update poll for rms leaks--please report your status including mileage and model year

i have 35k mi on 2002 c4s with no problems

I have 2002 C4S. RMS and intermediate shaft seal were replaced at 11,000 miles. I have 15,500 now. No signs of more leakage at this point. The eccentricity of the crankshaft area in th block was checked. I am told it is within tolerances and this should be the only seal failure since being replaced with the updated version.

24000 miles on a 2002 C4 Cabriolet. No problems whatsoever.

31,000 mi on my C2, nothing yet (thank goodness). Love the car...

'01 C2. RMS replaced at ~12,500, before I bought the car. Asked the dealer and they said it was definitely "within tolerance," therefore just replaced.

No problem @ 4K on my 2003 C2 and no problems on my(now someone elses) 2000 C2 with 61K Bruce

You might want to change it so for each mileage row you can check one of two columns: "RMS Fail" or "No RMS Fail" That way you will see what % of cars at each mileage (or km) break had RMS problems. Just my 2c's

'03 C2, RMS @ ~6K miles, seal replacement, no sign of leak @ ~8K miles

'01 C2, RMS leak required engine replacement at 24K miles.

99 C2 with 36k - no problems

Mine was replaced by previous owner at 9000 miles. No problems since and have around 25K on the clock.

2001 C2 RMS @ 20K miles...just a few months ago. dry now.

I know it's not scientific or is a reliable measure....but 30% w/RMS.. scary!

I'm afraid to vote "no rms" because that means I'll get one within a week or two... -Scott

My 1999 C2 Cab has 35K+ miles, no problems to report.

'02 C4 Cab - Seal replace at 27K and again at 30K......

00 C4 Cab, 27K miles, no RMS but I've broken the gear shift linkage twice and fried a coolant bottle.

My 2000 C2 had its RMS fail at 29,500 miles. Opening was out of spec, so I now have 1,500 miles on the new engine. The impressive part was that it only took 2 days from when I dropped it off to be checked to when I picked it up with a new engine (Tuesday morning to Thursday afternoon). Bob

20,000 miles and no leaks. Scary that 5 people had a leak between 20000 and 25000 miles, or that 13 had a leak after 20000 miles. Oh, well. If it leaks, it leaks. Might be one way to get a new engine. Better than a rebuild. Or, might be one way to upgrade to a GT3 engine .

6 RMS leaks 2 IIS leaks 5 engines Between 2 Pcars all about 8000 mile intervals.

23K and not a drip

35,000 miles, 3rd RMS in 8 months.....and still dripping!!!! First RMS at about 26,000 miles.

this poll is getting scarier the longer it goes on! scouser and robync seem to be particularly cursed. luck of the draw i guess. it is maddening that porsche has been unable to rectify what appears to be a quality control problem after 5 years of production. funny though that the jd powers survey #'s have never been better. i believe porsche should acknowledge that rms is production/design flaw in an otherwise excellent engine that merits extending the engine/drivetrain warranty to 100,000 miles or 6 years after in service date. otherwise our used car residual values will be permanently in the toilet and porsche will surely lose customers. this would be a damn shame for an otherwise terrific car. perhaps if porsche looks at the bmw m3 experience they will learn the costs of ignoring a problem like this. in the end customers vote with their feet--especially with enhanced communication regarding such problems on the internet. i hope someone at porsche is monitoring our board.

2002 with 23K miles, RMS replaced, and had new clutch plate done too. OK for now.

There are just two groups of 996's: those who have had an RMS leak, and those who haven't had one...yet! Sad thing is, not only they won't acknowledge it but it seems more profitable for them to continue producing RMS faulty engines along the course of 7 YEARS NOW and paying for the reapirs if still under warranty (if not its the owners problem now) than to change the design and finally fix the problem. And on top of that, it seem they will be still bringing that engine onto the 997!! like a change in displacement to obtain a few more HP just like they did in the 2002 facelift is going to make us believ its fixed I would be a good idea to make a database of owners with leaks, milage, etc for all of us to use to pressure Porsche to take care of RMS when out of warranty either colectively or individually with our dealers. Because many are going to get their first or more likely their second after warranties start to expire as 996 get older. Also it will help resale value of 996 as posible owners would be more keen on them if they don't have to worry about getting an RMS problem and no warranty.

but I've got a leak going on somewhere. I put a piece of cardboard underneath the car and am getting 2 small leak spots from under neath the car about 1 foot apart (in line with the oil filter). Brought it into the dealership this morning. They put die in my oil to find the leak but can't find it. Service advisor said that the leak is happening further up but can't definitively say if it is the dreaded RMS leak or not. I have to pick up the car this afternoon, put some miles on it, bring it back and see if they can find the fluorescent dye in the oil with the UV light. 2003 996 C2 9K miles

CARLOS IS RIGHT!! rder: there must be some way that we can bring this problem to porsche's attention and get their committment to resolve it! most of us here are devoted porschephiles our concerns should not be ignored year after year! perhaps viken could guide us as to what the most effective response should be i will post a similiar poll, if possible, on the rennteam site also. i am disturbed and concerned that NEARLY HALF OF US have so far experienced rms leaks, sometimes repeatedly this is clearly not acceptable for such expensive and otherwise well engineered and well made vehicles.

Ladies and Gents, It's being done..... I have been putting together a web site over the past few weeks for exactly this purpose. I have been away on business but I am now back and I am getting back into it again. I should have it finished in a few weeks. But please be patient.... The RMS problem has been with us for 8 years now. It' won't go away tomorrow The site will be coined "The Porsche 996 & 986 RMS Club (no affiliation, blah blah)" . To become a member, owners must register their car(s) with RMS problems (using VIN numbers). Once a member, you will be able to access a database allowing you to add/modify. There will also be an option for both members and none members to search the database and to voice their opinions and concerns. The purpose of the RMS club is to bring to the attention of Porsche AG that its members and other 996 & 986 owners are greatly dissatisfied with this marques ongoing RMS problem and to formerly demand an official statement from them as to how they intend to compensate or provide warranty for past and present 996 and 986 owners, both now and in the future. If you have suffered an RMS failure with your Porsche 996 and/or 986 you are encouraged to support the cause of the RMS Club. To show your support and to signify your solidarity to its cause, simply place the "RMS Club" avatar (shown below) in your signature. You can download it or reference it at: http://www.ljgs.org/.ceemee/pcar/rmsclub.jpg (Note this address will change when the RMS Club site becomes active).

Hooray, Scouser..... Being out of warranty (and therefore vulnerable) I support your efforts (web site) 100%. Best of luck. Jeeze, it's incredible that you have had more rms replacements than oil changes. I sympathize with your angst.

Cheers Torags. Hang in there for the site. In the meantime.......use the Force! display that avatar man Cheers -Berny

MY 2003 with 2500 miles. Was there a factory fix for 2003?

2003 C4S with 11500miles, No leaks. Yes, the latest (rms) seal revision (3rd genneration?) is in early 2003.

Screwed up. Mine should have no RMS and I accidentally checked RMS at 5,000 miles. For some reasons, I misread that to mean no issues rms at 5,000.

Let's keep this post up top for awhile. Would like to get a greater response, 'cause it's a great poll!

Hey hey Don my man. I hear you got oil drips.....not RMS though.

64,000 miles and no leaks of any kind on my '99 996!

Great news Scouser. Keep the faith. I look under my engine daily to make sure my new RMS is leak free. Can't wait to register on you r new site! Cheers, BD 2002 C2 24K miles GHL H&R Springs Orange Cap Clear SM Lota fun.

8500 miles on my late '99 c2 cab. No RMS leak that I'm aware of thus far but may be too early to tell. Sounds dreadful.

I have no RMS but have had a oil pressure sender switch go on me. 7000Kms at the time but nothing since. I look every time I drive out of the garage. What a way to live

I own a 2003 996 Targa with about 2300 miles. So far, no problems....

i have asked rc to post a similiar poll on rennteam. if you have alredy vote here please don't enter the same data on rennteam. this way we will get more meaningful statistics. i'll post a summary of both sites here and on rennteam when the data has all been collected. i applaud scousers new rms club! i hope our poll are of some additional help. with respect though i hope i never become a full fledged member!

