Jim, you know as well as I do that reports on these lists mean pretty much nothing in terms of percentages of owners having problems. I'd never say that this is not a problem; obviously it is. All I'm disputing is the numbers you're quoting. Nothing more.

So.. I'll ask again, more directly. Where does the '1 in 4' figure come from?

Again, I don't dispute that this is a problem.. heck, thinking back I will be checking the oil stains in my parking space when I get back home next week -- I always thought they were old. My only interest is in figuring out what the probability of these failures are.

There's a difference between pointing out that there is a problem -- that's good -- and throwing a number like 25% failure rates around without any basis for it -- that's bad.

Berj

MNBoxster:
"You're probbably right, it's all just one big overreaction..."

What a well prepared list. Seems like "the issue" has earned a special "favorites" folder. For the sake of making a point, I assume you counted how many people posting on those forums had friends or neighbors experiencing catastrophic engine failures. 20? more?

Now "Jims" from those forums are probably going to post a link to this thread of ours thus proving once again to the gullible others there how bad things have really become. This issue is getting worse by the minute. :)

Z.

I can give you at least 2 reasons:

1) Good customer service
2) They don't require many engine replacements, so why not keep a couple handy in the USA for fast turn-around

Heck, when United or American or Delta need an engine, they fly one in on the next flight, and smack her in, in a couple hours. Does that mean GE makes poor engines because they can replace them quickly?

Hi,

Well since Porsche isn't talking, there can only be other sources. Various Polls have been conducted and while I concede that they are not by and large empirical, there is nevertheless some valuable information to be gleaned from them. Just because Porsche isn't talking doesn't mean the issue doesn't exists, or that it doesn't affect a significant number of cars.

Several other Forums have also conducted polls. One says 35%, our own says 25%-30%, and one in the UK states 40% but is including the 996 as well. All these seem too high to me.

Several months ago, I got a pair of Homeplate Seats for a Twins game. I called a friend of mine to invite him, but he said that he had a short meeting to attend and that I could come as his guest and we would proceed on to the game from there. Anyway, my friend works in Auto Sales, and the meeting was the TC Metro Auto Dealers Assn. My friend was being given an award for his work with a local Charity group which we are both involved in.

Anyway, the meeting began with a cocktail social. My buddy is busy working the room and I spot Doug Mulder, GM of one of the two Porsche Dealerships in town (Maplewood Imports) standing with another guy. I had met Doug on several occaisions and so I went over to say Hi. Doug introduced me to his guest, the local PCNA Area Rep. We chatted about Porsches in general, how the Cayman was selling, and such. Then the topic of warranty claims was brought up, so I told them that the RMS issue was getting a lot of press in the user forums, that several polls had been conducted and the results were around 30%, which I thought was too high. The Rep. said "it is, but close..." I asked 25%? and they both agreed "that's about right - 20%-25%..." Lacking any other source, this to me is the most Official data I have heard and this is why I use that figure.

Regardless of the actual statistic, the incidence is high, relatively speaking. Should Porsche ever decide to share their information, it would only indicate the extent of the problem, but would do nothing to solve it. Not until Porsche does a significant revamping of the M96 engine will the problem improve, not just a series of Band-Aid fixes or miracle new seals.

This will of course not benefit any of us, but future models will be immune. As a side note, there are now documented RMS failures on both the Cayman and the 997, so it appears the issue persists...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Hi,

Not at all well-prepared, all I did was type Boxter RMS problem? in Yahoo's search engine and there were more than 25 pages of results, I only drew from the first 6 pages. You are trying to defend an indefensible position in the face of all the evidence, anecdotal or not. Can't wait to hear from you when your garage floor is covered with Mobil1...

Happy Motoring... Jim'99

Found a list from Consumer Reports (2005) featured on Yahoo Autos

Here's the link: http://autos.yahoo.com/consumerreports/article/best_and_worst_used_cars.html;_ylt=Ahbc7MKgto2K6dp GaZXjZIRrc78F


Don't want to stoke the fire one way or the other - but didn't see any Porsche on the WORST list. That said - I didn't see any Porsche on the BEST list either...

