The answer for RMS problems?
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
I'm a member, so I hope they will not mind me repeating the info here...
This is the text from the link:
2001 C4 Rear Main Seal leaks
Question
From reviewing your site, it seems that there have been problems with certain representative vehicles of this class concerning the Rear Main Engine Seals. Your correspondence with Joel Reiser indicated that "go/no-go" gauge might be employed by the dealer to determine engine viability. Where can I find out more about this reference so that I can discuss it with my Service Manager. I just got my C4 back from such a repair, but no mention of such a guage and measurement. Thank you
Answer
I know of no further written reference, this is a factory tool that some of the better dealers have recently become aware of.
The issue is as follows. The crankshaft is sealed by the RMS. The crankshaft rides in a cradle inside the crankcase. Some engines not representative of the class, but specifically defective, had a cradle that was misaligned relative to the case. Therefore the crankshaft rode off-center in the bore which was to be sealed by the RMS. One could argue that the hole was off-center; the result was the same, it would never seal unless corrected. Correction requires a total engine rebuild and/or at Porsche's discretion they could elect to replace such engines at their expense with new or factory remanufactured units. This replacement is what they have been doing, and this behavior has been nothing short of exemplary in these tough times.
If your car has had the RMS replaced once, and it continues to leak, they may replace it a second time to be certain, or they can just use the gauge, and then the engine will have to be replaced. The go/no-go gauge tells them whether the crankshaft centering is in or out of specification.
Joel Reiser - PCA WebSite - 3/13/2004
Unfortunately although it is nice to have the information, I don't see how it will help - It has been known for a while that engines in the US have been replaced due to repeated RMS failures. Unfortunately Porsche Cars GB do not have the same policy.
This is the text from the link:
2001 C4 Rear Main Seal leaks
Question
From reviewing your site, it seems that there have been problems with certain representative vehicles of this class concerning the Rear Main Engine Seals. Your correspondence with Joel Reiser indicated that "go/no-go" gauge might be employed by the dealer to determine engine viability. Where can I find out more about this reference so that I can discuss it with my Service Manager. I just got my C4 back from such a repair, but no mention of such a guage and measurement. Thank you
Answer
I know of no further written reference, this is a factory tool that some of the better dealers have recently become aware of.
The issue is as follows. The crankshaft is sealed by the RMS. The crankshaft rides in a cradle inside the crankcase. Some engines not representative of the class, but specifically defective, had a cradle that was misaligned relative to the case. Therefore the crankshaft rode off-center in the bore which was to be sealed by the RMS. One could argue that the hole was off-center; the result was the same, it would never seal unless corrected. Correction requires a total engine rebuild and/or at Porsche's discretion they could elect to replace such engines at their expense with new or factory remanufactured units. This replacement is what they have been doing, and this behavior has been nothing short of exemplary in these tough times.
If your car has had the RMS replaced once, and it continues to leak, they may replace it a second time to be certain, or they can just use the gauge, and then the engine will have to be replaced. The go/no-go gauge tells them whether the crankshaft centering is in or out of specification.
Joel Reiser - PCA WebSite - 3/13/2004
Unfortunately although it is nice to have the information, I don't see how it will help - It has been known for a while that engines in the US have been replaced due to repeated RMS failures. Unfortunately Porsche Cars GB do not have the same policy.
Guest
New member
the link was incomplete - you need this:
http://www.pca.org/tech/tech_qa_question.asp?id={B738E959-75EE-4A34-A8A4-F932CFBE81F2}
Guest
New member
Mark
My point in all of this (and I am getting to a point of almost being embarrassed about raising the subject) is that our Club could (if we get it together) put pressure (or simply ask) Porsche to firstly help us to understand the problems (the above reference from PCA site appears to me to be the answer) and secondly, why are we being treated differently than users elsewhere i.e. how many members have had repeated RMS seal changes whereas others have the engine swapped.
I have written to Jeff on how we get it together and am awaiting a response.
I am prepared to offer whatever help in collating / drafting letters if that is an issue.
What I do not want to see is members endlessly forking out for replacement RMS when it is clear that no amount of new seals will cure what is an inherent fault in some of our pride and joys.