I have just recieved a response from Porsche Iberica on my out of warranty RMS leak issue, they will refund me �17!! yes about 20 bucks! I expected nothing since they are not forced to do it legally (though morally) since warranty has expired so even though its their fault from a design error thats still not fixed... but refunding �17? I'm really insulted. Needless to say those �17 will be going back to Porsche Iberica with a nice letter of appreciation on may part.

Carlos, I am no legal expert but if they have given you even a "cent" for a refund, isn't that an admittance to fault by them. That is, they have acknowledged that they have a design flaw and their way of saying sorry is by compensating you a measly EUR17. I just wonder if there is room for a libel here. Hope so Keep yer chin up mate, Berny

Thanks Berny, I have now the address of the person at Porsche Iberica responsible and what I want now is an explanation and an apology.

hi carlos forget the apology just ask for a full refund of all the miney you spent on repairs

MY2000 with RMS replaced at ~9500. Leak was extremely modest, but as the car was headed out of warranty, had it done prior to its expiration.

I bought my 99 C2 used and according to the dealer's records, the RMS was replaced at around 25K miles in September 2001. The car has 42K on it now with no problems.

1999 C2, 30K miles, no problems - Bill

2004 C2 with 7,000 miles = no leaks yet. A friend just bought a 1999 C2 with 35,000 and the dealer who sold it to him replaced the RMS just before selling it. I would love to see this broken out by model year. I wonder if it is some supplier problem like it was with the E46 M3.

I would hope Porche assembles it's own engines. Jeeze that would be something if they were outsourced (to Briggs & Stratton or somebody)

tstanding i'll try and post a revised poll by model year in the next few days -- i agree this would be useful info

Mine is an 02 and started leaking at 7500 miles

no problems on my cab so far 17000 miles

one more reply to reach 100! c'mon guys!!

2001, 14k miles and no leak

2003 - no RMS problem to this point.

Ignacio, what exactly is this info useful for? To me, and even though your poll is not scientific enough to get you a statistically significant result, I don't see a problem with the RMS. Yes the RMS does leak on some models for a few reasons. 1. The crank can be out of round, which would result in engine replacement. 2. The RMS itself can be faulty. 3. In some cases it is not the RMS that is leaking but the intermediate seal, and if a mechanic did not know to check for that, he could replace the RMS till the cows come home, and you would still have the leak. I've never heard of Porsche standing behind their model. I myself have had repairs done to my C2 when the warranty had expired. Yes I have had an RMS leak, but they fixed it and that was the end of it. The only people that I have seen with issues, serious issues with their RMS, are ones that have been very aggressive on this board. Which leads me to think that there is something else going on. Scouser, as an example has had 4 RMS leaks? And DaveMo was so pissed off with the 2 RMS leaks he had on his Boxster that he went out and bought a 996. And with Carlos from Spain, it doesn't even sound like he purchased his car from an Autorized Porsche dealer. We have tons of independents here too that buy and sell new cars, but they are not authorized dealers. Now there isnt anything wrong with that, but dont expect to get the same level or service, or concern from a dealer in those situations.

RMS fixed as 7500 volentarily by dealer while they were fixing a break fluid resivoir leak. I had not noticed any RMS leak or oil level change. Will

My dealer did the same for me.

RMS replaced under warranty by dealer at 5,800 miles back in January 2000. No problems since then and 31K miles later.

rr this poll is simply an attempt to measure the approximate frequency of this problem. several owners have required engine replacement. i do not relish doing this after my warranty runs out, do you? i would like to see pag acknowledge that rms leaks are a common problem as a result of a manufacturing glitch--affecting over 40% of 996's. the poll results also suggest that this problem has not yet been eliminated in even the current model year. imo, rms leaks merit extended warranty coverage. bmw did something similiar with blown engines on m3's. pag should do the same to maintain the value of their product--especially if this same engine is used in the 997. i do not seek to attack pag or pna in any way. i see this fact finding effort as constructive criticism. i love porsches! since 1976 i have owned seven porsches! with luck more will follow! peace

wrong, and its only two blocks away and I have a very good relationship with them, and especially with the head mechanic, and... RR, again, why don't you limit yourself to post only of what you do know about and avoid posting your "suppositions" or passing uninformed judgements. Your unconstructiveness on the matter is getting really annoying, and you are not really contributing anything to your fellow forum members or this issue. What is the reason we don't know about of why you don't want people to talk about the RMS issue and why you are "on a mission" to try to downplay the issue on every thread on the subject?

Allow me a rebuttal: While this sampling is not statistically relevant, it does show a pattern of irresponsible behavior regarding the engineering of the product. The problem still is; and it shouldn't be. As far as Porche not standing behind their cars; you are factually wrong. They took back an early Boxster from me. I bought an S because they stood behind their product. The innuendo about something else going on is laughable. The reasons the RMS leaks is the fault of Porsche (the bottom line). The reasons stated have no relevence. Finally, I expect & DEMAND the highest level of service from Porche or I'll sue them & buy another marque. Real simple. Am I litigious; Yes, it's the American way. That said, I'm very happy with my cars and service from Carlsen in Palo Alto CA; but I'm running scared with my 99. I'm a buyer for the 997 if the engine is changed.

"And DaveMo was so pissed off with the 2 RMS leaks he had on his Boxster that he went out and bought a 996." Yes I do go out and buy a 996, but I made sure that it was a Porsche certified car. I now have 4 years and up to 100K miles to feel that I am protected. But I did spend a lot of money on this car and would like to keep it past the warranty period. I am hoping that by the time my warranty expires enough pressure will have been placed on Porsche (Legally??) so that they will formally address the issue to the satisfaction of the owners.

Hey Carlos... OT. Went to the Daytona 200. That Susuki (that won) wasn't the fastest, the pit crew managed the pit stops better than anybody. The Ducati was fastest ; but the Italian machine lived up to it's reputation - it broke. It was a good race...

The restrictions on the inline-4's vs V-twins is a joke. Too funny Le Mans 24hrs is comming up, lets see if the Suzuki GSX-R can win for a 4th year in a row

For those owners who have had the RMS and engine replaced in their 996, would that be enough consolation against any future problems? I've had the RMS replaced at 5,800 miles, then the engine subsequently at 32K miles. Should I rest easy or am I no better off than the others who have had neither?

Unfortunately I need to change my vote from "no rms leak" to "rms leak in 1st 5000mi" - just got the bad news from the shop.

Nothing yet on my 2000 996 aero, but I only have 5,400 mi.

My RMS leak appeared as part of a routine service check. The engine was replaced, and no further problems except for the incessant sqeaks and rattles in the cab top.

Just had my second one replaced @20k miles, first one was at $12k.

2 RMS replacements. First at 20,000 - second at 33,000.

4th RMC is leaking. Looks like new engine n October

rms @ 5K on an 03 4s

'03 C4s - about 18,000 - no leak.

Buying '99 (June 29 1999 build) C4cabriolet which had rms replaced at 30,000+ miles (car has 33k now). Peter

RMS at 7500 miles.

2003, 6000 miles, 1st RMS, traded on GT3

Dec 2002 (2003MY) Carrera 1x RMS fail at 20,000 miles Not changed as yet, - leak is very slight - booked to be changed under warranty at 24,000 service

1998 996 with 46000 Km. Still "bone dry" in the words of the service manager. After saying this , I bet I get a gusher!!

rr, Just wondering could you provide a reference for your assertion that 40% of 996's are affected? Not doubting, would just like to know.

24K and bone dry.

1999 cab RMS leak repaired under warrenty at 6000 mi. 30,000 miles now no problems.

2000 C2 with 40.000 kms, no leaks

C2 2001 - RMS and Intermediate replaced under warranty at 4K miles and another RMS at 26K miles

1999 C4 here... 43000 miles and not a drop! I purchased the car last October with 28500 miles on it then.. previous service shows no record of RMS replacement. The transmission on the car went a couple months ago, and I specifically asked the shop to have a look while the trans was off... nothing.. bone dry. Here's hoping it'll stay that way! t

after 147 reports it appears that about 45% of 996's have rms leaks that continue to arise even after 30k mi. this issue, imo, merits extended warranty coverage from porsche.

