very mature MUNRO.....

which is odd considerable your attack recently...read your direct quote:

"Why do discussions always get unpleasant when contrary opinions appear?"

Well if you aren't the perfect example of a pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know of a better example. Please grow up and come back where you do and can be more cordial.

c-ya,

 

the exact % affected is not the issue. i agree that would require porsche company numbers. can we at least agree that rms is a very frequent problem that should be addressed better by porsche?

 

Sorry, very childish I know ,but I just wish something could be done. I was cynical about this to begin with,(I haven't had a leak as yet) but this is really an injustice.

 

LVDell
Yes the survey is flawed. But Porsche reads theses boards. Do you thing they may be losing customers because of this issue? If I was a prospective buyer and read about RMS leaks I would think twice. So it's no 50% but it probably is higher than 10% and that is not trivial.

 

totally understand Munro......discussions like these can sure heat up quickly. I understand that and don't take anything personally. Frankly, I'd love to get a beer and chat more about this.

But in all seriousness, PCNA/PAG need to offer a FIX not a band-aid and a prayer. In my opinion, RMS in not that big of a deal. If you get it inside of your warranty or extended, then no issue. Outside, then drop $800. What bothers me (and why I support this crusade) is the seriousness if engine replacement is needed BECAUSE of the RMS. Now that is what is scary, not the seal. Adn you know they are aware of the seriousness of this since they have replaced God knows how many engines BECAUSE of a faulty RMS.

But, what is the best comprimise here? 100K? If that is the case, then its a moot issue for those with the extended. Life of the car? Probably a bit extreme. The goal is the present PCNA/PAG with the offer for resolution and that is where we need to concentrate our efforts. What is fair for both sides?

 

I am going to have to tell my Boxster friend Jean about this thread. He has a 2000 2.7 and has not had his car for 2 months as it is in the lot at our local dealer. I live and work near the dealership and stop by every week or so. I take pictures of Jean's poor car sitting in the lot and email them to him.

He had 3 rear seals and 2 intermediate shaft seals replace under warranty. Warrany expired and a 4th seal was put in, and it leaked as well. Porsche oked a rebuilt enigne which had a vibration problem and there was metal in the oil filter. 2nd rebuilt had same vibration problem. Then Jean was told he would get a new engine, but Porsche sent another rebuilt last week and 3rd rebuilt engine had same vibration problem.

So his car is sitting in the lot while Porsche figures out what to do next.

 

Where are the poll results?

 

99 C2 with 44000 miles...............no problemo!

 

From Surf Twang >
>Dell, I agree with you 100%. Even if Porsche used Six Sigma their target sigma value would be much lower. As you say, I doubt any auto manufacturer could afford a 6 sigma value. The interesting question is: how many defects can you allow before it gets noticed by the consumer and starts to influence sales? PAG must have the data and the results of their analysis must show that the RMS problem has not reached that point or that it ever will. Time will tell.
---------------------
Maybe I don't understand 6 sigma, but aren't defects calulated by industry norms (of some sort) and if you are 6 sigmas better you hit the goal? You can't even begin to do 6 sigma without starting with industry norms right?

Now that you know that over 100 people have had this problem (in this non-scientific survey), shouldn't the data be moved into the main stream publications? A press release, letter to the editor of Excellence, R&T, etc. might be just the ticket to see some movement.

Complaining here to your friends has a limited effect. I assume that someone has contacted someone from PCA and had a "I don't understand, please help me" conversation? Might be time to mount a simple PR campaign and see what happens.

 

Not quite. The Six Sigma process is a methodology used to determine current performance and identify, implement and measure improvements. Each company determines its target Sigma value which may be higher, lower, or the same as the industry average. For many industries/markets, Six Sigma is an unrealistic goal. Two or Three Sigma may be good enough.

We don't know if PAG actually uses Six Sigma but they must use some method to track defects. The point Dell and I are making is that PAG must be comfortable with the current defect level.

I would hestiate to go mainstream with data that is not statistically sound. A survey that is not randomly taken from the entire population and/or does not have enough data points to be statistically valid would never hold up in court. I think you need the facts ma'am, just the facts.

 

Thanks for the info ST.

Someone could write a letter that says, in an online forum a non-scientific survey was conducted and it appears that there were lots of ... Is ... a known problem on 996's in your opinion? Kind of a prisoner's delemna problem.

Spending $800 to fix it is well within my budget for the car. For example, a set of tires costs more and last 5k or 8k miles. I blown engine wouldn't be as nice.

 

mr twang

you are assuming that porsche is tracking defects in a systematic fashion. i see no basis for this assumption.

may i suggest that given their current profit margins they are becoming lax about this issue.

btw, bmw responded to pressure from a similiar internet forum to this regarding their m3's blowing engines.

your remarks about statistical significance are pure sophistry. i hope you don't don't have to become a member of the rms club to realize that some issues are simply a matter of common sense.

 

Like Dell, I give up.

I am not saying there is or is not a significant RMS problem with 996 and 986's. All I'm telling you is what it takes to have a valid survey. Porsche sold over 134,000 911s between 1998 and 2003 and nearly as many Boxsters. That's more than a quarter of a million cars. The survey in this thread, while commendable, is not representative.

Anyone who feels strongly about the RMS issue should probably take legal action. Just realize that this survey is NOT and WILL NEVER BE statistically valid and Porsche's defense lawyer would have a field day tearing it apart.

 

mr twang

your comments have gone far beyond explanations of statistical significance, a concept i understand at least as well as you do.

furthermore, the purpose of threads like this is not to provide a basis for a lawsuit. it is to alert fellow owners of potential problems and hopefully to alert porsche that they are pissing off some of their best customers who will vote with their feet rather than waste time with a lawsuit.

your mock exasperation is silly simply because you are missing these simple points...