should porsche offer a 100,000 mi warranty to 996 owners because of rms problems?

over 40% of 996 owners here are affected. i love my 2002 c4s but i expect i'll trade it in before my warranty expires unless porsche acknowledges the magnitude of this design defect with an extended warranty. frankly, with their profit margin they can easily afford it.

I'm out of warranty & running scared.......

I say Yes, they should offer one.

No they should not. They will get more money if you buy a 997 then keeping your 996.

Hmmm..... let me think. Now that's a hard question for me to ask Despite your intentions ingnacio, and your know without asking that I support your motives wholeheartedly, but the statititions on this board will have a field day with this poll.

They should not. What they should do is to give us parts that worth the price.

What if I don't need parts?

What I mean is that Porsche should provide us with a car that is assembled with well designed parts that don't have obvious issues like the RMS, coolant tank crack, potential oil starvation when driven with slick tires on the track, sun roof and interior rattles, .........

These warranties and how the manufacturer's have to carry the risk on their books is tricky. For example: Pcar could give a 100,000 mi non transferrable warranty or 3 years, whichever comes first. This warranty would be virtually worthless to owners, but PAG wouldn't have to reserve($) much. I think a limited componant warranty for seals (to include rms) for 100,000 mi that is transferrable would be fair to both owners & PAG. The reserves PAG would have to set aside could be assessed & projected from the 4 years 997 experience. How to force them to do that ? I think persuading state Attorney Generals - that this is a widespread problem that the buying public needs disclosed to them prior to vehicle sale (or the sale can be recinded). What do you think.....

Berny....

YAWN! Where did you get your 40% number? Sure it would be nice...gee, that would make my car under warranty until ..well, forever!

BMW extended the engine warranty to 6 years 100,000 miles on the E46 M3. In my opinion, a large (if not primary) catalyst was the furor created by the forum members of Roadfly. Threads like this one is how it all started.

I said no.......and the reason is that I don't think it should stop at 100K. I think they should warranty the RMS for the life of the engine. Even though Porsche has instituted a "fix" for the RMS problem, no one knows if it is going to work long term-not even Porsche. What happens if all these "improved" seals start to leak again at 125K miles? Should that be the owner's problem? I don't think so. This is a design/manufacturing defect that Porsche needs to permanently stand behind.

No offense, but there is a huge difference between the entire engine self-destructing and a minor oil leak that is annoying and could be somewhat costly. Also, although common, I do not think that the RMS issue is as widespread as complaining about it on boards might suggest. Perhaps a solution would be to warranty RMS repairs for the same length as the original warranty. As such, for cars that have had no RMS issues, then the warranty extension would have no effect. When an RMS leak is repaired, the repair -- not the entire engine -- would be warrantied for 4 years or whatever the stock warranty is. Just my two cents.

I too am concerned at what happens after my extended warranty runs out

We should all be awarded GT3's for all of the worries and concern that the RMS issues 996 drivers have to deal with.

The rms leak is the "tip of the iceberg", and is the indicator that the transmission and the engine is out of line.

IMO, they should recall all the 996 engines, and give you a new 3.8L 997 engine.

Porsche should stand behind the car.My local Porsche dealer told me that Porsche has never even provided the dealers with an adequate explanation for the problem.These cars cost a lot of money and Porsche makes a significant profit on them.This is not just a small oil leak .For a lot of people it has meant a blown engine.

I am not a Porsche mechanic, but my understanding is that an RMS leak may or may not be the "tip of the iceberg." On some engines it might indicate a bigger problem. On other engines it might indicate merely a faulty seal. On other engines it might indicate the improper insertion of a perfectly good seal into a perfectly good engine. RMS is a real and serious issue. However, if you want a real and honest response from the company, people cannot demand unreasonable things (i.e., lifetime guarantee of the entire engine) or exaggerate a real problem (i.e., by claiming that 50% of all engines have the problem -- because the company probably knows exactly how many engines have been repaired -- or claiming that an engine by definition is no good simply because it had one RMS leak). I genuinely feel for those who have experienced multiple RMS leaks -- Porsche should do whatever it takes to resolve the problem. However, if you have one leak, Porsche should get the chance to fix it. If it doesn't leak again during the standard warranty period, where is the problem? Just my two cents. BTW, I have owned a Porsche that had an RMS leak. It was fixed and it never came back. The worst I experienced was a quarter sized oil pool on my garage floor, which I cleaned and forgot. I have no fear about continuing to drive 996s, and in fact bought another.

Disagree with TD in DC. With all due respect, TD doesn't know what the problem is or what Porsche knows about the problem. If the 996 has a design defect, and from reading these posts it appears that it may, then Porsche should disclose same and agree to resolve the problems associated therewith, including engine replacements if that is what is required. If this is not a design defect, Porsche should provide data explaining that. We are the consumers. The company must disclose known defects. To me this isn't a warranty issue. If the rms issue happens to me I will expect Porsche to fix it for free. Period. Porsche steps in and replaces engines when pushed not out of some good samaritan caring but because it wants to avoid being sued. Porsche makes substantial profits. Perhaps some of those profits should be returned to the consumers who have to replace their engines due to this problem. My two cents . . .

