a smudgy problem / rms makes german press

click here ".....Once confronted by Autobild with the problem experienced by customers, Porsche now say they will show goodwill. Earlier cases where the customer paid for a repair at a dealer will be reexamined."

I am not exactly sure what all this means? That Porsche will honor the RMS problem now?

Ok who here reads geman...err I think

I cannot translate all the article but the quote above is a direct part of it. This article was printed this week in the named paper in Germany. It is interresting to see Porsche's reaction once confronted with the rms problem by the press. Me too wonder what happens now if one goes to an opc with a leaky rms, will the do it for free or are these false promises?

Web Page translated by Google. My favorite part is the reference to "lubricant losers" and "Inkontinenz." A smudgy problem AUTO PICTURE uncovered a persistent problem in quality with the 911er: A shaft seal at the double-piston engine does not want to keep close simply. For workshops it is the classical author with the classical author 911 : oil-call-end engines, which pull themselves since the Ur-year of construction 1964 by all generations. Wiped, sponge more drueber - until 1997 there were excluding air-cooled boxer . Their Inkontinenz was on a long-term basis hardly avoidable due to high thermal load and the associated material expansion. Then that came company intern 996 Elfer mentioned with liquid cooling. But the wrong with the leakages exists further, as numerous cases show. In the detail it concerns to the crankshaft with the Wasserboxer the transmission-lateral radial sealing ring (shaft seal). Whereby also its neighbourhood - and screws housing seam -, quills of the intermediate shaft - sometimes does not hold. Considerably concerned: the first 996-Reihe with 3,4-Liter-Boxer. Asked Porsche specialists number the ratio of the triefenden vehicles on well half. In addition, Boxster (986) as well as 996,3,6 (starting from at the end of of 2002) are among the lubricant losers. Probably even their current inheriting 987 and 997 . First complete engines on guarantee or fair trading were exchanged, later - after several changes of the housing mold - the shaft seals. Sometimes but the dewatering held only few thousand kilometers. Confronted by AUTO PICTURE with the reproaches of the customers, Porsche insures now to show up obliging. Earlier cases, in which customers had to pay corresponding repairs with Porsche centers themselves (up to 1000 euro), to become again examined. Since February 2005 a completely new sealing ring use finds. With it the continuous building site should be finally drying-put Wasserboxer - Porsche says. In case someone could actually translate, this is the web page: http://www.autobild.de/aktuell/meldu...tikel_id=10853

Sort of on the translation is correct, I just had my RMS replaced at Manheim Porsche about 4 weeks ago but I do not expect they will cover a 2000 model. In Europe most cars are only covered by 24 month warranty with unlimited mileage and back in 2000 before all the EU regulations it was only 12 months. Outside that I would love if they gave me some money back but expect the answer will be a big no! I am currently in Washington DC driving a rental Chevy, boy do I miss my Porsche when I drive by and see one. Back to the subject I will be back in Germany in about a month and will let you know when I pay a visit to them.

Hey, Bob996, though this clearly doesn't describe the problem you had with your blown piston or hole or whatever, it seems that you are finally vindicated vis a vis the RMS failure. Good on you.

It basically states that they are acknowledging a possible flaw in the m96/7 engines and are going to begin offering further goodwill to any customer with a rms leak. That is a quick summation, I'd advise you to get while the gettin's good boys!

I wonder if this would apply to non-in warranty 996's and 986s? a defect is a defect...... would be good to know if my '99 C2 springs an RMS leak

My interpretation would be yes, all 996 cars.

yes but in Europe ...don't think that the same goes for the USA...when you buy a Porsche in Europe you pay about 40% more for the same car... let's hope they will exchange all rms seals but that means 80,000 cars worldwide or even more??

I think the real interpretation is that the problem has been found out and Porsche are embarassed. However they wil haggle and it probably will take a fight to get them to pay...... They say they will check those who have paid already for the fix (up to 1000 euros) but many people have paid much more as the engine out time can be pretty expensive. Some people have had multiple seals replaced. Still admiting the problem makes it easier for people to argue. Well done Auto Bild.

First, I was of the understanding that if the seal was replaced once, it was warrantied for 2 years. Is this not the case? Second, this article does eem to portend a recall in the not so distant future for all affected 996 cars.

My interpretation is we need an auto magazine to do the same here in the US.

You guys are just a bunch of lubricant losers.

> First, I was of the understanding that if the seal was replaced once, it was warrantied for 2 years. Is this not the case? Anecdotal, but... First time I had to pay 30%. 8 months later, fully covered. Both out of warranty

nycebo - my understanding was that the 2 year warranty was on parts / service you paid for. If performed under warranty, then the warranty on the work expires coterminous with the main underlying warranty. This is what my advisor told me whan I had my RMS done under warranty last May. I guess they used the new seal, OK so far.

If I understand the garbled translation correctly, they seem to say that "Porsche technicians" estimate that HALF of 3.4 liter engines have had rear main seal problems? If correct, that number is huge.

Ha... now that's funny....

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that RMS leaks are fairly common- but they are just leaks and have nothing at all to do with Bob buying an unwarrantied car from a Ford dealership, and replacing the blown engine with another unwarrantied engine he bought at a junk yard.

Everyone knows that RMS leaks are fairly common- LOL Well, maybe not everybody. I went to the MD Auto Show a couple of weeks ago and asked a Porsche salesman about RMS leaks. When I told him that I believed the leaks were fairly commonplace, he became very irate and wanted to know what was the source of my information. He indignantly told me that if the RMS leak were as common as I suggest, how could the 911 be the leader in the J D Powers reliability reports.

Gee, I wonder how JD Powers could possibly be wrong

Bob has argued for ages that RMS leaks should always have been repaired at PCNA's expense. There's still no consensus on whether PCNA will actually pick up the tab on these going forward here in the States.