Are you aware of the appalling rate of Boxster engine failures, which I’m only now becoming aware of through participation in some Boxster forums? Some estimates (Bruce Anderson, for one) are that 20 percent of Boxster engines don’t make it past 100,000 miles witout a catastrophic failure. The standard failure is what the cognoscenti universally refer to as the IMS–the intermediate shaft. It’s apparently bolted together, and the bolts fail, then everything internal claps hands and you’re looking at a replacement crate engine. I’m hoping the fact that Susan never revs past maybe 4,000 will spare us, but I’d be careful if I were you. There was a recent Porsche Club event that 11 Boxsters participated in. One had an IMS failure during the event and two of the other Boxsters participating had previously had their engines replaced due to IMS failures. Three out of 11 equals 27 percent. It’s a quiet secret within the Porsche community, and there are reasonably knowledgeable people who claim these engines were built as cheapies to get through the warranty period unscathed–which the apparently often don’t–and that PAG hasn’t the faintest interest in second, third and fourth owners. And they used to say the entry-level Porsche was a used Porsche.
78 Comments on “Porsche Boxster Engine Failures Mount...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
That’s what made GM the company it is today.
You guys didn’t know about this?
This is one of the three or four known failure modes on the Boxster motors.
Rear Main Seal. Piston bores coming apart. The IMS. One more that I’m forgetting.
Very nice cars. It’s just evident that these cars are built to a price point, whereas the older Porsches were not.
There’s no “rumor” about this. Porsche Pete’s Boxster Board is awash in IMS-related discussion much of the time. Several members have experienced IMS failure (one of them twice), and some have left the Porsche brand because of it.
Only Porsche knows for sure what the failure rate is, and they’re not talking. Anecdotally, most engines that do fail, do so before 50K miles. The factory warranty (in the US, anyway) is 4 years/50K miles, but many owners don’t put anywhere near 50K on their Porsches in 4 years, so a lot of failures happen out of warranty.
Porsche sometimes steps in and helps out with engine replacements for cars that are out of warranty, but they are not consistent about this, and even under a “cost-sharing” arrangement, the hapless owner can still be on the hook for thousands of dollars. If Porsche doesn’t help at all, one is looking at around $15K for a replacement engine, give or take, which is nearly what some older Boxsters are worth.
The IMS failure isn’t limited to the Boxsters, either–Caymans, 996s and 997’s share the same “M96″ engine. The model year 2009 911 features a all-new engine which does not have an IMS; this engine will eventually find its way into Boxsters and Caymans as well. But besides that, Porsche apparently has no plans to address this design defect.
As the relatively new owner of a 2005 Boxster (with lots of miles to go before 50K), I’m a little concerned about this myself, although I knew of the potential for a failure before buying the car. If my engine suffers a catastrophic failure before the warranty expires next year, I’m not sure what I’ll do, but it certainly would tarnish my opinion of the Porsche brand.
But until that happens, the car is simply a blast to drive! So I try not to worry about it too much…
Yeah, Porsche Pete is where I learned about it too, and the reason I referred to it as a rumor–probably the wrong word–is that I thought I was a Porsche guy, what with a 911 track car and constant participation on the Pelican board as well as a Boxster (2004), is that I’d never heard about it.
And yes, of course you’re right, the M96 is not Boxster-specific. I’m delighted that The Farago has opened this container of wiggles.
But I coulda sworn my warranty was three years/30,000 miles, which I thought I’d checked recently due to a weird ignition failure. I’ll look again…
Didn’t Porsche have a lot of engine block oil porosity problems with Boxster engines as well? This kind of stuff is bad news for Porsche. Can’t blame hard use for oil leaking out of what is supposed to be solid alloy. Oh, well, even if this engine hs a shorter life than a first gen Quad 4, at least it’s fun while it lasts…I think Motor Trend stated that Porsche was readily and willing to replace engines…
I was scared away from used boxster. Not just that engine, but the whole dealer maintenance thing. I work on my clean low mile Miata myself, and its not serious money at all. Miatais more engaging as an overall car experience, since I like to be able to work on the car myself.
That’s what you get for buying a reworked Kharmann Ghia.
(Ssve the flames, I’m just jealous. Although the engine failure has made me feel better.)