What exactly do you think I am saying? My point is that you are more likely to get a reasonable result -- which EVERYONE, including me, wants -- if you make reasonable demands rather than unreasonable demands. Some people here have suggested that the warranty on the entire engine should be extended due to fear about RMS. If there is a problem with RMS, then the solution should focus on RMS. That is my only point. Also, if you make to to 68k miles without a problem, and then you need to replace a seal on the engine, well, then maybe Porsche doesn't ALWAYS have a responsibility to pay (read carefully folks, I didn't say Porsche should NEVER pay). Just my two cents.

TD: in my view you have it backwards. The company is not behaving reasonably by failing to disclose and resolve the problem with its own very loyal customer base. It is difficult for the consumer to know in these circumstances what is reasonable and what is not. Thus, your suggestion about what should be the reasonable response doesn't make much sense because you don't have any factual basis for what it is you're suggesting. Don't be afraid to demand that the companies with whom you do business conform to the law and good business practices. Personally I don't care about replacing one seal but if it causes engine failure then I will not be very happy about it.

What? My view has nothing to do with being "afraid to demand" anything. It has everything to do with being pragmatic. Please, feel free to demand the moon and stars and I wish you the best of luck in achieving it on behalf of all owners. If you succeed, I will buy you a beer and erect a shrine in my garage to you. I just think that being strategic about demands will increase the chances that the demands will be granted. That is good common sense. I think that demanding an extended warranty for the ENTIRE engine for the LIFETIME of the car is less likely to be granted than a demand that the warranty for RMS-related issues be extended to the extent that a particular engine has a RMS-related defect. Honestly, even without any defects, the seal will go bad eventually, as will several other parts. If the engine doesn't have an RMS defect, do you think that Porsche would even consider a perpetual replacement policy? I don't, but if you can achieve it, more power to you. Further, what is your basis for telling me that I "don't have any factual basis for what it is you're suggesting." What is your factual basis for assuming that my suggestion that owners should demand remedies linked to the problem is based on fear of asking Porsche to "conform to the law and good business practices"? I am pragmatic, and I fear no company, particularly not Porsche. Oh yea, fund Rennlist by becoming a paying member please.

TD - relax. Is your remark about not being a paying member supposed to be an insult? If they don't want people who are not members to post, perhaps they should have told us. Having said that, I'm fairly new to the board and to Porsche and I'll consider your insult, err suggestion. Once again, you don't know the genesis of the problem or the damages it may cause or what Porsche knows about it (unless of course you're affiliated with Porsche in some way). You are suggesting that consumers who are essentially "flying blind" when dealing with a company that is may not be coming clean with them about a potentially significant issue be "pragmatic" about how they deal with Porsche about the issue. I agree with you that extending the entire warranty seems unnecessary, but again I don't know what all of the potential issues are that relate to this apparent design defect. And posts above suggests that even Porsche's own dealers don't know either. Since the consumer doesn't know, and since Porsche should explain the problem and resolve it but chooses not to do so, I would be overinclusive in my demands rather than underinclusive. Seems pragmatic to me. Just my two cents.

Has there ever been ever official announcement from Porsche re the RMS leaking issue? What would it take for all of us to get a petition going, where we ask for a full explanation and a full disclosure as to the full extent of the problem? Do you think they would answer us? If they ignore the petition, we could inform trade magazines and consumer groups etc. Does anyone think this would work?

I make a conscious effort not to insult anyone, and if I do, it is always made in gest. My comment to you was serious. If you are a Porsche fan and you like having discussions, fund the board. I did not say that you could not post, or that I would not engage in discussions with you until you fund. Also, I said please. The only aspect of your posts that does annoy me slightly is the fact that you presume to tell me what I know and what I do not know. What I have said is that RMS leaks can have different causes -- some of which are a defect and some of which are not. I am very confident, based on my conversations with Porsche mechanics, that this is true. Also, it would be shocking if it were not true. My observation is not a flash of brilliance. Also, my comments had nothing to do with what disclosures Porsche should or should not make. I did not even address that issue. My point was very narrow. In this latest post you seem to agree with me when you say that "extending the entire warranty seems unnecessary." That was my only point. Even if every RMS leak were the result of a defect, then my suggestion of extending the warranty to cover that defect is inclusive enough to resolve everyone's problem, and it is one that Porsche might consider. As such, the common sense of my suggestion is not undermined by any lack of knowledge about the exact cause of the defect: If there is a defect, the warranty should cover the defect regardless of the exact cause of the defect. As such, I don't need to know the genesis of the problem, or what Porsche knows about it. (My comment about Porsche knows was meant to point out solely that if we exagerate the extent of the problem, we will lose credibility.) However, I do know the damage RMS-failures cause. The bottom line is that RMS failure -- in nearly every case -- is detectable, and nearly always detectable before long-term damage to the rest of the engine (again, apart from RMS-related issues) is incurred. If it were the type of defect that was NOT easily detectable before massive destruction (the type that extends far beyond the defect itself -- ala BMW M3 engine explosions), then a warranty extension on the entire engine might be warranted. Even there, however, BMW did not extend the warranty indefinitely. Your suggestion that we need to be overinclusive would be more appropriate, IMHO, in the BMW M3-type scenario, not the RMS failure scenario. I have the feeling that you think I am saying something that I am not trying to say at all. Porsche should be upfront with its customers and we deserve better. However, if we, as Porsche owners, are going to try to change something, we need to be pragmatic. No insults intended (only slight annoyance experienced) only frank discussion. BTW, if I really were torqued, your suggestion that I should "relax" really would send me over the edge. Luckily, I enjoy my life too much to get worked up over conversations on boards.

