I know this sounds like heresy and some may even say that there is no such thing as "over-engineering." But I respectfully disagree. For instance, if I use the remote to open the trunk, after a minute or so the doors automatically lock. So then I have to unlock the doors again. This is annoying especially if your hands are full of what you took out of the trunk. I understand that you can go to the dealer and have the car "reprogrammed" to avoid this issue. Also, I question the wisdom of no dipstick on my car. The only way you can check the oil is to run the car for several minutes to see what the oil level is electronically. What a hassle. In my 2004 we had a dipstick and the electronic readout. Much better IMVHO. After a week of not opening the car, the remote won't work. You have to stick the key in the driver's door, unlock and then hit the remote open within 10 seconds to keep the alarm from going off and bothering your neighbors. Since I keep my covered in the garage the cover has to be removed or partially removed before you can unlock the car properly. So you have to get out your keys again and if your hands are full it's annoying. Some of the functions of the Nav system are annoying. I am a newbie so maybe I will get the hang of this with more use. And perhaps I should have gotten the voice activated version rather than trying to find the correct screen. The "hillholder" feature only works for 2 seconds. Which can be aproblem if the car ahead is pokey. the hillholder on our subarus stay on until the clutch is engaged. The ventilated seats won't work if the outside temperature is under 58F (or is it 48F?) which means it won't work on normal days in the winter here. So when my wife cranks up the heat I can't keep cool? I am sure P has a reason for this feature but I haven't figured it out yet. Did I miss any? LOL
I don't know if that's a case of over-engineering or just annoying software. I guess over-engineering would be how tough and reliable they are - even if people would buy them if unreliable just for the way they drive. I like that sort of over-engineering. All the best, Andrew.
Ah, the Krauts. Gotta love em. Wait till the battery goes. You will not be able to open the hood because you don't have juice. So, per the instructions, you have to pry the cover off a box on the driver's side. You then have to jump the connections inside the box to open the hood, so you can get to the battery... Why? Don't ask. I'm sure there is some stupid reason. Dale
I had to do this on the 2004 986S 1x. I am keeping the cigarette lighter battery charger hooked up when the car is in the garage. Supposedly (per my salesman) P will replace your battery (at no charge) if the battery fails while using the charger. (note to self: how do they know that you were using the charger?).
It's not just Porsches. My Audi A5 has the same dumb issues - possibly the same non-dipstick system. I can actually reprogram the door locking logic from the in-dash menus on the nav screen, but I don't remember life being worse before all this stuff came along. My current Porsche is an older used one. To open it, you have to walk up to the car and insert a key made of metal. The car sat from 1976 to 2009 this "key" thing still worked.
Just my luck....... I'm just reaching the age where I want to simplify and the auto makes are doing all they can to foil my efforts. Dave
IMO it is issues like these that will make the older cars more desirable for our lifetimes. I am no expert on the 911, but it seems there is a sweet spot of late '70s through '88 where the cars had galvanized bodies and engines that lasted hundreds of thousands of miles. At least a non-turbo seems like a pretty simple car and reliable too once upgrades (hydraulic chain tensioners on older cars for example) are performed. The 993 already sells for more than a comparable 996, as Porsche also corrected reliability issues with the 964 for the last of the air-cooled cars. The earlier cars first mentioned though look to be quite a bit simpler. I still very much like the 996 turbo, and basically all variants of the 997 are appealing to me. I'm just not sure I would want to crawl under one and troubleshoot some "mechanical" problem that is actually the electronics gone haywire that needs dealer-only software to properly fix. With newer cars basically every issue means a trip to the dealer and a $1000 bill. I bought a Durametric cable set and was going to try to maintain our Cayenne Turbo like I had my ML500, but that car scared me with its complexity. Only one model year newer than the Mercedes, but seemingly twice as complicated and twice as expensive to maintain.
I just had this pleasure last week after leaving the radar/gps pluged in when I went out of town . If anyone knows how to make the damn cigarette lighter turn off power when I turn off the car (996tt), PLEASE PLEASE tell me. I keep forgetting to unplug the radar detector since my other car turns power off for me.
