The answer for RMS problems?

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Mark Bennett

I'm sure the information will be provided, but no need to be so flat rude with your request (that's the way it comes over...)

Mark

Thanks for the feedback - I do tend to get 'passionate' over matters that affect my pocket particularly when I get a feeling that matters are rapidly slipping in to the 'too hard to handle tray' - I just hope I am wrong.

That said I will now do as I said previously and keep my own counsel awaiting whatever comes from Nic.

 

[Guest]

Steve

I like your thoughts but - as we are all members of a Club should the Club not be taking the responsibility to move things on and not a splinter group of members within the Club?

 

[Guest]

Doesn´t seem to me that the club (having read the whole thread) is going to get its collective act together and actually put the money required to progress this on the line.

I can understand the club position a bit, with more than just the 996/Boxster/RMS issue to deal with it may indeed sour the relationship with Porsche for the whole club.

My recommendation (having been in corporate life for a long time previous) is to get those people who are most at risk together as a seperate entity (or splinter group if you like) to progress at a pace. This way it focuses the mind and does not result in long drawn out discussions about shall we or shant we etc etc. This issue really has been going on long enough and if not addressed will be the same in another 2 years !!! and many more of us will have had to face the RMS issue on our own.

Action speaks !!!

 

[Guest]

I'm not really involved in this as I have a 89 3.2 but if I were ever to move to a newer Porsche there is no way I would consider any of the range that might suffer from RMS issues unless there is public history of Porsche sorting it out at no cost to owners.

I always thought I would probably move up through 993, 996 etc as and when they came in to my price range but not now. I'll stop when I get to a 993 for the moment []

This maybe an over reaction but its how I feel and I am sure I'm not alone.

This attitude in itself if prevalent enough is going to hurt everyone of you guys (especially those that are out of warrenty) when it comes to resale.

Cheers

Andy

 

[bones]

So you won't be buying a Carrera GT then?

 

[Guest]

Don´t get me wrong, I love Porsche´s and this is my 4th 911 derivative.........but sometimes you have to make a stand even if you risk upsetting those you love !!!! the 911 is a fantastic car and will continue to be so, all the owners want is justice and I truly believe that a lifetime warranty (or at least 10 years) on the RMS would solve the problem - so why not go for it.................as Nigel Cooper´s strap line above says "Some people make things happen, some watch while things happen, and some wonder "˜What happened? " I for one am in the camp of lets make something happen !!!! and am prepared to put my (hard earned and tax paid) money where my big mouth is, on behalf of all those that are already, and all those that may be in the future, affected by this problem.

 

[NicD]

I like your thoughts but - as we are all members of a Club should the Club not be taking the responsibility to move things on and not a splinter group of members within the Club?

Nigel,

Is there anything else you would like the Club to do, bring world peace? Solve the Iraq problem? - I am getting pissed now.

this problem does not affect ALL members , not even all 996 and Boxster members

here are the INTERIM results of the poll. in fact we have had some late replies I have not included

Of the 1000 odd forms sent out to Boxster owners on file, 524 replied (a high number, indicative of high importance!, note that some are no longer owners)

Of these, 24% had experienced one or more RMS failure. Far too high, that's why I lobbied so hard with Porsche Cars (also mentioning the small number of catastrophic engine failures)

The highest number of RMS failures were in 2000 and 2001 model year cars - 49% of 2001 Boxster S. The RMS usually showed up in 1-3 years of new.

What I haven't analysed is the number with multiple RMS failure, I will do this for the full report.

BUT it is clear that only a small percentage of the 16,000 Club members are affected, and many, many of these were fixed under warranty at no cost to the owner.

Anyway, I lobbied hard with Porsche GB, I was warned against this as my reputation with them would suffer. I went ahead anyway because I believe passionately in a fair deal for us owners.

Now, as a Club, we have reached an impasse. You have to accept this. All along, I have advised members to continue their individual actions. Of course, owners can band together for this, but if you want the Club to engage, then you have to show that the majority of members are in agreement. There is an EGM process for this type of thing.

