Crown

FYI, Porsche said nothing about the GT3 at Geneva today……...

Porsche NA called me this morning to tell me that my car is no longer in production as they have shut down all production of the GT3's. They said it was an engine problem that they do not have a fix for at this time. She said they have no timeframe to provide when production will start up again.

I asked for a loaner and she said a regional rep will contact me this week.

This is my view is a major black eye for Porsche. I really liked Porsche in 2007 to 2009 and then lost interest and went to Ferrari. After 3 Ferrari's i put my toe in the water with Porsche and they just lost me. Not sure if I will take delivery of the car but will depend on the delay period. 

Wish the best for everyone and if I had the GT3 now and just got this news I would be really pissed. I think we are in this for the long haul.

Thanks Porsche!!!

And which engine is in the new RSR?  Hmmmm - doubt it has pdk either.  It will be a LOOOONG time until they race this new engine IF EVER.  I doubt it could go two hours at Daytona much less 24.  If was waiting on one OR worse - if it was delivered and then hauled off - I would be done with Porsche.  Forget wanting a 2015 model GT3 - I would want a 997 4.0 GT3 and nothing else. Start up that production line, lol.

Found this one at a local Porsche specialist, they won't collect this one with the recall I guess:

http://www.fgporsche.com/en/onderdeel.php?id=132

Could do with a bit of paint! 

2013 BMW 750 xDrive & 2012 x5 & 2014 991 TTS Cab. Range Rover V8 on order June14 - GT3 or Huracan to add next......decisions decisions decisions.....

I think that's the car where the owner posted a story of the crash on Rennlist...

73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550

how come all these years of testing they never notice the engine failure?

996AD:

how come all these years of testing they never notice the engine failure?

Some would say it's because it's the first one not tested and developed in racing before being placed in the road car.

--

73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550

Why the same engine on the 997.2 and 991 Carrera models has been functioning without problems?

There might be a higher rev limit on the GT3 but the problems occurred on barely run in cars, which hadn't been fully extended or used on race tracks at the time of the damage. And anyway revving the same engines @ 7000rpm since 2008 is not like using them lazily.

This logically points to component(s)  failure derived from a manufacturing/material fault, rather than an inherent design flaw.

Let's hope so!

--

"Form follows function"

996AD:

how come all these years of testing they never notice the engine failure?

Probably for the same reason their testing never picked up the CL issues with the 997.2... Either through inadequate testing or using different tolerances in their prototypes to the production model... Who knows? I do know however that they are making a habit of it which is greatly unappreciated as someone having been on the receiving end...

reginos:

Why the same engine on the 997.2 and 991 Carrera models has been functioning without problems?

There might be a higher rev limit on the GT3 but the problems occurred on barely run in cars, which hadn't been fully extended or used on race tracks at the time of the damage. And anyway revving the same engines @ 7000rpm since 2008 is not like using them lazily.

This logically points to component(s)  failure derived from a manufacturing/material fault, rather than an inherent design flaw.

Let's hope so!

--

"Form follows function"

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout... It is claimed by Porsche that the GT3 engine shares only its case, head bolts and chains with the 9A1 motor so it's not the motor having been run for the past 5 years in various forms, it's entirely different and new...

In reality, we'll never know the truth and nor will Porsche be forthcoming with it but one suggestion put forward was that the tolerance requirements on key components may have been made so tight that suppliers are having trouble achieving them on a mass scale resulting in components that fall into higher fail ranges... Add this to a highly strung, high revving engine and bingo... trouble...

Frankly, if in the end there ends up being any truth to such a scenario, then it's ultimately Porsche's fault because if you choose to use ridiculous F1 like tolerances to make it work, then you should be testing samples of components to ensure your suppliers have provided whats asked rather than assuming and taking it at face value... 

it sadly reminds to one of the comments from Chris Harris at his first drives of the new 991 GT3 where he said that he wonders whether the 9k rpm will last a car-life.....- I mean you can rev my 997RS to 8500 all day long.....this seems to be a major blow here.....

911rox:

reginos:

Why the same engine on the 997.2 and 991 Carrera models has been functioning without problems?

There might be a higher rev limit on the GT3 but the problems occurred on barely run in cars, which hadn't been fully extended or used on race tracks at the time of the damage. And anyway revving the same engines @ 7000rpm since 2008 is not like using them lazily.

This logically points to component(s)  failure derived from a manufacturing/material fault, rather than an inherent design flaw.

Let's hope so!

--

"Form follows function"

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout... It is claimed by Porsche that the GT3 engine shares only its case, head bolts and chains with the 9A1 motor so it's not the motor having been run for the past 5 years in various forms, it's entirely different and new...

