9 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIMPORTANT: RMS Seal handling instructions
Leading reported evidence
Install already (mine doesn't unfortunately)
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
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 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
It suggests that all cars after Feb 22nd, 2000 with engine numbers of 11627 or more have the new seal fitted already (mine doesn't unfortunately).
Leading evidence: 'Install already (mine doesn't unfortunately)' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Install already (mine doesn't unfortunately)' (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.
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 contain suggestions
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.
Suggestion · Original poster
Just had a new gearbox and clutch fitted and told them to replace the RMS again.
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 contain suggestions
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.
Suggestion · Original poster
I guess I will have to run the gearbox in for the first couple thou miles?
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 contain suggestions
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.
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.
9 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Porsche Club GB: 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: 20261026T200546Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
The following is a PNA TSB providing instruction for how to handle the Rear Main Crankshaft Seal during installation. In
particular, the instruction that the Seal should be installed "DRY". not pre-oiled. I took my car in today again for yet
another seal replacement and gave the service manager a copy of this TSB. He was not aware that the seal needs
to be installed DRY.
During RMS replacement, it is in your own interest to see that your OPC engineer adheres to this procedure.
It suggests that all cars after Feb 22nd, 2000 with engine numbers of 11627 or more have the new seal fitted already (mine doesn't unfortunately). The question is if any of these newer cars are leaking?
Yes - the new seal does not really improve the situation - except perhaps in a small percentage of cases. My 2003 boxster (same engine as 996, just different capacity) had its RMS leaking by 10K miles - I have a friend with a similar 2003 boxster S and under 10K miles is on his 3rd seal.
That seal has been in production for 5 years. Many engines built with the seal, and some still leak. Then the exact same seal is put in again, and it can still leak. That's why just replacing the seal is not a guarantee the problem will not resurface. If the crankshaft is too far off-centered then a seal cannot retain the oil.
Jeff, I am now the record holder [&:]
Just had a new gearbox and clutch fitted and told them to replace the RMS again. It's now on its 7th.
I made certain they fitted it dry this time and also had them fit the new blue bolts. Let's see if it fixes it.
Don;t hold out much hope mind......but will know within 200 miles as the leak has always started within
200 miles in the past.
Must say, it's a different car with the new gearbox & clutch [
]
I guess I will have to run the gearbox in for the first couple thou miles?
The cat is out of the bag. The 997 uses the third generation seal. This rennlist guy with a Carrera S has a 3.8, and there were a lot of internal changes to the motor. Same issue and same fix as for the 996/986.
Rennlist
And the good news is???? The new Boxster uses the same seal as the 997. I am counting the days for the first 987 verified report.
Jeff
Thanks for that - why is it some of us thought that would be the case - perhaps we are becoming cynical.
An interesting one on the Boxster page if you have not viewed that as yet - something about how good Porsche are with regards to engineering prowess[
]
Notice that the 911 comes top for cars more than 8 years old but is (conveniently) not mentioned for new cars. That makes the 964 and 993 nicrely reliable (as we would expect) but the 996 a dogs breakfast. Great!
The original seal that went into production in 1996 when the Boxster came out I think was 999 113 476 40. Then the second generation seal, 999 113 490 40, went into production on Feburary 22, 2000 for both the 986/996.
The third generation seal appeared on the 997. 999 113 490 41. The new Boxster, 987, still has on the parts list the the second generation seal. But if you try to order it it takes you to the superseded third generation seal.
So I went to my local parts department and took some pictures of the 2nd and 3rd generation seals. There is almost 5 years difference between the seals. Can you spot the difference?
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