I agree that it would be extremely helpful for the Club to have a representative who can liaise with Porsche Cars to seek clarification and a possible solution to issues such as this.
At the moment, my interest is purely academic. My wife's 2000 Boxster S has never had an RMS failure (touch wood) and my 2002 996 had its replaced under warranty at 3000 miles. However, there is clearly a problem and, for anyone who has had multiple RMS failures, it seems quite serious.
As I said in the past, with Porsches ambitious sales figures for new vehicles, more and more owners (Club Members) will be dependent upon their relationship with Porsche Cars and the OPC network. The Club must recognise this and offer the confidence to its members that they have the lines of communication necessary to be able to act on their (collective) behalf when it is appropriate. If the Club doesn't do it, who will?
I'll be watching this space.....
At the moment, my interest is purely academic. My wife's 2000 Boxster S has never had an RMS failure (touch wood) and my 2002 996 had its replaced under warranty at 3000 miles. However, there is clearly a problem and, for anyone who has had multiple RMS failures, it seems quite serious.
As I said in the past, with Porsches ambitious sales figures for new vehicles, more and more owners (Club Members) will be dependent upon their relationship with Porsche Cars and the OPC network. The Club must recognise this and offer the confidence to its members that they have the lines of communication necessary to be able to act on their (collective) behalf when it is appropriate. If the Club doesn't do it, who will?
I'll be watching this space.....
Guest
New member
I have a vested interest here. My 'S' went in for it's 12K service yesterday and had to be kept in overnight for a RMS failure replacement (I reported an oil leak). Mine is an 03 model! Although done under warranty, this is a well reported problem since the Boxster was launched and they STILL havn't fixed it.
On boxa.net we did a quick poll, and 17 cars owners out of a response of 51 said they have had the RMS replaced. One car has had 3 replaced in succession.
This IS an issue that the Club can and should address with P_cars_GB.
Whilst it was done under warranty, I know people who have had to pay. It really is unacceptable to have a known problem still causing problems some 7 years after car launch.
My driveway looks unsightly with the resultant oil drips - a situation I will also have to deal with this weekend. [
]
On boxa.net we did a quick poll, and 17 cars owners out of a response of 51 said they have had the RMS replaced. One car has had 3 replaced in succession.
This IS an issue that the Club can and should address with P_cars_GB.
Whilst it was done under warranty, I know people who have had to pay. It really is unacceptable to have a known problem still causing problems some 7 years after car launch.
My driveway looks unsightly with the resultant oil drips - a situation I will also have to deal with this weekend. [
]
Guest
New member
Chris
If it helps over the last couple of weeks I have been emailing Jeff our Club Communications Director to get a better understanding on how the Club interrelate with Porsche over any issue that has an affect on problems that members suffer such as RMS.
Seemingly there is no protocol existing presently to bring such matters to the notice of Porsche but Jeff has indicated his intent to raise the issue at today's Board Meeting of the Club - subject of course to the agenda and time permitting. I await a response.
Personally I think the matter, which affects Boxster and 996 owners, is important, and ultimately will bring about a lessening of car prices as time goes by unless a resolution is found.[]
From the Porsche Club America website this seems to be happening where changes of complete engines occur if a first fix of a new seal fails to cure the problem.[]
As I see it our problem is how do we get enough fellow members to take part in "˜keeping the pot boiling' "" without being judgmental, the response to the issue of "˜Waving' between members attracts by comparison huge audiences as compared to the RMS issue which may ultimately cost our members in financial terms.[8|]
I await any thoughts.
If it helps over the last couple of weeks I have been emailing Jeff our Club Communications Director to get a better understanding on how the Club interrelate with Porsche over any issue that has an affect on problems that members suffer such as RMS.
Seemingly there is no protocol existing presently to bring such matters to the notice of Porsche but Jeff has indicated his intent to raise the issue at today's Board Meeting of the Club - subject of course to the agenda and time permitting. I await a response.