O.K. you two...you know who I mean.. Take a deep breath,hold... release. You are obviously both very bright,passionate, articulate people, so don't get into a personality/ego clash.Essentially, you differ only in the fine print.There is more common ground here than you recognize!

I am the great Cornholio . . .

Actually this is the best method. We here in the UK have lobied with Porsche Club GB to take it up with Porsche GB in regards to the RMS problem. You may have heard that PCGB conducted a survey to 1000 boxster owners, approx 650 responded and about 24% of them said they had or have had an RMS problem. Sadly the survey was not done on the 996 Register but i believe it will happen. It won't come as a surprise to you that I am extremely active in the PCGB involvlement. However, Porsche GB have so far laughed us off . My own RMS problems are possibly a record. I am now awaiting my 5th RMS in less than a year and my gearbox is hosed. Nevertheless, Porsche GB will not replace my engine because in the UK Porsche GB who are a wholy owned subsiduary of PAG do not have a policy that exchanges engines because of RMS problems. So, I am going down the legal path and hoping that pressure from PCGB and "also from you guys in the US" will eventually get PAG to offer a palpable resolution to this manufacturing defect. I have been lobying this RMS problem for over a year both on rennlist and a bunch of other Porsche forums. I have upset a lot of people but also somehow through perservering, managed to get everyone's attention to this problem. I have personally lodged letters of complaint to BBC Top Gear, BBC watchdog, Porsche GB, Porsche Club GB, Porsche AG including actually talking to the worldwide service manager. Things are starting to happen but we all know that the US market (yes that's you guys) is their bread and butter. If you guys don't stand up and be counted then nothing will "ever" come of it. So all of you and I mean even those of you who haven't had the RMS problem "yet", get your keyboards busy and write letters of complaint, concern, dissatisfaction and annoyance. Send your letters to PNA, PCNA, PAG, Excellence and everyone and anyone who can push it along. If you guys in the US make enough noise, PAG will start really panicing and will be forced into doing something about it. The bottom line is that there is too much talk and not enough action. They have to be made accountable for this problem. So stop yapping and chuckling and get to it. Oh and BTW: I note a bunch of you RMS suffering 996 owners are not displaying the "RMS Club Failed" avatar. The more we show this the more it will get noticed. I see it on just about every Forum but more often than not its displayed by the same people (thanks guys BTW). We need a lot more support. Please, I beg of you. Put this avatar in your signature and show some support. But more importantly, wherever you are in the world....write those letter. It is located here: http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/rmsclubfailed2.jpg

How about if someone on this board (preferably an attorney) writes up a letter and we all use this draft for our own letters. Also, whom should we be addressing these letters to? Let's get to it guys!

Ya, let's get the paper works going. Any lawyers in this forum? We should take a stand man!!

Who the hell would vote no?

Well, some of us already have a 100,000 mile extended warranty, and feel that Porsche should do more than just extend their existing warranty. Exactly what is up for discussion.

bernie it appears that while sales are so strong that porsche will probably not acknowledge rms as an issue. i wish porsche had stronger competitors. i will not buy another boxer,996 or 997 while this remains an open issue. to say this saddens me because i have been a huge porsche fan and owner since 1976. otherwise 996's are very reliable and great fun at least the turbo appears immune.

The OEM springs are probably made to tow the capacity load (hence the harsh springing for passenger cars). Softer springs might reduce tongue weight limits. My .02

Oooops........... Wrong thread. sorry....

For those who have experienced RMS problems have you filed complaints with the government? I ask this because I could not imagine anything greater to get Porsche's attention than have the government involved. I see that the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency has a complaint section at their sight: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/ Not sure how this works but maybe this could help. Just from personal experience my father was able to get ironically a German firms attention by threaten to file a complaint with the government. He used to work for a German firm that at one point asked to buy out his employment contract early. For some reason though the co. was not willing to pay all monies owed. He went back a forth for a month on this with him calmly asking for his money and them being asses - to say the least. Looking for help he contacted his lawyer. Lawyer suggested that the government be involved, as companies hate government involvement, and suggested the Labor Department be contacted (I think that was the agency.) Next time he talked with his old employer he told them if they did not pay up the plan was to get the government involved. Next thing he knew some nice company lawyers called apologizing about the "misunderstanding". Money was wired the next day. Hope this helps.

