perryinva

Is it OK, or even possible to use an impact wrench to remove the MM nuts? One of mine looks to have oil on it, but it may not be leaking.

Ben, I'm no wizard. I get the same info that is available to everyone online! I've not yet held that part in my hand. Download the PET (Porsche Parts Catalog, in pdf format). Even tho you have a C4s, (right??) for the C2 front strut 996 343 515 05 is part #11, labeled "bearing with housing" and it supercedes 996-343-515-04, which was labeled "deep groove ball bearing with housing". Like I said, $21 from Sunset, its $36 at Pelican. If you look farther down on the same section of the Pelican page you reference, you'll see part number for your car, 996-343-501-00 labeled Shock Bearing Plate for Front Shock Absorber (Upper Plastic Ring with Ball Bearings), Carrera 4. $41.50 at Pelican. It is also #11 in the PET for the C4 front strut, in the same placement and performs the same function. It's what the suspension turns on when it rotates. Similar price, same function, but who knows what's it's made of? If you click the small pic, it blows up and it sure looks like a bearing to me, but is it metal or rubber? It certainly isn't the lower rubber bushing, that is what Porsche calls the compensating plate. Maybe the guy that wrote the description at Pelican got them mixed up. It would be easy, as they look similar. Like I mentioned, I ordered all new rubber parts, as my used ones would be 7 years old and by now would have definietly taken a set to whatever they are up against. I ordered new bearings, as mine creak like a wooden ship, once warmed up. I had ordered new stop plates which are nothing more than concave washers, and 6 months ago were roughly a ridiculous $9 each. They've since doubled in price to $18 F & $16 R. That's $140 for 8 friggin washers. If anyone out there has any concave washers and wants to sell them for $50 the set, I'm buying!!! Why would Porsche get $21 for a bearing and $18 for a washer? Makes no sense. I'll re-use my old washers or find someone that has them cheaper.

Ben, Please do keep us informed as to what is found, if it turns out that I need to watch out for something else, it'd be great to have a heads up!

Yeah, that's the post where I got most of my "pre-install" information, to gather new parts to correctly pre-assemble the PSS9's. Since I paid so little for the PSS9s, I figured I splurge and buy new parts and leave the OE struts fully assemled to reinstall if I sold the car or whatever. I thought I recalled Ben was in that post, and he already did have the bearings and rubber plates installed 2 years ago, and it did cure the noise he had at the time. I'm guessing he has a different noise now & it is probably his control arm bushings, not the struts making the creaking noise, or the mechanic is right and he has rubbing interference.

The bearing part number is 996 343 515 05. Sunset has them for $21.25 and Suncoast for $23.10, ea. It goes above the metal support ring that backs the rubber and below the concave washer (stop plate) under the upper strut mount. Even if you had it installed, it/they could still be bad. They get noisey pretty easily. You can verify if it's the part by removing the drivers front wheel (after it's warmed up) and have someone turn the steering wheel while you hold/feel in the wheelwell where the top of the spring meets the strut mount. You can feel the creaking vibration as the wheel is turned. I'd only asked if you'd read about it before in case you'd already determined that it wasn't the bearing or control arm bushings and were just looking for another possibility. I should have typed "Had" not "Didn't", thinking one thing, typing another. I should point out that the PSS9 instructions just show a block the says "original mount parts" above the cone washer, part number 996 343 513 00, which, according to Kieth Robertson at Bilstein in North Carolina, meant to reuse all the original mounting parts from the OE struts, which includes the bearing. To make matters more confusing, on the instructions for the PSS10s, they show the breakdown of the OE parts to reuse, "to clarify the actual parts to be reused, which appeared to be an omission in the instructions for the PSS9 kit". Well, on the rears, the diagonal spacers and bottom washer are not reused. But on the diagram for the front PSS10, that same breakdown doesn't specifically show the bearing or the rubber compensating plate, or the diagram could be construed to be the bearing, the support plate and compensating plate all rolled into one.

+1 :renntech:

I'd it probably doesn't have anything to do with the lowering. Mine does the exact same thing and is still full stock suspension. May be control arm bushings (tho they tend to do it regardless of temperature), or the front strut bearings are worn, if installed. Many shops install the PSS9s without the stock strut bearing, and use the rubber spacer as the "bearing". That works for a while until the rubber wears. It does it more when the rubber is softer as it warms up. Didn't you read about this on any of the other boards? It's pretty common, lowered or not.

I like waterboys design, and was not maligning it. It addresses many issues that occur when jacking up the whole car (mainly, if you use a jack on the jacking point, then you can't put a jackstand there), also, it distributes the load over a larger area than a jackstand would at the jack points, reducing deformation and damage. If there was a jack stud on the underside of the bar, centered, then possibly a long reach jack could be used from the side to lift the entire front or rear end evenly, which would be very handy. I only pointed out that I'd seen a similar device that looked like it could be used on multiple cars.

