Dynamic Engine Mounts (Again)

[JohnCRS]

A topic discussed last year, but it seems that these engine mounts are continuing to fail. The current issue is that there are no replacements available from Porsche or the independent parts suppliers. Folk are unable to use their cars or, in at least one case delay exchanging their car, until supply resumes at a date to be advised! If you are able to please add comments on any of the following:
- If you are affected by this
- If you have found a supply (there are a few on eBay, but not from any of the normal distributors)
- If you know of anyone who has been able to repair the mount (I believe it is a sensor failure in most cases)
- If you know of anyone who has fitted the standard passive mounts instead.

Its a grim situation.

 

[TDT]

My Case was resolved last week. No issues. I request no geo, as car will be going for winter jobs anyway including geo update so no point doing it twice. Drove fine enough on the way home, although didn’t push.

 

[Twinfan]

Good to hear, T []

I'm picking my car up shortly, geo is being put back to where it should be in a couple of weeks. 4yr service in March and I'm all set for the PCGB track season...

 

[JohnCRS]

Nice to hear these are now getting through.. Thanks for the update.

 

[MrDemon]

I have had another one fail, no UK or even Germany stock again.

Why they don;t replace both is daft every one has to go back twice !!

 

[ralphmusic]

I have had another one fail, no UK or even Germany stock again.

Why they don;t replace both is daft every one has to go back twice !!

Which car?

 

[Freakuk]

I have had another one fail, no UK or even Germany stock again.

Why they don;t replace both is daft every one has to go back twice !!

I can see both sides of the coin here, from a customer perspective I am 100% with you, it would seem daft to replace one when they are a known common failure point. Then I can also see Porsche's perspective in that replacing an item that hasn't failed doesn't make any financial/business sense and in theory may never fail.

 

[MrDemon]

718

 

[ralphmusic]

Mine (well just the NS one) changed yesterday. The part number for the replacement is 981.375.059.86 whereas the previous (02/2022 build) and OS part is 981.375.059.84. I am not sure this supports redesigned part theory, more like a revision.

I left my suspension set-up with them and this morning they reported they had been able to set it back to CG settings. However I want CG make some further adjustments so up from Devon to Nuneaton last day before Christmas.

 

[ralphmusic]

As an addendum to my last post, the Centre had to restore back to stock for system evidence to complete warranty claim but then took it back to my settings as a freebee - rear only as front was undisturbed.

What is interesting is the level of detail captured/required by the Porsche maintenance system, not only for warranty claims.

 

[Motorhead]

Yes Ralph, presumably all part of the warranty justification. I wonder if the Hunter [?] rig’s data is transmitted electronically directly to Stuttgart?

Anecdotally, years ago when I had a PASM failure early on in my ownership the tech said it took him ages to locate the fault because the factory was providing detailed guidance. He thought that a module was at fault but it turned out to be a pinched cable caused during final assembly of the car.

Jeff

 

[Lucky981]

I had the PADM yellow come on last month. Been using the car with no problems, but not in sport etc. I've just booked it in to my local indy for early January and changing both sides at the same time. It seems parts are available now but if anything changes, I'll post.

 

[ralphmusic]

Yes Ralph, presumably all part of the warranty justification. I wonder if the Hunter [?] rig’s data is transmitted electronically directly to Stuttgart?

Anecdotally, years ago when I had a PASM failure early on in my ownership the tech said it took him ages to locate the fault because the factory was providing detailed guidance. He thought that a module was at fault but it turned out to be a pinched cable caused during final assembly of the car.

Jeff

The data is captured and held centrally in the UK but would expect it to be quizzed by GmbH on some but not all marginal and contested warranty claims. I expect GmbH would regularly access anonymised data by model for engineering analysis purposes.

In your case I guess the tech would have cried for help which would have come from GmbH.

 

[ralphmusic]

As an addendum to my last post, the Centre had to restore back to stock for system evidence to complete warranty claim but then took it back to my settings as a freebee - rear only as front was undisturbed.

What is interesting is the level of detail captured/required by the Porsche maintenance system, not only for warranty claims.

I have had the suspension reset by Center Gravity who said based on their evidence markers, that all components were exactly the same as they had set the car up previously. This makes me wonder whether the OPC didn't drop the transmission to replace the mount.

 

[Mattfsan]

I got the yellow PADM warning on the 8th of October. Took it to Porsche and nothing wrong with the car, obv just a faulty part. Replacement has finally arrived and it's booked in on the 3rd of January.

Very annoying issue. Similar to ralphmusic, I did ask the mechanic at Porsche about it and also noticed the new part number is a couple numbers different so I think it's fair to assume that there was a major manufacturing flaw with the old version of this part and hopefully the new version won't fail in the same way. This must have been quite an expensive fail for Porsche.

I'd imagine very few people if anyone has had the new version of this part fail in the same way...

 

[Twinfan]

The part has been knocking around in some form or another since the 981/991 generation of cars and has been failing since then across models and (probably) part numbers. Unless there's been a substantial revision of the part this time compared to previous times, I suspect these newer parts will routinely fail just like the last ones have...

 

[Pshanks]

I had one fail last year (paid to have it replaced), and just had another failure. I’m going to disconnect both mounts and then use PIWIS to disable the error (seen this done in a video) so the mounts remain in their standard state permanently. I don’t track the car and find the benefit minimal, and since Porsche seem incapable of finding a proper fix for this expensive issue I just don’t think it’s worth replacing.

 

[MrDemon]

got the call already for a new one (my 2nd) so that was quite fast seems they must have caught up now.