Makes me glad I bought a Corvette instead. I was this close to getting a Boxster or Cayman too
I’ve owned many Porsche’s over the years and currently race in a spec series in one. The IMS is not the only problem as the rear main seal often leaks. The mating on the block where it mounts is not exactly perfectly level making the fact that installing the rear main seal much harder job to do it perfectly.
To make this more alarming it is not just centered on the 986/987 Porsche’s but also the 996 and 997 911s have these same failures. Ever note that the early 996s (99-03) are actually now much cheaper than a comparable 993 (94-98).
For the 996 and 986 Porsche outsourced the engine design to an unknown party and partially built there – Porsche is very tight lipped on this fact. They then brought in Honda to help improve their production efficiency and quality capabilities. Quality went up through the roof and their profit margins skyrocketed leaving them the funds to design the Cayenne and now purchase VW. Porsche though has quietly kept these engine failures a secret for a long time – well unless you owned a Porsche and talked to others.
If you look at it this way – a crate 3.4 engine is $14k installed by the dealer. Make sure you have a CPO and you will be fine.
For the 996 and 986 Porsche outsourced the engine design to an unknown party and partially built there
They then brought in Honda to help improve their production efficiency and quality capabilities.
The story gets curiouser and curioser.
Dyson Racing also dropped the Porsche RS Spyder and instead will race another marque (Acura?) in ALMS.
Well this is disappointing. Glad I bought an S2000 instead, mostly because the insurance on anything Porsche is 3X’s as anything not…
That’s okay, I always preferred the 993 911 and the 928 anyway. :)
There are a lot of cars with undeserved good reputations. Toyotas/Lexi with 3.0L V6s come to mind (rampant engine sludge problems that Toyota refuses to acknowledge).
Dyson Racing also dropped the Porsche RS Spyder and instead will race another marque (Acura?) in ALMS.
Penske will not be racing the Spyder next year since he’s going turtle racing in Grand Am. Dyson will likely be racing a Mazda.
OK. Now I’m concerned… I was hoping to pick up a slightly used 2005 Boxster S. So let me be clear in my question. This is a concern for EVERY Porsche Boxster ever made (up to 2009), correct?
Guessing they outsourced this design to Harley. Ah, too bad, another dream deferred (Cayman).
golden2husky, it’s not so much “bad news” for Porsche so far, as they seem to still be making money hand-over-fist. Yes, there are some who have left the marque, but until buyers stay away in droves (which I don’t see happening), Porsche has no reason to address the issue.
BlueBrat, my insurance premium for my 2005 Outback 2.5 XT is (slightly) higher than that for my 2005 Boxster. YMMV of course.
onerareviper, all Boxsters except the very earliest (1997 and maybe 1998) are potential IMS victims, as are all Caymans and all type-996 and type-997 911’s (except the aforementioned 2009’s). But the early cars have their share of problems such as slipped cylinder sleeves and rear main seals (which seem to be less of an issue in the later cars).
Anyway, in my opinion Porsche forfeits any bragging rights to “engineering prowess” as long as they fail to put their money where their mouth is and address this obvious design issue. In the meantime I’ll continue to try to enjoy my “borrowed time”!
Is this Stephan from PPBB? I had no idea you wrote here. I mainly participate on Rennlist and 6speed but as a 986 owner I got my start on PPBB and remember your name from there I believe. Are you aware that the early 3.4 996 cars (99-01) have a similar, if not higher rate of failure? It seems as though everyday a new “I need a new engine” thread is posted on Rennlist. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why those early 996 cars have become so cheap.
Also, for the record, my 986 is at 63xxx miles and still kicking. RMS leaks slowly and my top transmission is broken right now but otherwise it has been and continues to be a delightful car.
JeremyR :
November 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
onerareviper, all Boxsters except the very earliest (1997 and maybe 1998) are potential IMS victims, as are all Caymans and all type-996 and type-997 911’s (except the aforementioned 2009’s). But the early cars have their share of problems such as slipped cylinder sleeves and rear main seals (which seem to be less of an issue in the later cars).
THANKS! I knew about the rear main seals in the older models, but I had no clue of this IMS. If/When I purchase a 2005, I’ll be sure it’s still covered under the factory warranty or gets extended (CPO). What I find interesting is most buyers of Boxsters typically don’t drive them hard (IMHO). You don’t see them at the track too often, and many drivers ‘appear’ to buy them on price/looks. Of course I’m making a judgement on people I don’t know… None-the-less, that type of failure rate on a car that is not ‘typically’ raced is CRAZY!!!