Maybe PAG is not the culprit, but the messenger...... Who is to blame for the misalignment, that results in the rms failure? The blocks are cast by Kolbenschmidt: http://www.kolbenschmidt.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=312 The way they are manufactured is a great read for motorheads. Does the metallurgy allow the block to move under stress and changing heat conditions? Does the block maker bore & thread for the main bearings (assembled at PAG)? - that may be misaligned. Improper seal installation would be extremely isolated if any. The seal fits in nest, you would have to really try for an improper install. Furthermore, someone in PAG is running in circles to try to find an answer. They have tried new tooling and deeper nest, to no avail... Heresy has it that the 997 block is redesigned & hopefully they found an answer. But they have a responsibility to the 996 owners. We have to keep their feet to the fire...

Interesting about Kolbenschmidt. I remember reading the below off of a Boxster board called www.986faq.com and wondered if true - if so whether this might be the cause of so many RMS leaks on Boxsters and 996s. I must admit I know little on how car engines work and whether the crankcase mentioned is close to the RMS. "In some cases, there is a leak through the crank case wall. Porsche has a unique way of casting the crank cases on the Boxster and 996. Porsche subcontracts out the process of pouring the Boxster aluminum crank cases. The process of doing the pouring is problematic if the aluminum doesn't flow or cool smoothly, causing porous crank case walls. The original machine that was producing the crank cases was having a huge number of rejects. The current machine is having about a 35% reject rate. A rejected engine is not put into a car, and is presumably melted down. In the extremely rare case, though, an engine that should have been rejected slips into production. If so, you will detect large amounts oil loss immediately after taking deliver, even though there is none dripping on the ground. Even more infrequently, the expansion and contraction of the engine due to heat can expose the problem later. Porsche's quality control on this problem at this point is very good, and almost no currently shipping vehicles should have this problem. If the problem does occur, though, the entire engine must be replaced. Allow one to four weeks of downtime if this occurs, depending on parts availability."

What is said in the Boxster faq is true, but not related to the RMS issue. Some of those defective blocks were sleeved and put in 1998 and 1999 Boxsters. http://www.pca.org/tech/tech_qa_question.asp?id={F3EA752A-E838-43E5-A43D-BB4F445F5A8F} And this is what would happen if the sleeve moved.

Thanks Tool Pants Yuck! Porsche has an engine problem. As the saying goes "the cat is out of the bag." More and more people are learning about the oil leaking problems that Boxsters and 996 have. I used to hope this was a small isolated problem that would go away. Now it appears RMS leaking is what the 996 and 986 will be known for - when it comes to problem issues. I agree we need to keep Porsches feet to the fire. I'm going to shot off letters to the two Porsche dealers I've bought from expressing concerns. Hope too those with RMS problems writte or call in complaints to the government. Since there isn't damage from this issue IMHO it is hard to see where lawyers would want to get involved.

The arguments over duration of Porsche"s responsibility are cogent. My basis for believing the RMS issue should be covered for life-of-the-car is that it is a built in flaw, not a wear item or idiosyncratic part failure. Every previous Porsche series carried the liklihood that the car could run far past 100K without a major failure. That is no longer true. I'm a huge Porsche loyalist (5 to date, 2 current, and a Cayanne soon), but can't see buying a Boxster or 996 until this issue is clarified. I"m relieved my tt is unaffected, but one year from now, or sooner if the rms goes, my Boxster is gone. AS

I wonder if that was a Nikosil block: Alumninum with nickel plated sleeves. Apparently the nickel plated sleeves interacted with the aluminum and sulfur fuel. A big problem in the UK. Current blocks are still outsourced, the process Lokosil uses silicone sleeves w aluminum squeezed thru. Very interesting casting process. There is always a problem between different metals (regarding different rates of expansion/contraction at different temps). I wonder if that has anything to do with the RMS? (as in warpage)

Oh, I probably should keep quite on this as I feel I'm over my head on the cause of the RMS problem. Thought to ask though if any lubricant is used on the RMS seal. I only ask because from what I've read aluminum can rust under special circumstances. Actually aluminum rusts under normal circumstances but unlike iron, which turns red and flaky when it rusts, rusted aluminum forms aluminum oxide one of the toughest materials known. There is a substance that when it comes into contact with aluminum will cause it to rust like iron and that is mercury. I used to work in the vegetable oil industry and remember Q/C from time to time would test for the presence of metals, mercury being one of them. Could it be possible that if a lubricant is used on the RMS that it might contain trace amounts of mercury in it, which then comes into contact with the aluminum block and then cause a small leak? Any way just a thought to throw out there.

