RMS related to break-in?

[z12358]

This may have been mentioned before here but it was a new angle for me and thought others (especially new car owners may find it interesting). Just read a possible explanation for the RMS. Basically, it states the root may be extensive "short hop" driving during the break in period:

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?14@@.ef37f9b/950!keywords=allin%3Amsgtext%20boxster

"Regarding RMS and break in, I can only tell you that my sales manager (who formerly worked at Porsche headquarters and seems to have a lot of technical/engineering knowledge) gave me that advice. He indicated that a high percentage of the RMS issues they had on 996's (and Boxsters) could be traced to a lot of short hop driving during break in. The typical story is Dr. X. buys a new 911, lives 5 minutes from Johns Hopkins but just can't resist driving the car back and forth from work, day after day, during what should be the break-in period. The engine, oil and seals never get a chance to fully warm up and expand, then cool down and seal/seat. A year or two later, bingo, RMS leak. "

[Perfectlap]

nahh....

it's a poor design or theory or concept bla bla bla which is innately prone to failure.
You just can't have something "floating" and not except some to move out of dead center thereby causing the seal to break.

Very interesting that they would try and lay it on the driver doing mere casual drives. A car should be able to withstand short drives without potentially damaging a very expensive engine. Other makes have figured out how do it on much smaller budgets. Sometimes I think Porsche and their employees are like Pete Rose insisiting he never bet on baseball. C'mon already you screwed up!!

[z12358]

perfectlap, I agree. There is no excuse for RMS. Still, if there truly exists a cause-effect statistical link between short drives during break-in and increased probability of RMS later on, one would be foolish to disregard it. Of course, such a link would be very hard to establish, even harder to prove, but it wouldn't hurt to avoid those short drives during break-in, as much as possible.
Z.

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

C'mon guys, a little common sense here please. Why can't people accept that RMS failure is inherent on the M96 engine? It's nothing you do, or fail to do. Stop trying to let Porsche off the hook for such poor engineering, I mean even Kia got this one right!

Shaft Seals have been around far longer than the Automobile (think Locomotives, Steam Engines and Industrial Machinery). It's very straightforward stuff. I've owned 2 cars whose Main Crank Seal was just a piece of Rope! And, if they were installed correctly, they didn't leak, even the slightest, for well beyond 30k mi.

Theoretically, the crankshaft should not move, therefore a butyl rubber seal seated against the shaft should provide a seal adequate for the 45-55PSI of Oil Pressure. But, this presumes that the Seal and the Shaft are center-aligned.

OK, so it's not a perfect world and the Crank does have some float, but the book says this axial play should measure 0.05 to 0.24 mm, that's an incredibly small degree of movement, well within the deflection capability of a Butyl Rubber Seal.

So, it isn't the Crankshaft's fault. But, if the Seal is installed off-center (as when the Bore opening in the Block is cast that way), it can reach it's limit to flex and still maintain sufficient pressure around the Crankshaft to seal. And this is why there is premature RMS failure on the M96 engine.

Now, there is direct contact between the Rubber Seal and the Crankshaft, so eventually even a small amount of friction, multiplied by hours of use will result in the Seal failing, in that way, it is a sacrificial part. But, most Automotive Crank Seals go 100k mi. and beyond before this occurs and the Seal fails normally.

Porsche should get in front of this and not only admit the issue, but solve it, remember, they are producing the same piece of hardware today, essentially unchanged since it first was produced 11 years ago now. For a Company with the history, prestige and price point that Porsche has, it's just a disgrace. Compounded maybe by the fact that now they're pointing the finger at the driver and crying Operator Error...

Happy Motoring... Jim'99

[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 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

[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

[denverpete]

I tried to stay out of this - I really did. But I'm so very tired of "makes sense" type of arguements taking the place of real analysis, engineering, and science.

Typcially, these types of logical fallacies fall into Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (With this, therefore because of this) - correlation implies causation. Essentially, somebody takes lots of short drives and gets the RMS problem - therefore, the short drives caused the RMS problems.

