Irishdriver

actually I would even say that Porsche don't know the figures.

Given that many people that answered the survey are interested in their cars but many of the rest of the owners don't even know what their mechanic did to fix the oil leak. Some don't even know that their car has a leak. and many - like me didn't do the survey as my car has never leaked and I'm too lazy to push this point.

In fact the people pushing the point are more likely to be the ones affected, or know someone affected so I would generalise that the anecdotal evidence from this survey is inherently biased to paint a worse picture than reality.

However all generalisations are dangerous, even this one !!!.

LVDell

Actually they do have the info available to them based SOLELY on that which is logged by repairs ONLY done at PCNA dealers. Obviously the indy's wouldn't count since they are not accountable to PCNA so that leaves a hole in the data as well.


BINGO!

Gundo

I'm not chiming in either way. This was an attempt by LorenS to collect and analyze data. The fact that only 255 people bothered to send in the survey out of more than 200,000 Boxsters sold is troubling enough in its own right.

You can debate statistical methodology all day long, but until Porsche comes clean, your not going to get better data than this.

Please visit ppbb.com for many more posts on this very topic. Here is a link to the original post by
LorenS

http://www.ppbb.com/scgi-bin/boards/...l?read=1165280

cdodkin

Dell - this Porsche question like sending an unmanned mission to Mars, and then trying to extrapolate ideas about the whole planet from two small rovers and a couple of satellites.

You only have the data that's in front of you to work with, and getting any more is pretty much impossible.

So you review it based on a number of perspectives, use your experience from other similar enviroments, and make your own call on how it looks.

You could be wrong, but at least you're out there trying!

Chris.

cdodkin

People are lazy - maybe that's the only real conclusion from this survey!

But I knew that already......

LVDell

This will be my last comment on this since it just isn't getting across. But there is no such thing as "working with what you got" in the world of research. Either you have it or you don't, period. And getting more data is NOT impossible. Uphill battle? Yes. But not impossible.

There are 2 main things we strive for in our research.....reliabilty and validity. For without them you have failed. Reliability allows you to GENERALIZE to the population from the sample. Key though is the sample must be taken from that population and taken in a way that does not violate any of the rules or assumptions of data collection. Validity as well is something you strive for in that it assures that you are accurately measuring what you intend to.

In this case, statistically speaking, the "researcher" has failed on both counts. And for that researcher to make the statements he has are nothing more than pulling a conclusion out of your @ss.

Fun to look at, these studies are. Fun to watch people get so f'in charged up about them so they can indentify with a certain result and provide themselves an answer to the problem other than the correct one since it now fits into what they "knew all along". Sure, the answer is still out there somewhere. But finding it will prove to be a bit more difficult that just putting together a "survery" such as the one this worthless data is based on.

cdodkin

Dell, I know you love this stuff, because you can go strut your stuff in a public forum.

Perhaps you can save us all from this discussion, and use you excellent communication skills to convince PCNA to provide us with some statisically significant data to chew on.

LVDell

Has nothing to do with "strutting my stuff" but rather to help our Rennlist buds understand that they are getting all worked up over nothing.

BTW, I would LOVE to be able to have carte blanche in the PCNA service database! But we all know that ain't gonna happen without employment (which I am not applying for) or without a subpoena from a lawsuit. That ain't money I am investing either. Until then........


ps. I "strut my stuff" everyday in a public forum (away from Rennlist). It's kind of required in my line of work.

cdodkin

Hell - as you eluded to on the 996 forum - I'm just mad and crazy, looking to justify my 2 for 2 score on replacement engines for Boxsters ('97 and '99 - slipped cylinder lining and porous block) and my neighbor's replacement engine in his '98 (Porous block), and my buddy's replacement engine in his '01 (IMS Failure), and my other buddy with his' 98 with original engine but leaking RMS.

Not statistically significant - but interesting when it gets personal

LVDell

That wasn't me. Check your facts then attack. It was 1999Porsche911.

I'm now bored with this

cdodkin

No 'attack' intended - purely reflecting you your witty asides on the 996 forum.

I completely agree with your statistical stance, but for some reason you seem to want to interpret my postings as being in some way against your position....

Requires further analysis on your part, then I'm sure you'll see my point.

I think you came at this one expecting me (or someone else) to 'have a go at you' about your perfectly logical position on stats.

The rest is history....

fast1

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

Even if 30% of 996 owners had RMS leaks, why would Porsche issue a recall, especially since this isn't a safety issue. It certainly is far less expensive to replace the seals of all cars affected than to check out the seals of all 996s that were sold. Furthermore, recalls are obviously bad press, and any manufacturer isn't going to issue one unless there is some compelling reason to do so.

I thought that Porsche put this issue to bed with the release of the new seal.

arenared

While I'm sure very real people have had very real experiences with RMS and catastrophic engine failures, I thank LVDell for correctly adding some statistical perspective.

I, too, find it impossible to believe that anywhere near 50% had seal/engine failures (in my model year range). Of the half-dozen or so whatever 986/996 owners that I have sort of "randomly" met that even knew what an RMS was or were concerned enough to even bring up the subject (which would be a biased population anyway), no one had an RMS problem.

I do believe there is a perception problem which is exacerbated by Porsche not stepping up to the plate in more cases where they should have. The fact that there have been many RMS versions (along with coolant tank versions) indicate there has been some sort of problem, but knock on wood, I have not had any coolant tank problems, either.

Among the heavily biased population of LorenS's "survey respondents", there are some interesting tendencies which may make for interesting discussions. But, I don't think the results are generalizable to all owners, and it could even be that the newer cars just haven't developed a leak YET.

The best thing that can come out of these types of discussions is for Porsche to realize there is a perception problem and, if in fact the numbers are small, then fix the failures under some sort of goodwill arrangement and turn the disgruntled owners into Porsche advocates. An example is some months ago, I received a letter from Lexus regarding some remote/rare defect/failure. They went on to offer some absurd length of extension on the warranty for that part and offer free inspection/replacement of the part on the next visit, etc. That is a better way to manage perception that Lexus stands behind its products.

Irishdriver

I think what we have proved here is that the occurance is sufficiently frequent for a pattern to be observed and for different experiences in the solution of the problem to have occurred.

Practically every model of car has weaknesses but we expect more from our Porsches (and our dealers). My previous 964 had predictable problems. My 914 has known design faults. Perfection would be boring.

Personally I find the evasiveness of Porsche over a known problem more worrying that the (relatively low) frequency of the problem.

cdodkin

The RMS problem is never going to be completely fixed by a modified seal.

The problem is one of engine design, with no bearing to support the intermediate shaft at that point in the 986/996, it will always have the tendency to deflect and wear the seal until it leaks.

The 996 TT & GT3 cars, with the older aircooled bottom end, have the support they need at this critical point, and do not have this issue, for example.

Some of the 'enhanced' TT cars are putting huge horsepower through the standard aircooled bottom end, still with no issues around RMS.

So Porsche would have to do a redesign on the 986/996/997 block to fix the issue, and as of the latest engines, this has not happened.

There are already 997 drivers with leaking RMS - there are less that with the launch of the 996, because Porsche do have a more resilient seal fitted - but the problem will remain a 'feature' of this block design, and should not be considered a terminal issue.