Perhaps TTAC should have a new feature: “Known Fact of the Day”
A very good friend of mine is a Porsche mechanic and the IMS still occurs even in the 997s and 987s. But it is not as common as everyone things but the early 996s were atrocious for such (I’d say it was > 20% failure for them – even on replaced engines!)
I love my Porsche’s and you honestly get what you pay for. My favorite track rats are 944s, 968s and Boxster / Cayman. They are honestly some of best cars to drive with 50/50 weight distribution and the ability to drive them to the limit and survive. The 911 is fast…and in the hands of a professional driver one of the fastest cars out there – but they can bite you in the ass faster than you can imagine and when I have a student in a 911 – I have them more slowly approach higher speeds than I do in other cars.
Blundering onto Porsche Pete’s scotched my plan to pick up a 2007 Cayman. I’ve wanted one ever since it came out. Now… I’ll wait until the engines are fixed. Warranties are no substitute for good engineering.
You German car owners have no idea…
Try owning a 40+ year old Jaguar! Your rear main seal against mine any day of the week! I bet you a new cayman I’ll lose. Quitcherbitchin and thank $Diety you don’t have Lucas to contend with as well! Just add oil and keep driving. HARD! DRIVE IT HARD!
–chuck
(kids today…I swear. They just need perspective.)
I love that whenever a marketed “premium” product is shown to have some cost cutting/engineering shortcomings/defects, no one thinks that this in any way a poor reflection on their products. If anything, it just adds to the value.
I mean, can you IMAGINE what the response would be from enthusiast community if an American sports car like the Corvette or Mustang were to have a similar problem?
Corvettes and Mustangs have much worse problems. Like the fact that they are Corvettes and Mustangs.
Scary… in a couple of years time I’m looking at a Vette or a Boxster (if all goes well). Old Vettes (even C5’s) seem to age very well. Porsche used to be the car you can drive every day~!
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why those early 996 cars have become so cheap.
I think the main reason for that is the ‘Spiegelei’ headlights. The 996, especially the early ones, are the ugliest ‘elfers’ out there together with the 964 (90-93).
By comparison, the 993, was one of the best looking ones, and it was the last air-cooled one, and it has a relatively limited production run (the 996 was already on offer come 97).
Interesting stuff about the engine design being outsourced though, and obviously Porsche has fallen a long way. I remember in older TüV reports the 911 always used to win reliability contests for cars of 9 years and older. I guess I was about 10 at that time so they would have been talking about the 964s/911/930s(?). Which is fine for me. I’ll take one from just before the 964 was launched with aircon and the G50 gearbox.
It’s just evident that these cars are built to a price point, whereas the older Porsches were not.
That’s actually insulting. Honda (and I used Honda as an example because Toyota** doesn’t build the MR2 anymore and the Miata lives a less-stressed life) can build an engine that puts out similar power levels and doesn’t self-destruct, yet their “price point” is much lower than Porsche’s, I’m sure.
A company that charges–base–more than Honda charges for it’s top-end S2000, with options that can double MSRP, and is reportedly “the most profitable car company in the world” can damn well engineer a car that won’t fail. Price point, my ass: Porsche’s price is high enough that they can damn well build a good car.
One of the reasons I like cars like th Corvette, NSX and Ford GT is that they demonstrate to the (spit) storied marques of Europe that you can build a performance car without it being a mechanical princess: the original NSX scared the hell out of Ferrari and Lamborghini, and they’re a better company for it. I hope someone like Honda or Mazda takes Porsche down a peg in the near future.
** Hey, Porsche, how’s the Toyota 2ZZ-GE in the Elise and Exige holding up?
Blundering onto Porsche Pete’s scotched my plan to pick up a 2007 Cayman. I’ve wanted one ever since it came out. Now… I’ll wait until the engines are fixed. Warranties are no substitute for good engineering.
I had the same situation. All ready to buy an 04/05 Boxster S this past August after being a BMW fan for years. But, I kept seeing comments about IMS failures on Rennlist, then found the thread on the failures on PPBB. While I understand that the Internet attracts reports of problems, it is abundantly clear to me that the IMS issue is not an overblown, isolated issue. We will never know the exact percentage of failures, but it is too large for me. Though I would have purchased as CPO, I really don’t want to start every drive wondering if this is “the one”. Plus, I would not own a Boxster out of warranty.
