papi chulo

I have had 3m scotchguard film installed on several cars and have a 3m kit on my 996. The film holds up exceptionally well, even when exposed to years of direct sun....I have a kit on my carerra that was installed 6 years ago and there is still no yellowing or other deterioration in the film. It absolutely protects against rock chips and even some scrapes and the usual paint damage incurred when backing into or bumping forward against someones license plate frame or screws. All that said, there are some inexpensive imitation products which really don't have any of the above characteristics. I am speaking of only the 3m scotchguard material, specifically the "starshield armor" brand of film and installation. On 996s the install, especially on the bumper, is quite difficult and you very unlikely be able to achieve a satisfactory result without extensive training. The installers used by Starshield Armor are the best in the business. They also offer great warranties and actually honor them.

Hi Izzy, No, the bounce that I and other members have mentioned regarding use of the HKs and stock shocks is more pronounced anytime a bump, cement break or other aberation is driven over. The car basically becomes unsettled....the nose, for instance, tends to come up too far and too fast and then not settle down again immediately (stays too high for too long). Then it comes down, there is usually a series of 1 to 3 additional smaller "bouces". I must also report that my Hks seem to have settled a bit in the last few weeks. The problem is not as pronounced as it was shortly after install. Maybe I am just getting used to it :)

I originally had the large oval Stainless Steel tips on my aero coupe. They are quite large and fill out the rear bumper cutout completely. I recently installed dual twin turbo tips and could sell you my stock aero tips for $150 plus actual shipping. They are in fantastic shape, fit perfectly and are easy to install.

thanks for the input Izzy....as I recall the Pro Kit Eibachs give you a 2.5 inch drop in ride height, correct? The regular Eibach sport springs are about 1.5 like the H&Rs. Isn't the 2.5 too low with clearance issues. That's the one thing I like best about the H&Rs...don't have to stress about constantly bottoming out although the look is very good. But, quite bouncy. Maybe the 2 1/2 inch drop of the pro kit brings the factory shocks back into a "sweet spot" range of movement with better compression by causing the shock piston to compress further into the body....I'm just theorizing....

Hi Cesar, 911h20 told me that he used the Bilstein Sport shocks. But at their retail cost, when you factor in the H&Ks, you are almost better off with an H&K or other fully adjustable coilover kit (only about 500 more). That's what I would do if I could start over again....

Hi Billy, OK...how do you know? Any experience with 996 NA motor failures and what caused them? Thanks

Hey Guys...thought I would refresh this thread....no one else wants in on the Supercharger group buy for 2k off the price?

911h20.....which bilstein's did you purchase. There are two types that fit our application the sport and the heavy duty (hd). Please let us know. Thank you

Hi All, Well, I went through with the K&N install using the factory shocks only and here are my impressions after a week of driving: The Good: 1. Appearance is, of course, excellent 2. No tire rubbing or fender clearance problems whatsoever (even during harsh suspension compression) 3. The car is not so low that I have had any problems entering and exiting driveways or other steep road surfaces 4. Firmer ride at the limit on FLAT pavement The Bad: 1. Noticeably harsher ride...now all road imperfections transmitted to passengers 2. On poor streets the harsher ride literally causes vibrations that make you feel physically nauseous (if you drive on good pavement/asphalt, no problem) 3. If you hit any sudden bumps or road imperfections that unsettle the suspension (cement slab breaks on the freeway for instance) the car is substantially more "bouncy"...much more so than with factory shocks and springs. The bouncing does not imediately settle and makes the car seem a bit less surefooted. If anyone else has experience or feedback...please add your input.

Well.....I finally have some good (at least hopeful) news. It seems that I have now solved the CEL issue as well as the engine stalling issues that I have experienced since installing the K&N intake kit. Since I was always throwing MAF codes after these occurrences, I diverged from K&Ns official statements that oil contamination of the MAF is not a cause of our problems. First, I removed my pre-oiled (just as it came with the kit) filter and cleaned and washed it using K&N filter cleaner. I washed out what amounts to about 60-70% of the oil. I then let it air dry and reinstalled it. Second, I installed the dry filter sock that came with the kit. I did not initially install it since I never drive in the rain or in inclement weather with my 996. I figured that this filter sock would cut down on total air volume through the filter closer to stock specs and would, potentially, also reduce the "air turbulence" that has been written about as being a factor that can throw off the MAF. Third, I removed the MAF and cleaned it with electrical cleaner, then reinstalled it and made sure that all clamps and screws were absolutely air tight and properly seated. Lastly, I purchased 100% aluminum screen door mesh material from my local hardware store and installed a round piece of this mesh between the filter element and the plastic air intake throat (effectively securing the mesh by slipping the mesh over the intake throat and then slipping the filter over the mesh and tightening the hose clamp that holds on the filter. After this installation, even after hard driving, violent deceleration from freeway speeds, etc., no more stalling and, so far, no CEL (I pulled one more code that cylinders 1-3 were at the lean limit, but that is it so far). I will keep you all posted with further developments. Some of you may try just cleaning the filter and installing the sock without installing the mesh and see if that cures the problem on it's own.