In reality, we'll never know the truth and nor will Porsche be forthcoming with it but one suggestion put forward was that the tolerance requirements on key components may have been made so tight that suppliers are having trouble achieving them on a mass scale resulting in components that fall into higher fail ranges... Add this to a highly strung, high revving engine and bingo... trouble...

Frankly, if in the end there ends up being any truth to such a scenario, then it's ultimately Porsche's fault because if you choose to use ridiculous F1 like tolerances to make it work, then you should be testing samples of components to ensure your suppliers have provided whats asked rather than assuming and taking it at face value... 

What you are saying is that suppliers couldn't achieve the tolerance levels required for the prescribed performance at the cost budgeted by Porsche.

So, the "bargain" price of the GT3 was not really viable for its level of performance.

--

"Form follows function"

I suppose that may be another way of looking at it....

911rox:

I suppose that may be another way of looking at it....

There is a reason why the Mezger block was not "cheap" in comparison to the regular Carrera lump.

Still, as with previous issues, we may never know the real reason for the GT3 engine problems.

RS60 Spyder, 991 GT3 RS pending... :(

911rox:

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout...

During development and testing the engines were running even up to 9800 rpm without problems!

As stated before, the prototypes runned all fine, until a "problem" started in the series batch with a specific part.
 

My 3.0ltr RSR engine revved to 9200 rpm. It made 385hp or 127 hp/ltr. 

It also lasted 40 hours between refreshes. 

Past-President, Porsche Club of America - Upper Canada Region

jesse:

911rox:

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout...

During development and testing the engines were running even up to 9800 rpm without problems!

As stated before, the prototypes runned all fine, until a "problem" started in the series batch with a specific part.
 

If it is a batch of bad parts, why is it taking Porsche so long to announce its findings? All they have to say is "we identified the problem, it is confined to a small batch of parts and affects a limited number of cars. To be safe, we are investigating if there are other bad batches before we release the cars that are not affected."

Instead, Porsche their credit  (though silent on exactly what the problem is) are furnishing owners and buyers whose cars have been built and sitting in PDI loaner vehicles often new Porsche's. This seems to me to be an acknowledgement that the problem involves more than a small batch of parts and the issue is not going to be resolved soon.

Don't drive your car and nothing for 3 weeks seems to me that there is potentially a problem with all the cars not just a batch of parts. If there is a difference in quality between prototypes and production then the cycle they would have to go through to revise and test the quality of new parts compared to prototypes would lend weight to the view that it will take a while to be sure that the nearly 800 parts to be produced meet the original specs. I don't doubt that the prototypes met and exceeded the requirements. But series production isn't the same thing....

There's a very nice black 991 GT3 sitting in my local showroom at €165k and I think it looks fabulous. But right now to me any well cared for 997GT3 looks a more attractive long term buy, however pretty the 991 version is, especially with the heritage built into the back-end.

I wonder if the design and tolerance is so tight that the engine has to be warmed up to operating temperature before it can operate in high rpm without self destructing.

Those Germans are so straight forward and engineering minded, maybe they never consider regular folks may not wait till engine is warm before revving high and grenade the engine.

If that's the case then from their point of view, they did nothing wrong as it is a operator error. On the flip side, the customer can think of it as a design fault that the engine can't rev high when cold.

I would suspect that if it is a problem with internal engine part(s) that Porsche will need to swap out engines. So besides completing the root cause analysis, I would expect there is a parallel path focused on creating the capacity for 800 engine rebuilds. 

2014 Porsche 991 C4S Black with Sports Design Package,  2013 Porsche Cayenne Dark Blue Metallic, 2015 Porsche MACAN S (May 2014 Delivery) New York

nberry:

jesse:

911rox:

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout...

During development and testing the engines were running even up to 9800 rpm without problems!

As stated before, the prototypes runned all fine, until a "problem" started in the series batch with a specific part.
 

If it is a batch of bad parts, why is it taking Porsche so long to announce its findings? All they have to say is "we identified the problem, it is confined to a small batch of parts and affects a limited number of cars. To be safe, we are investigating if there are other bad batches before we release the cars that are not affected."

Instead, Porsche their credit  (though silent on exactly what the problem is) are furnishing owners and buyers whose cars have been built and sitting in PDI loaner vehicles often new Porsche's. This seems to me to be an acknowledgement that the problem involves more than a small batch of parts and the issue is not going to be resolved soon.

Because the suggestion was that this isn't a bad batch.... The suggestion is that in mass production, key components are being made with enough variance in tolerance that the cars scoring those parts in a given batch are going boom... You can't determine which car gets what part, parts don't have serial numbers and if they did, they're not being tested anyway...

jesse:

911rox:

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout...

