Installing RMS without Porsche Special Tool 9609 + 9606/1

[Dennis Nicholls]

Hmmm.....I took my new RMS out of the box and out of the plastic bag for inspection....with my bare hands.

Do I have to throw it away and order a new one? Or can I clean it somehow?

[Dennis Nicholls]

The performance shop Flyin' Miata makes a RMS tool for $27. So that price point is reasonable.

https://www.flyinmiata.com/index.php?deptid=5681&parentid=0&stocknumber=35-60500

Their design is somewhat different and doesn't use a hammer.

[Dennis Nicholls]

I have another idea.....use your flywheel!

All you would need would be a plastic "ring" cut from that plastic pipe fitting of a carefully calculated thickness. Start the RMS, put on the plastic ring, then start the flywheel with four of the old used bolts. When the bolts are tight, remove them, the flywheel, and the plastic ring. Then remount the flywheel with your set of new bolts.

[JFP in PA]

Hmmm.....I took my new RMS out of the box and out of the plastic bag for inspection....with my bare hands.

Do I have to throw it away and order a new one? Or can I clean it somehow?

Clean it with lint free wipes and alcohol and you should be fine. During the installation, wear throw away gloves.

[JFP in PA]

I have another idea.....use your flywheel!

All you would need would be a plastic "ring" cut from that plastic pipe fitting of a carefully calculated thickness. Start the RMS, put on the plastic ring, then start the flywheel with four of the old used bolts. When the bolts are tight, remove them, the flywheel, and the plastic ring. Then remount the flywheel with your set of new bolts.

The flywheel would be awkwardly heavy during the process of trying to set the seal.

[Coloradocurt]

The one pictured by Domiac (see post numbers 7, 12 and 13) looks to be about as simple, inexpensive and foolpoof as you could ever want. Just gentle tapping in a circular fashion around the perimeter until it bottoms out against the crankshaft's flywheel mounting surface, and the new RMS should be evenly and at exactly the 13mm depth. I'm looking into having some made by a good friend.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Coloradocurt

[Domiac]

If someone does another tool, please post updated dimensions. In my case the fit was a bit loose at first but once I got it in, it felt quite tight. It might be tempting to optimise the fit into as snug as possible but I'd beware getting it too tight, you do not want to get it stuck.

Dennis, for a metalworking shop fabricating this tool really is a no brainer. You can use an old skool shop for this as the tolerances here are fine even for over 30 year old machine drills. Even nicer option would be to drill holes to this tool and use bolts to draw it in. Still, I think tapping it gently works fine too. Then again, who I am to tell, I'll drop my transmission for the fun of it next year and see how my RMS and LN Engineering IMS upgrade is doing, hopefully not leaking :blush:

[Coloradocurt]

If someone does another tool, please post updated dimensions. In my case the fit was a bit loose at first but once I got it in, it felt quite tight. It might be tempting to optimise the fit into as snug as possible but I'd beware getting it too tight, you do not want to get it stuck.

Dennis, for a metalworking shop fabricating this tool really is a no brainer. You can use an old skool shop for this as the tolerances here are fine even for over 30 year old machine drills. Even nicer option would be to drill holes to this tool and use bolts to draw it in. Still, I think tapping it gently works fine too. Then again, who I am to tell, I'll drop my transmission for the fun of it next year and see how my RMS and LN Engineering IMS upgrade is doing, hopefully not leaking :blush:

I'm reading into your comments that the tight fit you mention was between the crankshaft's diameter and the tool, and not necessarily between the tool and the crankcase (although I haven't yet measured the crankcase). Working on my back under the car and using my calipers, I measured the diameter of the crankshaft to be 3.340", leaving only about a 0.014" clearance to your 85.2mm dimension. Might be a bit too tight for easy (yet still error-free) use.

[Domiac]

If someone does another tool, please post updated dimensions. In my case the fit was a bit loose at first but once I got it in, it felt quite tight. It might be tempting to optimise the fit into as snug as possible but I'd beware getting it too tight, you do not want to get it stuck.