Hi Alex, Well, the stall DOES always occur when the Throttle body is closed, since it always happens when you come completely off the throttle during deceleration (and your foot is on the brake). RPMs will also be similar (although speeds will vary), since, on a manual car (which mine is), when you decelerate and get off the throttle, RPMS will also suddenly drop (the speed of the drop will only be hindered by motor compression).

Thank you for the input Nick and for sharing your experiences. I have heard so many different opinions regarding supercharging the NA 3.4 and 3.6 motors that it is sometimes difficult to make out what best fits your situation. There are quite a number of guys on 6speedonline that have had their SCs for years and have never had a problem. EVO also states that none of their SC motors have suffered a failure, but that is, obviously, impossible to verify. Any thinking person will realize that supercharging or turbocharging will cause some extra stress on motor components and generate additional heat when under boost. The real question is: are the 996 motors "overbuilt" enough to withstand the additional forces of physics and heat generated by Supercharging. Many seem to think that they are. Some argue that Porsche motors were always overengineered for their output and that internal components used are up to the task of handling the additional heat and stress. Of course, one must differentiate between casual street use and track use. If you are trying to bump power for track days or racing, where the car will, pretty much, be under constant boost for long periods of time (the race distance), then I see real problems with heat and strain on the motor. If, on the other hand, you just want the additional torque and HP for street driving for the occassions when you punch the throttle to pass on the freeway or speed off from a stoplight, I can imagine that some of the reliability concerns would not be nearly as warranted. Just my 2 cents. Unfortunately, I cannot verify or deny these opinions from personal use of a EVO SC on my own 996s....that is why input is so helpful.

I haven't had any screens for 6 years - zero CELs. You need to have your car fault codes read (not all cause a CEL) and you need to track your fuel trims and MAF readings. An independent shop can do this or some OBD II software that run on a laptop can be used. Until then you are shooting in the dark (IMHO). Hi Loren, I have never experienced ANY CELs prior to the installation of the K&N, nor has my car ever died before as it does now on a 2-3 times daily basis. The codes that I continue to pull after installation are listed at the top of this post. The screen seems not to be an issue on all aftermarket intakes and is probably a factor of air volume and velocity past certain filters and a function of the design of the air tube on various systems. Obviously no screen to reduce air turbulence would ever be necessary on a stock air box. It may be possible that people who report positive results with screens are just reducing the volume and velocity of air getting to the MAF and intake to a more stock level and therefore letting the sensors and computer stay in a more "stock" range.

Well guys, it may be time to bring up the discussion topic of supercharging our NA 996s again. Evolution Motorsports is offering a group buy promotion right now with discounts of up to $2000 per unit if 11+ units are sold (we can get together with some guys from 6speedonline to do a purchase). At around 8k, they become much more tempting to me personally. Evo has now sold 150+ units and claim to have, thus far, not had a single motor destruct. So, first, if anyone is interested, I will start a list of names and can coordinate a negotiated buy to give us the best possible pricing. Anyone interested can contact me at: bigbonebob69@yahoo.com Second, if anyone has any feedback from their evo supercharger install, or any tips or musings, please let us know. Also, if anyone has a cometing supercharger, please let us know why you went with another manufacturer. Thank you.

I would be curious to get a reading of the MAF while coasting to a stop. Based on the 1123 and 1125 codes, it appears that the computer is thinking it is getting more air than it really is and that is why the O2 sesnors are trying to lean the mixture out. If you watch both the airflow readings AND the intake temp readings closely, you may see a blip before the codes are thrown which might indicate a problem with a ground. Do this codes get thrown after a WOT run, or simply driving casually? Is there a screen BETWEEN the filter and the MAF? Thank you for the interest and help. First, isn't it true that if the computer thinks it is getting more air than normal that it would try to richen the mixture of fuel to compensate for the extra air? The motor dying occures most often after freeway driving (at 65-80mph) when decelerating or coming off the freeway onto an offramp during braking (no throttle application). It has happened once to me on a roadway doing about 45 after coming off the throttle. This behavior would seem to indicate that the car is not getting enough fuel during times when there is no throttle application (the gas pedal is not being depressed at all), because there is a greater than normal amount of air getting into the intake and the computer is not compensating with additional fuel to keep the motor running. That is just my interpretation. I may be completely off. Also, 1999 911, I do NOT have any kind of screen between the MAF and the filter. I have read elsewhere that adding a screen may decrease air turbulence and straighten out airflow to keep the MAF from throwing a CEL. There was a forum entry on 6speedonline where it was discussed that air flow past the MAF that is too turbulent or irregular is far more likely to throw a CEL than any amount of oil. So, adding a screen may be a good thing to try. I'll try to install one in the next day or two and will give everyone an update on the results.

