs for Bore Scope Insp.
And I don't wrench on my 997. I made that quite clear years ago. I pay to play.

Damien---->As far as this 997.2 example w/53K miles, the accident is a long time ago, damage was repaired well and IMO the accident damage not as significant since it was a long time ago and also reason for covering yourself and presenting a low $44-$44.5K offer. Selling in future shouldn't be a problem because you will have a lower sale price
The Full leather is very nice and option I really love the full leather in my car.
.....As other mentioned you can walk, however I think you have done a great job checking this car out and communicating with the seller.
Good luck and let us know the outcome

david

@groovzilla, thanks for the feedback. However as Wayne and others have attempted to (gently) communicate to you, you added (and continue to add) incorrect information to this thread, which is not additive to your reputation or the veracity of the thread.

Mentioning that many threads go off the rails is no excuse to do that here. For that reason alone, this is why RL is less of a resource than ever. If that is your goal for this community, good work and more power to you. That said, I believe that is counter to what is more desireable and I'll ask you again to provide your valued insight on matters that you are sure of and please do not convolute facts when you are unsure or add to misinformation when you are not qualified to provide technical guidance.

I too often appreciate when you chime in on pricing and other non-technical matters but not so much when you don't take the time to either ask a question (when you are unsure) or just lean back and be quiet when you are about to be the derailer, it really is as simple as that.

All that I and others are asking is that you stay on topic when it is clearly labelled and do not turn what is a technical (actual & pseudo) discussion into a head scratcher (or worse, a pissing match).

Thanks again for listening and acting accordingly!

Zingerman88

I don't think you are being a tad harsh at all. I'll consider waiting if the owner becomes firm on the 47k.

groovzilla

David I understand. I never intend to give any inaccurate information to fellow members or new members with important questions.
Would you mind clarifying what information I gave that was incorrect? From reading the Thread, the only 2 subjects I see that could have been in question was the muffler removal which a 997.2 owner (priariedog) confirmed doesn't need to be removed just loosened to get to the spark plugs & the 2nd would be that the 997.2 has shown signs of Bore Scoring at lower % which is true and accurate. These were topics that came up once the Carfax was discussed.
**Send a PM reply if better

**-------->My apologies for pissing anyone off, and I don't mean any disrepect to fellow members unless we are arguing in OT or P&D which can at times get heated.




.

Wayne Smith

An example of how threads get out of whack, inaccurately "educate" our community, and lead to the detriment of the brand ...

david

Great idea re PM...sent...

Prairiedawg

Just to kick the hornets nest. Folks shouldn't delude themselves over the rarity of .2 scoring. I bet it happens a lot more than people think. If the consensus is, "don't look for it because it's rare," then it will never show up. (Well it will eventually). You don't find what you never look for. While it isn't as prevalent as a .1, I don't think it's bad policy to check 2nd generation cylinders. These are all relatively low miles cars and scoring wasn't really noted as an issue until 10 years or so after production on 1's. The .2 cars are approaching this same window and mileage that the .1 cars did when they started showing. Am I saying that this will result in the numbers of .1's? No, but they are surely higher than suspected. I would lay money that if all the .2's were scoped, the results would be shocking though possibly benign.

Calling anything bullet proof is hubristic. They said the same thing about the Titanic. It's an aluminum block with aluminum pistons. They can and do score.

groovzilla

Prairiedawg I could not agree with you more. Why not spend the approx $250 for the Spark Plug Hole Inspection for assurance.
I can understand that 997.2 owners don't want to hear it, and I also get that I become a bit combative on the subject - However from now on I will mellow out on the 997.2 Bore Scoring subject because it really is not my intent to upset members or act like an ***-wipe.

Rig.Stunts

Thread drift!

Let's not bury an important topic . . .

Prairiedawg

Oh, yeah. Stick to your offer.

Wayne Smith

Between this thread and the "How concerning is this?" thread, it seems like this week became overblown on scoring and inspections. I'll admit blame for a part of this. Counter arguments can lead to absolute statements that don't communicate at all well. So I would like to conclude with the following (and I mean conclude!!!). The other thread started with someone asking for information for a friend. On my phone screen I couldn't see any problems in the pictures he supplied. Others rang in differently, but I've always had a problem determining tongue in cheek moments in these Forums.