Dennis, for a metalworking shop fabricating this tool really is a no brainer. You can use an old skool shop for this as the tolerances here are fine even for over 30 year old machine drills. Even nicer option would be to drill holes to this tool and use bolts to draw it in. Still, I think tapping it gently works fine too. Then again, who I am to tell, I'll drop my transmission for the fun of it next year and see how my RMS and LN Engineering IMS upgrade is doing, hopefully not leaking :blush:

I'm reading into your comments that the tight fit you mention was between the crankshaft's diameter and the tool, and not necessarily between the tool and the crankcase (although I haven't yet measured the crankcase). Working on my back under the car and using my calipers, I measured the diameter of the crankshaft to be 3.340", leaving only about a 0.014" clearance to your 85.2mm dimension. Might be a bit too tight for easy (yet still error-free) use.

0.01433" or 0.364mm clearance is tight but that is what my caliper says to me. In any case please use your own judgement here, measuring with a caliper is somewhat error prone. I does not hurt to use a bit more clearance. Also, you can always bring the first version back to the shop and ask them to take another 0.1 - 0.2mm off, but that of course takes more time..

There is also the matter of thermal expansion to think of (metal vs nylon).

[sburke719]

Coloradocurt, count me in for one if you run off a set.

[Coloradocurt]

If someone does another tool, please post updated dimensions. In my case the fit was a bit loose at first but once I got it in, it felt quite tight. It might be tempting to optimise the fit into as snug as possible but I'd beware getting it too tight, you do not want to get it stuck.

Dennis, for a metalworking shop fabricating this tool really is a no brainer. You can use an old skool shop for this as the tolerances here are fine even for over 30 year old machine drills. Even nicer option would be to drill holes to this tool and use bolts to draw it in. Still, I think tapping it gently works fine too. Then again, who I am to tell, I'll drop my transmission for the fun of it next year and see how my RMS and LN Engineering IMS upgrade is doing, hopefully not leaking :blush:

I'm reading into your comments that the tight fit you mention was between the crankshaft's diameter and the tool, and not necessarily between the tool and the crankcase (although I haven't yet measured the crankcase). Working on my back under the car and using my calipers, I measured the diameter of the crankshaft to be 3.340", leaving only about a 0.014" clearance to your 85.2mm dimension. Might be a bit too tight for easy (yet still error-free) use.

0.01433" or 0.364mm clearance is tight but that is what my caliper says to me. In any case please use your own judgement here, measuring with a caliper is somewhat error prone. I does not hurt to use a bit more clearance. Also, you can always bring the first version back to the shop and ask them to take another 0.1 - 0.2mm off, but that of course takes more time..

There is also the matter of thermal expansion to think of (metal vs nylon).

I just checked the ID on the case, and I get 104.7mm (again, lying on my back under the car using calipers). Relative to the 104.8mm OD dimension you gave for the tool, that's an even tighter fit than to the crankshaft. Given that the plastic pipe coupler suggested earlier has those two dimensions nowhere that could even be considered 'tight,' I see the challenge for this job one of getting the seal installed to that 13mm depth accurately around the full circumference - which your 'nylon' installation should succeed at very nicely. With a bit a care during the installation process by gently tapping the tool on the end in a curcular pattern - going round and round so as to keep the new seal relatively perpendicular to the crankshaft centerline until the tool bottoms out against the end of the crankshaft - that ought to be relatively easy to accomplish. I plan to relax your two dimensions (the 104.8mm and the 85.2mm) to provide about 4-5mm of clearance.

[scottjk]

I want one of these yesterday! :eek:

[Coloradocurt]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone else get onto the www.Cheetahonline.com web site and actually complete an order for one of these installation tools? I was willing to shell out the $60 price, but the web site is FUBAR and never steps on into the checkout process.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Coloradocurt

[Domiac]

Nope, that site has problems already when displaying the shopping cart. Let alone when you try to purchase anything. It has been quite some time like that :-(

[Coloradocurt]

Expanding that question-

Does anyone actually own one of these tools made/sold by Cheetahonline.com? If only for reference, it might be interesting to get those dimensions.

