JFP in PA

Some people have had success lubricating the helper, but most end up just replacing it:

Normally, once the adaptor is installed and torqued, it really won't come loose when the filter is removed, unless someone goes "postal" when tightening on a new filter. Always remember to smear a dab of oil on the sealing gasket of a new filter before installing.

Possibly the battery, cables, or the starter itself. Both the battery and cables can be isolated by testing (load test the battery, do a voltage drop on the cables). The starter Bendix drive may also simply need to be cleaned and lubricated.

Depends more on the driver's style than the miles; we have seen clutches with 80K on them that looked nearly brand new, and others with 40K on them that were toast.

Which was probably an Asian knock off of a now dead old Durametric system that is no longer supported. Be careful with these things, some have caused DME problems which are not easily resolved............

According to Sach's website, the K70193-01 is correct for your car. Suggest you visit their site and see for yourself: http://www.zf.com/media/media/document/int_print_catalogs_documents/usa_4/ZF_ClutchKit_Application.pdf Thanks for the link, I went to the Sachs site but all I found was the German manufacture content. This is one to keep. So by reading the parts index, I see the same kit is being used for the 986 and 987 up to 2008, including the Cayman 2.7? So does that mean that all 986 5 speed kits sold by Sachs automatically get the 987 clutch and pressure plate, or does that mean all the 2004-08 987 kits get a 986 kit? So why does everyone say changing to a 987 disk and plate is an upgrade? What it means is that the same part fits both cars..........

According to Sach's website, the K70193-01 is correct for your car. Suggest you visit their site and see for yourself: http://www.zf.com/media/media/document/int_print_catalogs_documents/usa_4/ZF_ClutchKit_Application.pdf

I see the different part numbers. I have a spare axle and it appears to be identical to the opposite one. I would like to know if they are interchangeable. I would say no for a very simple reason: Porsche (and the aftermarket) would not carry two individual part numbers (marked left and right) if both sides were the same. Other Boxster models are the same on both sides, and there is only one part number.

2001 base with a manual trans have a left and a right axle listed.

If memory serves, the 987 six speed disc is different that that of the 986.

Year, transmission, and model? 2001 Boxster manual tranny. Thnx "S" or Base?

Year, transmission, and model?

And how exactly are you, the unsuspecting public, supposed to know how the product performs over time it there are no accepted industry benchmarks? As a shop owner, I am potentially on the hook if I put something in a customer's vehicle that leads to problems. More so than licenses, marketing agreements, etc., I need to know the product is both going to work and obey the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath; "First, do no harm." You may see that as a business context, but I see it as an everyday reality. There are several very reputable oil companies that make some excellent product lines and do not participate in ACEA and other similar organizations, but they also are very open about that fact and make no attempt to use marketing language to try and deceive you about what you are buying. Joe Gibbs is a perfect example. When companies openly attempt to mislead you about something, you have to wonder what and when will they do next. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is not a viable business model, and I cannot run my business that way; I have to know that my customers drive away with the best I can provide for them. So when we find questionable behavior, we simply stop doing business with them. We cannot afford that kind of behavior.