During development and testing the engines were running even up to 9800 rpm without problems!

As stated before, the prototypes runned all fine, until a "problem" started in the series batch with a specific part.
 

And thus why in my explanation, I pointed out that this inherent issue seems to have become an issue once the car has gone into production. The suggestion being that specs and tolerances haven't been controlled as accurately during the production process unlike the r&d phase... 9800rpms in testing means nothing if they don't ensure they are using parts with the same specs and tolerances in production, right??

bobr:

I would suspect that if it is a problem with internal engine part(s) that Porsche will need to swap out engines. So besides completing the root cause analysis, I would expect there is a parallel path focused on creating the capacity for 800 engine rebuilds. 

That has been my suspicion form the start. The problem will require a universal replacement of engines ONCE they tested the new parts for reliability. It will be a long painful process for Porsche and its customers.

nberry:

jesse:

911rox:

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout...

During development and testing the engines were running even up to 9800 rpm without problems!

As stated before, the prototypes runned all fine, until a "problem" started in the series batch with a specific part.
 

If it is a batch of bad parts, why is it taking Porsche so long to announce its findings? All they have to say is "we identified the problem, it is confined to a small batch of parts and affects a limited number of cars. To be safe, we are investigating if there are other bad batches before we release the cars that are not affected."

Instead, Porsche their credit  (though silent on exactly what the problem is) are furnishing owners and buyers whose cars have been built and sitting in PDI loaner vehicles often new Porsche's. This seems to me to be an acknowledgement that the problem involves more than a small batch of parts and the issue is not going to be resolved soon.

That's the problem. It*s not a small batch.

911rox:

jesse:

911rox:

Huge difference in the forces experienced within an engine spinning at 9000rpm as opposed to one spinning at 7500rpm... Thus the use of lightweight titanium components throughout...

During development and testing the engines were running even up to 9800 rpm without problems!

As stated before, the prototypes runned all fine, until a "problem" started in the series batch with a specific part.
 

And thus why in my explanation, I pointed out that this inherent issue seems to have become an issue once the car has gone into production. The suggestion being that specs and tolerances haven't been controlled as accurately during the production process unlike the r&d phase... 9800rpms in testing means nothing if they don't ensure they are using parts with the same specs and tolerances in production, right??

I've not stated, that the fist real jobs weren't also tested but you're pointing in the right direction that in some way time might have been the limiting factor here.

Porsche is now asking owners who have not turned in their cars the mileage. Also, on the cars turned in dealers are being asked for ECU readings.

Not sure what to make of these recent Porsche actions.

nberry:

Porsche is now asking owners who have not turned in their cars the mileage. Also, on the cars turned in dealers are being asked for ECU readings.

Not sure what to make of these recent Porsche actions.

Sounds pretty normal to me.  Why wouldn't the factory want to evaluate how the cars were run early in their life and try to draw a link b/t how the cars were run and the failures?  Asking for mileage provides more data as well for their investigation. 

I think this data would be pretty important if they did not find the obvious mechanical flawed part.

I also think that the failures related to hard cold running is off the mark.  It is never good to engage in high loads and high revs with a cold motor, which can lead to wear, but I think leading to a thrown rod is a huge stretch. 

You guys are acting like Porsche has bent the rules of physics to rev to 9000 rpm.  Several motors from other manufacturers have already been to 9k, with similar piston speeds. 

And I don't know why some of you are using engine rebuilds with engine replacement interchangeably.  Two different approaches altoghther.

991 GT3 incoming, 964 Turbo 3.6, E36 M3 ltw S54 conversion, bunch of other stuff

I personally believe the delay is about ensuring the longevity of the fix, not the cause which I believe is known.  Higher tolerance requirements a/o revised metallurgical specifications than initially thought sufficient in relatively mass produced parts requires a set of time/wear/fatigue analyses which can't be done overnight. Frankly this type of problem raising its head at the outset of production is far better than a couple of years down the road. However, in my opinion this issue was known or at least suspected back in fall 2013 when the initial delays were encountered.  Porsche just wasn't sure how it would play out at the time. Corporations initially respond with reflexive damage control like governments, defer, deflect and deny until it is simply not possible.  I think the engine will come out much better for all of this, despite the angst. 

"Don't worry about avoiding temptation, as you grow older it will avoid you"  Churchill

frayed:

 

You guys are acting like Porsche has bent the rules of physics to rev to 9000 rpm.  Several motors from other manufacturers have already been to 9k, with similar piston speeds. 

 

Actually, as I remember it Porsche were the ones carrying on about the 9000 rpm redline when the car was launched and claiming accolades for their achievement... Yep, many before them have done it.... They are seemingly proving they just can't do it right....