Where's the science or analysis in the arguement that short hop drives cause RMS? Because a sales manager "who formerly worked at Porsche headquarters and seems to have a lot of technical/engineering knowledge" says so? Please. Because some Dr. X takes short drives and then has an RMS problem? Annecdotal. But, throw in a little pseudo science and it sure sounds plausible huh? The problem is that any two items can be correlated but simple correlation doesn't mean causation.

[Brucelee]

I think that it is sad that we even have to have this discussion after 10 yrs of this engine and problem.

Lexus has a sludging problem with their six cylincer engine for about say, six months!

Sucked it up, fixed it and replaced engines.

"nuff said.

[z12358]

Jim, I really appreciate the education you provided in this thread. From what I read, there are a lot of bits and pieces that fit together to make the engine. The items in the break-in procedure do not list separately the seals and parts they help protect specifically. So maybe, just maybe, the RM Seal may be one of the parts that ALSO benefits from the break-in recommendations, just like every other seal and part of the engine.

We all agree that one should follow the break-in procedure. That procedure (for the 987) suggests avoiding short drives. Doesn't really say what part or seal specifficaly benefits from that, it just suggests it's better for the engine. Now if the engine benefits, then logic suggests that SOME or even maybe ALL parts may benefit in some way from it. There are some people here religiously convinced that the RM Seal does in no way benefit from it. And as I said before, that's fine with me, I'm just not one of those people.

I apologize for tiring denverpete and for saddening brucelee, but still think many members would find the entirety of this thread useful in the end. I, for one, did.

Z.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

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

LMAO....this paragraph just made my day.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by z12358

Jim, I really appreciate the education you provided in this thread. From what I read, there are a lot of bits and pieces that fit together to make the engine. The items in the break-in procedure do not list separately the seals and parts they help protect specifically. So maybe, just maybe, the RM Seal may be one of the parts that ALSO benefits from the break-in recommendations, just like every other seal and part of the engine.

We all agree that one should follow the break-in procedure. That procedure (for the 987) suggests avoiding short drives. Doesn't really say what part or seal specifficaly benefits from that, it just suggests it's better for the engine. Now if the engine benefits, then logic suggests that SOME or even maybe ALL parts may benefit in some way from it. There are some people here religiously convinced that the RM Seal does in no way benefit from it. And as I said before, that's fine with me, I'm just not one of those people.

I apologize for tiring denverpete and for saddening brucelee, but still think many members would find the entirety of this thread useful in the end. I, for one, did.

Z.

Hi,

You gotta let it go... woulda, coulda, shoulda. No maybe, just maybe about it, this is what Deverpete is referring to.

I'm not making this stuff up, this is how a shaft seal works, period. Not because I say so, but because it simply is. If you learn nothing else from this thread, take this away with you.

The only, and I mean the ONLY possible benefit to the shaft seal is that frequent short trips will increase the number of starts that the Seal must endure (a car on a 1,000 mi. trip is started 3 times given the Range of the Boxster. But, a car on five 200 mile trips is started 5 times), but this number of starts involved in the first 1,000-2,000 miles pales in comparison to the total number of starts in the car's lifespan and so the effect is at best negligible, so much so, that it cannot possibly contribute to the Seal failing. And, we don't typically see these Seals failing in 1k-2k mi., they seem to fail randomly anywhere between 500 mi. and 20k mi.

As I mentioned, a Cranshaft Seal is, by it's very nature, a sacrificial part. That is, it wears out over time. Every single revolution of the Crankshaft against the Seal contributes to this wear, albeit in a minute way. But, we're talking about a Seal which fails in Old-age simply because it's worn out, but only after literally tens of millions of Crankshaft revolutions, not a Seal which fails prematurely. This is the result of a fault in production of the Block, nothing more. And, there's nothing a Driver can do to overcome this fault or prevent it if their car is one of, what I think we can safely, or reasonably, say affects at least 1 out of every 5 Boxsters produced...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

Or, another way to put it is,

It is a design flaw, not a driver induced thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wild1poet2]

Great thread. As Jim points out the RMS problem has to be a design issue, not a break in issue. I could see where short trips would affect valve seating, main bearings, ring wear, etc. but not the RMS.

There are reasons to avoid short trips during break in but not RMS related. Actually frequent short trips after break in will still affect the lubricating quality by allowing the condensate to accumulate.