38,000 miles and first leak. It is in the shop being replaced at this moment.

35k on a 2000 C2 and no leaks

No leaks at all at 42k miles

As somebody who specializes in statistics and research methodology....this is a joke and an example I give my studetns at the University of how not to do research. HOWEVER, before I get slammed please read my entire post becasue I totally support this thread and everything that it represents. But, there is an extreme sampling bias present in this "survey". Not to mention the bias that exists in a self-report version of a survey. To truly get a statistically reliable and valid result you need to do a couple a things: 1. Get a RANDOM sample of the population (all 986/996 owners). Obviously this would be difficult without legal pressures, but isn't it something that can be done? Money is probably an issue though since PAG and PCNA have very deep pockets and would probably fight any court order allowing a sampling of ALL 996 and 986 owners records. In a perfect world you would not need a court order or a random sample and you would just be able to run the numbers of the entire population of owners. **And you know somebody at PAG/PCNA has done this (beancounters) and declared it better to just fix what comes in under warranty than to FIX the problem.** 2. If this is something you are serious about then you need to recruit the likes of Berny (scouser), etc. to help get this cause out there (which you are doing). Berny has been developing a website to do just that. The pressures of a few are nothing more than a "fly on the windscreen". A class action lawsuit with MANY is probably the only way to go. I admire your zeal (and the others) but you need to understand the uphill nature of this battle and if you want to pursue it, you need to do it right (a poll on a web forum is not the way to go...but a good start to get your voice heard and others to join in). Rember, put yourself in the shoes of PAG/PCNA and understand why they are not fixing this problem.....simple, in addition to the reasons I stated above, they know that the majority of P-Car owners (regardless of RMS, Coolant tank, etc.) WILL BE repeat customers. I know this is an arrogant way of doing business, but it is the reality. Good Luck!

Dell, I don't think you would need to sample the entire 986/996 population for a statistically significant result. I consulted my Six Sigma sample size table and using "typical" risk and discrimination levels wouldn't you be able to get statisitically accurate results with a sample size of 1119 for a convidence interval or 322 for hypothesis testing?

You are contradicting yourself. I think you are confusing sample with population. You just stated it yourself that you would need 1119 cases from the population (hence a sample from the population and the population is the 996/986 total). And as for Hypthesis testing , there is none. Do you understand what hypothesis testing is? All we are trying to examine here is if there is a significant number of RMS leaks in the 996/986 community. Without doing the math, I would bet a 996/986 of your choice that it is NOT. But I do think there are probably enough to wake up the execs in PAG/PCNA and offer something to cars that have a RMS fail (but then again that is just wishful thinking since you would have to prove that they know about the defect, have done nothing to correct it, and do not stand behind it--failue to fix).

Let me clarify just a bit further. What is being conducted here is what is called a DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY. It is one that seeks to determine what percentage of the population (996/986) has a certain characteristic (RMS) failure. If you want to establish some survey reliability here then we need to conduct some sort of pretest-posttest strategy (sample twice). However, we DO NEED the entire 996/986 VIN list so that the random sample allow for an equal chance of selection for the survey. Still all this will produce is a valid percent of RMS leaks. But is this significant? To answer that we would need to conduct some form on inference statistics (t-test, etc.). This discussion could go on forever (don't see how since I really don't understand where you are getting your info) so if you want maybe we should continue this in PM format so that the thread starter gets just RMS input and not statistical consulation (right or wrong).

Wow, the data shows that almost 50% of the Porsche people had RMS leak before!!!!

50% of what porsche people? Rennlist supporters?

I agree that hypothesis testing would not be appropriate for this survey I only mentioned it in case someone wanted to compare 986 and 996 responses - I do understand what it is: I'm a Six Sigma Black Belt. I don't get your point about contradicting myself with the 1119 data points. All I'm saying is you don't have to poll every single 986/996 owner, polling 1119 of them will give you a statistically significant result. As you said, this needs to be done randomly from the entire population, not a subset as the survey in this thread is doing. I agree if we want to go into this further we should do it via PM and return this thread back to its starter (however it is a survey ).

But do you honestly think PAG employs the 6Sigma approach? Not a chance. Do you have any idea how much money it would take to achieve near perfection (~3.5 cases per million) versus repairing on a case by case basis. Not to mention if you or I (or anybody for that matter) would create a motor that can adhere to this philosophy......my Lord we would be rich beyond our wildest dreams! I think you and I are definately on the correct page just different viewpoints of how to answer this question and PAG isn't going to hire us anytime soon (remember we are on the side of the consumer). Remember this is a numbers ($) game and PAG is playing it the way anybody would in their shoes.

No, just those cruising rennlist so motivated to reply, and likely those with a bad RMS experience. This poll means nothing. Every series 911 with boxer motor has leaked oil since 1963 and the 356 before that. What else is new? But press on. You might succeed in getting something. The 993 guys managed a successful campaign to pressure PAG to replace the wiring harnesses out of warranty on the early 993s. You might want ot consult those threads on the 993 forum for a successful strategy.

Dell, I agree with you 100%. Even if Porsche used Six Sigma their target sigma value would be much lower. As you say, I doubt any auto manufacturer could afford a 6 sigma value. The interesting question is: how many defects can you allow before it gets noticed by the consumer and starts to influence sales? PAG must have the data and the results of their analysis must show that the RMS problem has not reached that point or that it ever will. Time will tell.

ding ding ding ding ding......ladies and gents, we have a winner! Twang has hit the nail right on the head (confirms my initial statement of the beancounters). "PAG must have the data and the results of their analysis must show that the RMS problem has not reached that point" Does this mean that Twang and I are on the side of PAG? No, just highlights the situation as to why there is an apparent "non situation" in the eyes of PAG. I guess this means you (Twang) and I need to hope we never have to ask for RMS help from PAG/PCNA from this day forward since I am sure they have people reading these boards?

And of course their analysis could be wrong. I wouldn't turn down a consulting contract from them to review their analysis. How about you, Dell?

" And of course their analysis could be wrong " I'll take their money. I don't discriminate when it comes to consulting dollars.

Had some Tip problem that caused the transmission to be replaced. While out, they decided to do the RMS, since it is right there. I voted before as having no leak. Since they are doing this preemptively does it count as a leak??? Heck, I didn't even know there was anything wrong with the transmission! The tech found it while the car was in for an airbag light and a chewed up serpentine belt!! Damn those guys are good!! Quite frankly I amazed!!!!

99 C2 little less than 30k no leak

50% of people attracted to post in a thread about RMS leaks. This is highly biased - especially in a forum for enthusiasts. For me? Never had a single problem since owning the car, which is out of warranty. Also no history of ever having any problems.

Thanks Steve (I was being rhetorical though). By the way, did you get the wife's MCS yet (I remember in a thread recently you were waiting for it to be delivered). Thought about picking one up as a DD.

LVDell, Thank god, finally someone who makes sense.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/beerchug.gif

1999 C4 Tip'. 27,000 miles a few problems fixed but no RMS issue......yet. Will

25,000 on 99 C2 cab, no problems.

Forget samplings, assumptions - etc.. Can't the records of PCNA be called for by a US court: for the number of times they were reimbursed for the repair.

stevo approximately 200 996 owners have responded to this poll. i'll bet that this is nearly the entire group of 996 owners present in this forum. i don't see why enthusiasts should have more rms leaks than any other 996 owners. i am particularly concerned about the 13+% that develop rms leaks after 25,000 mi. i have never had a an rms problem in 38,000 mi but it appears that 996 owners are never completely out of the woods regarding rms problems. if only in order to keep up resale values, not to mention customer relations, i believe that porsche should offer an extended warranty to all 996 owners for 100,000 mi. bmw did this for m3 owners when it became clear that their gearboxes were failing. why not porsche? perhaps i will start a poll regarding such an extended warranty next...