As some of you may know, I started the same forum topic about the K&N aircharger. I have experienced continuous CELs due to MAF reading errors since install (never had any errors or CELs prior to install). Since installation of the K&N aircharger, my 996 also stalls frequently on the freeway or while in the upper gears when I suddenly back off the throttle and coast. Today, the car died with a strange clattering noise. There has been much speculation about oil from the K&N contaminating the MAF and accumulating in the throttle body. I completely disassembled mine today and found NO EVIDENCE OF OIL ACCUMULATION. None in the throttle body (bone dry) and none in the air intake tube from the filter. Just to be sure, I used K&N filter cleaner to wash the majority of the oil out of the filter, let it dry and reinstalled it. After about 10 miles, I came up with the same CEL and stalling on coasting after deceleration. I also very thoroughly checked all connections and seals, and cleaned my MAF with electrical cleaner (it already looked spotless) prior to reinstallation and testing. I'm quite confident that my installation is about as optimal as it can be as I am a professional auto restorer and have performed mechanical work for over 20 years. So any type of install error is highly unlikely. I just thought that I would provide an update. If anyone from K&N peruses these forums, it would be great to hear what type of fixes, if any, they have come up with. Or, conversely, if the problem has been isolated and is potentially a design flaw. It would be wonderful for K&N to get involved in these forums to support the many lifetime K&N users on this and other enthusiast sites (I have used K&N filters in my own cars for over 15 years and install from 20-30 in customer's cars annually). I, like any thinking individual, realize that design errors happen and that, sometimes, unforseen problems can surface once a component is released. I fully understand this and accept that it is a part of ongoing engineering and automotive development. I have had the same type of issues in my own restoration business. However, I do ask that the manufacturer accept responsibility and support the loyal customers that they have. So please K&N reps....provide a little help or insight....

As some of you may know, I started the same forum topic about the K&N aircharger. I have experienced continuous CELs due to MAF reading errors since install (never had any errors or CELs prior to install). Since installation of the K&N aircharger, my 996 also stalls frequently on the freeway or while in the upper gears when I suddenly back off the throttle and coast. Today, the car died with a strange clattering noise. There has been much speculation about oil from the K&N contaminating the MAF and accumulating in the throttle body. I completely disassembled mine today and found NO EVIDENCE OF OIL ACCUMULATION. None in the throttle body (bone dry) and none in the air intake tube from the filter. Just to be sure, I used K&N filter cleaner to wash the majority of the oil out of the filter, let it dry and reinstalled it. After about 10 miles, I came up with the same CEL and stalling on coasting after deceleration. I also very thoroughly checked all connections and seals, and cleaned my MAF with electrical cleaner (it already looked spotless) prior to reinstallation and testing. I'm quite confident that my installation is about as optimal as it can be as I am a professional auto restorer and have performed mechanical work for over 20 years. So any type of install error is highly unlikely. I just thought that I would provide an update. If anyone from K&N peruses these forums, it would be great to hear what type of fixes, if any, they have come up with. Or, conversely, if the problem has been isolated and is potentially a design flaw. It would be wonderful for K&N to get involved in these forums to support the many lifetime K&N users on this and other enthusiast sites (I have used K&N filters in my own cars for over 15 years and install from 20-30 in customer's cars annually). I, like any thinking individual, realize that design errors happen and that, sometimes, unforseen problems can surface once a component is released. I fully understand this and accept that it is a part of ongoing engineering and automotive development. I have had the same type of issues in my own restoration business. However, I do ask that the manufacturer accept responsibility and support the loyal customers that they have. So please K&N reps....provide a little help or insight....

Thanks for the info so far guys. I'd like to keep this thread alive, since it is a recurring topic, and will add my own experience once the springs are installed.

