6 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH2002 996 Coupe Gone - Fondly Remembered
Reported or suspected cause
inherent
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
The crux of the problem is inherent to the current( all ) flat 6 design.
Leading evidence: 'inherent' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'inherent' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace rear seals' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Unfortunately they have replaced the rear seals on many 996s.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
6 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T165820Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
After three great years both on the street and at DE's, my red 02 Coupe has been pre-traded in. As much as I loved it, the four RMSs including the one this fall right after PCNA gave me a new engine, did get to me though. With the warranty running out soon, I didn't want to risk having another out of spec crankshaft. Perhaps I was hasty as I apparently got one of the first of the new Cayenne RMS that they now claim is the solution in the M96 engines. But I got the "Solution" twice before. Better bolts one time and a stronger intermediate shaft the other time. Not an engineer so I can't claim to know whether the head mechanic was full of it or not. Actually, wait, I do. I had another RMS after Solution 1 and Solution 2. Really a bummer. The car was flawless if it weren't for those danged seals.
So now I will wait until the spring as DE season is over in New England (drove my 05 330i Performance Package at the last LRP event - really well balanced car). At least the depreciation clock has been stopped since I gave it to the dealer already. Will go with the 996 GT3 but wow that 997 C4S I saw at CA dealer two days ago is beautiful. But it has a M96/97 engine with the same issue! Can't believe that Porsche didn't address this!!! I would get a 997 as a daily driver just for its beauty. Nonetheless for all of those out there thinking of getting a plain 996 C2 - do it. Get a CPO warranty and sell it before that runs out. The cars are underloved for some reason based on the cheap prices but boy are they great cars. Farewell C2 Coupe. Will be missed.
The real seals on all cars can leak, so it doesn't surprise me that it did occur on a GT3. However unless you have evidence to the contrary, a RMS leak on a GT3 is very rare. Granted there aren't many GT3s around but according to the information I received from the three Porsche dealers near me is that they have never replaced the rear seal on a GT3. Unfortunately they have replaced the rear seals on many 996s.
There'e a hell of a lot more 996/boxsters out there than GT3's. Plus, m96 engines see a lot more daily driving exposure tha a GT3, more numbers, more miles driven/yr=more potential exposure for seal fail. To understand why it happens, you gotta study the design of the engine.
The crux of the problem is inherent to the current( all ) flat 6 design. The clamshell crankcase with minimal posterior support for the crankshaft, flywheel. Hence, a lot of force is put on the RMS/IS. The new m97 engine even had 1# of steel removed from the counterbalance portion of the crank to take some stress off. A LWFW may help, but a total engine redesign is the only 'cure'.
