Surely the cost of PCGB "goodwill" claims is passed through to PAG anyway?
I wouldn't have thought they come out of PCGB's operating margin...
I wouldn't have thought they come out of PCGB's operating margin...
The answer for RMS problems?
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
Guest
New member
Berny
Thanks for the information - an interesting read albeit some of the response was to be expected.
Not too sure why the box on a 4 year car has failed, nor where you bought the car from but unless there is misuse on your part it should have lasted longer and as such your claim through the courts seems to be the best route now.
Keep the faith for now, AM's have problems as well[
]
Thanks for the information - an interesting read albeit some of the response was to be expected.
Not too sure why the box on a 4 year car has failed, nor where you bought the car from but unless there is misuse on your part it should have lasted longer and as such your claim through the courts seems to be the best route now.
Keep the faith for now, AM's have problems as well[
]
Guest
New member
Well this guy from the Customer Relations Dept at Reading made it very clear to me that
PAG are PAG and Porsche UK are Porsche UK and the only relationship is that they both make money
out of each other. The same can be said about the dealerships. They are just franchises. A lot
less technically skilled than the independents but they have the stamp of approval to toute the name PORSCHE.
I think it goes like this: if your car is in warranty then Porsche UK are covered by PAG. Extended warranties
go through a fairly rigourous procedure and the applications have to be ultimately signed off by PAG. So anything
under warranty and PUK are covered. But for out of warranty cars, PUK have a slush fund (which may, in
part be subsidised by PAG). Ordinarily the OPC franchise that you take your out-of-warranty car in for service
work will negotiate with you the cost. If it costs a lot or for one reason or another the repair work entails
parts/labour that the OPC thinks you might be covered by some good-will, they will apply for that good-will
to head office. They may say yes or no. But the OPC franchise is under absolutely "no" obligation to take
on any work or to apply for good will......or to be directed by PUK. The are a business who ultimately answers unto
themselves. Obviously they must adhere to certain things, like training their engineers etc. Otherwise
they could loose their dealership. And as for PUK, well the same deal applies. They are an entity that
are separate from PAG. The idea that all OPCs and Porsche UK are "part" of Porsche AG Corporation
is a falicy. PUK are simply representatives.
It's a bit late now but I was thinking that a really great show of protest would have been to hand out
large throw away baking trays to use as oil collectors at the Festival [][] I would be the first to
hand them out to the guys on the 997 stand []
See you down there...........if I make it!
PAG are PAG and Porsche UK are Porsche UK and the only relationship is that they both make money
out of each other. The same can be said about the dealerships. They are just franchises. A lot
less technically skilled than the independents but they have the stamp of approval to toute the name PORSCHE.
I think it goes like this: if your car is in warranty then Porsche UK are covered by PAG. Extended warranties
go through a fairly rigourous procedure and the applications have to be ultimately signed off by PAG. So anything
under warranty and PUK are covered. But for out of warranty cars, PUK have a slush fund (which may, in
part be subsidised by PAG). Ordinarily the OPC franchise that you take your out-of-warranty car in for service
work will negotiate with you the cost. If it costs a lot or for one reason or another the repair work entails
parts/labour that the OPC thinks you might be covered by some good-will, they will apply for that good-will
to head office. They may say yes or no. But the OPC franchise is under absolutely "no" obligation to take
on any work or to apply for good will......or to be directed by PUK. The are a business who ultimately answers unto
themselves. Obviously they must adhere to certain things, like training their engineers etc. Otherwise
they could loose their dealership. And as for PUK, well the same deal applies. They are an entity that
are separate from PAG. The idea that all OPCs and Porsche UK are "part" of Porsche AG Corporation
is a falicy. PUK are simply representatives.
It's a bit late now but I was thinking that a really great show of protest would have been to hand out
large throw away baking trays to use as oil collectors at the Festival [
][] I would be the first tohand them out to the guys on the 997 stand [
]See you down there...........if I make it!
Guest
New member
I posted this on the 996 forum but it is just as relevant to Boxsters.
All.
This may be of interest to you all. I talked to a very knowledgeable long time engine builder recently. Looking over a 993 engine in pieces in his workshop the subject of 996/Boxster engine design came up. He used the disassembled 993 engine to talk me through both the 993 and 996/Boxster engine designs. The 996/Boxster engine has some very nice design elements. The subject came around eventually to RMS and engine failures.
