JFP in PA

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.

I'd also suggest dropping an email to the folks at Durametric about this. They have had some issues with the Cayenne diagnostics in the past and are always interested in direct feedback.

We have seen more than one M96 literally "shaken to death" by these flywheels. And that particular broken crank came out of an X51 equipped car, whose owner has publicly also stated online was the result of harmonics, and not caused by a rod or other failure. While some have had reasonable luck with these flywheels, others have not been so fortunate. Right out of the box, this particular brand has sometimes been found to be 10-15 grams out of balance just in the flywheel itself, which is considerable. As the result of these issues, we continue to recommend against their use unless the entire rotating assembly, including the flywheel, had been dynamically balanced to reduce the harmonics. Porsche even released a bulletin to their dealers warning against their use. And just as a reference point, changing flywheel weights does not free up much in the way of power, it changes the dynamics of how the engine accelerates. Before and after dyno pulls have shown 1.5-2 HP, which is considered within the realm of experimental error. We have seen similar "improvements" from things like changing the thermostat temperature.

Welcome to RennTech :welcome: I've not seen what you are describing, but to my understanding the mileage reminder interval is coded into the DME and not controlled by the Durametric software. I am also intrigued by the two options to reset the oil reminder. Which version of the Durametric are you using, and where did you get it from? Which tablet do you have it installed on?

It is possible that the switch picked this moment to fail, but that would seem unlikely. I would pull the switch out and unplug it to see if the flashers stop.

Welcome to RennTech :welcome: Biggest issues I see is the "M150" and "C32" codes, which means the car is designed for use with leaded fuels in the Gulf states (which had no emissions requirements). This option meant that the cat canister's under the cars were empty (no catalytic cores), the cars had no 02 sensor system, and use a unique OBD system to control fuel trims due the lack of O2 sensors. The UK has been mandatory lead free gas since 2000, and I understand uses the same OBD II "I/M Readiness" test that North America uses, which requires both cats and o2 sensors (although the RoW cars with cats of that vintage only had two O2 sensors rather than the more common four in NA). I would think it is going to take quite a bit of work to get the car accepted by the UK MOT system. The DME will need to be reflashed to use O2 sensors (which would need to be installed) as well as unleaded fuel, and the car will need real cats, all of which is going to be expensive.

Not necessarily, IWIS is one of a couple companies that supply Porsche, and I do not know which engines use what brand chains, but as with most OEM's, Porsche probably has at least two suppliers for every part. There is also always a premium for any part that comes in a Porsche logoed box. The same Bosch electronic part may cost $40 at a VW dealer, $35 online from a parts house, and $200 at a Porsche dealership. That is just the way it is.

IWIS are suppliers to Porsche and many other OEM's: http://www.iwis.de/en/engine-systems/company/reference-customers/

First of all, there are a large number of people that dislike LAD, but most do so because of their pricing, not their parts. They do tend to be on the high side of pricing, but sometimes they are the only ones with a needed part. That said, the used parts market is always a bit of a crap shoot on used transmissions. When a breaker buys a wreck from an insurance company, there is literally no way for them to know the condition of the unit. And, while the trans may have been working perfectly before the crash, the accident could have changed that. So they offer "warranties" on the units (if it don't work, we will give you another to try) in an attempt to make the purchaser more comfortable with buying a used one. The dismantler knows that a small percentage of them are going to be bad for one reason or another, so the installation is their "quality control" mechanism to sort out the good from the bad. While that may sound ridiculous to the buyer, it really is the dismantler's only option as they have no other realistic method to test the units before selling them. That said, what I would suggest is to install the replacement and test it; if it works well, I would go back to LAD and politely ask for some relief on the extra costs you incurred because the first one was a dud. As we live in the world of the internet, they may just surprise you and concede. They really don't need an unhappy parts buyer ripping them a new one online over the issue.

Great point.

No or low coolant would not stop the fuel pump.

The thorax airbags are in the seat side bolsters, so I would Imagine that you need to get under the leather upholstery to get at the harness.

Not very good. Many of them are actually old and out of date Durametric systems that are no longer supported, the rest are a total unknown, and there have been reports of some of them actually causing problems.

You need a Porsche specific scan tool, such as the PST II, PIWIS, or Durametric software; nothing else will work.

MM could have switched the DME or immobilizers between cars, which would leave the car unable to start. The crank position sensor would shut down the fuel pump if it were bad or disconnected. PST II was Porsche's diagnostic system when the car was built, it was replaced by the PIWIS and then the PIWIS II, the most current version. I do not believe the tool you have would be of help in this, and I know the Durametric (which cannot do the type of coding required to match the immobilizer and DME) won't be of much help either. You need the Porsche tool, of which the current version is lease only at around $20K for the first year.