theonlyrobertson

I'm likely to get my clutch replaced this fall and when I spoke to the guy at the shop about it, he stated that while they are in there, they'll do the RMS.

I have 2000 C2 and never had any issues since I've owned the car. I got it with 38Kmiles and now it has 48K.

Here's the dilemna. If the area around the seal is dry and shows no signs of a leak, should I leave it alone or should I update the seal with a newer design.

BTW, I would have the cam cover seal replaced.

Thanks for the feedback.


--Dale

10 GT3

Yes. Keep in mind that it could be the RMS or the IMS. Do the IMS too. Why would you have the cam cover seal (AKA valve cover) replaced. Is it also leaking?

theonlyrobertson

My fault, I was thinking IMS when I wrote cam cover(it's Friday evening... a couple of glasses of wine, you know the story). IMS is.... the intermediate shaft?

--Dale

99firehawk

Ive seen alot that the trans is out and then he rms starts lekaing but ive seen alot that never have an issue until you change the seal.
if it were my car id change them both

smackboy1

In talking to the service writer when I had my RMS done, he said he would recommend changing the RMS to the new 997 seal (which is seated deeper using a special tool) if the tranny was going to be off the car anyway. Most of the cost for an RMS is in the labor taking it all apart. He also mentioned that he's never seen a car w/ the new 997 RMS come back (I can't vouch for the veracity of that statement). If the RMS is replaced, what is the warranty on that repair?

Also, do you have any kind of warranty which would cover RMS? Maybe the RMS is leaking albeit not badly? Any oil stain around the housing? Take a careful look. I had the opposite of your situation, I had a very small RMS leak, and while it was repaired under warranty, I got my clutch done at the same time.

Funnily enough when they had my car apart my valve cover was leaking too (unrelated to the RMS).

a1certified

I'm in the same boat - wanting to get a new clutch and wondering if I should replace the seals "while you're in there".

The story I was told was that it was reasonable to replace the main seal, but that it was not as beneficial to replace the intermediate seal. The reasoning given was twofold. First, the design and function of the seals is supposedly different with the intermediate seal's function and design not as prone to leaking. Something about the way the shaft goes through and spins within the seal being different than with the main seal. Second, the amount of labor and potential for screwing things up in the changing of the intermediate seal was much greater. He said something about timing or valves, which I didn't quite understand.

It's interesting to me how so much of what is done in cars is based on personal and anecdotal experience. The field of medicine is undergoing a paradigm shift where the physician's personal experiences are taking a back seat to best-practice guidelines where large numbers of patients are evaluated and consensus recommendations are made regarding the risk/benefit ratio of various interventions. This RMS/IMS replacement issue seems like a perfect example of a situation where this type of analysis would have been very useful. Track the number of cars out there. Track the number that have leaks. Track the number that have had the seal replaced prophylactically. Track the number of those that subsequently leaked. Etc, etc, etc. And you wonder why medicine is so expensive these days!

rountreed

Hey look at it this way for an extra what $100-$200 you get a 2 year warranty on your RMS/IMS. Have them replace it!

1999Porsche911

If you go by some of the logic on this thread, you should replace all ignition coils when you change spark plugs since many coils are prone to cracking. Why would anyone replace a seal that there is no problem with? Are you looking for trouble?

a1certified

I think the main driver of the "while you're in there" phenomenon is the fact that 90% of the cost of the repair is the labor to get to the failed part. If you are in there doing a repair that exposes the failure-prone part anyways, there can be an argument made that the failure-prone part be replaced at the same time.

Additionally, I don't think that anyone would recommend changing out a part that had no history of failures, even "while you're in there". But the part being discussed has a history of failures and has had its design and/or installation recommendations changed over the years so that the part that would be installed now is different than the old part.

I don't know if the ignition coils are the same with respect to the ratio of labor to get at them vs. the cost of the part to replace them, so I don't know if it is a good analogy or not.

99firehawk

ign coils......................................are we talking cayennes now? i couldnt tell you th last time I replaced ign coils on a sports car...............probaly over a year ago

Adrian

Dale,
You might consider the old saying "If it ain't broke don't try and fix it". Of course mechanics advise such things, it's their job. They are not being nice they are trying to make money.
This can work out the following ways:
1/. The non leaking RMS is replaced with a new one and it doesn't leak. Owner has parted with his money, but he doesn't really know if he achieved anything.
2/. The current non leaking RMS is not replaced and some time down the track it starts to leak and the owner says: "Damn I should have replaced it then".
3/. The current non leaking RMS is replaced by a new RMS and some time down the track it starts to leak and the owner says: "Damn why did I have that RMS replaced?"

I have been doing this Porsche stuff for a long time and my experience has been that the prospect of stuffing things up further are increased when you start trying to fix things that are not broken. I do not believe in preventative maintenance on cars. This makes money for mechanics, but usually ends up costing the owner far more than it should.
I am also interested to know why it's only "likely" you are going to get your clutch replaced this coming fall.
The clutch is either kaput and it has to be replaced or it is not and you don't need to get it replaced????
However it is your money and your decision.
Ciao,
Adrian.

Jicko

Replace the RMS! 50%+(maybe more like 75%+) original RMS on 996s(at least the earlier ones) have had its RMS replace to the newer version, the chance that you will have to do it sooner or later is quite high.

I think both clutch replacement and RMS replacement is the same labor cost (~8hrs, maybe 1hr more if both are done). The RMS itself cost $16.36!! And maybe another $15 worth of new bolts/screws in there!

I recently have this all done. RMS is slightly leaking and is covered by my extended warranty, while I'm there, I got a new clutch installed (I purchased the clutch kit from Sunset for $400 and brought that kit to the dealership). If you are also trying to purchase parts from Sunset, be sure to order the updated clutch release lever(and parts) too!

Sunset's price is SO MUCH better than any dealership and even indy shops, they are Porsche parts w/ sealed Porsche boxes. There are no reasons for dealership or shops to refuse to use those parts (yet you will save yourself a LOT of money).

Clutch:
- dealership: $700
- sunset: $400

Clutch Lever Kit:
- dealership: ~$45
- sunset: $25

I've all the part numbers (incl. those bolts and screws), PM me if you want them.

PS. just do your RMS if you don't have any issue with your IMS; the RMS is a known problem, while the IMS is generally OK(not a common issue, at least)

fast1

I have been doing this Porsche stuff for a long time and my experience has been that the prospect of stuffing things up further are increased when you start trying to fix things that are not broken. I do not believe in preventative maintenance on cars. This makes money for mechanics, but usually ends up costing the owner far more than it should.

Generally I'd agree with your point of view, but it's not going to cost much more replacing the RMS during the clutch replacement. Couple that with the fact that a large percentage of 996s, Excellence states up to 50%, need to have the RMS replaced, makes for a strong case for relatively inexpensive preventive maintenance in this case.

smackboy1

Here is an interesting article you can read:

http://www.renntech.org/forums/index...e=post&id=3223

BruceP

Oh, I agree. Sorry if I was unclear; my comment was more general. If I was in this guy's shoes, I'd do the seal. Acknowledging the sense of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', it's also true that seals age. For all it's going to cost, and for the warranty that results, to me it would be a no brainer on any of my cars.