JFP in PA

To get at the stops and bellow, you are going to need to remove and disassemble the strut, and with those miles, it would be a good time for new ones. The M030 units will lower the car slightly, and give it a firmer ride as well as improve the handling somewhat. Just adding new struts in place of your worn units will also firm up and improve the handling as well, but not to the level of the M030. So it would come down to a question of do you really need the extra firmness and handling at as somewhat higher price for the parts. By far, most of my customers tend to stay with the non M030 struts, but it is a matter of personal choice.

Two methods, a 55 gallon drum of Bondo; or you cut off the quarter panel, straighten any frame and or suspension damage, and weld on a new quarter.

Interesting. As most people would not think of that approach, can you post more information on how you extracted the information, or did you swap chips?

That is going possible only if the old module can be "read" by a PIWIS system, or you have all of the correct key codes for programing. Quite often, the old module is stone dead and won't read, and the key codes a long gone.

For future reference, the DuPont spray will penetrate (the Teflon is suspended in a thin solvent), and gets you away from future dirt pickup problems. Thanks for the info. I'll get some and keep it on hand. Probably smells better than the WD-40 as well. Cheers, You can usually find it at Lowes or online. Has a lot of uses.

For future reference, the DuPont spray will penetrate (the Teflon is suspended in a thin solvent), and gets you away from future dirt pickup problems.

You are heading the correct direction, but as I mentioned earlier, I like to add the extra cam bearing caps to make up for the ones cast into the cover before starting rotation to help distribute the load on the cams. You may also find that some of the retaining tools with the flat tabs may not fit into the cam ends with them being off TDC. That is why a tool with a round Allan head bolt (like the fabricated tools above) works better at holding the cams in those situations.

Believe it or not, the most common cause for P0455 is bad gas cap seals. By far, in the shop, most of these codes are leaking or even missing gas caps.

And who is? Just remember, youth and skill are no match for old age and treachery................. ^_^

With the retainer in place, I would rotate the cams to their TDC position before releasing the caps. I would also either buy caps (aftermarket tooling) or make them as seen above and install them to help holding the cams in proper alignment before rotating them. The cams are cast iron, hollow, and there is a lot of spring pressure involved; it is very easy to snap them. And they ain't cheap.

I really do not like removing the cam cover on this engine without a cam retaining tool in place, even though it has some retained bearing caps. Some people have actually fabricated holding tools from flat stock and some bolts (just be sure not to tighten the bolts into the cam ends too far as there are pressed in plus in the end that you can dislodge). While this image is for a different engine, it should give you the general idea: And here is a home made system in use:

As Ahsai has pointe pointed out, you probably have quite a bit of damage and are going to be pulling the heads as well as opening up the cases. I would plan on getting an engine stand to work on it after you pull it. As the engine comes out the bottom of the car, a cherry picker will not do you any good except to pick the engine up to put it on the stand. Chains "without a master link" are one piece closed chains, which are much stronger than those with master links.

The spray will work if all that is needed is lubrication (which is quite often the case); but if there is a mechanical issue it obviously is not the solution.

Probably the reason for low interest is the number of Tip equipped cars, they are very much in the minority when it comes to numbers. I also would give your mechanic the benefit of the doubt; installing used transmission is never a fun proposition as you do not know what you have until the car is back together again. Sometimes you get a gem, other times not so much; but that is not a reflection of the guy turning the wrenches.

I can confirm that the $100 set works fine. I just used it on my 3.6L teardown. On the 3.6L, you just need to lock the crank at TDC #1 before you remove the bank 1 cam cover. There's no need to insert that cam lock tool as the cams are held down by a few bearings that are INSIDE the cam cover. The cams won't fall out if you remove the cam cover, unlike the 3.4L where the cams are actually held down by the cam cover itself hence the need of the locking tool. Aha! This is news to me. Good news. What's the purpose of locking the crankshaft at TDC? Will this still apply to me since I know my timing is off already? Locking the engine at TDC unloads the valve springs, it is the only crank position where that occurs. It also prevents the rotating assembly from moving.

+1. A lot of people get tripped up by this.

As Loren pointed out, without the codes, anything would be a guess.

The answer to that question begins by obtaining a wring diagram for the car and start tracing it until you find where the voltage stops.

I think you have comprehensively proven you have a fuel problem. You could attach a fuel pressure gauge to the fuel rail and confirm it. Then you would need to replace the pump, which is exactly what the dealer would do for you for a lot more money.