No two ways about it – this is just poor engineering. I believe that too many folks are drinking Porsche’s kool-aid and not raising enough hell about this – so Porsche gets away with it.
I ended up with another BMW Z4 3.0si – which I love.
Ah yes, bring back the 944 and the 968. Another problem appears to be cracked blocks on 911s – across the board.
Kevin Kluttz :
As much as I like the Boxster/Cayman (the 911 in all iterations is ugly and extremely overpriced in my opinion), I wouldn’t say the Corvette has a ‘problem’ when it takes a 911GT3 at twice the price to beat the performance of the base Corvette. The Carrera and Carrera S can’t even match the base ‘Vette’s performance, despite costing about 50% more. I’ve also put about 43,000 miles on my Vette in the past 2 years and I have no concerns about the engine failing any time soon. Not to mention the Vette looks better (subjective), gets better mileage, etc.
Not to throw the thread off topic, but I had to come to my car’s defense
psarhjinian – please note that the 1.8 liter engines (code: 1ZZ-FE [GT] and 2ZZ-GE [GT-S] – the latter which is used in the Elise – Toyota sold these at a substantially reduced rate as Lotus was looking at an Integra Type R engine) were designed and originally built by Yamaha.
thetopdog – As for the age old Vette versus 911 debate – for an amateur a Corvette is much easier to drive as understeer is much easier to control so it seems faster – but put a good driver who has learned how to drive a 911 and a stock Vette and 911 performance is about even (if you race you’ll find that some tracks will be favorable to certain platforms over others). A base Vette will get slaughtered against a GT3 and will not be as fast as Carerra S. Whoever told you that a base Vette is substantially faster than a base 911 is wrong or just plain biased – which is what you find with Vette versus 911 arguments.
As for those who are “scared” or uncertain of buying a Boxster or Cayman. They are quite reliable and very, very fun to drive. Porsche does need to own up to this problem and they have the profit margins on those sales to do so. As with today’s modern society if you admit fault (a.k.a. be honest up front) you get much more bad press than if you quietly maintained the problem (see Ford and their cruise control fire issues on 16m cars) and hope it goes away with time and doesn’t too much damage.
Shhh…foreign cars never ever have engineering deficiencies or ever break for that matter…I thought you folks knew that better than anyone else!
IMS failure picture here.
good point about NSX.
They are out there, clean low mile for a few ten thousand $. I am OK never owning the Boxster S, the NXS would be the way to go.
Although I would likely be happy with 356B.
Let’s not have this thread go the way of the GT2 vs. Nissan GT-R at the Nürburgring (or worse, Republicans vs. Democrats): just a he-said she-said borefest.
The questions is, How did Porsche allow this to happen?
1) Bean counters overruled engineers? (a la GM)
2) Porsche engineers are overworked and let this one slip by? (or, horrors, Porsche engineers are not as good as Honda engineers!)
3) Management was so busy with the Cayenne it took its eye off the ball? (And with the energy that went into the VW purchase are we to expect Porsche engineering failures in its more recent designs?)
4) Is it a manufacturing error (not a design failure) meaning that you can’t make good cars in Europe? (And who made these engines, Porsche or a contractor?)
5) Is this the seed of a Porsche Death Watch (poor Porsche reliability; unattractive performance/cost ratio; higher than traditional depreciation; massive losses at VW/Audi (in the near future?)).
Thanks for posting this. I’ve had “used Boxster” on my want list for a while. Good to know.
I can understand that a design/manufacturing flaw or assembly error can be made by most any marque. What I don’t understand is that they play the statistics game with their customers. Hoping that the claims and bad publicity will be less than the cost of owning up and fixing them all. Sometimes, in the name of safety, they are forced to if they haven’t owned up already. Sometimes.
Many of us can name examples where the customer has been forced to eat that error: C5 Corvettes with their column-lock fiasco, Toyota with their engine sludge, Audi with their A8 suspension bushings, Land Rover and the LR3’s suspension/Goodyear tire wear, and on and on.
The end result is that people who have been burned will likely ditch that brand for another. I hope Porsche feels the heat. It’s not as if we’re talking a failed sun visor bracket here. And Jesus, $14K for an engine replacement? Are they not valuing the old one at all? How about one that doesn’t crap itself on the garage floor in the first place.