[Domiac]

FYI: Loaned my RMS tool for a fellow 996 owner, he told me that he was very happy with the outcome.

Another tip for you guys. If you are unsure of the dimensions, ask your shop to create two different prototypes, e.g. with two different dimensions for the crankcase dimension. Cost is negligible as the driller already has the setup for the first part ready it is trivial to do another one with a bit larger dimension.

Then, try out both, repeat for the one that feels better :cheers:

[Coloradocurt]

If someone does another tool, please post updated dimensions. In my case the fit was a bit loose at first but once I got it in, it felt quite tight. It might be tempting to optimise the fit into as snug as possible but I'd beware getting it too tight, you do not want to get it stuck.

Dennis, for a metalworking shop fabricating this tool really is a no brainer. You can use an old skool shop for this as the tolerances here are fine even for over 30 year old machine drills. Even nicer option would be to drill holes to this tool and use bolts to draw it in. Still, I think tapping it gently works fine too. Then again, who I am to tell, I'll drop my transmission for the fun of it next year and see how my RMS and LN Engineering IMS upgrade is doing, hopefully not leaking :blush:

I'm reading into your comments that the tight fit you mention was between the crankshaft's diameter and the tool, and not necessarily between the tool and the crankcase (although I haven't yet measured the crankcase). Working on my back under the car and using my calipers, I measured the diameter of the crankshaft to be 3.340", leaving only about a 0.014" clearance to your 85.2mm dimension. Might be a bit too tight for easy (yet still error-free) use.

0.01433" or 0.364mm clearance is tight but that is what my caliper says to me. In any case please use your own judgement here, measuring with a caliper is somewhat error prone. I does not hurt to use a bit more clearance. Also, you can always bring the first version back to the shop and ask them to take another 0.1 - 0.2mm off, but that of course takes more time..

There is also the matter of thermal expansion to think of (metal vs nylon).

Prototype has been completed, but with one more revision necessary. That 43.1mm dimension was what I'd best describe as an interference fit, making it impossible for the tool to bottom-out against the crankshaft flange.

[Domiac]

Let me know your dimensions and I'll create another image with Sketchup.

[Domiac]

Thanks to Coloradocurt, he sent me new dimensions that worked well for his RMS installation.

 

Here's an updated picture in case anyone wishes to request similar part from a shop.

 

 

996-rms-model-dimensions.pdf

[Coloradocurt]

Thanks to Coloradocurt, he sent me new dimensions that worked well for his RMS installation.

 

Here's an updated picture in case anyone wishes to request similar part from a shop.

 

Looking good, and a small batch run being done with details to be posted shortly.

[Coloradocurt]

That small batch run has been completed, and these are posted for sale in the RennTech Classifieds. The cost worked out to be $50 including USPS Priority Mail shipping to the domestic U.S.

 

http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic/46926-fs-996-rear-main-seal-installation-tool/

[sburke719]

I received mine last night, and it looks like a quality product.

[Coloradocurt]

Addressing a question that's been posed to me-

"Is this tool and the seal it helps to install applicable to all 996 911's (except possibly the 996TT??) and 986 Boxster models/years?"

I am under the "impression" that all of these use the basic M96 engine and the answer would be yes, but I can't say so authoritatively.

[JFP in PA]

Addressing a question that's been posed to me-

"Is this tool and the seal it helps to install applicable to all 996 911's (except possibly the 996TT??) and 986 Boxster models/years?"

I am under the "impression" that all of these use the basic M96 engine and the answer would be yes, but I can't say so authoritatively.

 

This tool will work on both the M96 and 97 style engines (1997-2008 model years), all of which used the same RMS.  The Turbo cars are different as they use a different version engine.   This tool has also been evaluated against the nearly $500 OEM tool and was found to correctly install the PTFE RMS seal at the ideal 13MM depth.

[Ahsai]

Is this tool still available for sale somewhere?

Edited December 22, 2015 by Ahsai