Ignacio, I think you've hit on an important point here. The statisticians have already slammed the validity of this poll, but although this forum is a subset of the total category of 996/Boxster owners, I don't believe the actual total group would seriously dent the results obtained so far.Granted not all owners are represented here,but why are people suggesting this group significantly skews the results? When I first took my 996 to the Porsche service centre, I immediatley asked what was the prevalence of RMS problems that you have seen here? Without hesitating he said: "40 to 50%" I said: "Seriously, 40-50% of 996's you've serviced here have had their RMS repaired?" He said: "Yep". So from this subset the same results are obtained as we have had here.So your suggestion that Porsche should provide any extended warranty is certainly not an outlandish one. If the poll delivered a result of say 5-10%,then it would be within exceptable limits, but its not, and something must be done about it.

I'm done (as I am sure SurfTwang is also) trying to explain to some as to WHY these assumptions are not representatve. Actually, RMS could be worse (or better) than we see here--we just don't know without looking at PCNA's numbers. Remember, there is also no way of verifying what cars people drive on this board (yes some people do lie), prevalenve of RMS problems, only voted once, voted correctly, etc, etc, etc. And as for your "40-50%" statement, well that is just hear se...I am sure there are some dealerships that say "very rare" to see a RMS here. understand where we are going with this and the point trying to be made? case in point. Listen, we haven't "slammed" what ignacio is doing here (actually appluaded it), rather just illustrated what needs to be done if he wants to be taken seriously. Go back and read the post carefully. Do you really think that approx. 200 responses (not users) is the total 996 group? You would need the moderator to get you that info. Very entertaining but severely flawed.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/banghead.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif

" Actually, RMS could be worse (or better)" Since I have never had an rms leak in all the other cars I have owned for over 50 years; statistical discipline seems irrelevant. It reminds me of someone who is unemployed reading about a drop in the unemployment rate. Having an rms failure, then reading about statistical methodology seems, hmmmmm. A group is going to have to hit PAG over the head with a 2X4 to get them to respond in an institutional way. I think general public awareness of Pcar customers and potential customers, is the 2X4.

Us Porsche 996/986 owners can guess all day long. Porsche has the exact numbers. When something is replaced under a bulletin for customers then there is a damage code number on the work order. For example. The front trunk latch on the early Boxsters and 996s had a problem because of the switch in the latch So, if your trunk light or alarm had a problem due to the switch then the Damage Code is 5517 044 002. Damage Code is what Porsche calls it. That is how your local dealer gets paid by PAG/PCNA for labor and parts. Your local dealer does not get paid because it replace some switch on some car, and thereafter sends a bill to Porsche for X dollars. I do not vote in the RMS polls since it is 5 year plus year old info for me. And then the polls do nothing. Porsche has the information in it's hands already. If they do not know how many seals and engines have been replaced over the years, then they are not only the most profitable car company in the world, but the most stupidist.

LV DELL, Getting a bit precious... "This is a joke" sounds like a slam to me. And whats more saying my notion is severely flawed, is just pure histrionics. I wholeheartedly concur that my assertions are anecdotal, but nevertheless not without credibility. I'm not challenging the substance of your claim, your 100% right from a statistical viewpoint, but the evidence in the subsets cited cannot be blithely disregarded because it doesn't meet some minimum confidence limits. Logically, why would a service manager say 40-50% if it was rubbish? Wouldn't he understate it? The concurrence of both subsets ,I would suggest, is more than just a massive coincidence. I might be not be right on the money, but I get the feeling these figures are close to the real figures( yeh I know feelings aren't worth a cracker).And why would anyone vote in a poll that didn't apply to them? What would be the point of that? I know people lie, but not in this context-what have they to gain? Therefore the figures are representative of this forum.

Did somebody get a thesaurus as a gift recently? Once again (and the last time)...LET ME REPEAT MYSELF....I am on your side but you just need to understand (as TP said) that ONLY PAG/PCNA know for sure how many RMS issues have been addressed and they don't seem to be shaking in their boots. These polls are pure entertainment and nothing more. To get real numbers or numbers that mean anything, you need to get the legal process going. And there is not a lawyer on this planet that will take a web forum poll as evidence to a problem. I am done with this thread. Good luck in your efforts. I hope the prove successful.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/xyxwave.gif

very mature MUNRO..... which is odd considerable your attack recently...read your direct quote: "Why do discussions always get unpleasant when contrary opinions appear?" Well if you aren't the perfect example of a pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know of a better example. Please grow up and come back where you do and can be more cordial. c-ya,

the exact % affected is not the issue. i agree that would require porsche company numbers. can we at least agree that rms is a very frequent problem that should be addressed better by porsche?

Sorry, very childish I know ,but I just wish something could be done. I was cynical about this to begin with,(I haven't had a leak as yet) but this is really an injustice.

LVDell Yes the survey is flawed. But Porsche reads theses boards. Do you thing they may be losing customers because of this issue? If I was a prospective buyer and read about RMS leaks I would think twice. So it's no 50% but it probably is higher than 10% and that is not trivial.

totally understand Munro......discussions like these can sure heat up quickly. I understand that and don't take anything personally. Frankly, I'd love to get a beer and chat more about this. But in all seriousness, PCNA/PAG need to offer a FIX not a band-aid and a prayer. In my opinion, RMS in not that big of a deal. If you get it inside of your warranty or extended, then no issue. Outside, then drop $800. What bothers me (and why I support this crusade) is the seriousness if engine replacement is needed BECAUSE of the RMS. Now that is what is scary, not the seal. Adn you know they are aware of the seriousness of this since they have replaced God knows how many engines BECAUSE of a faulty RMS. But, what is the best comprimise here? 100K? If that is the case, then its a moot issue for those with the extended. Life of the car? Probably a bit extreme. The goal is the present PCNA/PAG with the offer for resolution and that is where we need to concentrate our efforts. What is fair for both sides?

I am going to have to tell my Boxster friend Jean about this thread. He has a 2000 2.7 and has not had his car for 2 months as it is in the lot at our local dealer. I live and work near the dealership and stop by every week or so. I take pictures of Jean's poor car sitting in the lot and email them to him. He had 3 rear seals and 2 intermediate shaft seals replace under warranty. Warrany expired and a 4th seal was put in, and it leaked as well. Porsche oked a rebuilt enigne which had a vibration problem and there was metal in the oil filter. 2nd rebuilt had same vibration problem. Then Jean was told he would get a new engine, but Porsche sent another rebuilt last week and 3rd rebuilt engine had same vibration problem. So his car is sitting in the lot while Porsche figures out what to do next.

Where are the poll results?

99 C2 with 44000 miles...............no problemo!

From Surf Twang > >Dell, I agree with you 100%. Even if Porsche used Six Sigma their target sigma value would be much lower. As you say, I doubt any auto manufacturer could afford a 6 sigma value. The interesting question is: how many defects can you allow before it gets noticed by the consumer and starts to influence sales? PAG must have the data and the results of their analysis must show that the RMS problem has not reached that point or that it ever will. Time will tell. --------------------- Maybe I don't understand 6 sigma, but aren't defects calulated by industry norms (of some sort) and if you are 6 sigmas better you hit the goal? You can't even begin to do 6 sigma without starting with industry norms right? Now that you know that over 100 people have had this problem (in this non-scientific survey), shouldn't the data be moved into the main stream publications? A press release, letter to the editor of Excellence, R&T, etc. might be just the ticket to see some movement. Complaining here to your friends has a limited effect. I assume that someone has contacted someone from PCA and had a "I don't understand, please help me" conversation? Might be time to mount a simple PR campaign and see what happens.

Not quite. The Six Sigma process is a methodology used to determine current performance and identify, implement and measure improvements. Each company determines its target Sigma value which may be higher, lower, or the same as the industry average. For many industries/markets, Six Sigma is an unrealistic goal. Two or Three Sigma may be good enough. We don't know if PAG actually uses Six Sigma but they must use some method to track defects. The point Dell and I are making is that PAG must be comfortable with the current defect level. I would hestiate to go mainstream with data that is not statistically sound. A survey that is not randomly taken from the entire population and/or does not have enough data points to be statistically valid would never hold up in court. I think you need the facts ma'am, just the facts.