What I DID see was my Chevy Blazer - and I believe it - bit over $8K on repairs thus far... And now the pulse motor for the wipers is toast, and they go at whatever speed they choose - whenever they choose....

Still lovin' the box - C5150

I think Jim made up those 25 pages in Yahoo's search engine just to fuel the conspiracy. Dont get me wrong Im not douting there are 25 pages regarding RMS I just think Jim authored them all ! Why, Jim Why?!

I asked my buddy today as a matter of fact about RMS issues on 911's. I said, "Chad, what do you know about rear main seals on 911's, how many leak?" Chad replied, "All of them" For the new guys, Chad owns a high end car lot in the Akron area.

I think he's lying and possibly in on the conspiracy.....bastard.

We were however talking about 2.7's blowing up though. Lets not get too far off base.

For clarity's sake, don't forget that Jim's conversation was about RMS issues, not failed engines. The 20-25% number includes cars that just had to have the rear main seal replaced, not the entire engine.

How many of those will leak again? Unknown.

How many of those were, or will be out of spec and need a replacement? Unknown.

It's obviously not every one, but some small percentage of that 1 in 4.

Point is, 25% do not have to have an engine replacement, at least not from any poll, measurement or hearsay anyone can point us to.

Here's to being in the 75%!! :cheers:

MNBoxster:
Not at all well-prepared, all I did was type Boxter RMS problem? in Yahoo's search engine and there were more than 25 pages of results, I only drew from the first 6 pages.

Type in "Lexus engine problem" in Google. 2,040,000 entries. Have fun with it.

You are trying to defend an indefensible position in the face of all the evidence, anecdotal or not.

:confused: Perhaps you can also tell me what my position is? Please refer to my previous posts and pay special attention to "frequency and severity". And there is no such thing as anecdotal evidence. Especially not in a world when THIS thread can be used as "evidence" by Jims on other forums.

Can't wait to hear from you when your garage floor is covered with Mobil1...

Geez, Jim. Wouldn't that be the ultimate proof and happy ending for you. Me wrong and miserable -- you, right and happy. I'll see what I can do.

Z.

Sammy:
They are providing the right product to a specific market that allows them to maintain their profit margins (granted I don't even know if this is true or not so if you have some stats that would be awesome!).

I just found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche :
"The company has been highly successful in recent times, and indeed claims to be the most profitable car company in the world (in terms of profit margin per unit sold; its absolute profits would be dwarfed by Toyota) [2]."

Here's another quote from it:
"Porsche was awarded the 2006 J.D. Power award for highest initial quality of automobile brands."

Now Wikipedia may be as good as a post in a forum (lack of sources, citations, etc.) but I've read about the highest profit margin claim elsewhere and seems that it's widely accepted.

Z.

This may all be true. However, my service advisor told me otherwise without telling me so.

If you get my meaning.

That may be true. However, if memory serves, Porsche is #61 or so on the JD Powers 3 yr customer satisfaction survey.

Not good but of course, not definitive.

Here's another quote from it:
"Porsche was awarded the 2006 J.D. Power award for highest initial quality of automobile brands.

See my reference above on LONG TERM JD Powers data.

OK.

Lets see if we can bring this to an end.

Here is what we know.

The factory will never acknowledge design flaws yet these are well documented in pro-Porsche magazines like Panorama. I have NOT SEEN credible evidence to refute these two design issues. If so, please post.

There is clearly an RMS issue which MAY or MAY NOT be rectified in the latest batch of engines. This RMS issue is legend among both 996 and 986 owners. Some 987 owners have reported this issue also.

We DO KNOW that the factory has issue several new seals in response to the RMS issue. The last one, the Cayeene fix, MAY be working although my tech says it may not be also.

There is clearly an IMS problem that grenades the motor WHEN it appears. Number of these is unknown. This forum has reported a handful to date.

We do not have any factory data on ANY of this.

JD Powers surveys indicate that Porsches start out pleasing their owners and drop very quickly by the end of three years.

Any other things we can agree on?