Remember, while I am working on this, I am not doing all the other things I should be for the Club - or at least, not doing them as well as I should. Many of you know perhaps the demands placed on Directors, especially in the run up to the Festival. I have responsibilty for IT including a full time Staff member. I am supposed to do this in my "spare" time.

I have stood up and been counted, lets see some others do the same, and I don't mean just posting on the Forum.

There, its off my chest now, sorry if this is too outspoken.

 

[Mark_Bennett]

And can I just point out (for those that don't realise[&:])

Meetings with Porsche, are in Nics OWN time. But during Porsches WORKING time.
This means in Nics case that he is not working, but is taking time off to do club activities. This also means in Nics case he is NOT EARNING MONEY from his work during these meetings.

If anyone thinks he should be doing more, let's see them stop earning so that they can do thier unpaid hobby, whilst a being harrased by club members (and non-members!) to do "something".

Makes it all worthwhile...[8|]

 

[Guest]

Nic

Thanks for taking time to respond - I would have preferred to see your full report rather than the diatribe as set out above.

None of us yet are fully able to appreciate what you have done so far in the RMS "˜battle' because you have not disclosed (so far) the full report.

I do fear however that we are reaching a stage of 'ping pong' which will not get matters moved forwards in the manner I see them going. The Board surely cannot stop their negotiations with Porsche at this juncture over a matter that will affect our cars for the next 20 years plus? If they do, may I suggest that further consideration be given to the suggestions contained within the latter stages of my report submitted at the Board meeting on 31st July please?

Finally you will know when your comments have taken offence - I will stop writing[]

 

[NicD]

Nigel,

I dont believe the Board as a whole will do anything more at this stage.

I have outlined the options in my post above .

You would have to secure some substantial support from the membership

 

[Guest]

I have been reading this forum with a great deal of interest but have not thought up until now that I had anything of substance to contribute.

First of all I think Nic has been between a rock and a hard place. The only pressure that an owners club can bring to bear is moral pressure and then if this doesn't work there is little that can be done to force the issue.

The central problem appears to be who is LEGALLY responsible if indeed anyone is. Is it the OPC, Porcshe Cars GB or Porsche Germany. No one seems to know and that makes it very difficult for an individual to pursue the matters through the courts if they wanted to. It is therefore left to see if they can get a goodwill payment to try and sort the problem out.

I fully accept that the club cannot get involved in a class action, however would it be possible for the club to get some proper legal advice on who if anybody is legally responsible so that any individual has a good legal starting point.

I realise that it is complicated with Imports , 2nd hand cars bought outside the dealer network and independent servicing but I am sur that there is Europen legislation regarding manufacturer, importer and dealer responsibilities.

Finally if we all want the value of our cars to plummet then contacting Watchdog or some such programme would be an ideal way to make it happen!

 

[bones]

Blimey is this a record thread , although I don't have any RMS problems I sympathise totally with those who do and having something of an interest in the mechanics of vehicles I have followed this thread with interest.
Depite the mini spats and potential disagreements one constant in all of this is Nic D's hard work for everyone, you have to remember he has also played a KEY role in organising the Brands Festival whilst still trying to sort the RMS problem out. I met him for the first time at Brands and he struck me as a genuine Porsche enthusiast with a hard working level head in a crisis, I think Nic deserves praise for all his hard work for all people concerned, the club is lucky to have him.

 

[Guest]

Hi folks,
Sorry for the late response, I am just recovering from a great weekend at Brands Hatch.
Guess wot? My car made it there and back in one piece. Great news eh?

