Menu toggle

996 RMS follow survey out shortly

Simon,

I have just emailed you a survey form to complete.


If you are just out of warranty, then you should make a goodwill claim via your OPC. Normally this would cover half or all the cost.
 
Mark,

good point. I just logged on to the Club server and these are the latest 996 figures BUT I have not cross checked and verified them, nor cut and diced by year, mileage of failure etc yet

So DRAFT figures only

Headline figure is 18.5% cars affected out of 813 replies received, this is slightly lower % than for Boxsters
Only a smallish number of multiples (so far, at least)

Nbr RMS Failures
139 with 1 failure
7 with 2 failures
1 with 3 failures
2 with 4 failures
1 with 7 failures
150 18.5%

total 813
 
... and how many engine failures (as I have said several time before I am much more worried about something really expensive, rather than a few drips)
 
Mike,

Well, 25 members reported "engine failure" but I want to speak with each owner individually before publishing the figures, cos they may have misunderstood the form and counted RMS as an engine failure.
Only a couple gave any details, so I doubt this figure has any value.
 
On the face of it, it seems that if you do have an RMS failure, replacing it is likely to fix the problem which will unlikely recur.

Questions in my mind:

- Is failure linked more strongly to mileage or year of manufacture or is it random?
- Did Porsche have a bad period with cars made during this period more likely to fail?
- Are they getting better at fixing the problem when it does happen?

It does worry me though that there are reports of 997 failures which suggests Porsche have not sorted themselves out at the factory yet.
 
OK, Here is the latest on my 2000 996 C4 with 30,000 miles.

Took it down to OPC Reading where they confirmed it was the RMS.

It's due for a minor service in a week, so they'll do that first, and then they will fix the RMS a week later FREE OF CHARGE as a goodwill gesture!

Even though the warranty is 2 weeks out of date.

There is a condition that I extend the Warranty ÂŁ725 (Which I was about to do anyway).

So I'm quite relieved. The Oil leak is now more of a weep and is fine to be driven. I'm changing my name to Scouser II by the way[:)]

Scouser II
A member of the RMS club
 
Ah yes but are you a Scoucer [;)]

Sorry to hear you joined the club. The avatar can be found here: http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/rmsclubfailed2.jpg

Feel free to use it.
 
I went to the 996 open day at Porsche Centre Cambridge yesterday - Gary Sorrel said that they have a new insertion tool and he doesn't think they've had any repeat failures since using it. Maybe Johnny McGirl can get more precise info?. Dan.
 
If that's true then they should get my car in pronto as it's the prefect test case car for this new insertion tool. If it fixes my car they and we can be certain that it works.

I see two issues:

1) The OPC get paid from either the owner or PGB through good will claim for every RMS they replace. It's easy money for them. The RMS problem is a great money earner so they won't be in any hurry to implement a new tool that will take their bread and butter away.

2) Even if the OPC's have or use the tool, are they all trained up to use it. Very doubtful. The OPC has to pay for their own techs to go on any courses. They must be getting sick and tired of paying for RMS replacement courses. My last (7th) RMS that was replaced was "apparently" done correctly and incuded the blue engine bolt change.....but it took a lot of coaxing and convincing on my behalf with discussions between my OPC and Reading to finally get them to follow correct procedure. The main reason was as I saw it is that they (my OPC) just didn't know what the correct procedure was! . I.e., lack of training.
 
I guess the word "new" is relative.

We had a tech session for the new Boxster at my local dealer last week put on by the shop foreman, Peter Smith, who I have known for the 6 years I have been Boxstering. 2 years ago he put on a tech session and covered the RMS issue. I wanted to know what had changed in 2 years other than what we all know, that a third generation seal had recently come out.

I had heard rumours there was a new insertion tool. Peter said no. They still used the tool that came out in August 2002, the very same tool he covered 2 year earlier. I asked him to check to make sure that the newest tool is still the one that came out in 2002. We went over to the shop computer and he pulled all the new tool bulletins issued by Porsche for the past 2 years. Could not find any mention of an insertion tool that was released after August 2002.

I then took this picture. The 996 shop manual and insertion tool 9699 on my notebook. 9699 is the tool that came out in 2002.

Next time you are at your OPC ask for the part number for the "new" tool. 9699 has not cured the RMS issue.



B2D3141B0696438597A6AE7368E611FA.jpg
 

ORIGINAL: Tool Pants

Next time you are at your OPC ask for the part number for the "new" tool. 9699 has not cured the RMS issue.


B2D3141B0696438597A6AE7368E611FA.jpg
[:eek:]If 9699 had cured the RMS issue there shouldn't have been any problems with 997 & 987's but apparently there are still [&o] My gut feeling is after 9 years of failures it's incurable!
 
The magic pill is the third generation seal that just came out.[:D] Part number ends in 41 instead of 40.

This is the seal that is used in the 997/987. The size of the 41 seal is identical 40 so it is now the replacement seal to be used in the 996/986.

Berny can correct me if I am wrong, but I think his current seal is 41.