Thanks for the info ST. Someone could write a letter that says, in an online forum a non-scientific survey was conducted and it appears that there were lots of ... Is ... a known problem on 996's in your opinion? Kind of a prisoner's delemna problem. Spending $800 to fix it is well within my budget for the car. For example, a set of tires costs more and last 5k or 8k miles. I blown engine wouldn't be as nice.

mr twang you are assuming that porsche is tracking defects in a systematic fashion. i see no basis for this assumption. may i suggest that given their current profit margins they are becoming lax about this issue. btw, bmw responded to pressure from a similiar internet forum to this regarding their m3's blowing engines. your remarks about statistical significance are pure sophistry. i hope you don't don't have to become a member of the rms club to realize that some issues are simply a matter of common sense.

Like Dell, I give up. I am not saying there is or is not a significant RMS problem with 996 and 986's. All I'm telling you is what it takes to have a valid survey. Porsche sold over 134,000 911s between 1998 and 2003 and nearly as many Boxsters. That's more than a quarter of a million cars. The survey in this thread, while commendable, is not representative. Anyone who feels strongly about the RMS issue should probably take legal action. Just realize that this survey is NOT and WILL NEVER BE statistically valid and Porsche's defense lawyer would have a field day tearing it apart.

mr twang your comments have gone far beyond explanations of statistical significance, a concept i understand at least as well as you do. furthermore, the purpose of threads like this is not to provide a basis for a lawsuit. it is to alert fellow owners of potential problems and hopefully to alert porsche that they are pissing off some of their best customers who will vote with their feet rather than waste time with a lawsuit. your mock exasperation is silly simply because you are missing these simple points...

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/icon501.gif

I agree completely. In my humble opinion, not all RMS failures are alike. As you say, I understand -- based on my conversations with Porsche mechanics who are also friends (obviously not a scientific survey) -- that most RMS failures are not a big deal. However, for some people, the RMS failure is related to a bigger problem with the engine itself. I wholeheartedly understand why these people would be outraged. In the US, I understand that PCNA steps up to the plate, albeit in a low profile way. In fact, when it does step up to the plate, it makes the owners sign a non-disclosure agreement. Consequently, you never hear the good news, only the bad. Perhaps Berny should move to the US in order to resolve his RMS failures. Should potential owners be aware of RMS issues? Absolutely. I knew about them (based on personal experience) and bought another used 996 nonetheless. I would simply check service records and if you are that worried about it, buy new or certified used. However, I don't understand people who are "running scared" due to the problem, particularly when they have put 22k miles on without any problems. TD in DC

Absolutely correct! Every 911 motor has leaked oil (doesn't make it right). I agree with your approach that pragmatism should guide efforts here. Accurately describing the extent and nature of the problem most likely will be more successful in the end. Perhaps a class action would be the way to raise the profile of the issue and gain access to information within Porsche's control through discovery (I feel quite certain they know exactly how many and what types of RMS failures are occurring), but I would hope that something could be achieved without resorting to a suit against my favorite carmaker (despite RMS issues). I support efforts of all owners to get the RMS issue acknowledged and addressed to the satisfaction of all reasonable owners.

Ok, don't want to sound like a complete newbie, but just bought a 99 996 and I didn't get a lot of history. Knew that going into the deal, but wanted a 996 and paid just over 30K for it. She has 70K miles and still turns heads in my small Texas town.... Can someone tell me if there is a good way to identify if I have had my RMS replaced? Thanks for helping out a new guy. Previous cars... 82 911 Targa 87 911 Coupe 55 Spyder (replica)

Have your dealer run your VIN in the service computer.

MY 1999 with 3 RMS leaks. 1st=12k 2nd=34k 3rd=48k approx

panerai after 3 rms leaks shouldn't pag be offering to change the engine?

Why don't you just give up on the RMS issue already? Porsche has not done anything to address this issue other than changing it or swapping motors under warranty. The way I see it, it's a syndrome that will affect some 996's and some Boxsters. Eventually, the warranties will run out, and then it's up to us to change it at $$$ a pop. I bought an extra 4 years warranty when I got mine in 1998 because I thought there would be issues with a 1st year manufacture. I never knew the RMS was going to be one. Guess what, I've had mine changed once and probably will have a second one changed/get a new engine before my 8 years are over. So, years down the line, all that will be said about the 996/Boxsters is that it is an improvement over the 993 as far as handling is concerned, but there was a rear main seal problem in some cars. Just like the way they have a quirk about the chain tensioners of old, pop off valves, heat buildup due to engine cover, yadayadayada. By the way, I'm taking the car to DE is a couple of weeks, and I'm going to have fun.

Syndrome??? This is an illness of plague proportions!! It is patently obvious this is a significant design flaw- to a pass it off an just some aberration is ridiculous. Munro 86

arthur with repect...pag is unwise not to address this rms issue head on. i congratulate you on your extended warranty cleverness in 1998. the rms problem, however, affects all model years of 996's and now 997's. what's more, rms leaks affects all our resale values. we should be able to expect more for such expensive cars.

Ignacio, point well taken. Have you seen sales of new Porsches declining? Nope. Why should the company sweat it? If the 997 will have problems with the RMS, you'll hear the usual bitchin' and whinin'. But they will continue to sell. Then the 997 Turbo will come out, and will be another homerun for the company. I say give it up.

arthur you may be right. still it's silly for pag not to address the rms problems head on. i fear that one day it will catch up with them. we are all stakeholders here.

Give it up?" Fagettaboutit...... The rms numbers will grow as cars age and more people get pissed off. Keep their feet to the fire.... They will have to deal with it....

new engine on the way from Germany. Not rebuilt but a new 2004 spec engine rms X 4 and it is leaking 2002 C2 25,000 miles

Damn........

Only 2021 miles and RMS failure... Any suggestions, opinions or " make sure you..." ?

is this a 2004 model?

yes

geo make sure you take it in to the dealer right away

Had the car less than 2 weeks, bought it from Porsche dealer with 30,000km. Got RMS leak after 1 week, only noticed slight oil drip on garage floor after I did track day. Was hoping it wasn't an rms leak, after all I read on this forum, took it to dealer, and worst was confirmed. Anyway it was repaired under warranty, hope it doesn't happen again

This is a dumb question but what is a RMS leak and what is the issue with tolerance? In have a 2003 C4S with 20K. What should I be looking for?

Yes it is a dumb question because if you did a search you will find more threads on this than you care for. I picked my car yesterday. PUK will not replace my engine FOC and they have quoted me 50% of cost on parts. This after 5 RMS replacements. I now hold the record. My car is onits 6th RMS! When I picked my car up these three 996 engines were racked up at the back with rain pooring over them waiting to go back to the factory. All blown engines. Very comforting......NOT!

Scouser, Are you implying that there is a connection between RMS and blown engines? I have never heard of that. I have also not heard of many engines just blowing up either - except when they have been overrevved... Barry

No not at all. But I just thought this was worrying seeing this lot being that there's been quite a few postings of blown engines recently. RMS problems is one thing but engines blowing up is something even more concerning. Tool Pants mentioned his friend Jean is on his 4th or 5th engine then I see this lot. Sheesh! what's going on? Is there a serious quality control issue here?

scouser surely you must have some legal recourse! aren't there lemon laws in the uk?

Nope. No lemon laws here in the UK :-( Also we only get 2 years warranty not 4 like you lucky buggers. Also PUK have a strict policy not to replace engines for RMS plagued cars. Regardless of age or how many seals it goes through. Well not unless you push them hard like I have but then they still want me to pay 50% of cost even after 5 RMS repacements! Also PUK are not very customer satisfacion orientated. Basically we have a lose lose situation here. Even when Porsche UK were presented with the results of the Boxster RMS survey by PCGB that showed 30% of respondents had the RMS problem they laughed it off. There is a similar survey currently being conducted for the 996 but they will just laugh that off too. The ONLY way we will all win this battle is to collectively bring it in the open in the hope of embarassing PAG to provide a solution or a guarantee that they will back up their customer base. But PAG don't give two f*cks either. My dealings with PAG are living proof of that.