Last night, the OP sincerely asked what cold seizure was. He asked me specifically. So I gave it a go. I could spend a couple of hours in front of a blackboard and still have more to say. But I did what I could in a brief time. I'll point out the last few paragraphs. To inspect or not is a personal decision. I've got ears. I DIY. I have experience. I don't have x ray vision. I also don't have unlimited funds. So before spending several oil change costs to look inside the cylinders, I look at risk vs. reward (or, in this case, cost). I know my decision. It doesn't need to be yours.

From last night's post ...

That's a big request!!!

To increase strength in the 997.2 Porsche engineers went to a closed deck design. This increased casting costs, but after the near bankruptcy of the 90s the Cayenne had built a bank account for the engineers to design a new car. Many have said that in doing so they over engineered the 997.2. The reliability that most have experienced supports this idea, to our benefit.

There are videos of the 9A1 dancing on a jig that mimics the Ring. The IMS was gone. The AOS redesigned. Same for the water pump. And testing was intensive and extensive.

The oil pump became proportional and the ECU adjusted pressure output based on needs. Additional sump pumps were added to pump oil into a separate chamber for pumping through the motor. This reduced AOS loads and insured no oil starvation when cornering.

The chemistry used to coat the cylinders was changed as well as the pistons themselves. The new coating's silicone particles were smaller and better encapsulated to reduce shedding. And since the particles were smaller, should they shed they would be less likely to gouge the surfaces.

In other words, the 997.2 was a different animal.

But with any new design, unintended consequences can occur. Tolerances were much tighter. So there was little room to allow pistons to expand with heat if the cylinder walls didn't keep up. But the engineers had this figured out and most motors were fine. But a few gouged the cylinder walls, badly. The search was on amongst privateers (read that as Baz at Hartech in the UK) to find out the why so that they could define the solution.

A lot went into finding the answer. I won't address that here. The conclusion was that a few castings, due to any number of things that can go wrong in the foundry from material acquisition to smeltering to annealing and further to machining, were inclined to swell with heat unequally beyond tolerance. The result was a piston that got too big for its bore. This resulted in marking around the entire cylinder. This could be severe ... cold seizure because it happens before the motor is warmed up. Thus the suggestion to warm quickly but without using high revs or high power. This damage occurs at the bottom of the cylinder where the cylinders grew more slowly than at the top. Thus the piston covers the initial damage.

Please take the above with a grain of salt. It's a crude rendition at best and there are some pretty good outlets for better more complete explanations.

Meanwhile, one last note on bore score. This occurs when pressures or fluids act such that lubrication between moving metal surfaces is removed. Then the metal on metal action works the surfaces until failure occurs. This absolutely can happen in the 9A1 motor, theoretically. The 9A1 added DFI ... Direct Fuel Injection. Gas sprays directly into the cylinder. If the injector is working properly a mist is formed. The gas ignites wonderfully. Mileage (mpgs) and power improve. But if the injector fails streams of gas can can wash the oil off the cylinder walls. Then failure can result. This appears to be rare, but it can happen.

FWIW, early injectors used Teflon tips. That has since been changed. I suspect Porsche had reasons to do so.

Anyway, that's a rough explanation of the very complex answer to your question ... hopefully!!!

Wayne Smith

Yeah. Oops. Sorry. Just went back and read post 1.

The accident was a long time ago. With the miles put on the car is most likely fine. You've done due diligence, and an expert had said it drives fine. Auto repair these days is a science. Where does it fail? Frame alignment. This would show up as adverse tire wear. If the tires are new, you can't see anything. If they are half worn, you can. I'm sure your expert evaluated this as a part of the accident damage inspection. BTW, for safety, Porsche alignment specs add a lot of rear toe. This results in heavy inside west on the rear tires. This is not abnormal unless it's on one side only.

You can use the accident to negotiate. If you sell the car, potential buyers will do the same. It's up to you how long you want to spend searching for a car instead of driving it. It's late Fall now. Prices are down. But Spring will approach quickly!!!

Also, people here will tell you that Carfax is notorious for making mistakes and impossible to deal with when trying to make corrections. If they used cost of repair to indicate severity of damage, a scratch to a Porsche bumper by a shopping cart could qualify.

Zingerman88

Wayne, i like your last statement about the carfax. Connecting the dots, myself and the 2 shops don't see any evidence of anything substantial.