I do not have the specialist knowledgeable to know if my memory or understanding is 100% accurate but wanted to post the result of the discussion to maybe help with your ongoing discussions as all knowledge is good. I can claim a mechanical engineering background but the following should be taken as non-official, unverified, blah blah blah.
I will make the description as simple as possible whilst describing the relevant points.
I'll start by describing the crankshaft arrangement in the engines pre 996/Boxster that were last seen in the 993. In these engines the crankshaft arrangement is something like this.
a/ Starting at one end of the crankshaft you have the intermediate shaft drive. The intermediate shaft is driven directly by having a gear wheel on the crankshaft and a gear wheel on the intermediate shaft.
b/ In the middle are the connecting rods to the pistons.
c/ At the other end of the crankshaft is the final crankshaft bearing (I have not described any other bearings as not directly relevant) followed immediately by the rear main seal (RMS) followed by the dual mass flywheel outside the crankcase.
For the 996/Boxter engine redesign a number of things where changed in this layout. First the intermediate shaft drive was changed from direct gear wheel to a chain and sprocket type of drive. Also the intermediate shaft drive was moved to the other end of the engine between the final crankshaft bearing and the rear main seal (RMS). So in summary the layout looks like this
a/ Starting at one end of the crankshaft you have some stuff (no detail given here as not directly relevant).
b/ In the middle are the connecting rods to the pistons.
c/ Then the final crankshaft bearing (I have not described any other bearings as not directly relevant).
d/ Then the intermediate shaft drive (sprocket and chain).
e/ Then the main seal (RMS).
f/ Finally the dual mass flywheel outside the crankcase.
The possible fault with this design is the distance between the final crankshaft bearing and the dual mass flywheel. What happens is that the crankshaft bends under use probably exacerbated by the weight and therefore the rotational forces caused by the heavy dual mass flywheel plus the forces resulting from the intermediate shaft drive. Once the crankshaft has bent it starts to wobble at the flywheel end and no longer revolves in true around its centre line. This could cause the following problems.
a/ Rear main seal (RMS) to fail. As the crankshaft is bent is revolves out of centre and the seal is not designed to deal with this. Eventually the seal no longer forms a full seal to the crankshaft as it gets deformed in effect to have a slightly larger hole in the middle through which the oil leaks.
b/ Failure of the intermediate shaft and therefore catastrophic failure of the engine. Because the crankshaft is no longer true this results in the chain to the intermediate shaft being stretched then loosened on every revolution. It's a sort of jerking movement. It would eventually cause either the chain drive to fail or the intermediate shaft itself to bend with subsequent damage to bearings etc.
c/ Vibrational forces at the rear of the crankshaft around the rear bearing. It's unknown what this might cause.
The tool that is used to check the RMS in effect checks whether the crankshaft is bent or not. It is unknown whether a new seal has been developed that can deal with a slightly bent crankshaft but RMS failure is a symptom of a bent crankshaft and not a fault with the seal design. It is believed that the 997 engines have an additional bearing between the intermediate shaft drive and the rear main seal to fix the problem of crankshafts bending.
Again, none of the above comes from an official source, blah, blah, blah. It might all be wrong and I make no claims of expertise but hopefully it might help some more searching questions to be asked to get you to the truth.
Regards.
John.
All.
This may be of interest to you all. I talked to a very knowledgeable long time engine builder recently. Looking over a 993 engine in pieces in his workshop the subject of 996/Boxster engine design came up. He used the disassembled 993 engine to talk me through both the 993 and 996/Boxster engine designs. The 996/Boxster engine has some very nice design elements. The subject came around eventually to RMS and engine failures.
I do not have the specialist knowledgeable to know if my memory or understanding is 100% accurate but wanted to post the result of the discussion to maybe help with your ongoing discussions as all knowledge is good. I can claim a mechanical engineering background but the following should be taken as non-official, unverified, blah blah blah.
I will make the description as simple as possible whilst describing the relevant points.