Wouldn't it be nice if Porsche just came clean and told us?

Yes to the 100K warranty is the obvious answer. But IF they ever allowed a 100K extention, it would likely be limited to the RMS only and maybe 6 years or so. But it's never gonna happen so it's a moot point.

It really would be nice if Porsche came clean about the cause of RMS. It sounds like others have good ideas of what causes it � warped metal - but who knows. Received a reply from one dealer over a letter I sent concerning RMS. As expected he said RMS appears to be a minor issue & not as big as some make it out to be - in his opinion. He added that when it does occur Porsche has fixed under warranty and in some circumstances out of warranty at no cost. Very oddly he added that the current Porsche he is driving has an oil leak that is RMS. His was a slow leak that did not concern him because the engine would not be damaged he added. He planned on having it fixed in the shop soon.

Some said that about wiring harness...... What's with the BMW panorama?

The RMS just went on my 964RSA for the second time. The original leak was at 40k and the oil contaminated the clutch so that had to be replaced. 90k miles later the same thing happened and once again my clutch needs to be replaced because of oil contamination. So while a failed RMS can at first be just a PIA it has the potential to cause a lot more $$$ problems.

I'm not going to say you are lucky with your RMS problems on the 964RSA. You are fortunate though for the amount of miles driven with out oil leaks. What 996 & Boxster owners have learned is that RMS leaks occur on low mileage cars - many times less than 10,000 miles. Once the leak occurs and is plugged with a new seal a brand new leak comes back in many cases just months later. Chances are when you sell your 964 there will not be questions about oil leaks. When I sell my 996 or trade it in for sure RMS will be asked about. Everyone seems to know about oil leaking 996s. When choosing to buy a sports car I looked at several car brands. Porsche won my business largely because of a family friend that collects sports cars. Allen said Porsche has historically been the very best sports car when it comes to reliability. I'm not sure about that. With the lurking problem with my Cayenne and now RMS leaks for the sports cars - reliability and Porsche no long go together IMO. Yesterday while talking with a Porsche salesman about the 996, 997 & RMS he asked if I was interested on bidding for a new 997. I did not know what to say. Possibly I'd be interested in the turbo once it comes out I told him - since the turbo apparently does not have RMS problems in such great %s. To be honest I don't think I'll buy another new Porsche so long as these problems remain. Porsche cars may be "technical marvels of engineering" but they are not going to receive my business with these reliability problems un- addressed in a public way.

I would be more than happy to extend my warranty to 100,000 miles and would also be willing to pay for it! My 99 is out of warratny and I cannot find anyone who will write a contract on a car if it is out of warranty. At the end of the day, we shouldn't complain.....we have all, for the most part, gotten good use out of the original factory warranty. If the scare factor is high enough....well maybe it's time to trade up. You will certainly spend more stepping up then you will for the cost of an RMS repair.

i wonder if rms troubles will inhibit sales of the 997? it has essentially the same engine, being essentially a 996 with a retro face and a cayenne interior. i know i wouldn't buy one until the rms issue is addressed.

PAG have made some changes to the block. I wonder if it's in response to the rms issue. If it is I hope they fixed it.

What I find disappointing about the RMS issue is that with Porsche you can pretty much count on some big model-specific problem. Don't get me wrong; I love having a 911 and have had one of the various iterations for the past decade and a half. Nonetheless, going from memory and without trying to be scientific about this, you can draw up a pretty formidable list in a hurry: -911 SC had exploding airboxes (cheap fix with pop-off valve) -911 Carrera 84-89 had valve guide problems -both models above had lousy syncros up to the 915 transmission -a series of 964's had the Freudenberg problem -993 had the wiring harness problem and something else that escapes me -996 has the RMS -Boxster same as above Seriously, is there any model that Porsche makes that doesn't come with some big-a... problem? At some point, you would expect them to step away from the mom and pop atmosphere that allows these types of symptomatic problems. I griped about it in another post, but the sad plastic paint on the center console and various other bits of the interior that cratches like balsa wood is just plain sad. Why does Porsche allow this sort of thing past the testing period? Must be "je m'enfoutisme."--"we don't care cause we can get away with it." Since the competition isn't exactely bullet proof either (Maser, Ferrari, Lotus, and some others) they probably can. After all, in the land of the blind, one-eye is King.

The Cayenne is a sobering experience for PAG. The majority of these owners actually drive the cars daily & they have short fuses, with only a little loyalty. Perhaps PAG will become more customer responsive.

