The answer for RMS problems?

[JCB..]

As I see it, and by all accounts many others on this forum, is that the 'Club' (i.e. Directors) should be acting on behalf of Porsche owners to represent their case as strongly as possible. A fair and equitable solution on a par with PCA would be all that we ask.

Well said Peter!

JCB..

 

[Guest]

Nic

With you all the way but I do not think we have reached the stage of going 'head to head' with Porsche Cars GB as yet - negotiation is the only way forward with a 100% backing from the Board of our Club.

In saying that I am not knocking Scouser and others for taking alternative routes - their frustration is fully understood considering the circumstances.

Being retired I can probably find time easier than those in work so count me in as a volunteer - albeit that I am presently unaffected by a failing RMS.

And finally as one of the originators on this issue I am prepared to act as secretary on an RMS sub committee to take the pressure off you & others![]

 

[chrisr]

I have been reading with great interest the unfolding events of RMS and would like to add my two pennys worth as somebody who purchased his first Porsche about 10 months ago and saw this as a stepping stone to further Porsche purchases, as Ive wanted a Porsche since I was a wee lad. Im on the outside as the RMS is never going to affect my old but great 944 but very recently I was considering a Boxster for my girlfriend and the whole RMS problem has had a slight influence on my decision.

The work being done by Berny, Nic, JCB, Peter and others must be applauded and you must continue this ' battle ' against Porsche AG as the Uk-Us stance defies believe in the year 2004. Anything I can do as somebody not directly effected then count me in.

Cheers

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the support chrisr. It is extremely comforting that we are seeing support from our none 996/986 owner PCGB members on this thread. We need as much backing as possible. Good on you mate.

 

[dawn lang]

Nic,

I'm another one who would like to thank you sincerely for all the hard work you've put into this. It's certainly not resolved but that's not your fault. You've been thorough and I trust implicitly the fact that you've worked bloody hard to put over our points of view to the people in power.

If I can be of any help at all I would be pleased to offer any assistance. I spend my entire life organising meetings and typing if either of those skills are of use to you.

[]

 

[NicD]

thank you Dawn

I appreciate all the support!

 

[Guest]

Nic

Good to see that the 'aggression' towards you is begining to die down.

I'm not involved in all this (old fashioned, tough, engine), but I thought that you were getting treated a bit unfairly. Possibly on the back of any 'problems' that some people have been having with the board as a whole.

I also think that you are on a no-win course, but good luck, anyway.

 

[hawkhead]

WRT to action by the club I would like to see a proper article in Porsche Post (it would help counter that amazingly stupid editorial)

 

[NicD]

Yes, I am going to write this up but am waiting to see what the Club actions will be. I already had an action item to present the Survey results in PP, but got a little side tracked by the Festival.

 

[Grant]

Good on you Nic I do agree that the club should be taking issue's like this to Porsche GB, (who are fully owned by Porsche Germany as far as I understand!) it is only with the weight of a large number of Porsche owners & potential owners that they are likely to move.
The 996 & Boxter are hardly the first Porsches with issues just look at the 964's oil leak/seal (or lack of it!) problem for one, but I have to fully agree RMS is an ongoing issue. My first 996 had to have three new RMS fitted before it was ok, this was done under warranty & to be fair I haven't experienced a problem on other Porkers since (touch wood!) but £800 isn't a small amount of money to find if your pride & joy does spring a leak!!!!
Why not do another more in-depth survey of the number of people affected by RMS as back up for the approach, you can certainly add my name.
Regards
Grant

 

[Guest]

Grant, that's a really good idea.
Nic, now is probably a good time to survey the 996 Register and as Grant says if it shows similar results then
it will be even more reason and amunition for the campaign.

BTW: This being an Olympic year and my 5th RMS is soon to go in I thought I would mount them on the wall
to commemorate the occasion.

 

[tim court]

I'd like to mount the bloke who designed the engine in the first place.......

And I'm not talking about a wall either[]

 

[Dapster]

ORIGINAL: tim court

I'd like to mount the bloke who designed the engine in the first place.......

And I'm not talking about a wall either[]

Perhaps you could show him just what a correctly inserted RMS would look like - for everyones benefit.

 

[bones]

KINKY!

 

[Rotorhead]

I believe that the 996 Register have specifically decided not to get involved with the RMS issue, which is why they did not participate in the RMS Survey.

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: oliver

I believe that the 996 Register have specifically decided not to get involved with the RMS issue, which is why they did not participate in the RMS Survey.