Sounds like you should just hard wire it to a switched source. This way it only goes on when the car is on. RMX
The old cars 1998 and before were overengineered in a good way- thick gauge steel, bullet proof motors (except the 2.7 liter motor in the mid-70's), rock solid reliable cars. Everything you touched was high quality and well put together. The 1999 and newer 911s and other cars are overengineered in a bad way- over computerized, nonsensical things like not being able to open a hood when a battery dies, and plastic everywhere in the interior (although they have gotten MUCH better than that first "new" 911 (996)). This is a problem I have with most all new cars, not just porsche. Having things like start buttons when as Bullfighter alludes to there was nothing wrong with the old fashioned key, and i drive in BMWs are just poor design and gimmicks that grow old in either 2 days if you're into techie type stuff or 1 second if you just want a driver's car. Maybe I'm jaded, but I'd be more excited buying a mint low mileage 1998 911 or late 1980's 911 or a mint 2001-2003 M5 than almost any new 911 or BMW (yeah I'd rather have a new 911 turbo or RS but now you're getting above $100K in which case I'd rather have a ferrari 430 than blow 6-figures on a porshce). Either the used 911 or M5 would be less money than a new 911 or BMW and to me more enjoyable. Variety is what makes the world go round though- to each his/her own
I owned a 1987 Porsche 930 and 1989 Ferrari 328GTS at the same time. Similar performance numbers (0-60, lateral acceleration, stopping, etc.), but they couldn't be farther apart in engineering and fabrication. Ferrari's engineering attention was on the "physics package" of engine and gear box. The remainder of the car looked like I fabricated it with a tin snips and bending break. The Porsche on the other hand was beautifully designed and fabricated. In many ways reminding me of an aircraft in the way thing were fastened, sealed, etc. In their their own ways, both cars were great fun, but radically different in their execution.
I think my favorite overengineered part right now is the rising gear selector knob on the new Jag XF and XJ, all so you can select 'D' before you drive off. A critical function, and the mechanism handling it is destined to fail. Hopefully there is a non-electronic override somewhere. It does look cool, though. Definitely something I enjoy seeing in other people's cars...
All I want is the "dip stick" back in my 997. I love the 993 for No computers, no traction control, No cup holders, no problems. I just wish it didn't have the "drive block system"
Want to see a $14k engine rebuild invoice on a 964 with 103k miles? Previous owner rebuilt the gearbox at 70k before I got it.
Ah... that's if you're lucky enough to have a 2000 or newer. I had a 99 that didn't even have the ability to power up the fuse panel with a jump box to open the hood. Manual said "if battery fully depletes, contact Porsche dealer for service." Found out the hard way when I was on my way to a wedding where I was the best man. Had to push, and pop start it in a tux. Made for a great story.... and still loved the car. Sent from my DROIDX
I can't speak too much to the modern ones but there are some interesting comparisons between my Subaru and Porsche on certain parts. Porsches seem to make the basic parts a lot beefier. The sheet metal is thicker. While my Subaru has had wheel bearings replaced several times, the Porsche is still on it's first set and it's much older, with about the same number of miles. Another thing is the oil pump design. The Subaru pump is high-pressure, low-flow, and cavitates over 7,000rpm. It's so bad that some guys thought the way to solve the rod bearing lubrication issue would be to drill a second oiling hole. That made the problem worse as the pump couldn't flow enough. The Subaru brakes are woefully inadequate for the weight, horsepower, and front-heavy nature of the car. Now, when it comes down to non-essential ancillary systems, the Porsche stuff is just more complicated. At that point most car companies use suppliers for entire assemblies (like A/C, electrics). The feeling I get is that Porsches are designed with the notion that most of them will be on the track or driven hard. So things like engines, gearboxes, brakes, suspension, seem a little stouter than on most cars.
Porsche brakes are as good or better than anybody else in the business. Subaru brakes are just OK. We have 2 Subaru turbo daily drivers. One has 90k miles adn no problems. The other is a 2009 still under warranty. Just routine maintenance on both. Porsches are build for the track. but that has little tp do with having the trunks and doors automatically lock after a minute. Drive a used 911 about 10 years ago. There was a button or something on the key that had to be pushed just right or the car wouldn't start. couldn't get the hang of this, so I walked. Could see myself getting stranded somewhere. Glad P got rid of this "feature".
They've always been like this. Back in the 356 era, when drum brakes were common, the swept area on these ~2000 lb car brakes was apparently comparable to what Cadillac was using at the time, for cars that were somewhat larger... .... than a house. I think the era of "overbuilt" Porsches ended with the 993. If you grab the door handle on a 993 and the flimsy plastic handle on a 996 you pretty much know when classic Porsche died and rationalized engineering to a price point began.
That is the funniest (and truest) thing I've read on here for a while The 89-91 911 3.6 liter (internal code 964) motors didn't come with a head gasket from the factory but pretty much all have been updated by now (if not, I would walk from the car). One car with over 100K miles on it doesn't make a trend, but have to wonder....was the car tracked? Did the prior owner(s) change the oil, or wait for the oil to warm up before redline full throttle running, or otherwise abuse the car? Did the motor need a full rebuild or just valve guides, but some mechanic decided to go all the way? In general the 911 motors outside of the 2.7s were and are bulletproof. Can something break, of course...should a rebuild of any motor outside a ferrari/lambo cost $14K? No way! The need to rebuild the gearbox at 70K miles doesn't sound right either and leads me to beleive a prior owner wasn't treating the car right...although with these things now done I'd expect another 100-150k miles out of the car without major issues requiring rebuilds! Yes. As I said, I'm getting old and set in my ways I have a blackberry for work, but my personal phone is a normal one- reluctantly with a camera feature