I'll start by describing the crankshaft arrangement in the engines pre 996/Boxster that were last seen in the 993. In these engines the crankshaft arrangement is something like this.
a/ Starting at one end of the crankshaft you have the intermediate shaft drive. The intermediate shaft is driven directly by having a gear wheel on the crankshaft and a gear wheel on the intermediate shaft.
b/ In the middle are the connecting rods to the pistons.
c/ At the other end of the crankshaft is the final crankshaft bearing (I have not described any other bearings as not directly relevant) followed immediately by the rear main seal (RMS) followed by the dual mass flywheel outside the crankcase.
For the 996/Boxter engine redesign a number of things where changed in this layout. First the intermediate shaft drive was changed from direct gear wheel to a chain and sprocket type of drive. Also the intermediate shaft drive was moved to the other end of the engine between the final crankshaft bearing and the rear main seal (RMS). So in summary the layout looks like this
a/ Starting at one end of the crankshaft you have some stuff (no detail given here as not directly relevant).
b/ In the middle are the connecting rods to the pistons.
c/ Then the final crankshaft bearing (I have not described any other bearings as not directly relevant).
d/ Then the intermediate shaft drive (sprocket and chain).
e/ Then the main seal (RMS).
f/ Finally the dual mass flywheel outside the crankcase.
The possible fault with this design is the distance between the final crankshaft bearing and the dual mass flywheel. What happens is that the crankshaft bends under use probably exacerbated by the weight and therefore the rotational forces caused by the heavy dual mass flywheel plus the forces resulting from the intermediate shaft drive. Once the crankshaft has bent it starts to wobble at the flywheel end and no longer revolves in true around its centre line. This could cause the following problems.
a/ Rear main seal (RMS) to fail. As the crankshaft is bent is revolves out of centre and the seal is not designed to deal with this. Eventually the seal no longer forms a full seal to the crankshaft as it gets deformed in effect to have a slightly larger hole in the middle through which the oil leaks.
b/ Failure of the intermediate shaft and therefore catastrophic failure of the engine. Because the crankshaft is no longer true this results in the chain to the intermediate shaft being stretched then loosened on every revolution. It's a sort of jerking movement. It would eventually cause either the chain drive to fail or the intermediate shaft itself to bend with subsequent damage to bearings etc.
c/ Vibrational forces at the rear of the crankshaft around the rear bearing. It's unknown what this might cause.
The tool that is used to check the RMS in effect checks whether the crankshaft is bent or not. It is unknown whether a new seal has been developed that can deal with a slightly bent crankshaft but RMS failure is a symptom of a bent crankshaft and not a fault with the seal design. It is believed that the 997 engines have an additional bearing between the intermediate shaft drive and the rear main seal to fix the problem of crankshafts bending.
Again, none of the above comes from an official source, blah, blah, blah. It might all be wrong and I make no claims of expertise but hopefully it might help some more searching questions to be asked to get you to the truth.
Regards.
John.
Guest
New member
Well that puts a different perspective on how the problem manifests itself[8|]
Of course the only people who can really say what the true cause is are Porsche - but I doubt we will ever get their side aired in public.
I wonder what the opinion owners in the States whose thoughts we have previously followed might have to say about this article - anyone with any contacts?
Of course the only people who can really say what the true cause is are Porsche - but I doubt we will ever get their side aired in public.
I wonder what the opinion owners in the States whose thoughts we have previously followed might have to say about this article - anyone with any contacts?
Guest
New member
IMHO I can't believe that a drop forged crank with 7 bearings and 12 counter weights could bend.
I have thought this over and over and there is no possible way to cause it to bend leaving simply the
rear main seal (RMS) end to bend out of tolerance. If, and only if it was possible then there would be other
bearings failing and an internal bearing failure would definitely lead very quickly if not immediatly to the engine grenading.
It is also interesting that we don't hear of front main seal (FMS) failures. It is only the RMS where the fault lies.
I think it is much more feasible to consider that the RMS is at the end that has the flywheel and
thus connects to the transmission plant. So all the stress of the engine is levied towards that end
of the engine. The engine block case is bolted together, it's not one cast. It's in two halfs. Since all
the stress is at the transmission end, it causes the bolted block joining at the RMS end to become misaligned,
and that leads to ovaling of the bore where the RMS fits. Hence it leaks because it is not a perfect
circle for the seal to fit. The mandrel tool is an aluminium perfect fit circle. It's designed to do two
jobs: a) fit into the bore, if it's ovaled then it simply won't fit. Like putting a square peg in a round hole
except in this case its a round peg in an oval hole; and b) if it fits (good sign), to push home the new seal so that it fits
into the bore at the correct depth.