But the subject has gone to a higher level now. Before it was obviously optional and being involved
in the survey was left for each Register admin to decide. It's now time to reflect on the urgency of the
situation which has become most important to the clubs wellbeing. The whole online Porsche world
is waiting with baited breath on the fallout from this survey and what PCGB's next move will be.
Whilst I can understand that the 996 Register would prefer not to get involved I think it should now
be made a compulsary item for the Register's agenda. And the sooner the better.

 

[Rotorhead]

You would have to speak to the 996 Register Secretary for clarification.

So far as I am aware, only Boxster Register have pursued this initiative, despite the issue affecting examples of both models.

Incidentally, I have had three Boxsters and two 996s and, although I have had one seal replaced under warranty, in the context of overall ownership, I am not unduly concerned about RMS. Nevertheless, I would feel more comfortable if Porsche had a clearer policy regarding this matter.

 

[Guest]

Getting back to the technicalities......

Proabably the two most active people pursuing this RMS problem is myself and a very knowlegable chap called
Tool Pants whom you may have seen postings from on other Porsche forums. While I am seen as the one doing the
most moaning and groaning, Jeff by all accounts has added much more technical input and he is a veritable encyclopedia
on the subject. His pasttime hobby is taking his Boxster apart and putting it back together again for the benefit of us all.
He has witnessed first hand the replacement of the RMS (probably several times).

In my previous postings in regards to the cause and technical details of the RMS failure and the mechanisms
and tools used to measure the crankshaft seal bore tolerance, I have shown pictures of the RMS, the engine
with the RMS fitted and the Mandrel tool used to check and fit it. These pictures were taken by Tool Pants.

Why am I telling you this? Well, I have been reading a recent thread on renntech.org and Tool Pants
has made a very interesting observation in regards to the tool used to check the tolerance. Here is his
quote:

This measuring mandrel is turning out to be much about nothing.

I talked to 2 mechanics I know at my local dealer. They have never had a car where the mandrel did not fit, yet seal leaks continued after passing the mandrel test.

I will use Jean's 2000 Boxster as an example as his car is at my local dealer now.

He had 4 seal replacements over the years, and the 4th seal leaked as well. The last 2 replacements were done after the new tools, including the mandrel, had come out. I know my dealer has them because they put on the tech session where we were shown them. Jean knows about them because he was at the tech session.

So the fact the mandrel fits means nothing. They have gone back to hand measuring like in the past.

By the time of the 4th seal leak Jean's car was out of warranty. In July they gave up on more seal replacements and put in a rebuilt engine. The rebuilt engine had a vibration problem, and the oil filter was loaded with metal. So after 800 miles the rebuilt engine was replaced with another rebuilt engine. Same problem.

So now he gets a new engine. It is supposed to be here from Germany by the end of the week.

So it seems that this mandrel tool, which the UK OPC's are only just getting used to and are being told to
use when changing the RMS is likely to be a red herring.
I suggest that if you have to have your RMS replaced, demand that the engineer uses the mandrel and
also performs a second measurement with a feeler gauge to ensure it is within specified tolerance.

Finally, another poster (Tom 77) on rennlist.com mentioned another interesting feature of this RMS problem:

The sad thing about all this is that the engine you have in there will never stop leaking. My theory is that the real problem is that the case, which keeps the steel crankshaft carrier in place, will never hold the carrier in place and it will keep on moving unless you take the engine out and re-fasten the 2 halves. The last fix at the dealer (I was watching this as he was doing it) is the replacement of the bolts as well as the seal at the back of the engine. I watched the tech unscrew one of the bolts without a tool, that's how loose they get. unfortunarly, replacing the back screws will not tighten the rest of the case, so that car will be back. I had my engine replace at 11k miles and now have 24 k miles and not a drop. I was leaking from 6k miles on with the first engine. Obviously they tightened things properly on the remanufactured engines.

Tool pants has mentioned this problem with the casing bolts as I have in previous postings here. I find this last
post very concerning.

 

[bones]

God this gets worse, how will you ever get a head when I read
...... 'In July they gave up on more seal replacements and put in a rebuilt engine. The rebuilt engine had a vibration problem, and the oil filter was loaded with metal'....... was the engine rebuilt in Stuttgart or here? That is basic stuff and unforgiveable for a factory trained mechanic/team. As a future potential buyer of something like a GT3 I wouldn't want my car seviced by such people.

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Scouser

I find this last post very concerning.

Berny

I suspect we all feel the same - but I reckon Porsche will know the answer hence the need to continue with the research and negotiation through the Board of our Club with Porsche. []