Simple: The DMF, while heavy, is reasonably well balanced within itself, often within one or two grams of being perfect. It also consists of two large masses, separated from each other by springs and elastomer, which allow harmonic, torsional, or dynamic imbalance related forces to be dampened and absorbed. Replace that DMF with a single mass flywheel, lightweight or even a heavy one, which is often much more unbalanced itself, and has absolutely no dampening capabilities, and those same force pulses have to go somewhere else. And in the M96/97, it tends to be into the crank shaft as a torsional pulse load. Over time, that leads to cracking, and eventually to failure. As for Flat6Innovations, it is the website of Jake Raby. While Jake's personality may not be everyone's cup of tea, you have to respect the body of work he has done over the years with these engines. His shop has rewritten the book (literally) on the M96/97 engine, producing some of the highest output and nearly bullet proof versions of these engines. He has developed components, tooling, and procedure's to prevent premature failure of these engine's, often accomplishing improvements that the factory say were not possible, and he even runs an educational program to help shop techs (including some Porsche dealers) learn how to help car owner's get the maximum out of the money they spent on these vehicles. So while he may seem a bit mercurial, he probably has taken apart more of these engine's after they failed than anyone else in the country. In general, because he works only on these engines, he is often in possession of critical technical information concerning failure points well ahead of other shops which may only be just beginning to recognize the same problem out in the field. So while many may not like him, you do need to listen to him; I have never seen his opinions proven wrong.

It is not "doom and gloom", we simply answer technical questions to the best of our abilities based upon our knowledge and direct experience on the subject. We don't make the news, we simply report it; and we don't sugar coat anything in the process.

Questions and concerns like yours are always welcome. The cost of the DMF is driven by the limited sources of supply and the relatively small numbers of these engines on the road when compared to something from say Honda or GM. When a manufacturer makes fewer of anything, they have less units to spread fixed costs over, and the parts end up becoming pricey when middleman and retail markups get added in. The result is a heavy iron DMF that costs nearly $1K at retail, which is ridiculous, but it is what we end up with. For those that question Porsche's position on this subject, here is a excerpt from one of several bulletins on the subject of using single mass flywheels in place of the DMF, specifically when using a single mass unit from and RS engine, which is subject to much more stringent engine balancing criteria on a non RS engine: Over the years, there has been considerable speculation about why the DMF was used. The most common opinion is that is was a packaging decision to add the dampening in the bell housing (where there is considerable room) rather than put the dampening mass at the front of the engine as most manufacturer's do. While there is considerable room in front of the crank on a 986, you need to remember that the same engine is used in the 996, but facing the other way around with the crank snout much closer to structural members and the like in the back of the car (something that anyone that has changed water pumps on both a Boxster and a 996 can appreciate). Not wanting to have two different systems for these models, they came up with one solution that would work in both cases, saving a lot of money in the process: The two most common ways of dealing with dampening on these cars has been to rebalance the rotating assembly and lightweight flywheels (which is obviously not realistic for everyone), or use an after market front pulley assembly which has a dampening system built into it (this one happens to be for a 3.8L. but they also make other models as well): These seem to help with the issue, but their size creates an entirely new set of problems to deal with (even on a Boxster, it is easier to fit one of these to the engine while it is out of the car).

You can believe what ever you please, but the DMF is not there to make the car smoother to drive, it is there to control torsional and harmonic loads in a engine the is barely at all balanced from the factory, which was done simply to save money during assembly. The DMF is a giant band aide to make up for that shortcoming, particularly as there is no front crank nose mounted dampener. Springs on a clutch disc do absolutely nothing to dampen torsional or harmonic loads, they are there simply to reduce clutch chatter as the clutch engages, which what really makes the car smoother to drive. Once the clutch disc is clamped by the clutch plate, the springs are completely compressed and doing nothing, they are along for the ride. The DMF, meanwhile, is always rotating with the engine, and always at engine speed, with the outer section of the mass separated by an elastomeric membrane and springs, which is there specifically to dampen harmonic and torsional irregularities out of the system. Over the years, we have more than once been called in to pick up the pieces which resulted from using one of these lightweight flywheels. Along with crank failures, we have also seen thrust bearing issues, brand new units that cleaned the crank position senor head off inside the bell housing because the CPS shutter teeth on the back of the flywheel were in the wrong place, or deformed enough to cause contact; and we even had one that on a car which would not run correctly because the mandatory gap between two of the shutter teeth that the DME needs was missing. Quite plainly, over the year, my shop had made a lot of money unwinding the problems caused by these flywheels. At the end of the day, it is your money and your car, so proceed however you choose.

That procedure is somewhat over kill. Porsche released a TSB on how to do this without a bunch of tools years ago: Dual Mass Flywheel Test 996 Tech Bulletin.pdf

Welcome to RennTech :welcome: The cooler is a $200 part at retail (95534706903, item #12 below), which makes fixing it economically questionable as you are going to need to get it out of the car to do so, and most of the cost in getting at it in the shop is labor. Porsche uses their own style clamps on these lines, which I do not believe they sell separately from the hoses.