As I said, I find it extremely hard to believe the crankshaft can bend. If it can then we all, including PAG,
have some serious worrying to do.
I have thought this over and over and there is no possible way to cause it to bend leaving simply the
rear main seal (RMS) end to bend out of tolerance. If, and only if it was possible then there would be other
bearings failing and an internal bearing failure would definitely lead very quickly if not immediatly to the engine grenading.
It is also interesting that we don't hear of front main seal (FMS) failures. It is only the RMS where the fault lies.
I think it is much more feasible to consider that the RMS is at the end that has the flywheel and
thus connects to the transmission plant. So all the stress of the engine is levied towards that end
of the engine. The engine block case is bolted together, it's not one cast. It's in two halfs. Since all
the stress is at the transmission end, it causes the bolted block joining at the RMS end to become misaligned,
and that leads to ovaling of the bore where the RMS fits. Hence it leaks because it is not a perfect
circle for the seal to fit. The mandrel tool is an aluminium perfect fit circle. It's designed to do two
jobs: a) fit into the bore, if it's ovaled then it simply won't fit. Like putting a square peg in a round hole
except in this case its a round peg in an oval hole; and b) if it fits (good sign), to push home the new seal so that it fits
into the bore at the correct depth.
As I said, I find it extremely hard to believe the crankshaft can bend. If it can then we all, including PAG,
have some serious worrying to do.
Guest
New member
Mahen,
Yes, they are prety much the exact words he used. He made it very clear to me that in no uncertain terms,
Porsche UK do not legally have to offer me anything since my car is out of warranty. I did ask him to write to me
stating this but he blankly refused to do so.
This Forum is open, public and I have no reason to lie (and I know you don't think I am anyway).
But I am saying this here because I have sent Mr Phil Hattam of Porsche UK, Reading, email with links to this thread
so I presume he and the rest of Customer Services/Relations in Porsche UK are reading it with interest. If I am lying
then Mr Hattam will want to make that clear enough on this thread. Won't you Mr. Hattam? [
]
Guys,
I have a very clear verbal statement from Porsche GB that warranty claims on C16, non UK supplied cars cars will be treated as for UK supplied cars. I assume the same may NOT be true for goodwill claims and this seems completely fair to me. Porsche GB didnt handle or profit from the car, the owners claim is not with them, it is with the dealer or organisation that supplied the car.
Note that non C16 cars may have some issues with warranty claims.
Guest
New member
IMHO, that's crap. Porsche GB are representatives of Porsche AG and they are our interface to Porsche AG. If they believe that "because they didn't profit from the sale of my car" warrants them not repairing the manufacturing flaws under
good-will, that does not releive them of their responsibility to seek reclaim from PAG in order to carry out the repairs.
C16 or not, all these car's were, after all, manufactured in the same place, and with the same darm manufacturing flaw!
If I get it fixed here or In Germany or for that matter in Alaska it should make no difference to me, the punter.
What you are saying is that Porsche GB have vocally stated that if the car was bought in the UK from the Porsche GB
dealership, then they would have no qualms in considering a good-will claim. But if it wasn't then your up sh*t creek
without a paddle. If that's true then how does that effect a car, like mine, that has been "serviced" by the Porsche GB
network (and thus profited) and that exhibited total powerplant (engine & gerabox) problems in less than 4000
miles after its 24,000 mile major service carried out by Porsche GB. I wonder if my legal issues are not with faulty manufacturing, and thus PAG. But in fact, with bad or incompetent servicing done by Porsche GB. It is an interesting thought!
38F3E1
PCGB Member
I am not sure one sounds any better than the other. I can't imagine a misaligned block is exactly good for an engine in the long term. If the forums are right then something seems to be causing catastrophic engine failures and it's not beyond imagination to link an early RMS issue to an engine failure further down the line. Is it?
It's a shame the manufacturer will not release a clear explanation of the problems which would stop all the worry. They must be starting the understand the damage this is doing to them.
Ian.
Guest
New member
I'm a bit puzzled here.