There have been several discussions in our forums concerning alternate lowering methods, suspension setups, etc. There are always strong opinions (naturally). I, like many on this site, only drive my 99 C2 on the street and primarily want to lower the car and gain a bit less body roll due to lower center of gravity. My car has relatively new factory shocks (NOT 030 sport shocks), and, at 20k miles, it would be a shame and a waste to toss them. Has anyone that has ACTUALLY INSTALLED just the H&R sport springs on an otherwise stock 996 (with factory standard shocks) noticed a difference in ride quality in terms of bounciness, rough ride, jarring ride, less control, less suppleness,etc. Again, I would love to limit this discussion only to people that have actually done this mod and want to try to keep theory and academic engineering discussions out of it if possible. It would be great for all of us to be able to cut through the conflicting info and feedback and focus soley on the experience of those individuals that are currently living with this type of setup....

Hi Loren, It certainly seems that I'm not the only one with the problems. Any ideas on the codes? You are the best person to ask, so please let me know if you have any diagnostic theories as to why those three codes are being sent and possible fixes. I'd like to keep the K&N just for the throttle sound alone....and I don't want to disassemble it again and do a intake R&R. Thanks in advance Loren!

Hey Viper....where did you get the rotors? If you say pads and rotors where 400, you must have gotten a smokin deal?! Are they factory style drilled, slotted, solid, or other? Could you give us the source? Thank you!

There have been several discussions in our forums concerning alternate lowering methods, suspension setups, etc. There are always strong opinions (naturally). I, like many on this site, only drive my 99 C2 on the street and primarily want to lower the car and gain a bit less body roll due to lower center of gravity. My car has relatively new factory shocks (NOT 030 sport shocks), and, at 20k miles, it would be a shame and a waste to toss them. Has anyone that has ACTUALLY INSTALLED just the H&R sport springs on an otherwise stock 996 (with factory standard shocks) noticed a difference in ride quality in terms of bounciness, rough ride, jarring ride, less control, less suppleness,etc. Again, I would love to limit this discussion only to people that have actually done this mod and want to try to keep theory and academic engineering discussions out of it if possible. It would be great for all of us to be able to cut through the conflicting info and feedback and focus soley on the experience of those individuals that are currently living with this type of setup....

I installed the K&N Intake kit about a week ago and, thus far, have several observations. Initially, the primary difference I noticed was the sound of the intake and the overall "note" of the car on hard acceleration. I already have the porsche sport exhaust on my 99 C2, so it primarily "screams" more at full throttle and actually rounds out the exhaust note nicely. Obviously, the car is louder and more aggressive, although not so much from inside the passenger compartment. As far as a power difference or faster throttle response, I do not notice much if anything. Obviously, without dyno testing this is subjective. Possibly, since I already have the sport exhaust, my motor may already breath better than stock and may negate some of the difference that may be noticed by other installers...or it could just be a more aggressive sound coupled with wishful thinking :) After about 20 miles of driving, the car died for the first time (since I've owned it) on sudden deceleration when braking down off a freeway offramp. Of course, it started again immediately. During the following day, this happened 3 more times, always on sudden, longer deceleration. Finally, yesterday the CEL came on for the first time (also, since I've had the car). I pulled codes with the Durametric system and came up with: P0102- (factory code 115) Mass Airflow Sensor: Below lower limit P1123- (factory code 27)Oxygen sensing Adaptation Range 1 (cylinders 1-3): Lean Limit P1125- (factory code 35) Oxygen sensing Adaptation Range 1 (cylinders 4-6): Lean Limit If anyone has any insight into these codes and reasons why they would be generated, please let me know. To me, this looks as if the system obviously does breathe better if it is causing a lean condition...I am just surprised that the adaptive engine control system cannot increase fuel volume enough to keep up with the increased air flow. Obviously, these codes may have been generated only during those sudden deceleration stages of my driving when the car died and I suddenly got off the throttle and cut off fuel flow (but engine vacuum still kept the air sucking in at full volume). At least that is my theory. As far as the MAF fault, I'm not sure. I installed it properly, the system is sealed properly and I did not reoil or overoil the filter. I installed it as it came. Any help or insights would be great. Thanks guys!

I have been searching for good quality replacement rotors for the front and rear of my 99 C2 (preferrably zinc coated and drilled/slotted) and was wondering if anyone has a good source. The website www.wholesalebrakesdirect.com has zinc drilled and slotted rotors (BENDIX made!) for something like $220 per set of 4!! However, upon calling and trying to order, they said those prices are no good and that the price was over 300 bucks a pair....quite a discrepancy, no :)

Hello again, Last week, Loren explained how to test the Crankshaft position sensor for proper operation (one of my earlier posts). Getting the sensor out of the bellhousing is a piece of cake, but the white (albeit dirty) connector (shown in the attached photo just to the right of center), does not want to come free from the case, nor come apart to perform any testing. Does anyone have a trick to safely remove this connector in one piece?