Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,792 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A friend asked me this and he wants to buy a 2009 Cayman S. But he is worried about the oil starvation issues. I remember they were solved in the 987.2. But I couldn't verify if it is dry sump or not.

So my questions, is it a dry sump? And does is suffer starvation like the 987.1?

Thanks :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,792 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thank you for reply. Did anyone suffer from oil starvation with the gen 2? Even when using R compounds?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Nitro8472, I have only seen one reported failure of the 9A1 engine in a 987.2 and it was due to the factory not installing an o-ring in the oil deaerator in the sump. Perhaps there have been track related failures with this engine but we just haven't see reports of them here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,719 Posts
No dry sump but no oil starvation either on semi-slick R comps.

That engine Boiler Inspector refers to didn't fail but was found to have minor scoring of cylinder(s) at teardown (for a larger displacement upgrade).

I HAVE heard of a 987.2 blowing an engine due to oil starvation, but the data seemed to indicate that the oil pump was failing/failed. Oil pressure data on that car was unlike anything I've ever seen from a 987.2. Not unlike if an oil pump(s) had failed in a dry sump engine....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,792 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thank you both. So I can safely claim the engine is much more reliable than the M97?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Well, in the past I've pointed out the obvious flaws with the 987.1 (like IMS, oil starvation, shifter linkage (also a 987.2 problem), etc.) and folks have blasted me saying the actual number of those problems are small and to hit the road if I'm going to bad mouth the car.


Eddie

why would you get flamed for that? It's certainly true...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Overall the number of IMS failures are overblown by some people. However, the potential for disaster does exist. Oil starvation and powersteering cooling issues are also minimized in the 987.2 cars.

There are some number of "fixes" one could do to 987.1 cars to minimize potentials of oil + PS issues, but the IMS problem would still exist and the car would never be 100% safe. I guess it's only 100% safe if one never drives the car forever haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,818 Posts
my understanding from reading previous threads is that there are more oil pickups to prevent starvation on the 987.2 - not a true dry sump by definition... right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
my understanding from reading previous threads is that there are more oil pickups to prevent starvation on the 987.2 - not a true dry sump by definition... right?
Yes that's the jist of it. The engine now has scavenge pumps in the heads so as to get the oil back to the sump quickly thereby preventing the bottom end from being starved of oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
my understanding from reading previous threads is that there are more oil pickups to prevent starvation on the 987.2 - not a true dry sump by definition... right?
It has four scavenge pumps instead of one in the M97 and the oil pump was electronically controlled based on oil pressure needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
I thought this was interesting. The 987.2 Cayman manual (USA) states "...fitting of racing tires (e.g. slicks) for sporting events is not approved by Porsche. Very high cornering speeds can be achieved with racing tires. The resulting lateral acceleration values would jeopardise the adequate supply of oil to the engine."

The 991 GT3 has a dry sump (separate oil tank). In the separate brochure Driving on the Race Circuit which comes with the car, slicks are also prohibited but the wording differs: 'Slick tires must never be used as they subject the chassis and body components to potentially higher loads than those for which they are designed."

Seems to be a broad consensus that the 987.2 9A1 engine has better oiling and should be more reliable on track. But Porsche did go to a dry sump for the GT3 which is fitted from the factory with R tires. Perhaps PAG is just being conservative and trying to avoid claims.

All that said I wouldn't hesitate to run NT01s or Sport Cups on a 987.2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
857 Posts
What everyone else said!! But seriously though, this engine is a completely different design from my understanding and does not have the same "reliability" issues as the M97. It was not just all related to oiling, there were a few other notable issues. I also belive there are 5 oil scavenge pumps... Also there is a post on P9 that shows oil pressure on the DFI on track, seriously awesome!

My take away, there is no such thing as an engine that will have no issue, but this one is much better than the M97.
As far as Porsche NA and stated usage of engine, car, regarding warranty issues and track usage, your mileage will vary. You track the car be prepared to deal with the potential consequences! As in be prepared to spend, spend spend... :cheers: Always helps to know what your getting into. A new engine from Porsche is 23K with core of around 9K so if you blow a motor are you ready to spend 14K plus labor?

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,852 Posts
Not sure who bad mouthed you but they shouldn't have, those are all known defects. Of course if you claimed all cars would get them then that's not right either. :)
Eddie may be referring to me, as I generally provide an opposing view when it comes to IMS. However, I try not to make it in the form of a flame but maybe it's taken as such. I have not defended the M97 when it comes to oil starvation, weak rod bolts & caps, power steering deficencies, etc. Those are problem areas with the engine. In fact, there is a current thread where someone was driving along minding his own business when a rod decided to escape his engine. That's hard to defend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,719 Posts
there is no such thing as an engine that will have no issue, but this one is much better than the M97.
Agreed.

Oil pressures have been shown to be very good even on Hankook Z214 (similar grip to Hoosier R6) with a fast driver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Dry sump does not mean the oil tank is outside the engine. It means the crank isn't in the oil pan thrashing about in the oil.

My understanding of the M97 and 9A1 is that the oil tank is below the crank case and that the crank itself is technically 'dry'.

The problem with the M97 re oiling isn't wet v dry sump. It's just the design of the oil pick ups and baffles in the tank. So the whole 'integrated dry sump' thing isn't something entirely made up by Porsche. There is basis in fact. But it doesn't guarantee flawless oil pick under hard cornering.

The Mezger engine has an external oil tank rather than beneath the crank because it allows the crank case to be mounted lower. But that doesn't make it any more or less dry sumped.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top