Menu toggle

996 RMS follow survey out shortly

I hope nothing bad happens, because i believe i told you to drive to Spain and not take the Sick Boat!!

Just take it easy and take a spare can of Mobile 1 with you[:D]

Scouser II
A member of the RMS Club
 
I won;t blame you mate [;)]

Well, just got the car back from Tech9. Heffty service bill but a lot done....solenoids, coils, plugs, serpentine belt, hydaulic fluid replaced, filters etc etc. Car runs like a dream.

They came up with an incredibly weird but novel idea regarding my RMS problems. They have not ried it yet on any cars because they want someone to be the guinee pig and take the chance/respinsibility etc. They showed me a seal (type 41, not that I haven;t seen one before....I have a collection of them). They also showed me another seal....NOT A PORSCHE SEAL per se. That is it isn;t a standard part but it is fitted to GT3 Cup cars (racers). They fit them to these cars in reverse. That is the seal is placed backwards. Th seal sizes and mechanisms look identical in every way except that the inner flexible membrane (the bit that faces with the crank itself) is deeper and way more flexible. The reason it is fitted backwards in their CUP cars is because of in-block pressures and temperature coeficients (beyond me this bit). Anyway, they said that they really do think this will solve my RMS problems. They didn;t want me to take any pictures of this seal and they also said that they will deny any knowledge of the idea. I think they are very serious in marketing this. So, they asked if I want to be a guinee pig. Guess what I said........but of course. So when I get back from Spain, I will set the ball rolling for another RMS replacement but this time a GT3 CUP car seal mounted in reverse and fitted by my independent.....who I trust implicitly.

The part itself is not generally available. But they know a source for it.
 
Berny

Good to see you have switched to an independent, and that you are pleased with their attitude and expertise. It doesn't surprise me. Tech9 are expensive IMHO, but they do have a lot of experience. Sounds like they found an awful lot that your OPC didn't.

That's a really novel approach to the RMS problem. We all await the outcome with bated breath! If it can fix yours, it will fix anyones! BTW, the source of the GT3 Cup car seal will probably be Porsche Motorsport Department in Germany.

 
Nic

Getting back to the original thread, I find the failure rate quite alarming at 18.5%. I assume you didn't include Turbos, GT2's and GT3's in this survey (different engine types), which could make it even worse.
 
When I started Boxstering 6 years ago an independent mechanic told me they tried 993 seals, or something like that. Still leaked.

I looked up the GT3 and 993 seal and they have the same part number. The size listed is 90 x 110 x 12. Makes sense since I think they both have the air cooled crankcase design.

The Boxster/996 seal is 85 x 105 x 11.

I am going to have to get my hands on a GT3/993 seal and ask a mechanic how or if they can get it in because there is a difference in size.



 
Berny,

now that is interesting! But I know of another rather good independent that reads the Forum, so the idea is now in the public domain.

If it works, and I mean really, long term works, I would love to see the picture of faces at the factory!

Of course, we are seeing replacement seals being required at four to five years, but with low mileage. Maybe we have to accept these as a fact, and treat the seals as a long term consumable?
 
I have just done some number crunching on the 996 RMS survey

There seems a peak failure rate in MY2001, and drop off since.

Model_yr %fail Total, RMS_failure, No failure,
1998 20.6% 136 28 108
1999 21.2% 151 32 119
2000 23.8% 84 20 64
2001 29.4% 85 25 60
2002 16.0% 150 24 126
2003 14.3% 119 17 102
2004 5.1% 79 4 75
2005 0.0% 3 0 3

As for repeat failures, these seem mercifully low, with only 12 members over all saying this. Of course, the data is only as good as the forms sent in.

I encourage members to send in any change, so we can keep the survey going, as the statistics over time will be very interesting.
 
Thanks for the detailed information Nic. Its not been easy for you to collect all this data and I appreciate the effort that you and others have done on our behalf.
Just what it will mean for 996/986 owners in the short term/medium term with AG will remain to be seen.
Many thanks once again.
 
Seems to me that if you are having the clutch done - which we all accept is a long term consumable - you should also have the RMS replaced because the marginal extra work is minimal. That would be fine if you had 100% confidence that fitting a new seal will have a 100% success rate. Or is it a case that if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

What is is about these seals which fails anyway? Is it deterioration of the material or failure under temperature and pressure or what? Or is it a random combination of the material and the skill/care taken in installing it originally?
 
