RMS related to break-in?

[z12358]

Jim, the Porsche guy gave the other guy some advice. That's all. It wasn't a press release that blamed the customers for the RMS. I agree, the fact that the RMS problem happens so often and has remained unresolved for so long is inexcusable, and this thread did not intend to provide an excuse for it either.

RMS happens to some, and doesn't happen to others. No one can prove that short drives during break-in contribute (among other factors) to increased chances for RMS, but no one can prove that it doesn't either.

Z.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by z12358

Jim, the Porsche guy gave the other guy some advice. That's all. It wasn't a press release that blamed the customers for the RMS. I agree, the fact that the RMS problem happens so often and has remained unresolved for so long is inexcusable, and this thread did not intend to provide an excuse for it either.

RMS happens to some, and doesn't happen to others. No one can prove that short drives during break-in contribute (among other factors) to increased chances for RMS, but no one can prove that it doesn't either.

Z.

Hi,

But since no one can prove it (because it just isn't so), it shouldn't be presented as a possible cause. Where's the critical thought? This is how Urban Myth happens. Maybe the Salesman was just being a Salesman, ever think of that?

No one can prove that it doesn't? Well, lets see, there have been approx. 160,000 Boxsters produced and RMS failure, as best as can be estimated (since Porsche isn't saying, or tracking 2nd hand cars or independent shops), is running between 20-25% (a little conservative based on this Forum's own poll, but it's a casual poll and not subject to strict controls, and 20-25% is what a PCNA Area Service Rep told me in a conversation with a Dealer who confirmed his number).

So, that would mean that between 32,000 and 40,000 cars have been affected. Even if that many people disregarded the Break-in procedures (to varying degrees), that's still too high a failure rate to blame soley on the operator.

Not proving a negative does not open a possibility, that it could happen. Just because one can't prove there aren't little green men from Mars does not raise the possibility in the least that there are. Or that since water freezes at 32°F (given normal conditions), but because all water hasn't been frozen, or measured, that there's a possibility that it may not all freeze at 32°F, that somewhere there may be a mystical volume of water which will behave differently than the laws of physics demand. At least in the real world, that's how it works, now Kurt Vonnegut's Ice Nine might be an exception were it not just fiction. Don't confuse the metaphysical with the physical..

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[z12358]

"But since no one can prove it (because it just isn't so), it shouldn't be presented as a possible cause. Where's the critical thought? This is how Urban Myth happens. Maybe the Salesman was just being a Salesman, ever think of that?"

Short drives were suggested as just ONE POSSIBLE factor contributing to the increased chances for RMS. They were not suggested as the ONLY sure (proven) factor.

What critical thought did you use to conclude that in no way possible would short drives affect the chances of an RMS? In absence of a scientific statistical analysis of the data and a proof, all we're left with is the explanation and the reasoning behind the suggestion ("green men on Mars"). The explanation made sense to me. You know much more than I do about cars and it didn't make sense to you, and I respect that. Still, even if avoiding short drives (during break-in) decreased the chances of an RMS by 5%, to me it would stil be a worthwhile "sacrifice".

I repeat, I do agree that the RMS should not happen at the rates it has been happening, so let's not go there again.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by z12358

"But since no one can prove it (because it just isn't so), it shouldn't be presented as a possible cause. Where's the critical thought? This is how Urban Myth happens. Maybe the Salesman was just being a Salesman, ever think of that?"

Short drives were suggested as just ONE POSSIBLE factor contributing to the increased chances for RMS. They were not suggested as the ONLY sure (proven) factor.

What critical thought did you use to conclude that in no way possible would short drives affect the chances of an RMS? In absence of a scientific statistical analysis of the data and a proof, all we're left with is the explanation and the reasoning behind the suggestion ("green men on Mars"). The explanation made sense to me. You know much more than I do about cars and it didn't make sense to you, and I respect that. Still, even if avoiding short drives (during break-in) decreased the chances of an RMS by 5%, to me it would stil be a worthwhile "sacrifice".

I repeat, I do agree that the RMS should not happen at the rates it has been happening, so let's not go there again.

Hi,

What critical thought did you use to conclude that in no way possible would short drives affect the chances of an RMS?

Well, I have replaced maybe 20-25 Crank Seals in my life of all manner, size and material. I have a degree in Materials Science (so I know the characteristics of the materials involved). And, I have discussed the RMS issue at length with Porsche certified mechanics, a PCNA Service Rep, Dealers, and an engineer from Porsche AG who was a Guest Speaker at a Tech Session I attended.

