6 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHLN crankshaft Go-no Go tool
Leading reported evidence
Check with ln, they have a tool
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
Check with LN, they have a tool that I believe is $50.
Leading evidence: 'Check with ln, they have a tool' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check with ln, they have a tool' (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 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
When doing the IMSB, its a perfect time to replace the AOS with the UAOS, RMS and give the clutch and flywheel a good lookover.
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 have a rear main seal leak and am thinking about replacing the seal.
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: 20261026T183130Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Has anyone ever used this tool? It is intended to be placed before replacing the rear main seal and determines if your engine is damaged and needs replaced. I have a rear main seal leak and am thinking about replacing the seal.
The leak started after an incident with rock damage to the underside, so it may be worth me doing the check for this particular reason. I'm not sure if it's just leaking because of the impact jarring the engine, rather than hopefully not damaging the crankshaft or more......The car was running fine though other than the small oil leak.
Thanks
I believe the tool is used to measure crank concentricity with the case halves ( because of poor machining of the case halves at the factory). Unless your engine case was broken, I don�t see the value of this measurement as a result of debris strikes. It is unlikely that would shift the location of the crank within the case.
The Go-No-Go issue was a well known measurement back in the early- mid 2000s when they were under warranty. That's when a nunber of engines were replaced.
Porsche experimented with many RMS fixes and today we have a good one. HOWEVER, it will eventually leak if the car isnt driven enough, but its no big deal.
Make sure you have an upgraded IMSB with the LN Solution or LN Retro. Just make sure you know the Retro will need to be replaced when it times out, whereas the Solution is a permanent one and done fix.
When doing the IMSB, its a perfect time to replace the AOS with the UAOS, RMS and give the clutch and flywheel a good lookover.
I would go with the factory RMS which is under $40.
Check with LN, they have a tool that I believe is $50. Worst case give them a call to see.
0PB.105.249.LN M96/M97 Rear Main Seal Tool https://share.google/Tg6vWQdnVYFmKqF98
Rear Main Seal (RMS) for MY97-08 M96/M97 - LN Engineering https://share.google/CQCReElhNJ1PMOsJk
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