Mark,

There are no answers to your questions.

I think the way forward now is to collate detailed individual histories, that is, which seal type went in, inserted with which tool, to what depth, which bolts, any special sealing technique,.
Then how long does it last?

I will do this for any sent to me
 
Nic,

Is it possible to normalise the figures for age?

For example, I'd expect nearly new cars to show more RMS failures than new cars because they've had more time to go wrong. Likewise, eventually it should plateau once all the ones that are going to 'go' have done so.

I don't know how you would do this (am not a statistician!) but if you just divide failure rate by age then back to MY 2001 you get a steadyish 5-7% pa. Then the pre-2001 cars are steadyish. That would suggest that the problem is ongoing [:(], but is a bit crude.

Did the survey look at when the failure happened? That might answer this one.
 
Nic
I have not received any survey but I would like to report the following.
I have just imported my 996 from an OPC in Germany.
My car is a manual 996 Turbo X50 LHD, with a first registration 26Jun02, MkII, with previous owner only Stuttgatrt, a factory car, with 40k, in showroom contition and with a year's extended guarantee. Guess what? I have a slightly "wet" patch at the RMS area, but obviously not serious enough to summon for a repair at the factory before released.
I report this to show that the problem is evident across the spectrum of models and years.
 
Panos,

as Rodney says, the GT3 and Turbo are not considered to have the 986/996 RMS problem, but obviously arent completely exempt from oil leaks. Will be interesting if the fix is to replace the RMS.
 
Mike,

I have done an analysis by model year and date and mileage the RMS was reported.

This gives very interesting results.[:mad:]

BUT the results are probably useless because: current owner was maybe unaware of RMS being replaced under warranty during first two years, or indeed by a previous owner. data reported may not be accurate.

BUT here they are anyway (all for 996) BUT VERY APROX only

Overall average 3 years and 23,000 miles

For MY98 and 99, very few failures reported for first two years of ownership, most after 5 to 7 years.

For MY00, the bulk reported after 4 to 5 years

For MY01 most at 3-4 years

For MY02, most after 3 years

For MY03, most after 2 years

like I said, interesting
 
ORIGINAL: NicD
Mike,

I have done an analysis by model year and date and mileage the RMS was reported.

Yes, very interesting.

Looks like they all reacted at the same time to something that happened to the weather! [&:]

Makes me feel better, though.
 

My 996 is going in to OPC Reading in 2 weeks to have the RMS done. When I first took it in 2 weeks ago for a minor service I commented on the oil around the Sump. The mechanic exclaimed " Oh no not another RMS"!

Nic, have PCGB requested figures for RMS failures from Porsche GB given the closer tie up between our two organisations. They must have the official figures. Why don't they replace the RMS free of charge irrespective of whether the car has a warranty or not.

Surely an almost 20% failure rate on a part should determine a free recall of all 996's?

Thanks for your hard work in this matter, it's appreciated by all of us.
Simon
 
Simon,

when we first approached Porsche Cars GB over a year ago, we requested just this. In fact, they would never make an official statement but gave an unofficial figure based on supply of parts of only 8% failure. I requested to see the base data for this to check it covered all part numbers etc, but never got anywhere.

For me personally, it is not so much an issue if the seal fails after five years, needs to be replaced when convenient, and you do the clutch at the same time, then the new seal lasts another five years.
Some owners of low mileage cars have publicly disagreed with me over this, saying a failure at any age is a big deal, and that is their right. But I wont be their champion.
Where I will weigh in, is failure at a young age, say in third or fourth year, and in particular, repeat failures, like for Berney.

When I said the breakdown of the survey data was interesting, I meant, the newer the car, the earlier the failure occurred. I hope this is purely because the data isn't consistent across all the cars.

Once we have Brands Hatch Festival out of the ay, I will re-survey the Boxster owners and maybe the 997 ones too.

Simon, please send an email to Sarah at Club office with details of your car and RMS failure so she can update the survey
 
Nic
Since the leak is only minimal, not a trace on the floor of the garage, and the car is not used excessively I will give it a few months and see how it goes.
The car had the usual 111 points check at both OPC Nottingham & Cambridge and passed with all clear but tthe little wet patch.
I will keep you posted of any developments.
 
Perhaps the earlier recognition of RMS failure in newer cars is due to awareness?

Harry
 

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