Is a C16 spec car made by Porsche ?
If so, then it shouldn't matter who repairs it, as the OPCs represent Porsche (no matter who owns them).
Do other manufactures, like Sony, Honda, Siemens etc. only stand by their products if they are bought in the country of use, and ignore them otherwise ?
Perhaps I'm being too simple here. The manufacturer either stands by their products, or they don't.
Is a C16 spec car made by Porsche ?
If so, then it shouldn't matter who repairs it, as the OPCs represent Porsche (no matter who owns them).
Do other manufactures, like Sony, Honda, Siemens etc. only stand by their products if they are bought in the country of use, and ignore them otherwise ?
Perhaps I'm being too simple here. The manufacturer either stands by their products, or they don't.
Guest
New member
It seems they don't!
I mean, the 997 isn't out yet so the 996 is their most current product in the 911 range.
My 996 was just on 3 years old at 30k miles when the gearbox and engine went faulty.
I have been fighting this for a year now and have got nowhere with it. At 38k miles I am still
in the same boat although I have had 4 RMSs replaced since! Now they want me to pay for any further
RMS replacements and to pay £3000 towards a gearbox. So, it is clear they don't
stand by their product.
Guest
New member
Guys we should not cloud the issue here and i have to say i disagree with nicD on this one.
The question here to Porsche GB is are they or are they not the representatives of Porsche AG in the UK? If they are and PGB do not make the cars here then PGB are reaponsible for ALL porducts and liablities of Porsche AG. After all you can not aregue that in the uk we live outside the european union and its laws.
This brings us back to the age old problem that of misinformation from PGB. I am just waiting for PGB to put this this sort of comment in
writing.
Guest
New member
To all RMS Interested Members -
In an effort to further the debate on the issues raised, and using Johns (WP1296) findings (as shown earlier) I took the opportunity to ask Joel Reiser, Committee Member of the Porsche Club America for his thoughts on the scenario described and I think, very gererously, he has provided an effective response the last para being the kernel of the RMS debate.
IMO much of the material gathered in respect of the RMS issue is coming from Forums within America "" rightly so as they appear to be well in front of us in gaining a resolution to the problem.
His response is included hereafter BUT was provided on the understanding that his name is shown as the author and secondly, that should anyone else wish to use the work that his permission be obtained beforehand.
I have curtailed his response to the RMS issue only viz:
"Interesting analysis. But all crankshafts bend or flex during running. Porsche has many decades of experience with this. The bearings are actually very relevant to the flexing. If the cranks did not flex, we might only need two sets of main bearings, one at each end of the crankshaft.
Since cranks flex almost by design or definition (heavy impulse energy transmitted to them from 90 degrees off), this is why there are main bearings between each and every rod. Crank flex is not an afterthought in engine design, it IS engine design. The cranks still flex, and they exhibit harmonics and other behaviour. But the flex is all within certain design limits.
The design of the 996 engine, however, is not a slight revision of the 993 & earlier 911 engine design (901 through 993, spanning the years 1963 through 1998). The design was totally from-scratch for the 996 & Boxster engine. I am not aware of any single part in common, nor any geometry in common apart from the flat six layout. There may be one or two, but this is the stuff of trivia contests. To believe at any level that the 996 engine is an evolution, improvement or descendant of the others is a very tough point to defend. It was a clean-sheet designed to achieve a few simple goals, lower cost to manufacture, higher volume manufacturing techniques, and water cooled.
Note that Porsche does not race the 986/996 engine in any form. The 996 GT3 engine (and all of the 996 turbos) instead are built on the 993-style crankcase, only with water cooled heads and therefore different plumbing. This was done earlier in several schemes for the 959 and 962 race cars, ultimately in the GT1 which forms the prototype, if you will, for these engines. Those engines are so different from the 986/996 engines they will not fit in the same cars. All of the 996-based race cars and 996 turbo cars have a large cut and modification made in the rear bulkhead / firewall, to accommodate the engines. The rest is marketing spin.
The reasoning behind the explanation of the crankshaft cradle being misaligned is not reasoning at all, it is based on measurement of defective engines (at rest)."
Joel Reiser.