I’ve heard about the RMS leaks for years. I’m amazed Porsche hasn’t grabbed this (and the IMS fault) by the horns and re-engineered them. After all, isn’t their USP that they are, first and foremost, an engineering company; and that they have been refining and improving that pancake 6 over decades? And what makes any owner (or potential buyer) think that a new crate motor isn’t gonna fail again @ 50K?? Pathetic!
Stephan,
Thanks for sharing this information. Perhaps this is why used Boxsters can be had so very cheaply, even with very low miles. It seems that Porsche doesn’t care so much for their customers.
This is all the more reason to buy a used Z3-M instead. (Also because the BMW will eat the Boxster alive).
The saddest part is that Porsche does not want to admit an engineering/design failure. This reminds me of their stubborn insistence on NOT using head gaskets in the old 911. This is why I will never buy a Porsche but will buy BMW or MB instead.
Here is a true story. About four years ago I had a 1995 MB E320 with 110K. When I took the car to the dealer to replace the head gasket due to an oil leak, they damaged the wiring harness when removing the head. The service manager explained that the insulation on the harness gets brittle with age and heat. He said it was a common failure. A new harness was over $1000. To make a long story short, MB sent the dealer a brand new harness. It cost me nothing. That is why I will happily buy MB.
I love the new failure picture. There appear to be broken pieces of crankcase in the bottom of the photo. There must’ve been some pretty good flailing around inside that engine to do that. That sucker must’ve been loud when it blew !. It reminds me of a lawnmower engine that I saw that broke it’s connecting rod and knocked a 4″ hole in the engine block.
Mercedes? Only pre-2000 thanks. I pity the poor fools who own any made after 1999.
My first Porsche drive was a 2000 Boxster. I swore I would someday own one, but I opted for a cheaper 82SC 911. Not sure if I made the right choice financially, but I sure feel better about it now then I did before reading about the Boxster motors here on TTAC!
My bro has 2005 Porsche the water cool job.
Some how the crank shaft broke according to him, perhaps is the Intermediate shaft.
Feel like a klutz but have to ask the best & brightest what does the Intermediate shaft does?
Is not bringing the power though, is it one of those that spins double the speed to make it run smoother than a baby’s bum?
TIA
I have seen the odd Boxster even dropped to low 10 grand here on Vancouver Craigslist, wonder what the owner knew & we dont?
Not that i have the mulla in a hurry to buy one.
No, what you’re thinking of is a “balance shaft,” to cancel out typical four-cylinder vibrations. The intermediate shaft is driven through a bevel gear by the crankshaft and carries sprockets that drive the camshafts, via chains. On an air-cooled 911 engine, which is what I’m mostly familiar with, it also drives the oil pump. Dunno what it does (other than drive the cams) on the water-cooled engines.
jaje :
There have been several tests done with professional drivers over the past few years that have had base Vettes finishing well ahead of 911s on various tracks. Off the top of my head, the base Corvette beat a 911 turbo around VIR in Car and Driver’s lightening lap last year. It came pretty close to the GT3’s time as well, and the GT3 was riding on R-compound Michelin Pilot Sport Cups as opposed to the garbage Goodyear runflats on the Vette
Again, not trying to be a magazine racer or throw the thread off-topic, but I have to correct erroneous statements when i see them
On an air-cooled 911 engine
So Porsche has past experience with such a design that, I assume, was not known for failures. Curiouser and Curiouser.
Looking at the photo, it seems that a shaft of that length supported only at the ends would be susceptible to vibrations that would destroy the bearings (even if it were going only at 1/2 crank speed). The large diameter and the fact that it is (likely) hollow would help some. Note that the crank shaft and cam shafts would be supported along their length at several places, although the forces on them would be vastly different of course. Why no bearing at the center of the intermediate shaft? Cost cutting?
Many thanks, TTAC! I’ve been seriously shopping for a used Boxster. I was torn between that and a Solstice turbo. So, my choices seem to be a car that’s likely to have a $14k engine meltdown or one from a defunct company where I won’t be able to get any parts at all, in a few years.
I always thought the NSX was overpriced and had very dated styling, but it’s starting to look real attractive.
Balr14, in this day and age you can still get replacement parts for 1950’s Chevys as well as Studebakers and AMC’s.