For the most part it appears they are just showcasing how far under it reaches (which is impressive) and a typical capacity. They (Bendpak) are very safety conscious and would never sugget working on a car like this. It appears more than sufficient in height to get jack stands under the normal jack points. The lifting point shown does appear to be the cross member to me, which I would think is a better jacking point than the engine, which puts the entire weight of the car on the engine mounts, instead of just the engine. I haven't studied the cross member design to determine if it cna support that weight. Most can, though.

I didn't notice that, but you are correct, 38" is way too narrow to reach. Stupid design! What car has any jack points that are only 38" apart unless you are on the frame from front to back? Perhaps under suspension mounting points, but that's about it.

Wow, nice find Loren, and I'm sure there isn't $34 worth of shipping each if you order 2. Plus I could use them on any of my 4 cars/trucks....I just may have to....

"997 2 has even no more" I'm sorry, what does that mean? Do you mean the 997 MKII engine still only has the same two radiators setup, and has 385HP? The 3rd radiator SHOULD help (it radiates with or without airflow, just much much better with airflow), but since I haven't installed one, I can not say how much. Bruce is right, of course, the "180" nuumbers on the temp gauge easily cover from 170 to 200, which I suspect is intentional.

Nice job, but no, (and NO offense at all intended) it's not a new idea. These have been available from here: http://www.asedeals.com/automotive_floor_jacks.html for a while, $84 each, free shipping and is adjustable. Could be modified to work F-R or side/side, I would think. Regarding the F-R vs front or back, the same side is WAY more dangerous to you and the car. Too easy to roll out between the jack and the car, and destroy the side of your car, or you. Much harder to do that with F or R wheels down or that side already on jack stands.

All the aftermarket (and Porsche) sportier suspensions lowert he car. Really depends on whats too low for you and how much you want to spend. An inch lower is about european spec, so I don't really think too low. You should have about 26 1/2 " from top of wheel fender to ground through centerline of wheel, USA stock. Pretty much everyone agrees that is just way too high. PSS9/10 will lower minimum of about 1.1 inch (~30mm), but is adjustable to go lower, as well as firmness/plushness. Plushest setting is way smoother than stock, plus lifetime warranty. Stiffest is stiffer than M030, not sure where it compares to X74. ROW M030 lowers minimum 10mm, but non-adjustable. X74 about 25mm lower, stiffer than M030, also non-adjustable. M030 with sways, new is about the same $$ as PSS9 w/o sways, (~ 1800, not installed) maybe a little less (they just had a big price increase), and of course is a Porsche supplied system, like the X74. X74 & M030 use same sways. Kw Variant I know next to nothing about, except most expensive of all, and highly regarded.

That's why we're discussing it here. It doesn't make sense. Of course in Vegas it's a dry heat (insert joke) but maybe radiators cool better with dry air? It is often 100+ and 90%+ humidity in Richmond, and I agree, that as long as the car is moving, there is not an issue. Bruce is concerned in stop & go, so little or only fan air movement. Is there much heavy S&G traffic in Vegas?

Jake Raby sells a hard anodized one with a 10mm allen and a magnet to grab ferrous metal. Nice alternative, about the same price.

Not terse at all Bruce..perfectly clear, thanks. It takes a WHOLE lot to offend me... Yes, the 3rd radiator will help. Just don't think it's worth $600 to do the fix, unless you track. Since I've read about this issue other times, I can only assume it's common. But on my car, with the AC on, in 105F stop and go, I've never exceeded 195F. Now, I did experiment with my Autoenginuity software (temp control easter egg doesn't work on 02 or newer) and monitored coolant temp while I roasted with the AC off last summer, and consistently hit 210F, then fans would kick in and drag it down to 195F pretty quick. But, dang those are small radiators for 320 HP... I'm going to see what I can find out about the '05 water pump. Maybe Jake Raby can help.

Exactly, pull out the pleated insert, let it drain in a drain pan on a few paper towels, then slice it open with a utility knife. BTW, I've only done 1 oil change on my 996, (I've only put 4k miles on it) and my filter had no visible debris at all, but then again that oil & filter only had 6k miles on it (but was a bit over a year old, so I changed it). I've done countless changes on BMWs and often inspected them the same way. Never any metal particles. I have a sample in a Blackstone container, and just haven't sent it out yet for analysis.

Yeah, what he & I said. Good point RFM, the fans WOULD be on all the time with AC, as you would expect in the summer, which makes Bruces problem even more confusing, and also eliminates 1999s fan switch solution, as well. I can't recall, but is the AC fan speed the high or low one? If low, then it could be explained, if high, it can not. I was not poo-pooing L&N. I simply stated thermodynamic facts and said I never understood the use of the lower T-stat solution. I'm an ME with 30years experience, that majored in thermofluids, but I am smart enough to not claim to know it all. If I know for a fact that something is true, I'll state it, but I rarely state that I know something is false unless I have first hand experience with it. There are always missing pieces to a puzzle that too many people ignore and base assumptions on an incomplete picture. Unless the lower temp T-stat allows more flow at full temp (entirely possible, if it includes a new housing) then it does nothing. Period. It just can't. Saying that it is based on my opinion is like saying that drinking gasoline won't make you sick because I've never done it. Anders is exactly correct, the T-stat design point is for efficiency and emissions. 1999 brought up a very good point, though. In BMW straight 6s, a very effective upgrade is to install a Stewart SS pump. I've compared them side by side, and there is NO comparison. The Stewart is so much better designed and built, it's a no brainer to use it, and always yields a more constant, often lower temperature, due to increased efficiency and higher flow rate. Is there a similar aftermarket water pump for the 996? Is the 997 or S one any better?