The quote you site refers to engine oils, and specifically oil viscosities and high ambient temperature application's, which is an entirely different can of worms. There was a time when the brand of oil and grade Porsche most favors could stand up to high heat/high shear conditions for a lot of miles, but as the direct result of multiple reformulations that took that product from a true Group IV product to one that barely makes Group III, and that same product today can fall out of grade specs in as little a 3K miles. Hence my statement. Both RP and Redline have made questionable statements concerning their products ratings, and specifically ACEA engine oil ratings. A RP marketing rep got called out on a Land Rover forum about that specific point when a poster listed the signatories to the ACEA Technical Concorde Agreement, which is a requirement to participate in the ACEA mandated outside independent laboratory testing of all products applying for ACEA ratings (if you do not join the Concord Agreement - read pay a substantial fee and agree to use the outside labs and testing protocols mandated by ACEA, at your cost), your products cannot be advertised as holding ACEA ratings. And as neither RP or Redline are signatories, they could not have participated in the ACEA testing, and therefor did not hold any ACEA ratings. Yet their websites implied they did. When questions about this point, the RP rep commented that ACEA ratings are "unimportant to the markets they primarily serve", so they have chosen not to participate in the ACEA testing program. A short time later, RP website was changed to state their engine oils "are formulated specifically to meet current American Petroleum Institute (API), International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC), and Association des Constructeurs Européens d’Automobiles (ACEA) specifications for new vehicle warranties", which is pretty much a meaningless statement. Redline changed theirs to state that their oils are "recommended for applications requiring ACEA rated products", without ever explaining who "recommended" them. Both statements remain marketing drivel as to date, neither company has joined the ACEA Technical Concorde, and have never had their products tested or rated. So regardless of how good some their products may or may not be, I personally have a large ethics problem with companies that try to imply their products are something that a little searching can demonstrate they are not, and which then obviously calls their other product claims into question as well. At the end of the day, you hold a rating or you don't, there is no middle ground. And just as a by-the-by, ESSO LT71141 is a product, not a specification: http://www.taligentx.com/passat/maintenance/atfchange/ESSOSpecs.pdf. At the end of the day, it is your vehicle, and you can choose to use any product in it you please.

Like all OEM's, Porsche has selected several faults that can trigger "limp mode", most of which related to either what they consider safety issue or severe emission related problems that could result in damage to the vehicle.

My analytical comments were directed at the use of a Blackstone type oil analysis to determine if two lubricants were the same. In the case of both RP and Redline, they have both made statements in the past concerning what specs their products meet, which were later found to not be correct, and had to be retracted. This type of spurious "spec" behavior is unfortunately too common with smaller lubricant blenders. On that basis, I'm suggesting caution. Without fully supporting evidence to the contrary, the "best" lubricants are often what the OEM specs for the application.

Total supposition based upon some coincidental matching chemical compounds. To use laboratory analytical techniques to match lubricants, you would need match physical properties (e.g.: coefficient of friction, foam development, lubricity, heat transfer properties, etc.) as well as a full chemical match (mass spec, etc.). Just because two different products both contain boron does not mean they are even remotely the same thing. You would be risking a very expensive trans in the quest for saving a couple of bucks......

The outers are much more susceptible to wear because of the amount of movement they see, plus they are directly in the line of fire for road debris. The inners lead a sheltered existence by comparison. I would not replace the inners unless they show signs of needing replacement.

Did you check the small fuse that is actually in the alarm module?

That quote is more than a little out of line. Getting water under that seat is common, and many times the alarm module located there can be saved by simply drying it out (do search, this has been covered several times). Second, usually it is not necessary to replace the keys if you did have to change the module out, and $1300 for two keys is akin to highway robbery. I'd first try to do a DIY save on the alarm module before spending any money, you could just luck out and get away with just the loss of your time.

First of all, DO NOT use a metal impeller pump in these cars. The composite impeller is there for a reason; when these pumps begin to wear, and they all do, the shaft is going to wobble a bit. When that happens with a metal impeller pump, the impeller starts machining away the back of the pump cavity, which happens to be the alloy engine cases. You can quickly do irreparable damage to the cases. Even engines that only suffered slight metal impeller damage were observed to have reduced coolant flow due to the now larger gap between a new pump's impeller and the damaged cases. Do not use metal. A good idea for your flush is to get some appropriate sized large rubber stoppers and slip on hose fittings that you can use to jury-rig a more water tight seal for the hose in the openings while back flushing. Makes the process quicker and a lot less messy.

Welcome to the wonderful world of composite water pump impellers............. If you forced water into the hose where it connects to the thermostat housing, you would be flowing water backwards into the radiators. If you removed the thermostat housing (to prevent the stat from blocking flow) and then pushed water into where the other hose connects to the engine, the water would be flowing backwards through the engine.

The heavy amperage draw item on the circuit is the compressor clutch drive assembly, try disconnecting that and then turn the system on (the AC won't run, but everything except the clutch will be on) and see if the fuse still blows. If it doesn't you need to have the compressor clutch drive looked at.

The diagrams are correct, the line that goes into the thermostat housing (orange in the photo) is the return coming back from the radiator's to the engine, and Pelican has been wrong before.