OK, I have read these last few pages with interest. Nic, I think you have done a great Job and I Personally thank you
for all that you have done. I understand clearly your position and I accept it although I still hope that when the time
comes, pcgb will speak up on our behalf. If you would just kindly post the results and
the meeting notes/quotes etc as promised this will be sufficient. The problem must now take a further step to move forward. So I have today lodged a complaint to watchdod. Here is my letter to them. It would help greatly if you all did the same. The more we complain the more likely that watchdog will take note. I will also be sending a similar letter to Top Gear.
Cheers,

Dear Watchdog team,
I write to you regarding a problem that I am having, as are many other owners, with my Porsche 911. It is in regard to an engine oil seal called "Rear Main Seal". The oil seal fits on the end of the crankshaft. It has a tendancy to fail in this model car and it has now been established that it is a manufacturing flaw.
More information can be gleaned from the Porsche Club of Great Britain web site. Specifically here: http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=51667

The seal fails in both the 911 (model 996) and the Boxster (model 986).

The problem is that to replace the seal, the gearbox must be removed. It is typically an 8 hour labour intensive operation.

Porsche cars have a special tool to measure the opening of the bore where the seal fits. If it is out of specified tolerance then a new engine is required.

Many owners are now suffereing with this RMS failure and our cars require new engines but Porsche GB are refusing to repair them without a significant charge. If you require I can arrange for many of the other owners with this problem to contact you. I am acting on their behalf.

My car has now had this seal replaced 3 times and it is awaiting its 4th seal.
The policy taken by Porsche US is to replace the engines at no cost. But in the UK, Porsche GB will not entertain this.

The problem occurs at any mileage. It has even been known for new cars on the showroom floor to leak oil from the seal! But Porsche refuse to acknowledge the problem.

PCGB have conducted a survey to 1000 Boxster owners and the results show overwhelmingly that the problem is contageous. Many owners are seeing this problem. It is devaluing these very expensive cars and is costing owners a lot of money to repair.

There is a Technical Service Bulletin produced by Porsche in regards to this problem. I have a copy. It clearly states that the engine "must" be replaced. But Porsche UK refuse to replace the engines free of cost. In fact they often offer a token towards the cost and call it good-will.

Please will you help us. This is a very expensive car. My engine suffered the problem in less than 4000 miles after being serviced under warranty. But I still had to pay for this manufacturing flaw to be fixed. However, the problem persists.

I greatly look forward to hearing from you.

 

[Mark_Bennett]

Berny,

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, and I AM very concerned with the issue, I am also concerned about some of the items in your (intended?) letter to Watchdog.

You are acting on the owners behalf? Who's? Mine?
By bringing watchdog into this we run the danger of devaluing the cars even more. Do you remember the FIAT Barchetta engine problems? All fixed now but no one remembers that - only the problem!
You imply you are acting for the club. Errrrr....
Watchdog will have to break the rules regarding accessing this site to see this thread - unless one of them is a member!

If you have not sent yet then I'm sure we could come up with something more attention getting, and if you want a selection of owners to represent, actually get names.

I think you will find Top Gear are well aware of the issue and have been for some years.

 

[Guest]

Mark,
Appreciate your comments but too late. The letter has gone.
I also think it says enough. It does not say I am representing pcgb or implying that I am.
And as for acting on behalf of owners (not members) with this problem,
I have already a few on my list gladly willing to for me to act on their behalf. I have already been in communication
with them in this regard. Additionally, there have been some members here expressing their wish to go forward to Watchdog
so I assume they will want to join me. If you guys are reading this and want to join the list then
please email or PM me privately.

We can deliberate here for ever more on this subject. So far nothing but wind has prevailed. I personaly have waited long enough and I want action now. I think others are thinking same.

As for breaking the rules. Well if it takes that then so be it. This is my pocket hurting here
and if it means you kick me out of pcgb then so be it. I just want my car fixed and I will go to any
end to make this happen. I think it would be very poor show if that is your choice.

As for residuals, I agree this is an unpleasant side effect of going to watchdog. But a class action
suit would do the same. Then again, if I/we win and Porsche say they will fix all these cars then residuals
go up no down.

 

[Guest]

Hear, hear !

