Problems with the SVX; a different perspective

[blackbolt94red]

I work at the Madison Public Library, Madison, SD and the other day I was opening some new book shipments and this is what I found.
I really don't know where to begin here, but I won't let that stop me.

If your ever down in the dumps about these cars, the money you spent, again and again on one thing or the other..........grab this book at the bookstore and take a gander.

Porsche 911 Buyer's Guide by Randy Leffingwell

http://www.amazon.com/Porsche-911-Bu...2458455&sr=1-1

don't get me wrong, no siree...I'd love to have one of the 996 Carrera 4 models.
Let's see, heres a quote concerning the 2000 model:
"Engine uses intermediate shaft to drive overhead cams by chains. Supported by bearings, which can fail, dropping pieces into cam chains, stopping valves. No way to predict failure. Intermediate shaft flange leaks. Camshaft covers leak oil. Unknown number of engines replaced under warranty" It goes on to say this is a recurring problem from previous years.

On the 2002 model, rear wheel bearing failure is a common problem. or the center console hinge breaks, or the door lock actuators fail, or the fuel cap leaks. This is almost a 300 page book, it goes on and on but it's a wonderful buyers guide.

Really, I drool over them and would love to have one, but to be honest, I love my SVX too much and you know what they say.......better the devil you know..............

Has anyone ever thought of maybe putting together a buyers guide for the SVX?

Bruce
PS When the book vendor was here several weeks ago, I picked this book, never dreaming the Director (my boss) would actually go ahead and buy it!

[sabin]

a reference librarian at the library i work at would not buy maximum boost by corky bell, when i asked for it

[subiemech85]

^^ this reminded me of Ruth Harrison, Reference Librarian

[ensteele]

I have been watching the prices of the SVX by year and miles. I have a graph now and continue to put data on it. It is interesting how this seems to be very close to the line on the graph.

[Landshark]

if only there was a forum for discussing SVX's ......

[blackbolt94red]

Originally Posted by sabin

a reference librarian at the library i work at would not buy maximum boost by corky bell, when i asked for it

The best thing about working here for me is being able to get an ILL (interlibrary loan) from almost any library in the country. I even got one on Gunther Rall (My Logbook) all the way from Germany. My system (SDLN) shows maximum boost at Western Tech and Rapid City. The name Corky Bell rings a (sorry) bell, was he a driver in the past?

And Earl, you must have enough cars by now for a viable data base all on your own.

[SoCal LS-L]

Originally Posted by Landshark

if only there was a forum for discussing SVX's ......

Or a correct Wiki article, NOT completely dictated by people who know nothing about the car (except for one Road & Track article)

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by SoCal LS-L

Or a correct Wiki article, NOT completely dictated by people who know nothing about the car (except for one Road & Track article)

Which had inaccuracy in it also.

Harvey.

[NiftySVX]

Originally Posted by oab_au

Which had inaccuracy in it also.

Harvey.

There isn't a good place to get info on this car really, except my head of course.

[SoCal LS-L]

Originally Posted by oab_au

Which had inaccuracy in it also.

Harvey.

I have since stopped trying to persuede the nimrods there that they are wrong about the top speed listed (1992-93 listed as 143mph, no figure stated for 94-97). In the "discussion" part of the article, I have tried in vain to reason why their logic on "reputable sources" is faulty. It was stated to me that Wiki information is about "verifiability" and not "truth", so after a small rant, im finished trying to convince the clowns there (who dont even own an SVX) of anything. Its not a big deal to me, so ill let it be..... but this situation is exactly why Wikipedia itself is not considered a "reputable source" in academic circles. According to them, all of the "sources" I referenced to are invalid and the single quip from the Road & Track prototype test drive is apparently the most valid source for the stated top speed

Wikipedia, the mentally challenged step-child of Accuracy.