Just had my RMS replaced (second time) at 8900 miles. Paul Miller Porsche did the job in a day and a half. They made it painless

Generally, when you go to the Porsche Service Center, most of the cars that are there are there because they have a problem and need service. Not a very good way to take a poll on the reliability of the car. Unless you are able to identify the number of Porsche that ARE NOT in the service center, there is no way to determine anything from it. If you went to a grave yard, would you conclude that all people on the planet are dead??

32K miles No RMS or history of.... had the car on the lift and everything was normal, etc.

RMS replaced at 40k but not sure if it had a replacement before I bought it at 31k. It's interesting to see the survey shows a small percentage requiring new engines. Judging from some other threads it seemed that this was more common.

It's interesting to see the survey shows a small percentage requiring new engines. Judging from some other threads it seemed that this was more common. I am sorry for those that have had RMS problems, but the number of vehicles that have experienced such a problem is such a small percentage of the total 996's sold. It's not a problem to worry about for the vast majority of owners. It also appears that once the repair is made, the car has no further problems (with few exceptions) I have no idea how you would figure what percetage of cars have experienced this problem, but there have been more than 130,000 996's sold since 1999. (all 911's less GT3 and Turbo) There have been 104 RMS failures reported in this thread, which cannot even be measured by means of percentages. If we were to assume that 10 times that number had actually occured, that would still only translate into only 8/10 of 1 percent of cars sold. From talking to dealers over the past several months and other owners of the 996, it does not seem to be a serious problem. I realize that if you have an RMS leak, is is indeed a serious problem for you, but for the average 996 owner, it's not something to lose sleep over. I believe the RMS issue has been far overblown. I realize that one of the purposes of this forum is to report problems and ask questions on how to fix things so by definition most of what you see are problems. However, others who come to these forums for accurate information on the reliability of the 996 are being hit with nothing but problems. It's too bad that those 996 owners who have had good experiences with their cars are not as vocal as those who have had a bad experience.

Well said- but a word of warning-get ready for replies which "ignore" the clear and balanced reasoning you have put forward.

41K miles, no problems...

I disagree with your logic. This poll here shows that 42.53% of the 996 owners here have had RMS problems. Now why would the 996s here be different than rest of the 996s sold? Sure people report problems here but in this poll, people "voted" whether they had or had not RMS problems. I don't see why not that 42.53% or RMS problems shouldn't represent RMS problem ratio fairly well.

I disagree with your logic. This poll here shows that 42.53% of the 996 owners here have had RMS problems. Now why would the 996s here be different than rest of the 996s sold? Sure people report problems here but in this poll, people "voted" whether they had or had not RMS problems. I don't see why not that 42.53% or RMS problems shouldn't represent RMS problem ratio fairly well. By that logic, I guess John Kerry won the election??? So you think that 250 reponses from the more than 120,000 996 owners represent an accurate poll? Given that the poll was conducted in a forum that primarily attracts people who have probelms with he vehicle. I hardly believe it in any way reflects the average 996 owner's experience. It's like taking a poll of only homeless people and asking them if they like their living arrangements. Call a few Porsche dealerships and talk to their part's department. Ask them how many RMS seals they sold this year. That would still not be scientific, but would probably give you a better feel as to the extent of the problems. I have done that and in my opinion, there is NO major problem with the RMS in the 996. By the way, a few Turbo's have had an RMS problem, so does that mean we should be worried about them too? We probably will never know the extent of the problems, but as long as we see more 996's on the road than we do in the shop, I will not worry. As a matter of fact, I would buy anoither 99 C2 is I didn't have one now.

Now thats a sood source for accurate unbiased information on the matter... go to the dealers who sell them... thats almost as trustworthy as those few of the 996 owners who want protect their resale value from the RMS issue, and downplay it at all costs. Lets be realistic, this survey is far far from statistically valid, but it does tell you that over 100 carrera users in this board have had at least one RMS leak, I call that an issue, in fact do you know of any mechanical issue as frequent and more important in the 996 carrera and Boxster as the RMS leaks? FYI, Porsche Club GB just conducted a survey of over 1000 Boxster owners and found the RMS incidence to be 30% among the participants. They are conducting a survey among carrera owners now. The more we hide the issue the less likely Porsche will ever do anything about it and assume its responsability in the matter (its an inherent engine design fault, they are aware of it since the early boxter and carerra models, they don't cover it out of warranty inspite of it, and they haven't bothered fixing it and selling RMS leak prone engines for 6 years regardless), and very importantly as well, in any other such issue that may occur in coming models that we may own. For me that is more important that my '99 996C4's resale value.

If it was an big issue, there would be a recall investigation, especially in the USA. But, we will probably never know, so I am not going to worry about it and I'm now going out to beat the hell out of my 996. Good luck.

04 C4S 1st RMS @ 4700 miles 2nd RMS @12,000 miles @15,600 miles now

Carbonissono - sorry for your rms issues, but your problems do not reflect the vast majority of 996's sold. If you're worried about it, sell the car and walk. You'll never find a car model that does not have a few major problems with some. Hope the last fix was the last for you.

1999Porsche911 not necesarily, its not considered a "safety issue" like the wiring harness issue on the 993's, thats when recall are much more likely since they would risk much by not doing it. Also Porsche has no fix for the RMS issue so a recall would not solve anything. Right now what Porsche can do is just extend warranty for carrera and Boxster Rear Main Seals only, as simple as that, the issue disappears, but they aren't going to do it unless they are forced to by the public opinion or by the law. You are right, only Porsche knows since they will not realease the info and stats on RMS leaks. Its never stopped me from driving and enjoying my 911 like they are meant to, the RMS issue is not related to how they are driven. So doesn't matter if you use it just to go to church every Sunday or track it instead. No, good luck (and my empathy) to Carbonissimo who is looking at his engine ending up being replaced by a rebuilt-engine if the likely now third leak appears on his 04 model.

By that logic, I guess John Kerry won the election??? So you think that 250 reponses from the more than 120,000 996 owners represent an accurate poll? Given that the poll was conducted in a forum that primarily attracts people who have probelms with he vehicle. I hardly believe it in any way reflects the average 996 owner's experience. It's like taking a poll of only homeless people and asking them if they like their living arrangements. Call a few Porsche dealerships and talk to their part's department. Ask them how many RMS seals they sold this year. That would still not be scientific, but would probably give you a better feel as to the extent of the problems. I have done that and in my opinion, there is NO major problem with the RMS in the 996. By the way, a few Turbo's have had an RMS problem, so does that mean we should be worried about them too? We probably will never know the extent of the problems, but as long as we see more 996's on the road than we do in the shop, I will not worry. As a matter of fact, I would buy anoither 99 C2 is I didn't have one now. I agree, 250 responses won't make this perfectly accurate poll but like I said, I don't see why cars here would have more likely RMS problems that those who's owner are not "Rennlisters". Why would they? For sure, this poll's result is much more realistic than your "8/10 of 1 percent of cars sold". Rennlist is a forum that primarily attracts people who have problems with thier car? I don't think so. I feel average Rennlister is a person who enjoys his/hers Porsche more that average Porsche owner, and is more enthusiastic about it, "loves it more". And this even more so when it comes to 996 owners (since there are more 996 owners who are just "owners", not "enthusiast" like most, if not all, Rennlisters are). I have yet to talk to someone here who was attracted by, or joined Rennlist because "his/her car has problems". But OK, I went ahead and did what you asked for (call dealers). I called Champion here in Florida (don't have time to start calling numerous dealers so I only called one) and they sell about 10 RMS every month. They told me if they have 10 seal in hand, they'll sell 10 and that they'd actually sell even more if the supply was faster. That's 120 RMS / year, so in five years ('99-'04), that's 600 RMS, from this dealer only. Porsche has 204 dealers in US and since Champions is very big, instead of using 120 as an average, let's say 60 RMS / year, 300 RMS in five years, that would be 204 x 300 = 61 200 RMS sold in five years... That's 47% from 130,000 cars. Even though that's pretty quick "research", Interestingly, we're quite close to that %42 what this Rennlist poll was. No matter how you put it, number seems to be pretty high. I don't know about you (well I can guess, you still think RMS problem is about 1%) but to me, RMS sounds like a major problem.