So long as there’s money to made with parts, you will easily be able to get what you need for the Solstice.
thetopdog: so you are taking magazine tests as your proof of a base vette is faster than a C2, C4 and 997TT / 996TT? Using a magazines tests really doesn’t prove me erroneous. If they ran VIR full course – which I have driven several times – it has some very, very long straights – nice smooth corners (except Turn 1) where the Vette does have an advantage and can make up time. Take all those same cars and test at a different track such as Lime Rock Park or Road Atlanta and things change. As taking one incidence of proof from a magazine that one car is faster than another is really not proof.
I’ll also let a fact be very well known. A 911 is something entirely different animal and takes a special knowledge and talented driver to really drive them. The old adage is nothing is faster than a 911 and nothing is harder to driver fast than a 911.
Don’t get me wrong – a stock Vette is a very nice car and very fast. With a good driver they are very quick. A stock 911 is just as quick and it widely depends on the track and driver – they can make a very, very large difference.
I owned a 2006 Porsche Boxster S for 2½ years, and recently sold it and bought a Honda S2000. I sold the Boxster because of the looming problem of IMS. I personally am done with German cars, at least new(er) ones, pretty much anything German built since about the late 1990’s onward.
The Boxster is an absolute blast to drive, as are all Porsche cars. There’s nothing like a mid-engine car and its low polar moment of inertia for phenomenally neutral handling. But, while I loved driving it, owning it was a different experience than a half hour test drive. It is a great combination of performance and luxury. However, Porsche has also done a fantastic job of marketing itself over the years. The company has set standards for skillful product placement. So many movies and television shows have Porsches in them whenever “upscale, affluent” lifestyles or “beautiful people” are depicted. Porsche itself now touts the “Porsche lifestyle” in their marketing, just like BMW. Their efforts have been phenomenally successful. Most people think “Porsche” when they think “upscale” car, or “upscale” lifestyle. Just like the cigarette advertising of the second half of this century, a whole generation – us – now has Porsche successfully branded on our psyches as the “it” car to have. Most people that are – or want to be – “upscale” want to have a Porsche (BMW has been even more aggressive with brand image marketing, maybe Porsche gets the silver medal to BMW’s gold in this regard).
For many years Porsches richly deserved that reputation. The 911, which started the whole legend, was for decades fun to drive, beautifully engineered, and reliable, the standard by which all others were judged. There has never been anything else like it. I’ve owned several air-cooled Porsches before the Boxster, starting with the 356. The last one I had was a 1990’s 964 series 911, one of the later air cooled ones, and will always regret selling it. Unfortunately (IMHO), Porsches today have morphed into a different animal. After years of aggressive marketing, Porsche is now focused on maximizing profits.
Think about this: Porsche’s company mottos in the past used to be “Excellence is expected”, or “There is no substitute”. For the past 10 years, ever since the introduction of water cooled Porsches, the official company motto is now “The most profitable car company in the world”. The IMS issue is what you get when a company – and its CEO – are focused on maximizing short-term profit, no matter what.
If you take a close, critical, objective look at the Boxster, it is apparent that the company has gone through it with a fine toothed comb looking for ways to cut costs. They clearly looked at everything and asked, “will people still buy it for the same price if we do this”? The Boxster doesn’t even have a limited slip differential, which is shameful in any sports car (but then, the mall profiling crowd will never know the difference). It even lacks an oil dipstick, instead using an electronic oil measuring system (might seem cool at first, but it’s a lot more straightforward, and reliable, to just pull out a dipstick and see the oil level and condition). Save $5 here and $10 there, the next thing you know, it’s $1,000 more profit per unit, an impressive accomplishment in the razor-thin margins of the automobile industry – and you’re on your way to becoming the ‘most profitable car company in the world’.
People may poke fun at crudeness of Mustangs or the rattles of a Hyundai, but even in a $12,000 Korean car you can reasonably expect the engine to last 100,000 miles if it is given a modicum of care. In this day and age, when reliability is expected, selling any car, especially a $60,000 one, where 10% to 20% of engines can fail at any time, without warning, is reprehensible and completely unacceptable. Think about how people would react if 10%-20% of Toyota or even GM engines would fail unpredictably. People would take to the streets with torches and pitchforks like the villagers heading for Frankenstein’s castle.
In addition to the appalling IMS design flaw, there were other a few other things that ultimately I just couldn’t stand about the Boxster – which screamed of cost-cutting and brazen attempts to reach into my wallet and empty it – which is why I sold it –
1) The car is fragile. The seat leather was so cheap that every 4th or 5th time I drove the car I had to recondition the leather because it would wear through the dye. Buttons would break. Electrical components would fritz. The top was wearing holes through it (which might not have been tolerable if a replacement convertible top wasn’t $6,000).