 

[IainD]

ORIGINAL: NicD

Of the 1000 odd forms sent out to Boxster owners on file, 524 replied (a high number, indicative of high importance!, note that some are no longer owners)

Of these, 24% had experienced one or more RMS failure. Far too high, that's why I lobbied so hard with Porsche Cars (also mentioning the small number of catastrophic engine failures)

I noticed earlier in this thread the Porsche UK and the OPCs are not taking the survey seriously.
For example:

ORIGINAL: Scouser

As for the PCGB RMS Survey, I discussed this in detail with the chap at Reading (Mr Phil Hattam). He said that this survey was not conducted by Porche UK or PAG so while the results "may be interesting to PCGB members" they are not a true indication of any problem and there is no evidence from Porsche's data that the problem is so prevelant. He said that if there was as many cars with this problem as the Survey so purveys then they would have been called back so the Survey results should be seen to bare no meaning.

I have a suggestion on the interpretation of the results that can perhaps explain why.
Although you can state with absolute certainty that out of 524 respondees, 24% (or 126) have experienced RMS problem, you have to be careful how you interpret this figure with respect to the UK Boxster driving population. The natural interpretation is that 24% of Boxster owners have experienced problems and I think it's this interpretation that Porsche UK know to be wrong. They are therefore discounting the survey.
I think the 24% figure is not representative of the wider population because those who had experienced problems would be more likely to respond to the survey than those who hadn't: I suspect that considerable more than 52% of those with RMS problems responded "" maybe 90% of them!
I think a more useful result is that out of 1000 members surveyed, 126 had experienced problems, i.e. 13%. Again this can be stated with certainty. Although this figure is less dramatic, I feel it's more likely to be representative of the overall population, and it's better to have a less dramatic figure that people will believe and you can defend than an eye-catching one that gets laughed at!
But whichever figure you use, there's clearly a problem...
Hope this helps


Iain (C4S and PCGB member)

 

[Guest]

Bernie,

You can add me to your list of supporters, even though I have not suffered the problem as yet. Those who winge about the effect on residual values are likely not have had the problem otherwise they would be screaming for a fix and PCGB´s blood as you are (rightly). We want the problem fixed or covered, and this is a European issue (as I live in Spain mostly I would like to ensure that Porsche Germany recognise the issue).

I stand by my offer of financial help should it be required.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Bernie,

You know you have my support on this matter.

Steve,

I am more than happy to trump up £1k anytime, not because i have an RMS problem or an issue with Porsche cars but i really think that as a comapny that sells £65k++ cars if they cant just own up to a problem then they really dont value their customers. But i remember the issue regarding wiring looms on 911s and how long that took for Porsche to accept as a porblem!

I think that all thoose who think that the likes of top gear dont already know about the problem with porsches should look at these links. Note that the first link in in the "Duffers" section

http://www.topgear.com/content/my_topgear/duffers/D3/A3/02/
http://www.topgear.com/content/carknowledge.jsp

All i can say is when i trump up £80k for a new car, which i am told will last me for 220k miles if maintained. i look after it, take it as regular as clock work to the OPC to be serviced and pay hard earned cash for the previlage. If it then fails due to a design or component fault then i am sorry i am more than willing to put another £80K towards legal bills to persue Porsche. What i really think is that customer services do not accept this or are just plain dumb!

 

[Peter_Bull]

If you guys are reading this and want to join the list then
please email or PM me privately.

Berny

Please add me to your list.

Even though my MY 2001 996 Cab C2 has only done only 1500 miles - it makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach to think that all my hard earned cash may be lost overnight without some sort of decent representation.

I dare not look underneath my car for fear of finding something that I hope doesn't happen! Thanfully there are no oil drops on the floor - yet! The problem may well be 'ooo's of miles away for me, but then it would be too late if I'd stayed on the sidelines. I don't want to stick my head in the sand and hope that others will solve the problem for me. I'm willing to be counted - so please add my name to your list.

I appreciate what Nic has done and as an ex-Director I am fully aware of why the club will not go the extra mile that you (we) want them to. That is not to say I agree with the stance either.

If you need to chat etc - just email me and I can call.