The grease belongs on the roller shafts, not the roller faces. It comes off the face onto the fuzz/squeegee (rattle dampener) and builds up. I wonder if they change those?

 

Don't know if it is BS or not, my dealer said he has only seen the problem on Boxters. Does it happen even more often with Boxters.

I do alot of class action work and though about this topic, but the problem is they are covering the stuff under warranty and not sure what the damages would be.

 

Doug,

They are not always covering it under warranty. Check over at PPBB.com. There are a number of people over there that have had to pay for their own repairs.

Lastly, I believe there are damages in the sense that the value of the cars has diminished if you are trying to sell it privately. If you have a history of RMS leaks and your car is not under warranty, it could be impossible to sell privately.

 

Just another take on this story. This RMS issue is not new to Porsche, 911 owners over the years have had issues with this seal. Here is a link to another guy having the same issues. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...7&goto=newpost . I just rebuilt my 2.7 RS Spec motor and have replaced that seal once and I’m about to replace it again. I’m hoping that I don’t have crankshaft location issues like some of the others on this board.

My question to the group is: If Porsche deems your case to require a new engine (not really a big deal unless this is your daily driver) then what happens to all those engines that get removed? If the crank is out of tolerance w.r.t. it’s location in the case then that can be remedied by new bearings and measuring and possibly truing up the case. Do the engines make it back into production cars or are they kept as spares for other RMS seal cases?

Tristan

 

When Porsche replaces an engine, it is my understanding that the old engine gets sent back to Germany. As some of the replacement engines are remanufactured (marked with an "X" at the end of the VIN) I would guess that the engines returned are re-worked and put into inventory to be used as RMS replacement engines.

Just my guess as they are getting remanufactured engines from somewhere and they can't all be production engines that didn't meet spec.

 

I wonder if someone could take a minute to make clear what the out of spec problem is, exactly. Does the crankshaft sit in the two cases in an out of spec way because of a casting issue, or does the crankshaft exit the cases in an off-axial position, or are the two case halves simply joined in a misaligned way?

Steve
99 996 no leaks
76 930 - some leaks, but not rms
64 356C - drip pan

 

Reading all these things can be really discouraging. What is frustrating (for everyone) is not really knowing what percentage of cars is thus afflicted. In 10 pages of thread, I've counted 16 actual cases of this happening (I counted multiple RMS on the same car as one case though). That perhaps is not really very much, but it is difficult to say with certainty.

I am the humble owner of a Subaru WRX which has had no problems at all. But when I go on to various boards, I see all sorts of horror stories that make it sound like every car has major transmission troubles. Yet in the local Subaru club, only two people have had actual problems (out of a few hundred) so it looks COMPLETELY different from that perspective.

Having said all that, it is clear that some 996 and 986s are definately having this problem, and it should be fixed. When I was in Germany recently I went to the factory to see the museum and the factory tour. Being an engineer that has been in many different factories, I was hugely impressed by Porsche. I hope this issue, however large or small can be rectified in a fair manner.

Some other thoughts:

1) Porsche is a company of engineers, and constant detail refinement is the norm. I am sure the designers have been trying to solve this problem but the fact that it still seems to occur indicates that they have not yet (completely) mastered this. This indicates the the issues is probably affected by a number of variables and is consequently more difficult to remedy. To us outsiders it seems like it should be pretty easy to get a handle of this, but that is not the case.

2) I found the earlier discussion that the new 997 crankcase had been used in an engine replacement interesting. Perhaps Porsche has arrived at a design solution that will at least improve this situation.

3) In the meantime, look on the bright side, there are worse problems to have in a car, and all cars do have them. It's just that you usually don't find out until you have one! Try reading about what Ferrari owners go through...(again, its hard to really know the scope just from what a naturally vocal group of victims post...how big is the "silent majority"?)

Thanks,

Allan

 

I did a VERY quick and unscientific count of the postings with and without the RMS problem. I did not count mulitple occurances to the same car and I did not include Boxsters. Here are some stats (but don't hold me to them!):

Total cars:26
% w/RMS problem 42%

Cars without RMS problems:
Total cars = 15
Avg miles = 27700
Median miles = 21500
Highest mileage = 74000
Lowest mileage = 2500
1999 = 6
2000 = 3
2001 = 3
2002 = 1
2003 = 0
2004 = 2

Cars with RMS problems:
Cars without RMS problems:
Total cars = 11
Avg miles = 23300
Median miles = 1600
Highest mileage = 48000
Lowest mileage = 3000
1999 = 1
2000 = 1
2001 = 1
2002 = 3
2003 = 4
2004 = 1
(only ten cars because one didn't include model year)

 

Surf,

There are lies, damn lies and statistics

I ASSume that you did this by going through the list of posters in this particular thread. Unfortunately that will skew the results horribly – a bit like putting a sign up that says “AIDS cure convention tonight” and polling the people that attend your meeting only to discover that 80% of the population have AIDS!

What we really need is a poll of the whole group – even then you will only get those that are interested in the RMS problem so it will still be skewed. Ultimately I’m afraid that the only accurate figure you will get will be the one from Porsche but, if the figures are not good, they will probably not share.

C’est la vie.

Barry

 

I agree completely. I took the responses from the thread about not having RMS problems, and the various threads about those that do. As I said, this was not at all scientific and was done primarily for fun and out of curiosity.

 

Sorry - didn't mean to be a PIA - unfortunately I just took a statistics course all about making sure that your sample is worth having and couldn't help myself

I'll go and flog myself now...

Barry

 

I hear what you're saying. I'm a Six Sigma Black Belt by profession which means I'm very heavy into statistics. With a bit of elbow grease we might be able to uncover some statistically meaningful data but for now I'm just doing it for fun.