2) You can’t see the engine. It’s in a sealed bay, accessible only from the bottom. Engine access in a mid-engine car is always tight (I’ve had mid engine cars before), but the Boxster is specifically designed to discourage owner access and force you to bring it to the dealer for everything, since the only way to get to the engine is on a lift and by removing the belly pan. Which results in…..
3) Maintenance costs are heart-stopping, and for no good reason. The Boxster was designed to make owners dependent on the dealer, and addicted to expensive – and not easily substituted – maintenance. Oil changes are $230. Brake rotors last about 15,000 miles. The final insult was when the dealer tried to shake me down for a $450 annual “comprehensive inspection”. When I asked why, they said that if I ever had a warranty claim – like, just maybe, IMS – they wouldn’t back it up unless they did this “annual inspection” to verify proper maintenance, no abuse, etc. Which means, the dealer wants a $450 yearly bribe just to honor the warranty the car came with. I guess the dealers are just following Wendelin Wiedeking’s example of vacuuming up owner’s money any way they can.
Where the Boxster was unreliable, the S2000 is a robust Honda. Where the Boxster was fragile the S2000 is well built. To the Boxster’s lack of engine access and outrageous maintenance costs the S2000 has the best engine access of any car I’ve owned in the past 10 years, and with simple, straightforward upkeep costs.
Overall, after owning both, the S2000 to me just feels like more of a true enthusiast’s car, while the Boxster has evolved into more of a car for posers, or for orthodontist’s mistresses (some posers might be too insecure to have an objective discussion about cars, but then, maybe the old joke about (some) Porsche owners and porcupines is true…. ). To me, the S2000 has similar performance, is much more reliable, and costs half as much. Every time I drive it I get a huge smile on my face, and can’t believe a car can be this much fun (in some ways even more “fun” than my 911, which was a fantastic but ‘serious’ car).
And, I don’t worry about a ticking time bomb of a design flaw in the S2000’s engine waiting to grenade itself without warning or provocation like the Boxster’s IMS Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every owner.
I know some people will consider it sacrilege for me to not unquestioningly worship at the altar of Porsche, and I’m sure I will no doubt be lambasted for my blasphemous comments. But, I’ve been to the top of the Porsche mountain, and while I loved my old 911, the Boxster just is not a Porsche from the “excellence is expected” school – it seems to be built by the same kind of people and mentality that brought us the current wonderful economy.
Porsche’s CEO Wendelin Wiedeking, and his CFO Harald Härter, should be congratulated on their masterful and cunning, but also devious scheme in which Porsche acquired VW. Since hedge fund managers are among the lowest forms of life on Earth, maybe Wiedeking and Härter should get a medal for giving them a taste of what they have been doing to the rest of us. But, I think this also shows where their heads are at. They are obsessed with profits at any and all costs. They are not focused on making great cars. Their priority is to come up with conniving tricks to make money. Good for them, and good for their shareholders (in the short term – profits may be up 52% now, but let’s see what happens in a few years as more people realize what the reality is with current model Porsches). But that doesn’t mean I want to be part of it and own a car built by these kind of people.
The fantasy is that Porsches are built by bespectacled engineers in leather aprons, lovingly assembling each engine by hand. While there may have been some kernel of truth to that image in the past, today the reality is Wiedeking and Härter with a spreadsheet looking for one more corner to cut to make another buck (or Euro, as the care may be) today.
Porsche owners can be very passionate about their cars. I used to be. That passion could easily become anger as people realize they were duped. Wiedeking better look out his window to check for a crowd with torches and pitchforks on the horizon…
Wait a minute…. I think I may have seen this movie before. Let me think…. Glorious past history… great cars that were the standard of the world, that people genuinely wanted to buy…. Dedication to engineering and quality…. Then, mushrooming egos, sacrificing quality for the sake of chasing more short-term profits, obsession with money, growing disregard for the product which ultimately led to buyers getting tired of being burned and walking away. Isn’t this the same kind of myopic nonsense that got the American car manufacturers swirling down the porcelain bowl?
20 percent would be an extremely high failure rate these days.
If enough Boxster owners sign up to participate in our research, TrueDelta will figure out that actual failure rate.
If anyone wants to help get the word out, here’s where to send Boxster and Cayman owners:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php