Well, I'm a little confused here. From the first post I thought that your fans were running continuously, but the temp still stayed above 215F which is about 102C, in stop and go traffic. (It doesn't specifically say that, but that is what I thought.) In which case MR 1999s fix will not work, even he has to agree with that. (And for the record, there is no way that turning the fans on sooner or constantly will yield a lower final coolant temperature any lower than if the fans kicked on at 215F and stayed on. Period. That is Thermo101. It WILL prevent the temperature from ever reaching 215F, or even exceeding whatever that final temperature is, but it will be the same pre or post mod. I run under the reasonable assumption that 215F max is no big deal, and there is nothing really to gain keeping the coolant constantly at 180F, at the expense of more wear & tear on the fans and the parasitic loss of the load. Using your logic, why not just hard wire the fans and keep them running all the time the engine runs?) But when you say that the cooling system is running normal, do you mean that the fans are cycling on and off all the time in traffic? In that case, Mr 1999s fix will work exactly as he has stated, the coolant will be a more constant lower temp on average, as it will do what you stated works, move more air through the radiators. I have a 2002, and they don't seem to have the same cooling issue, as the fans infrequently turn on even in stop and go city traffic in 105F air temps. And as you stated, when the fans kick in, the temp drops very quickly, which is why I didn't suggest a higher rate fan. The ones you have work. On an aside, I had done the clutched fan delete on my BMW a few years back to "gain" a bit of HP back, as I really didn't think that the apparant small amount of air did much. I shortly re-installed it as it made a huge difference in the number of times the electric fans came on and their duration. The clutched one is much quieter and suffices for normal use. It doesn't take much air make a difference. It almost seems like the 996 with this cooling "issue" could benefit from an additional lower (quiet, less load) speed on the fans.

OOPS, sorry, I was thinking metal particles in coolant, common issue with failing metal impellers in BMWs...just sort of blurted out w/o thinking . Sorry. I didn't know the 996 used plastic impeller...hope theirs is a lot better than BMWs...Sorry, but visible metal shavings are not normal. There are a ton of BMW & Porsche owners that inspect their filters and none say "Everything looks normal, metal shavings in every one of the filter pleats.." I'm not trying to be negative here but I would most certainly NOT be casual about this, especially for someone that already had to replace his engine less than 3 years ago (assumption). Get to the dealer that put in the engine, show him the filter and ask what can he do about it. Get it documented. Brad is correct, get it analyzed. Or do you have an extended warranty that you trust?

Have you checked both radiator fans to feel if they are moving about the same amount of air? Easy to tell if you stick you hands right in front of the front tires. (Turn on the AC or you'll have to wait until summer..) Could you have a weak motor, or part of the resistor is bad on one, and that it simply is not moving enough air? The fan runs at two speeds, but is dependent onte resistor to do that. You may only have one speed. Perhaps you have a defective T-stat that's not opening all the way? I've never understood going with lower temp t-stat, as the stock one should be full open at well below 95C. Full open is full open. AFAIK, a lower temp T-stat does not open more than the stock one. Same thing if fans are already running. Running them sooner does not keep the top temp cooler. If fans are running, then the system will reach the same equilibrium temp, regardless of when they turn on. What you may gain, is less of an excursion before they reach equalibrium. This doesn't sound like Bruces problem. I assume you've done a coolant change, and the system was properly bled. You might try Water Wetter, or as Brad inferred, a larger or additional oil cooler. though the 3rd radiator might be less expensive than the oil cooler. It's certainly cooler looking.

You should be able to a least see if they are magnetic or not. If so, most likely bearings or rings. If not, likely chain tensioner or water pump.

+1, price and experience. Hey Philip interested to hear how your Roock converison is going. How much?

+100 on radiator cleaning. If you've never had the bumper cover off and cleaned out the radiators, including between the radiators and condensers, then you are probably running hot all the time. My car, with only 37k miles on, was fully 1/3 or more blocked with leaves, trash, sand, etc. and it took me a good 2 hrs to vacuum, flush and blow out everything. Of course, now it can be done in less than 30 mins, as I stay on top of it. My temps dropped significantly. Also make sure both of your radiator fans are running, one of my load resisters had burned up, so only one fan was working. Be VERY careful following the front bumper removal guide, as one thing it does not mention, is you really have to free up (not remove) the inner forward front fender liners (2 screws, 3 plastic expansion fasteners per side), in order to get that one friggin, screw up near the side markers, or you risk breaking the plastic mounting part that holds the side marker. Ask me how I know. Turning the wheels to far L&R help also.