We could break down past Porsche problems, compare how Porsche dealt with the issues in the past, but in reality does this matter? IMO there is no equivalence to the current 996 & Boxster oil leaking problems to the past. This is the 21st century. Is it too much to ask that Porsche make cars that do not leak oil in the first couple thousand miles? When the cars do leak can't Porsche at least have a legitimate solution? I hope too that the new 997 has been redesigned such that it will not experience RMS leaking. You don't wish this kind of problem on others. What is upsetting is that for the entire production run of the Boxster and 996, 6 or 7 years, Porsche has had a solution. From what I read of others the turbo, the GT3, which have a engine block similar to the 993 - I think, do not have RMS leaks to the same volume due to a different engine design. Why didn't Porsche, the most profitable carmaker in the world, redesign their engines sooner to fix the RMS issue? I do not believe it is too demanding to ask of Porsche that they address the RMS issue publicly. At this point it is too Porsches benefit that they do so. Porsche's current CEO said in Forbes magazine that it was his hope that before he left office that Porsche be selling 100,000 cars a year. His model was to copy BMW. If Porsche really wants to be the next BMW, wants to be mainstream, they certainty need to be more customer responsive. They also need to address the Cayenne problems but that is for another thread!

Can somebody tell me exactly what happens if you let a RMS problem go unchecked? Does the clutch blow up? Slip? Fail? Other than a leak, what mechanical trouble can one expect from this leak? If it isn't a catastrophic problem maybe just ignore it, and top the crankcase off once in a while? Sorry, haven't heard of any disasters happening to a drivetrain as a result of the leak. I've had one RMS replaced, and might need a second one; oil "sweat" is building up at the seam.

There is much debate on this. Nobody really knows except Porsche. Since they won;t admit to the RMS being an issue (and that's why they wont say it is fixed in the 997....if it is fixed....since doing so would infer an admission). However, one can read between the lines.....and with repeat RMS problems, Porsche in the US typically replace the engine. The fact that they replace the engine infers the probable fact that it can lead to long term engine problems. I have heard of several people having to have the clutch replaced because of oil contamination from the leaking seal. But in my experience with 4 RMS replacements, I have not had any clutch problems. In fact I have just clocked 40k miles on the same clutch! I was in Cannes Cote de Zure in Southern France last week on vacation. While there, there was some sort of Auto festival on and Porsche had a stand. It was manned by Porsche of Antebes. Anyway the next day I happen to be in Antebes and I popped into the Porsche centre there (they had a 997). Got talking to a salesman (in broken busicuit English). Told him about my problems and as we were talking the sales manager came over and joined in the conversation. Then an engineer joined in. The engineer was German and spoke excellent English. He brought a most interesting analysis to the problem. I didn't mention my gearbox problem to him but he said that he believes the cause of the RMS problem originates from a gearbox problem. I asked him to explain more. He said he has been a Porsche engineer for several years and he has replaced many 996/986 RMS's and many resulted also in replacement gearboxes due to missaligned Getrag drive shafts which wobble ever so slightly but put strain on the flywheel and thus the crankshaft. He said that the problem "has" been fixed in the 997 as the 997 uses an entiely different gearbox, flysheel and engine block. He also said that it's a 50/50 chance that the gearbox would never be diagnosed since it does not necessarily show a problem. It just manifests in the RMS failing. He explained that he had a customer with a new 996 C4S and he had an RMS problem. He replaced it (he used the mandrel). Then it came back again. The mandrel showed bad toleramnce the 2nd time so he replaced the engine. Then it came back again 3rd time. Again he replaced the seal. But alas it went again. Finally he came up with the gearbox idea so he ordered a replacement gearbox. He never did replace the seal again. With the new gearbox fitted the C4S has never had the RMS problem again and he said that was 2 years ago. I then explained my gearbox problem. He feels absolutely certain that it is the cause of my repeat RMS problems. He even said, strange as it may seem but my RMS problem may dissapear even without the seal changed if I replace the gearbox. But he said the gearbox must be aligned correctly and tightened correctly in bolt order. He also said that the alignment is something he has got used to using his "ears?". Yes, he said he actually can hear if the alignment is correct. I am not sure what he means by this. Anyway, he was a very interesting guy to talk to and IMHO he brought an interesting hypothesis to the subject. Coincidentally, my OPC engineer diagnosed the gearbox being my RMS problems and I fobbed him off in the end telling him it was BS. Even Porsche GB head office agreed with me and told the OPC that he can;t use that excuse. But maybe there is something in this......we could all be running round with gearbox problems and not knowing it....until the RMS problem shows up. I also wonder that since they have to tak the gearbox down to do the RMS, could it be that when the gearbox is put back that it's a 50/50 chance that it is aligned properly. If it coincidentally gets aligned as it is replaced then you don't get the RMS problem but if it isn't then it just returns. Just a hunch based on what I have learned in the last week.

1. BMW has given it's owners a 100,000 mile warranty for the problems in early M3's.... and that's for a cheaper car.... 2. Porsche CONSTANTLY brags on how much profit they make on every 911 sold... I've read this about 5-6 times in certain publications over the years. Porsche is accountable for this problem! case closed. Maybe they can use some of those "profits" to keep their loyal customers before some decide to switch over to the upcoming BMW M3 V8 (which will be less expensive than a 911!!)

pete- AMEN!!