Geez... I have got to stop going to sleep and keep up with all the posts! ;)

Z, thanks for the reminder about the Boxsters styling! :) The Carerra is pretty but the drop top version just doesn't look right to me...

Back to the topic at hand, I would imagine that my perspective is different than someone with a newer vehicle who's warranty period still remains. It's easy to sit back and say that this isn't a problem if you know that your newer Boxster is sitting in the garage and if an engine failure happens you simply take it back to the dealer and have it fixed (no offense to these people and I hope you understand my point). Us older Boxster owners don't have that luxury. Even with an extended warranty you have to read the fine print and if you have to make a claim of this size it can be like pulling teeth.

I will commend the people that have brought actual figures to the table (estimates or not) because they are the best thing we have to use.

I'm not worried about a RMS leak as a $1k repair isn't crazy in todays world. I'm concerned about the catastrophic engine failure that costs $12k+ to repair. High frequency or not, it is a known design problem that has blown up some engines potentially costing the customer lots of money. This is not a high mileage or abuse issue, this is a design flaw.

I think this is an issue that can't be overlooked by perspective or current owners. Unfortunately it will mean people will buy extended warranties because of a poor design.

Anybody have a Ford Pinto for sale??? ;)

I was typing as you posted this so I'll shut up now... :)

Great debate and information!

Brucelee, you are obviously very successful and competent at selling Porsche products through your dealership. Yet, you know there is an intrinsic design flaw with the engines. How are you able to balance these two conflicting dynamics? What do you actually tell your customers, if they ask or not (about potential problems)?

Thanks.

Here's what we know:

1. RMS is more frequent than IMS but less severe.

2. IMS is less frequent than RMS but more severe.

3. We know nothing about HOW frequent either of them are.

4. ALL "issues" during the warranty years MUST be producing waranty claims small enough to allow Porsche to keep highest profit margins in the industry.

5. Beyond the warranty years, unless third-party Extended Warranties for Porsches are multiples of times more expensive than those for other brands, ALL "issues" in aggregate couldn't possibly be that much worse than what is expected from other brands.

The free market is the greatest aggregator of data and the best indicator of trends.

Rich, freedom -- learn from it. :)

Z.

Aww shoot... my bad Brucelee...

4) I don't think anyone has ever questioned this one. Profit margin is a function of a whole lot of things and is not some sort of magic indicator of quality. Porsche has a business case that works and no one is questioning this. Yes, we understand your point that if this was a widespread issue than Porsche would be out of business. If this was a widespread problem yes, they would not be profitable. If you looked at the profit margins for Ford when their big SUV's dominated the market you would be shocked! They made a killing in that market, but do you think its because they had some sort of magic formula for low warranty costs?

Once again, no one would argue that if this was a widespread problem that Porsche would not be profitable.

BTW - What is the profit margin that you are referring to? You keep talking about it, but what is the figure or range and where did you get it from?

Good point, although I don't have the dealership anymore.

I used to be very candid with my buyers about the RMS issue and advise them to buy a warranty IF that kind of expense bothered them. I did not sell warranties but could refer them to someone who did.

Usually, I knew if any of my cars had had an RMS repair and I would advise buyers of this also. Some had several RMS replacments by the way.

I decided to close the dealership around the time that the IMS came to my attention but one had nothing to do with the other.

I would advise anyone looking at a used Box out of warranty to at least evaluate an aftermarket warranty.

You make several leaps of logic and do not account for time lags.

Also there is this little vexing issue.

Some warranty companies will simply not cover a Porsche of any kind. Why do you think that is?

Some will not cover Porsches over certain miles, yet they WILL cover Lexus for the same miles.

Why do you think that is?

BTW- you guys may be making too much out of the "highest margins in the industry data."

In fact, my service manager told me that "the warranty claims expense on the cars is VERY VERY high, but then again, so is the price they get."

Using your questions to bolster your point requires more leaps of "logic", but to pursue that venue some more...

Do warranty companies exclude other cars? Maybe like Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus? If so, could it be because of high repair part and labor costs, higher than average repair frequency, or even typical car usage (track vs grocery store runs)? Maybe a mix of all the above?

