Gundo

Click the link below, right click Download File at top left of page.

Many thanks to LorenS for compiling data and crunching it.

I've also posted this message to sticky on Boxster/S forum

Gundo

Boxster Failure Survey results

Oldtee

Warning, I get a spyware notice on this site.

wetstuff

Any place to view rather than dnld? ..or, send it to me; I'll hang it on one of my sites.

j i m

cdodkin

Can someone get this data somewhere clear and safe to download - I'm getting my Mac warning me about this download as well - and even though I like to feel smug in my 'malware free' Mac world, I'm not about to scrtew my machine over an unknown file!

Update - My Mac-induced security smugness got the better of me - I downloaded!

cdodkin

Of the 255 received surveys:
Percentage of cars having manual transmissions: 84 %
Percentage of cars having tiptronic transmissions: 16 %
The reported percentages are very close to the 85% manual figures that I have heard on the board.

Percentage of manual transmission cars that experienced a seal leak: 44 %
Percentage of tiptronic transmission cars that experienced a seal leak: 34 %
Based on this data, manual transmissions are 10% more likely to leak. This makes sense solely based on the inconsistencies of us humans manually shifting, versus the computer doing it in a tiptronic. This figure is not model year dependant.

Percentage of cars that have had an intermediate or rear main seal failure: 35 %
Percentage of cars that have had a total engine failure: 8 %
Percentage of all reported cars having any type of failure (total of above 2 items): 43 %
Since I do not have this data for any car other than a Boxster, I cannot make an objective analysis of the 35% number above. But I bet if a major Detroit label had numbers that high, it would make the news.

Percentage of cars from 1997 – 2002 having seals or engine failures: 51 %
Percentage of cars from 2003 – 2005 having seals or engine failures: 24 %
It appears that the redesigned seals of 2003 and later were far superior than their predecessors, accounting for a 53% decrease in seal leaks after 2002. Furthermore, according to the collected data, there appears to be an ongoing decrease of seal leaks at the rate of approximately 5% per year. Good news for new owners.

Percentage increase of having a seal leak in cars that are not warmed up before driving: 12 %
Percentage increase of having a seal leak in winter driven cars not warmed up before driving: 21 %
Percentage of having a seal leak in a winter driven, non-warmed up, manual transmission, 1998 car: 82 %
That last item shows cumulative effect of all of the above items. That is not to say that the failure will always happen. This just shows the likelihood of having a failure. Needless to say, I started warming up my car for one or two minutes before driving it.

Questions on the survey form that were determined to be neutral (45% to 55%) and had no effect on the final analysis were as follows: Size of engine (S or non-S), parking style, frequency driven, road type, maintenance schedule, garaged, oil quantity range, winter storage, and track time.

Questions on the survey form that were determined to be minor effectors (10% or more differentiation from the mean average) were as follows: Transmission type, and warming up the engine prior to driving.

Questions on the survey form that were determined to be major effectors (20% or more differentiation from the mean average) were as follows: Year of car, and cold winter driving conditions.

Oldtee

Interesting data. I admit I didn't do a search, but ? anyway. what is the average cost of a rms or is leak?

racer

The seal is cheap. The problem is the motor/trans drop to get to it - so, for a dealer, its likely $1000. There's the rub. As a dorki I know you are used to engine drops though . I've seen a catastrophic failure and small leaks (think like 911 valve cover leaks). It's just oil and oil is still cheap

pl

finally, something real data.
thanks

djomlas

i think i need to start warming up my winter driven manual 98 some more.

finally some real data. but scary that so many of them have it

it would be nice to see the mileage of all these cars when the RMS happened

fast1

Percentage of manual transmission cars that experienced a seal leak: 44 %
Percentage of tiptronic transmission cars that experienced a seal leak: 34 %
Based on this data, manual transmissions are 10% more likely to leak.

Not to be too pedantic, but based on your data manual transmissions are almost 30% more likey to leak than automatics.

LVDell

I am only going to say this once as a stats professor and then leave y'all to interpret as you see fit but this "data" that you claim have is worthless. While they are "fun" to do and debate about they are anecdotal at best. If you are serious about collecting this data properly, you will need 2 things. (1) Read the following text....Survery Reserach Mehods by Fowler, and (2) get the cooperation of PCNA to allow you to actually "sample" the population of owners. This is a quest that guys on the 996 forum tried and failed miserably as well. Fun, but not scientific and generalizable

nycebo

Right on, this data is so skewed because the sample population that would come to this forum in search of help is clearly higher than all those drivers who never have the problem, never research it, and thus never report it. So, to sum up, I think it is not useable in order to draw conclusions about the general porsche driving public. However, I do think it is acceptable in order to draw conclusions about RMS failures by year and driving (warm-up) style. It certainly seems to indicate that newer model cars that are properly warmed up suffer the problem less. Moreover, I've read on other surveys that the rate of failure within models but differentiated by year is interesting. To sum up, it was noted that 1999 cars and 2002 cars suffered higher rates of RMS failures than later iterations of those designs. FWIW....

Ray S

I am with Dell and NYCEBO on this one. Due to the way the data was sampled you can have no statistical confidence in the numbers.

However, it is certainly interesting to look at.

cdodkin

Based on the 'cease and desist' attitude of PCNA over this issue, I can't see them co-opertating in a survey, can you?

Other anacdotal evidence can of course be collected - from independant Porsche specialists, Porsche staff that are willing to discuss issues, club level contacts etc.

Non of this is going to be statistically viable, but viewed all together, it does present a picture that is more representative of the 986 population.

My local independant puts the RMS issue at 1 in 8, based on the 986/996 population they service - so that's their local sample of the Porsche population for example.

LVDell

Actually, it doesn't. Once again, totally violating every assumption of generalizability.

Actually that's not the local population. And how does he get the number 1 in 8? 1 RMS from every 8 cars that come in? Once again, not good interpretation.

As I have said, this is something that really ignites some people but the fact is that NOBODY really knows (except PCNA and they aren't talking) what the number is. I would assume it is rather small since PCNA has some high-priced beancounters that know if the number were as large as some of y'all think, then it would have been cheaper to just admit it and fix (or warrant just the RMS for "x" number of miles). Seriously, do you honestly think that is 1 in 8 of the 9X6/9X7 motor cars were faulty that they would ignore it? And most here would say that your 1 in 8 number is low and it is more like 1 in 3 or greater that are afflicted.