Ignacio.... how stupid does Porsche think it's customers are??? it's called accountability... something that everybody tries to ignore and get away with Can't blame the Porsche guys at the dealerships... they got mortgages to pay but the new V8M3 is looking pretty good right about now... for the same price as a 996/997 you can have the new M5 - Porsche!

pete complacency and arrogance are the downfall of all previously successful businesses. look at ibm,gm,etc... i hope pag doesn't drive us away

Ignacio, Definitely! Competition will close in... unless Porsche decides to drastically drop prices (and screw everybody's resale value - like BMW did with nte new M5) the only real refined alternative to the 996 is the M3 and it almost comes close in the handling department.... but almost isn't good enough for the Porsche driver... hence the unique qualities of the 911 that build loyalty... The new 997 should have been a 3.8 litre motor standard.... the "S" for that money... that's some real value... but for now they can get away with it until the M3 closes in on the handling department... which sadly I don't think it can cause nothing drives like a Porsche...!

Berny, That sounds like great news about the gearbox. Hope that ends up being the solution to RMS leaks. Plans in the works for making a gear box change?

I don't think the GT3 block is like the 996 block. My understanding is that it is the Nikosil technology (nickel cylinders) vs Lokosil (silicone cylinders for 996). Check me out. " His model was to copy BMW. If Porsche really wants to be the next BMW, wants to be mainstream, they certainty need to be more customer responsive. " Yeah, like free service and 100k miles warranty ala M3.........

jat i think your celebration regarding a gearbox solution is premature until pag officially announces that it will take responsibility for the rms leaks. have you priced a new porche gearbox lately?!

ignacio, I'm afraid the problem is much worse than what we thought. The news that Bernie shares is very good. One of the maddening parts of this situation is that Porsche has not had a solution! Porsche has replaced seals, and replaced engines with out stopping the problem. Could it be that this whole mess has been caused by out of line / faulty gear boxes? Time will tell. I'm interested to see in the future if this solves others long running RMS issues. Fingers crossed that this is the answer. I'm going to go out on the limb and say that replacing a gear boxes is less expensive than putting in a new engine. There must be a point where a new gearbox would be cheaper than replacing multiple RMS. Don't get me wrong, I like Porsche, but have the opinion that I'm probably more willing to criticize Porsche than others on this board. If new gearboxes are the solution then I think the word IDIOTs would be appropriate for Porsche. How hard would it have been for Porsche�s quality control department to figure out the real cause of this problem? How much money has Porsche spent on a non-existent fix. How much customer time has Porsche wasted? I'm on your team for having Porsche extend the warranty on the RMS issue. As c70Pete put it Porsche needs to be held accountable. A new gearbox is expensive. Unfortunately keep in mind when dealing with Porsche you might be dealing with stooges.

Well before we all jump to conclusions, remember this is only "hearsay" from an OPC engineer. What he said is indeed interesting, even believable, but it may be none more than his own synopsis and as you say, I think PAG would have done the research to find the real answer to the problem. Since they have produced multiple types of seals, even a TSB to tighten the block bolts, it doesn't look like they have visualised the problem being the gearbox. I mentioned it here because I thought it was an interesting hypothesis but only PAG know the real cause......and they dare not disclose what that is for obvious reasons. One thing I would like to know is if anyone (Tool Pants?) knows if there is in fact an alignment procedure used when replacing the gearbox. If so, I would like to know more as my car is about to go in yet again for another RMS......and a new gearbox....so I want to ensure it is put in and aligned correctly by the OPC.

Does anyone have a clue regarding this problem bleeding over to the 997? Is the new design so different that they absolutely will not have the same RMS problem?

The 997 uses the seal used in the Cayenne.

That may be true. However, it's probably not the actual seal that's failing - it's something outside the seal (engine/trans alignment?) Additionally, one is a Boxer engine - the other a V8. Mounts are different as well bearing stresses on the engine/trans joint. If there is a TSB for motor mounts; an engineer at PAG probably thinks, that might be a contributing factor

I don't have a 996 but I feel that Porsche should offer a 100,000 mile warranty extension or warranty on pre-owned vehicles, much like the Starmark Warranty Mercedes offers. In my honest opinion, perhaps we should try and have the members of the Rennlist forums, fill out a petition and see if anyone from PCA and POC would be willing to sign and submit it to Porsche NA to see if we can succeed in this suggestion and reccomendation to further enhance the Porsche driving experience and ease of upkeep. It wouldn't hurt to try... Andy

I sent off an email to the company noted in this thread that performs the engine casting asking them if they had any comments about the Porsche RMS leaks. Don't expect to get an answer, but if I do, I'll post it.

Great.. Nothing ventured... nothing blah, blah.........

It doesn't hurt to try and I do believe that Porsche is open to customer ideas and suggestions as is every company out there, unless they are too bureaucratic to an extent.... but who knows, great idea whoever started the thread though.

Who shall organize the list? I think it's a great idea!!!