I'm not looking for a debate, but consider this:

• Break In Hints for the first 1,000 miles/1,600 kilometers
  
  There are no specific break in rules for your Porsche. However, by taking a few precautions you can help extend the service life and performance of your engine.
  
  During the first 1,000 miles/1,600 km, all working components of the engine adjust to each other to a certain degree. Therefore: Avoid full throttle starts and abrupt stops. Change speeds frequently. Vary the throttle position to change the engine load.
  
  Do not exceed maximum engine speed of 4,200 rpm (revolutions per minute).
  
  Do not run a cold engine at high rpm either in Neutral or in gear.
  
  Do not let the engine labor, especially when driving uphill. Shift to the next lower gear in time (use the most favorable rpm range).
  
  There may be slight stiffness in the steering, gear-shifting or other controls during the break-in period which will gradually disappear.
  
  Never lug the engine in high gear at low speeds. This rule applies all the time, not just during the break-in period.
  
  Break in brake pads
  
  New brake pads have to be "broken in", and therefore only attain optimal friction when the car has covered several hundred miles or km. The slightly reduced braking ability must be compensated for by pressing the brake pedal harder. This also applies whenever the brake pads are replaced.
  
  New tires
  
  New tires do not have maximum traction. They tend to be slippery. Break in new tires by driving at moderate speeds during the first 60 to 120 miles/100 to 200 km, and longer braking distances must be anticipated.
  
  Engine oil consumption
  
  During the break-in period oil consumption may be higher than normal.
  
  As always, the rate of oil consumption depends on the quality and viscosity of oil, the speed at which the engine is operated, the climate, road conditions as well as the amount of dilution and oxidation of the lubricant.
  
  Check engine oil level, add if necessary. Make a habit of checking engine oil with every fuel filling.

This is the entire text from my Owners Manual regarding a Break-in period, and Porsche only offers them as hints. Nowhere does it say a thing about frequent short length trips, RMS failure, or ways which it can be avoided. It says nothing, not to avoid short trips, not to limit them, it simply says Nada, Rien, Nichts, 何も, Non niente, Niets, Ничто, 沒什麼東西, NOTHING !

So an Owner isn't failing to follow the Break-in hints by making frequent short trips, because the break-in procedure doesn't even mention them at all, in any way. They can't be faulted for failing to follow a procedure if no such procedure exists.

So, conclusion, this alleged salesman who told the guy, who told the guy, who told the guy, who posted it on the internet was talking through his hat! That, and the except from the Owners Manual, should be proof enough that such information is ill-posted to a forum like this where accuracy is helpful and anecdotal information can sometimes be wrong or even damaging.

But, to make a point, I believe in the proper breaking-in of a new car. I think it will give better performance and service over time, with lower maintenance and repair costs. This has always been my experience.

I just don't think that handling the car with Kid Gloves is going to make even the slightest dent in the incidence rate of premature RMS failure, this is not why they fail and it won't keep them from failing - period.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[z12358]

"I'm not looking for a debate..."

Jim, me neither. No hard feelings, really. You take your new cars on short rides and I just won't take mine -- a moot point for me right now as I don't anticipate any break-ins in the forseeable future. Everyone else can choose their own drive lengths during break-in based on the "evidence" presented here and/or elsewhere.

Z.

[SD987]

I don't mind a good debate ! and I don't mind throwing a little gasoline on the fire, but since the owner's manual was brought in to the discussion...consider the break-in hints from the 987 owner's manual (page 14):

The following tips will be helpful in obtaining optimum performance from your new Porsche. Despite the most modern, high-precision manufacturing methods, it cannot be completely avoided that the moving parts have to wear in with each other. This wearin-in occurs mainly in the first 2,000 miles/3,000km.

Therefore:

* Preferably take longer trips.

* Avoid frequent cold starts with short-distance driving whenever possible.

.....

* Do not participate in motor racing events, sports driving schools, etc. during the first 2,000 miles/3,000 kilometers.


One could speculate....and I emphasize speculate, that there is some merit to the theory brought forth by z12358 leading Porsche to "edit" their break-in hints with the two new bullet points (incidentally number 1 and number 2).