There are two 997 owners on rennlist who have had 41 replaced with 41 as there is nothing else to replace 41 with. In my mind 41 is not the cure.

To be on topic since this is the only formal survey I know of, I guess you would need to factor in a number of things. If a seal was replaced what was it replaced with and what tool was used to install the seal. If it leaked again what was done differently the second time around. And so on.

5B3E10511F1F459186024E8A4B66735D.jpg
 

ORIGINAL: Tool Pants

There are two 997 owners on rennlist who have had 41 replaced with 41 as there is nothing else to replace 41 with. In my mind 41 is not the cure.

5B3E10511F1F459186024E8A4B66735D.jpg

[;)] In my mind I think I will stick with the "there is no known cure" theory for now and I doubt there is even one on the horizon hence 997 horrors continue where 996 left off [:eek:]
 
I thought as much Jeff. Thanks for that info.

The pic is the last seal they took out my engine (No.6). You can see it is the 40 type. I was told they put the new seal in. Not sure if I can find out for certain from my OPC that this ws the case.

This morning, I took my car in for a major service to Tech9, my local independent. I have given up on my OPC's capability. Coincidentally, the engineer who always looked after my car at my OPC now works for my Independent! I am really glad about this because for the 1st time I can talk open and frank to him. He has replaced all my cars seals in the past. I will ask him if he recalls if my car had the new (41) seal fitted last time. Not sure if he will remember but worth asking.

I asked why he moved to Tech9. He said he was going nowhere at the OPC and already at Tech9 he has been on 2 training courses. Need I say any more.

5C5737D2048E48FD82932C9D749FC791.jpg
 
Is there an invoice you can check to see what the part number is. I seem to remember you announced the existence of a new seal before your last replacement, because I did not believe it without a part number.
 
Good one Jeff. Never thought of that.

Here's the invoice. I have pointed out the seal (41 type) and the replacement (blue) bolts. I presume that's what they are?

The seal is still leaking [:(]

Also, you can see what it cost me for a new gearbox (I take it the CX means its refurbished not new)?

I removed my details for obvious reasons. My OPC are so competent they think my car is a 968 ha ha.



149C5F84871146A7963032164BAB868D.jpg
 
This is the job sheet.

Note the ref to 4/6th RMS replacement. Again showing their incompetence. This OPC has replaced all my RMS seals. They have done it that many times they have lost count. They think it's either it's 4th or 6th. What a joke.

7ACA2B88285341EBB408A8A08BDDE417.jpg
 
I think you finally figured it out. They have been putting 968 parts in your 996.

X at the end of the part number means it is a rebuilt.

You have the latest and greatest 3rd generation seal since it ends in #41.

The 3 bolts on your list are for the intermediate shaft flange. Check with Loren because the part number does not match the bulletin that came out for the Boxster last year. But there may be a newer bulletin or part number or something different for the 996

I thought you also had the 4 rear crankcase bolts replaced but I do not see it on the list. No big deal because I never assumed the leaks came from the bolt holes based on the history of your car. Those 4 bolts are on the Porsche part list as blue coated screws.
 
Thanks Jeff.
Hmmm...... yes I instructed them to replace the crank bolts with the new blue ones. They said they did them. I will check with Loren re the part numbers but it would not surprise me if they didn't do them and told me they did. This is Porsche OPC service in the UK and we pay top dollar for it too, not to mention we get the lousiest deal with 2 years warranty from the start. Anyway before I go kick up a fuss I will check with Loren that the part numbers are or are not the blue bolts.

For anyone that cares, my cars in for a major service not because it'd due but because I am about to take it on a major trip and I want to be certain that it is for all intents and purposes in tip-top condition. 9th May I start a 3000 mile round trip to Northern Spain via France on the PCGB Spain trip. It should be a good test of the car's reliability even with a leaking RMS. Fingers crossed.
 

Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members

Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the Club, who shall have no liability in respect of them or the accuracy of the content. The Club assumes no responsibility for any effects arising from errors or omissions.

Porsche Club Great Britain gives no warranties, guarantees or assurances and makes no representations or recommendations regarding any goods or services advertised on this site. It is the responsibility of visitors to satisfy themselves that goods and/or services supplied by any advertiser are bona fide and in no instance can the Porsche Club Great Britain be held responsible.

When responding to advertisements please ensure that you satisfy yourself of any applicable call charges on numbers not prefixed by usual "landline" STD Codes. Information can be obtained from the operator or the white pages. Before giving out ANY information regarding cars, or any other items for sale, please satisfy yourself that any potential purchaser is bona fide.

Directors of the Board of Porsche Club GB, Club Office Staff, Register Secretaries and Regional Organisers are often requested by Club members to provide information on matters connected with their cars and other matters referred to in the Club Rules. Such information, advice and assistance provided by such persons is given in good faith and is based on the personal experience and knowledge of the individual concerned.

Neither Porsche Club GB, nor any of the aforementioned, shall be under any liability in respect of any such information, advice or assistance given to members. Members are advised to consult qualified specialists for information, advice and assistance on matters connected with their cars at all times.

Back
Top