BobPorsche, I backed you up with your marauding posts regarding your blown engines. But this time I am going to say your talking rubbish. In fact I wonder if maybe you are here just to cause trouble. This posting is just asking for it! The fact is, you don't know what your talking about. This is not a survey and its not conducted by some independent 3rd party. It's also not targeted towards the whole Porsche community (although that would be real nice if it could be but we know that's impossible). So it can't provide any scientific statistical metrics but then again it's not meant to do that. It's just a poll to see how many readers of this board, who own a 996, have had the problem. Simply a posting to get a feeling for how many of us here have seen this RMS problem. As you can see there are not many voters vs readers. But nevertheless it does show that a fair ammount of us here have had RMS problems. If you ask your OPC they are unlikely to own up to brewing trouble in their camp. In fact I would expect that the worldwide service org for Porsche has been explicitly told to play the RMS problem down. Let me tell you this much, the RMS is such an issue with these cars that it's now a regular discussion in the Porsche mags and accross every Porsche bulletin board on the net. They have several TSBs out on this problem and one actually says to replace the engine if the bore tollerance is out. In fact only in last month or so 911&Porsche World mag has is a DIY section on how to fix your RMS (not that it is really doable for the general public). It's that common that it demands a RMS DIY article!.....you know like how to change your oil....but instead this coveres the RMS. I also have 4 friends who own996s and 3 who ownBoxsters. They have "ALL" yes "ALL" had RMS replacements and three of them have had it done more than once. Just today I put my car in to my local independent for a gearbox rebuild (another discussion, another day). I spoke to an engineer and we got talking about the RMS....as you do.....and he said that its extremely common on these cars. It's got to be such a joke that the engineers are chalking their name in the bell housing....aka kilroy was here! Additionally, Porsche are fully aware of the RMS problem. So much so that they have had numerous attempts at fixing it with different seal types. They have even changed the seal design in the 997. It's also fact that the PCGB did a survey of 1000 Boxster owners and of the 650 respondents (or so) about 33% of them had RMS problems. I am still awaiting the results of the similar 996 survey currently being taken. Also, PCGB are actively pursuing an answer for this RMS problem from PUK although not successful so far. The only reason I can think that they have not been recalled is that it is not seen as a safety problem. Believe it. The RMS issue IS a problem in these cars........and to top it off, there is also a growing number of blown engines in these cars too. I myself hae seen them piled up behing my OPC and today I saw a blown engine being carted off at my Independent. Let me put something straight though. I am not playing down these cars. i love my 996 and I would hate to part with it...that's why I am persisiting with it. There is not substitute for their driving pleasure. But they have serious problems and they are a borromless money pit if they are out of warranty. Right I will get off my saop box.....

umm.. sorry to break in scouser, but I didn't post this message, nor have I even posted anything to this particular thread, simply observing it... so i'm not quite sure where I came up... I myself, am not really sure if my car ever had an rms problem... All I know is I went through three engines in 1,100 miles... if it involves the rms... who knows... I didn't drive the car long enough to have it checked out... simply know my multitude of engines had many internal faults, such as the internal sleeve slipping, head gasket leaking, rods blowing out of the core for no reason, etc... trust me, i'm not against you.. and am quite upset with the attitude of porsche, and the way they treat their out of warranty customers.. - bobporsche996 ..still waiting for my replacement tranny from germany... and hoping santa drops off a nice $47,000 check to cover the repair costs for the first 1,100 miles of owning this wonderful piece of german machinery... ) sorry, but I think you got the wrong person.. in this post.. after what i've been through, i'm as anti-porsche customer service and reliability as you are... i've had the car for almost a year... it's been in my garage for about 30 days max, at repair shops garages for about 250+ days... the insurance company must love me, with the money i needlessly pay to insure a car that's never driven... sigh.. but I can't deny I do love the way they drive... so, yes I caught the porsche bug... now I have an extended warranty, so just crossing my fingers for the future... let the extended warranty company cover the next $50k in repairs

Holy crap! what a jerk I am......sorry Bob. Totally mixed up. I guess for some reason I got you mixed up, your title "bobporsche996" is sort of close to "1999porsche911". No reading glasses and my age to blame. Seriously sorry if i offended you in any way mate. None intended. Cheers,

no prob, figured something like that... after what i've been through, if you ever see a post indicating 996s are perfectly working reliable machines, either someone hacked into my account or it's someone elses post .. whether they are or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion..

2000 996 C2, 47k, not a drop, 97 Boxster 101k, not a drop, also have a 968, 73k and no pinion gear issues...just lucky i suppose

Just had the RMS replaced last week at 9800 miles on a 2003 C4S. The service manager mentioned tolerances vs. seal (product) quality, and told me that the tolerances measured within acceptable parameters and therefore the failure was most likely due to poor quality of the seal. I am hopeful this is true. Otherwise the car is excellent.

Went to the L A Auto Gallery service department open house a few weeks ago, they put my car up on a rack, and while we the mechanic was pointing out everything to me, he showed me my RMS was leaking. Just under 33K miles, 2001 Boxster 2.7 5 speed. No drops of oil on the ground or other evidence. Also found cracked oil filler tube, cracked coolant tank and leaking valve covers. RMS replacement going on now at Rusnak Westlake, with the Porsche tool showing a new RMS seal can be used (no replacement engine needed). The car drove fine, and will be going out of warranty in about 3 months, so the timing couldn't be much better

I wish RMS was a safety issue that warrants a recall. It will then be addressed instead of ignored. IMO, Porsche didn't address RMS issue and chose to develop other vehicles (Cayenne, 997, 987) before fixing an existing problem bc new models generate revenue. That doesn't sit well with me.

2000 C2 - I purchased the car with 20K miles from the local dealership. The service records revealed the RMS had already been replaced before I bought the car. Year and a half later I took the car in for the 30K service (still had 2 months of warranty). They told me they needed to keep the car an extra day to investigate an oil leak. I walked to the garage and saw one drop on the floor. Next day they called to say my new engine would arrive tomorrow (yep RMS leak / out of tolerance). So now my car has 33K miles and the motor has 5K. No further troubles, though I did purchase an extended warranty from the dealer - the one the service advisor recommended.

what I question is why a lawyer doesn't file a class action lawsuit against porsche for their negligence in the aspect of continuing to produce a faulty product, fully aware of the problem, and not letting the customers become aware of it or paying to have it repaired at porsche's cost? they definately know what's going on... just call up porsche customer service and mention RMS leak.. they'll have no idea what you are talking about... trying to sweep the problems under the rug and hope they'll go away... and tell the customer reps to act like it's a rare occurance they don't even know about it... I would imagine, many out of warranty customers of p-cars wouldn't mind a nice rms refund check from porsche... i'm sure they can pay for it with all the money they are making from these cars now... any lawyers on this board?

I looked at a 2000 Boxster S today on a dealers lot. Not a Porsche dealer. There was oil in the pan behind the engine, but I couldn't tell where it was coming from. The car had 25k miles and there was quite a bit of oil on the pan and covering the transmission housing as well as the rubber piece hanging down from the pan just behind the motor. Any idea if this could be an RMS leak showing up way back there?

You can remove my vote from the no RMS to the RMS leak @22K miles (35K kms.). I just had mine changed. The service person said - you should be good now - some of these factory seals were not good quality.

I completely agree.

There may be light at the end of the tunnel

Berny, that is to darn funny! Is this the answer for PAG???