I am now out of my depth as to arguing the issues further. Perhaps it is time to sit on our hands and wait for Porsche to enlighten us all[]
In an effort to further the debate on the issues raised, and using Johns (WP1296) findings (as shown earlier) I took the opportunity to ask Joel Reiser, Committee Member of the Porsche Club America for his thoughts on the scenario described and I think, very gererously, he has provided an effective response the last para being the kernel of the RMS debate.
IMO much of the material gathered in respect of the RMS issue is coming from Forums within America "" rightly so as they appear to be well in front of us in gaining a resolution to the problem.
His response is included hereafter BUT was provided on the understanding that his name is shown as the author and secondly, that should anyone else wish to use the work that his permission be obtained beforehand.
I have curtailed his response to the RMS issue only viz:
"Interesting analysis. But all crankshafts bend or flex during running. Porsche has many decades of experience with this. The bearings are actually very relevant to the flexing. If the cranks did not flex, we might only need two sets of main bearings, one at each end of the crankshaft.
Since cranks flex almost by design or definition (heavy impulse energy transmitted to them from 90 degrees off), this is why there are main bearings between each and every rod. Crank flex is not an afterthought in engine design, it IS engine design. The cranks still flex, and they exhibit harmonics and other behaviour. But the flex is all within certain design limits.
The design of the 996 engine, however, is not a slight revision of the 993 & earlier 911 engine design (901 through 993, spanning the years 1963 through 1998). The design was totally from-scratch for the 996 & Boxster engine. I am not aware of any single part in common, nor any geometry in common apart from the flat six layout. There may be one or two, but this is the stuff of trivia contests. To believe at any level that the 996 engine is an evolution, improvement or descendant of the others is a very tough point to defend. It was a clean-sheet designed to achieve a few simple goals, lower cost to manufacture, higher volume manufacturing techniques, and water cooled.
Note that Porsche does not race the 986/996 engine in any form. The 996 GT3 engine (and all of the 996 turbos) instead are built on the 993-style crankcase, only with water cooled heads and therefore different plumbing. This was done earlier in several schemes for the 959 and 962 race cars, ultimately in the GT1 which forms the prototype, if you will, for these engines. Those engines are so different from the 986/996 engines they will not fit in the same cars. All of the 996-based race cars and 996 turbo cars have a large cut and modification made in the rear bulkhead / firewall, to accommodate the engines. The rest is marketing spin.
The reasoning behind the explanation of the crankshaft cradle being misaligned is not reasoning at all, it is based on measurement of defective engines (at rest)."
Joel Reiser.
I am now out of my depth as to arguing the issues further. Perhaps it is time to sit on our hands and wait for Porsche to enlighten us all[
]
Guest
New member
Interesting reading. Although most of this is an excellent write up on the engine design. The real question at hand is why does the RMS fail and what is Porsche going to do about it. On this subject, his independent expert advice in this subject sums it up perfectly: "The reasoning behind the explanation of the crankshaft cradle being misaligned is not reasoning at all, it is based on measurement of defective engines (at rest)."
It is fair to say then, that "ALL" 996/986 engines that suffer repeat RMS problems are defective. Period.
On the subject of 996/986 not being made to be race/track engines: why is then that Porsche hold track days for
Porsche owners and actively encourage Porsche car owners of any kind to take part? Indeed, the Porsche Experience
Track days use standard C2 and C4s for this purpose.
It is fair to say then, that "ALL" 996/986 engines that suffer repeat RMS problems are defective. Period.
On the subject of 996/986 not being made to be race/track engines: why is then that Porsche hold track days for
Porsche owners and actively encourage Porsche car owners of any kind to take part? Indeed, the Porsche Experience
Track days use standard C2 and C4s for this purpose.
There is a difference between track days (on road tyres) and racing (typically on Slicks)
The higer cornering forces generated by slicks are too much for the "smi-dry sump" oil system on the 986/996 engines. The previous dry-sump systems cope with the higher cornering forces better. This is why it says not to use slicks in the manual. I don't think we can link not racing the engine to the RMS issue - it's a different thing altogether.
The higer cornering forces generated by slicks are too much for the "smi-dry sump" oil system on the 986/996 engines. The previous dry-sump systems cope with the higher cornering forces better. This is why it says not to use slicks in the manual. I don't think we can link not racing the engine to the RMS issue - it's a different thing altogether.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