Personally I think the matter, which affects Boxster and 996 owners, is important, and ultimately will bring about a lessening of car prices as time goes by unless a resolution is found.[
] From the Porsche Club America website this seems to be happening where changes of complete engines occur if a first fix of a new seal fails to cure the problem.[
]As I see it our problem is how do we get enough fellow members to take part in "˜keeping the pot boiling' "" without being judgmental, the response to the issue of "˜Waving' between members attracts by comparison huge audiences as compared to the RMS issue which may ultimately cost our members in financial terms.[8|]
I await any thoughts.
Guest
New member
Hear hear !!!!
The main purpose of an owners club is to represent the interest of the owners (we just happen to have a load of fun and technical exchanges too []). PCGB should take up the cause on behalf of the Boxster and 996 (and maybe even the 997) owners as this is an unacceptable situation caused by a badly aligned main crankshaft. I found a couple of drops of oil on my garage floor a week ago which appear to have stopped however my Boxster is going in for a suspension geometry set-up tomorrow and I'll ask the OPC to check out the RMS. I'm outside the measly 24 month warranty [>:].
The main purpose of an owners club is to represent the interest of the owners (we just happen to have a load of fun and technical exchanges too [
]). PCGB should take up the cause on behalf of the Boxster and 996 (and maybe even the 997) owners as this is an unacceptable situation caused by a badly aligned main crankshaft. I found a couple of drops of oil on my garage floor a week ago which appear to have stopped however my Boxster is going in for a suspension geometry set-up tomorrow and I'll ask the OPC to check out the RMS. I'm outside the measly 24 month warranty [>:].
GreigM
New member
It would be interesting for the Club to get some sort of "Official" statement on the RMS problem from Porsche, as it would be unfortunate if this were to turn up in something like Watchdog, or going through the courts - as it would only lessen the Porsche brand (which despite all my complaining, I do love) and depreciate our boxster and 996s quicker.
I have my thoughts on buying a 2nd hand 996 maybe next year (once the 997 is out and depreciation works its magic [] ) and would like to know that I'm not going to be faced with large RMS bills.
I have my thoughts on buying a 2nd hand 996 maybe next year (once the 997 is out and depreciation works its magic [
] ) and would like to know that I'm not going to be faced with large RMS bills.
Guest
New member
Phew......
The update is that my RMS is not leaking however there has been some oil "misting" in that area but Porsche Reading cannot say for certain as to why. While there is no obvious source, there have been no fresh drops of oil on my garage floor for three weeks. I did top up the oil about 2 months ago with a 1/4 L so perhaps a crankcase breather has been venting a slight excess.
On the geometry side, the suspension has been set up with the fronts needing a fair bit of toe-in adjustment which accounts for the uneven wear on the old set of tyres. Porsche Reading also gave the car a thorough clean both inside and out.
The update is that my RMS is not leaking however there has been some oil "misting" in that area but Porsche Reading cannot say for certain as to why. While there is no obvious source, there have been no fresh drops of oil on my garage floor for three weeks. I did top up the oil about 2 months ago with a 1/4 L so perhaps a crankcase breather has been venting a slight excess.
On the geometry side, the suspension has been set up with the fronts needing a fair bit of toe-in adjustment which accounts for the uneven wear on the old set of tyres. Porsche Reading also gave the car a thorough clean both inside and out.
I had a chat with Chiswick's senior technician about this problem. As far as he is concerned, OPC's should fix this problem FOC if your car is out of warranty AND you have maintained the correct service schedule. If you have not had your car serviced as per the official service schedule then the OPC may charge you to fix this problem.
I suppose that's fair enough.
Taz
I suppose that's fair enough.
Taz
Guest
New member
Tarik (Taz). Whilst the OPC is correct and the stance the correct one, the remaining issue is what are Porsche gonna do about fixing the root cause of the problem ? Stuff all by the sounds - plus the Club seems reluctant to progress it without major bum-scratching, head scratching, deliberation, sitting on the fence, hums and hahs, lets prove it? (huh!), and general No Action.
BTW. you and I know each other.
BTW. you and I know each other.
This is my personal view also. I have had RMS replaced on two out of my three Boxsters and am a little concerned for future depreciation as the cars age. I have no special pull with Reading, but will see if we can make it a Club enquiry. I think I will have to do a formal survey of members to present a convincing picture, not that Porsche Cars aren't aware of the scale of the problem
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