Have many Lexus cars have you seen running a track event or autocross, in comparison to Porsches? Do you think that, on average, a day in the life of a Porsche and a Lexus is the same? How could that sway a warranty company's policy?

"Do warranty companies exclude other cars? Maybe like Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus? If so, could it be because of high repair part and labor costs, higher than average repair frequency, or even typical car usage (track vs grocery store runs)? Maybe a mix of all the above?"

Well, yes, I think you have sort of proved my point.

We have been saying all along that the Box is a very expensive car to maintain post warranty. Frequency of repair and avg cost of repair would about account for it.

We never said it was the ONLY car that fit this category.

Specific to Lexus, I would make the following wager.

Take a Lexus V8 and a Porsche flat six and run them the exact same way. I would put a grand up today that says that no matter what, that Lexus engine will last twice as long as the Porsche motor.

I think you are right on the money, I owned a Lexus 300 and put 150K on it with nothing more than scheduled maintanence. No expensive surprises. My Boxter is now 10 years old and it is quite an expensive proposition. I have not had an engine failure or had to deal with an RMS repair but it soaks up a couple hundred on average each month for small, annoying fixes. Mine is one of those extremely low miles cars that can be problematic as it was never driven properly (17,000). I still love the vehicle but am a little surprized by all the flaws and anticipated repairs. (RMS, Converible top cable mechanism, Coolant Tank, Suspension issues, Airbag light and harnesses, etc.) Being a first time Porsche owner whose car was PPI'd I am a bit dissappointed in the lack of the "bulletproof" quality I expected in a car like this. I realize the car is now 10 years old but I have had less issues with an old '86 Fiero GT I own for fun. It's got 86,000 on it and never breaks. No "catches on fire" comments please, Pontiac fixed that problem via recall for free. Anyway I would still not hesitate to buy a good, clean '97 but would advise anyone in that market to be prepared!

Now on the NEWER side of the ledger, here is a post from a concurrent thread:

[B]Hi all,

Been really busy lately and haven't been following the forum. Thought i'd report back on my car.

Replaced my rear tires at 18,800 miles. Also got my third tranny replaced at 18,800 miles under warranty. This is going to be a sticking point with me and Porsche...

At 20,098 I put the car in for service. Got the minor maintenance done and replaced the brakes, which were below 10%.

A brake job consists of pads, rotors and parts. $695. Minor maintenance is something in the $200+ range. This is all at Pioneer Centres, San Diego.

Luckily I had a 15% off coupon that they'd sent me for both jobs. Grand total was therefore $963.43.

At the same time I also reported a bit of funny handling and a clunky sound from the rear passenger side. We surmised that it might be a sway bar end link, which is apparently a common mode of failure for these cars.

When I came to pick up my car, I was informed that my right rear shock needed to be replaced. It's a PASM shock too.

Hmm... ditch the car or extended warranty? I love the way it looks and drives, but if major parts keep dying, well, that's no good...
__________________
2005 Seal Grey Boxster S
987 Amberectomy

That is just ridiculous. If this is not an exaggeration of some kind, I am sure this is not representative of the true population of these vehicles. Three transmissions before the 20k mark sounds like a lemon to me.

Let me ask this; My car is a 2000 model. Wasn't there a range of cars that were less of a risk for failures ? I guess I don't understand..... I hear a lot of 1998 and 1999 2.7L cars had the shaft breakage problem, and then again I heard that somewhere between 2000 and 2001 there was a change made in the bearing supports that caused an even higher risk of failures. Does anyone have accurate info on this ? :confused:

...or a non-driver.

"That is just ridiculous. If this is not an exaggeration of some kind, I am sure this is not representative of the true population of these vehicles. Three transmissions before the 20k mark sounds like a lemon to me."

Perhaps. How about the other items mentioned?

I have to say that I have been driving for nearly 40 yrs, and am not gentle with my cars. I have NEVER replaced a trans.

Go figure!

PS-remember Porsche changed trans makers in 2005!

My 2002 Boxster S had its transmission replaced at 12,000 miles. It now has 17,500 miles...