Dunno. But it sure maybe for us owners. Just to recap: I have posted a pic of the back of my OPC in a prev post where I saw three blown 996 engines out the back (I can repost if you want). I have also counted 23, yes 23 blown engines out the back of Stratstones of Wilmslow (an OPC in Manchester UK). I saw two 996 engines get dragged out at my Independent on Friday. Someone recently posted on PCGB that they saw 8 blown engines out the back of their OPC. The wierd part is they seem to be openly displaying this scik form of machocism as if to say "We are Porsche, and we are raking the cash out of you suckers and we don;t care if our engines blow up". Happy days ahead......

they should display the blown engines next to the models with the $9000 wooden dash upgrade and the $3000 for the leather stearing wheel upgrades, and so on... heh... that'll help the "we are porsche, we are raking in the cash" statement... I always find the porsche option list quite hilarious... one reason I wouldn't buy a new one... the price of some of those options is obscene... when you have made 130,000 vehicles, I don't see how a wooden dash or a leather steering wheel can cost an additional $9000/$3000... handmade... maybe a 1/3 of that... but especially since it's all done by machines now anyways.. theres only one word that can explain the options prices for porsches.. pure ridiculousness and lunacy... I just imagine a boardroom full of execs laughing everytime someone buys one with those options... even though mine has those options.. I didn't pay for them.. but the original owner did.. which is ok with me

BOB...... FYI...you are little off on your prices. Full Wood is 6000, Full leather is 3000 and Custom Color Full leather is 5000 and the steering wheel in leather is only 1280. YOu can find these numbers in any order guide.

not on my 99.. that's the price that i listed for those options on the msrp sticker.. maybe they've come down in recent years, which is good to see... in terms of the rms issue... it's a very tricky situation, because once porsche admits to any fault within their engines, or rms leading to engine failuire, as soon as "anything" goes wrong with the engines, regardless of mileage, year, warranty, porsche will most likely be responsible for replacing these engine for years to come for every porsche owner... along with compensating every replacement engine, rms, etc.. that has ever taken place. a VERY costly and devastating blow to the company... they know what's happening, the execs, simply are trying to make as much money as they can, while they still can... the future of porsche.. who knows... Like I said before.. it's just a matter of time before it blows up in their face, when a lawsuit appears.. which i'm sure their lawyers already have every scenario of deny deny deny written up to proceed with... yet there's only so much deny that can come about when discovery is proceeded with and the real facts and figures about what has happened is publicly available... until then.. I wouldn't expect any compensation anytime soon.. the best one can do is enjoy the car the merits it has... and maybe... unlikely... but hopefully one day.. that compensation for repairs will come... (if you are still alive by then <g>) until then, one can be rest assured, atleast "I" will not be purchasing another porsche again...

I will not be purchasing another Porsche again either. Despite this being my 3rd! Porsche have lost the plot. This months "Porche Post" magazine, the editor noted after going to the new Boxster launch quote "In future, we were told, the 911 will be replaced in the model cycle before the Boxster." Hence the new Boxster coupe I guess. The company is obviously moving away from its super car fame. It's concentrating more of its efforts on SUVs and 4 door saloons. The end of the 911 is neigh. This is the futire of Porsche

i'm sure the carerra gt owners that paid $500k are going to love to see their super car resembling a four door soccer mom wagon-mobile-thingy... or whatever that is.. (front ends of 99-01 carerra vs boxster deja vu..) that thing is a disgrace... trying to save money, by using the design of the carerra gt... i'm hoping that's only a prototype... porsche is simply gloating in profits, and isn't correcting the problems they've created for the buyers of the high end sports cars, now out of warranty... they are completely alienating and ignoring all the problems, and cares of any of their loyal enthusiasts from years pasts, in the hope of attracting a new genre of porsche buyers... (example: cayenne..) alienating porsche enthusiasts of the pasts and a failing business model, in terms of the almighty greed of the dollar... i'm sorry, but screw porsche.. until they step up to the plate and realize and fix the problems of their current vehicles, before releasing even more new models, they are now 100% out of sight for a next vehicle purchase... if you are out of warranty, trust me, you will clearly see how little porsche cares about you and your car as soon as something goes wrong..

24K ZERO problems. To be competitive in the marketplace Porsche has to come out with a new line/4dr sport sedan, that's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. I hope Porsche continues the 911 line, as this is the best car I have ever owned/driven. JMO Bob, since you like to post so much, why don't you join rennlist?

thanks, but my new years resolution is to spend as little money involving this car as possible, after my nightmare this year... :> (hense the $0 extended warranty)

I had no RMS leak in 57,000 Miles when I got rid of my 2001 996 C2.

Just had my first RMS replaced in engine #2. Engine #1 was replaced at 29,000 miles and 3.5 years due to RMS leak and the tool measurement indicated engine replacement. Engine #2 made it for 9,000 miles and 10 months before needing the RMS replaced. Porsche paid for it, and the dealer service experience was fine, but needless to say I'm less than thrilled since eventually the new engine will be out of warranty. Bob

it's alright, the $15,000 for your next engine transplant will be graciously accepted to support the families of porsche execs.. (as did my second engine.. and my third...) - bobporsche996 - always trying to be an optimist... <g>

2002 Boxster 2.7 has had a replacement seal every service since new. So far under warranty, then goodwill, and now into a goodwill warranty extension on that part. Used regularly, and driven conservatively to work and back. Now at 38,000 miles, ( Year 4 ) I have been told that is it just about to start to fail again. Aparantly a revised seal was introduced a couple of months after my last replacement which 'has fixed the problem'. I wasn't aware of all the tests that could be done to determine if an engine replacement was required, but it hasn't happened. I can only say Porsche have been fair to me on this so far, but I fear for the future of my 'dreamed car'. Does this new seal exist and will it work? My thoughts are to sell this car on and buy a Ford.

Hmm, I voted already and can't vote again. I've had my first RMS leak just repaired at 33,000 miles on my 2004, I never had a leak on my 2001 (52,000 miles). The dealer said the car was well within the tolerances and I would not need a new engine, bummer However, I'm kind of relieved this happened while the car is still under warranty because if it ever happens again I'm certainly not going to pay for it. Either way it hasn't tainted my love for the car which has been rock solid. If Porsche stopped producing the 911 (which I really can't see happening) I don't think I would get another sports car.

Is that Cayenne in the pics above the new to be released Cayenne 4S ???? Oh wait a sec, there already is a Cayenne S with 4wd. That must be the sport model.

My car had its engine replaced at 10,500 miles, and no leaks since then. However, persistent squeaks and rattles from the cab top and doors has left me questioning how good the newer cars are. I have a 64 356 cab that runs like a sewing machine, its tight, solid and that top is rattle free. My 02 has been in the shop for 45 days on warranty related issues, and I only have 20,000 miles on the car. It's too bad-- Porsche used to make pretty special cars before the Boxster led them to enormous profits and a more mass production mentality

No RMS leaks here. 19k going strong

33K, 2 years off warranty and still no leaks. Driven daily and hard as a Porsche should be.

You have 33K on a 2000 and you drive it daily? Where to the mailbox and back?

Took car in today to have it checked out because the warranty is up in 1 month, they said there is some seepage no major leak but they said they will replace it under warranty, 2002 C4S 23k

2002 C4 cab. Engine replaced at 7500 miles due to RMS oil leak. Currently have 10,000 miles on replacement engine (17,500 on odometer), with no problems to date.

2000 cab. 49k

1999 c2 coupe supercharged, no RMS knock on wood.

2002 C2 coupe 12K miles when repaired.

99 Cab 41K, no problems so far, but still runnin' scared. This is an old resurrected thread. I don't see Bernie posting anymore, I wonder what happened to him, he got a raw deal.

Yep, I used to live less than 5 miles from the med center, I averaged 5K per year. Now I commute about 13 miles to my new practice.

i am amazed this old thread continues to draw posts! 295 responses to the survey still with about 40% rms leaks in 996's. my 2002 c4s is still dry at almost 50k mi. i wonder whether the 997's also have rms leaks?

Problem is that the poll is closed so it cannot be updated.

Useful thread for those of us who are just beginning to research 996's. So the rear main seal goes bad? And then the crank recess goes out of round? Hm....

no it's already out of round, that's why you get a leak.

and that's why in some cases the engine has to be replaced.

or.. there's a misalignment tween crank and transmission

My 1999 zippity doo dah.

That..... sucks.

2002-C2 Coupe-tip-35,000-no rms issue