In general, although I'm not saying this is the source of RMS, I think people tend to underestimate the contribution of driving style/characteristics and usage history in the development of vehicle problems. I've seen too many abusive drivers (many abusing unwittingly) to think otherwise.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by SD987

I don't mind a good debate ! and I don't mind throwing a little gasoline on the fire, but since the owner's manual was brought in to the discussion...consider the break-in hints from the 987 owner's manual (page 14):

The following tips will be helpful in obtaining optimum performance from your new Porsche. Despite the most modern, high-precision manufacturing methods, it cannot be completely avoided that the moving parts have to wear in with each other. This wearin-in occurs mainly in the first 2,000 miles/3,000km.

Therefore:

* Preferably take longer trips.

* Avoid frequent cold starts with short-distance driving whenever possible.

.....

* Do not participate in motor racing events, sports driving schools, etc. during the first 2,000 miles/3,000 kilometers.


One could speculate....and I emphasize speculate, that there is some merit to the theory brought forth by z12358 leading Porsche to "edit" their break-in hints with the two new bullet points (incidentally number 1 and number 2).

In general, although I'm not saying this is the source of RMS, I think people tend to underestimate the contribution of driving style/characteristics and usage history in the development of vehicle problems. I've seen too many abusive drivers (many abusing unwittingly) to think otherwise.

Hi,

As you say, one could speculate. But, neither of these references speak directly or indirectly to RMS or any other seal for that matter, so I fail to see any merit to z12358's post here at all.

I do agree that frequent short trips are bad for any car, not just those which experienced under 1,000 miles of use. But, not for the sake of a rubber seal, rather, that Oil cannot come up to temp and that internal metal parts have not fully expanded and therefore seated against one another properly, that valves have not reached operating temp and can therefore Carbon up much more, ancillary bearings, wheel bearings don't properly distribute their grease which may have settled, etc. The low-mileage car which the little old lady only drove 2 miles to church in on Sunday is gonna need much more maintenance than a same year model with normal mileage.

But, back on point, why is it then OK to do this after 1,000 miles of break-in? The characteristics of the Steel Crankshaft or those of the Butyl Rubber seal do not change after only 1,000 miles. In fact, it is exactly this stability which led to these materials being selected for their intended purpose in the 1st place - that they will give many cycles of use, under a wide array of conditions, without changing their characteristics.

Sorry, nope, I'm not buying into any of this VooDoo stuff. Next, we'll be putting our Tops in their Service positions and hiring Shamans (think what a Porsche qualified Shaman is gonna cost?) to wave Chicken Bones around the engine compartment...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by z12358

...Everyone else can choose their own drive lengths during break-in based on the "evidence" presented here and/or elsewhere.

Z.

Hi,

No hard feelings here either. But you emphasise my point that there is absolutely no Evidence whatever here to conclude that short trips have anything to do with causing or preventing premature RMS failure. And that's the point you fail to percieve.

You mistakenly present an internet anecdote and embue it with the quality of being Evidence of some sort, using a brand of Pretzel Logic to weirdly connect the dots. As it stands, it simply is not any sort of evidence at all. If you (or others) want to suspect that it is, then of course you're free to do so, but all it is is unfounded suspicion, nothing more. It bears the same absurdity as cautioning that turning the ignition key can lead to premature RMS failure, because common sense dictates that if you never turn the key, you'll never experience premature RMS failure either.

Every car ever manufactured has had some sort of shaft seal. Yet, no other car manufacturer (qualify to say that I know of) says to avoid short trips in their break-in period specifically to maintain the integrity of the shaft seal.

Do the laws of physics, the mechanics, or the characteristics of materials differ in cars produced in Stuttgart or Uusikaupunki with those from the rest of the world? Because that is in essence what you're saying by trying to promote this nonsense. The science involved is very straightforward and proven time and again.

It's not OK to stipulate or suggest such malarkey on a forum where many people may be less learned and come here to learn more. Nor is it fair to plant doubt in the minds of Owners who have experienced premature RMS failure that perhaps they did something to cause it, which they didn't.

The premature RMS failure in the M96 engine is directly linked to the innovative casting methods used by Porsche to reduce production costs by eliminating the need for post-cast machining of the blocks. This technology has a much higher reject rate than traditional, but more costly, methods.

This theory you present deserves no credence. If you want to do some sampling and draw conclusions based on this sampling, go ahead. But, lacking this, all you're doing is proferring myth, which bye-the-way, is in direct opposition to what the rest of the world experiences every day, and without one shred of evidence to back it up...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99