I think that particular car might have just been cursed. It seems likely given the situation.

Bruce - you are right, that is a long list of problems. Knock on wood I am almost at 17k and have been trouble free.

Brucelee:
Now on the NEWER side of the ledger, here is a post from a concurrent thread:

Now that we left logic and common sense to the wolfes... I'm not much into "evidence" fist-fights but here's a pic from a current grin-fest. 200 Porsches aged 1-30 yrs providing copius amounts of joy to their enthusiastic owners. Two full days of high performance driving -- not one "issue". I guess, according to your standards of discourse, I should be able to rest my case now -- of course, until you pound back with more hard hitting "evidence" by reposting the next flat tire "incident" the moment it occurs.

Please do not underestimate the info you can gain from the markets. Do not brush off the high profit margins as insignificant. Your service manager said that the warranty claims were "VERY VERY high", but that Porsche charges a lot for its cars too. Ask yourself, could Porsche be charging such a premium for its cars over DECADES if the frequency and severity of their issues were that outrageous and their designs were that bad? Both sides of the profit margin equation (revenues per car AND cost per car, including warranty claims) are screaming something at you. You only need to listen. Could Yugo and Pinto have simply increased prices in order to increase profit margins and make their businesses viable?

To cut the long story short. For Porsche to be standing behind a 4 year warranty on high performance vehicles with such expensive parts and maintenance AND to have the buying public willingly pay such a premium for their cars is no small feat. There has to be something GOOD going on there, and the "issues" couldn't possibly be that bad. As a confirmation, add to this the free will and the business cases of the third-party extended warranty providers that provide Porsche warranties for prices comparable to Porsche's high-performance peers.

Z.

Now that we left logic and common sense to the wolfes... I'm not much into "evidence" fist-fights but here's a pic from a current grin-fest. 200 Porsches aged 1-30 yrs providing copius amounts of joy to their enthusiastic owners. Two full days of high performance driving -- not one "issue". I guess, according to your standards of discourse, I should be able to rest my case now -- of course, until you pound back with more hard hitting "evidence" by reposting the next flat tire "incident" the moment it occurs.

This of course, proves that Porsche's are popular. Who said they were not? This thread is about existing flaws in the engine design of the 986/987/996/997. How does this picture address this issue?

I also don't see any 944s in this picture. I think they are all getting new timing belts?

Please do not underestimate the info you can gain from the markets. Do not brush off the high profit margins as insignificant. Your service manager said that the warranty claims were "VERY VERY high", but that Porsche charges a lot for its cars too. Ask yourself, could Porsche be charging such a premium for its cars over DECADES if the frequency and severity of their issues were that outrageous and their designs were that bad? Both sides of the profit margin equation (revenues per car AND cost per car, including warranty claims) are screaming something at you. You only need to listen. Could Yugo and Pinto have simply increased prices in order to increase profit margins and make their businesses viable?

The problem with your logic is that Porsche has not been very profitable for DECADES. In fact, when they broght out the Boxster, they were close to being bankrupt. Hence, your reliance on the profit margin thing is limited to more current events.

Moreover, Porsche increased its warranty due to market forces, not profits or because their cars are all that good. This was done in response to Mercedes, Lexus et al. Hey, you gonna charge me $95Grand for a 911 and warranty it for 36 months????????????

BTW-why use Yugo as an analogy? Same quality?

To cut the long story short. For Porsche to be standing behind a 4 year warranty on high performance vehicles with such expensive parts and maintenance AND to have the buying public willingly pay such a premium for their cars is no small feat. There has to be something GOOD going on there, and the "issues" couldn't possibly be that bad. As a confirmation, add to this the free will and the business cases of the third-party extended warranty providers that provide Porsche warranties for prices comparable to Porsche's high-performance peers.

This is just laughable. You would like to dismiss acknowledged and clear engine design failures with this logic.

I love it!

Brucelee:
"This is just laughable. You would like to dismiss acknowledged and clear engine design failures with this logic."

We obviously come from different planets and I'd rather not say what I think about YOUR logic. So let's just leave it at that. :)

Z.