Doing a quick search of the Porsche NA web page - they have a contact sight possibly worth writing to. http://www3.porsche.com/english/usa/...ct/contact.asp

Andy, Is that your wife!!!

No!...Porsche should step up to their responsibility to owners and offer an entirely new normally aspirated engine with a block/crankshaft alignment characteristics of the Turbo and GT3 covered by full 100,000 mile (no time limit) warranty. Unfortunately, this won't happen...Wendelin Wedekind is known as an "Engineer by Degree" who has firmly embraced the "Bean Counter" philosophy and been widely recognized and duly rewarded for his cost-cutting efforts at Porsche to return the company to profitibility. You can bet they have analyzed the RMS and other warranty claim expenses on the 996 and concluded it's better to offer replacement seals, even if they have to replace them all multiple times rather than solve the problem for the unsuspecting original owner body. The economics probably boil down to something like $2500 to $4000 expected warranty expense per vehicle over the factory warranty period compared to the total new engine recall replacement cost of $15-18,000. As long as the company remains profitable with the bottom line currently provided by the Cayenne, they can afford to wait out the last of the warranted 996's. Providing a replacement engine to warranted 996 owners perhaps could also impact sales on the 997 as long as the company's "sullied reputation" is not widely publicized. (They might want to hire Martha Stewart and Dan Rather as "Image" Consultants on this!!!) As others have indicated before, anyone who owns a 996 after the warranty runs out or subsequent buyers might have the dubious distinction of owning the first "disposable" (like a throwaway camera) Porsche. It's hard to believe that there will be "passionate" owners of 996's in the year 2024 like those today who feel the 1978-1983 911 SC's are still a wonderful automobile. At some point rather than repair, it might be best to donate the car to Charity and write it off!!! It's a sad position that would make Ferry Porsche roll over in his grave (until Herr Wedekind explained the economics of company survival!)... Perry (42 Years of Porsche Ownership)

If the tranny alignment was associated with RMS, would a Tiptronic minimize or eliminate the risk? Thanks all. Jim R, N. CA

There are reports of RMS with tips....

Just a quick chime in here from me - I'm a 99 C4 owner with RMS. Haven't done anything about it but am certainly interested in finding out possible warranty remedies from Porsche as well.

Mabye the Stig could just keep posting! The picture is pleasant on the eyes.

As a formwer owner of an RMS challenged 996 (current 993 owner), I applaud your efforts. When this topic appeared on other rennlist boards I referenced the RMS issue Motor Trend incurred with their long term 2003 4CS. Although few were interested, I found both the fact they had an RMS issue and their blase reaction to it, remarkable. BTW, the one year review appeared in the October 2004 issue, page 157. Thanks Jack

This just ain't fair!!!!!!!!!!!! Here I am ready willing & able to jump in deep water for a 996 & now to find out there is some type of potential defect ruining the whole dream! The flip side: I previously considered a late model M3 SMG coupe. I called a local private party advertising an '02 with 39k miles (kinda high). A guy answered & presented himself as the brother of the female owner. He seemed frank & friendly, a Ferrari owner/collector. We talked for twenty minutes, give or take. He said she decided not to deal with the hassles of a private sale so the dealer bought it back for $35k. She bought it new. It had numerous (a dozen or more) niggling electrical/control problems, frequently causing a return visit after parts arrived. I wish high-performance autos had the reliability of race-replica street motorcycles generating 160bhp per liter, which are generally bulletproof. I guess the car's complex control & electrical systems increase the risk of failures. But this still just ain't fair!!!!!!!!!!

PS Now we all know exactly why late 993s sell for the same as early 996s, in spite of the 996's increased refinement & performance. Wake up, Porsche! I wish I fit in the 993 & did not care about A/C. Jim R.

Again, people on this forum are not representative of the 996 population. How many 996 owners are on this forum?..If your lucky 1% of them. A sample size of 1% is no where near the amount needed to claim any level of staitistical significance - If you have something to the level of Statistically Significance (SS) it means that you can take that same issue and apply it to everyone with 19/20 accuracy. The fact that people have "chimed" in here on this forum without knowing what a RMS leak is confuses the issue further. What I mean about that is that some cars have had their RMS changed and continue to have them changed when in fact it is not the RMS that is leaking but instead it is the Intermediate Seal. If you have a RMS issue present it to your dealer, but throwing yourself into and hiding behind the "dirty laundry" of everyone on this particular string really doesn't help your case at all. But you know what, by going through a lawyer, it is probably the only way some of you will get down to the root of the problem, ie weed out the misconceptions about this issue and stop believing in and adding to the rhetoric on here. But that will cost you money and the only ones winning is the lawyers. If I was a lawyer I might be right into this too...cause I know all of you are: 1. Pissed off and 2. have money in your wallets.

I'm always amused by postings from others who get upset at these types of discussions. Why does it matter so much to you that you feel you have to say we're overblowing it and why should people not pursue something if they think there is a problem? I just don't get it...