Here is my take on the RMS bull s*&t

Ok I cant take it any more........I am always reading about RMS failure.This is how i feel about it, I have a MY 04 C2 and my RMS was done on the car with around 8,000 k I saw 2 or 3 drops on my garage floor over a period of 2 months. Now this is how i see it, this a very easy item to replace under warranty right, well I think most P-car dealers are privately owned, so ask yourself this if it were your business , and a car came in for a repair, and the RMS pays 10 hours and you can do it in 4...wouldn't you replace it, needed or not. Now i know there are some real problems cars but come on!!I believe this RMS thing is not as big as everyone makes it out to be.Now i know i will **** a few of you off , but i am prepared.

You don't **** me off. I believe many seals have been replaced unnecessarily along with many other services on the cars. Some people believe anything their dealer tells them without any investigating themselves. But then again, there are also those people who think they get a better quality oil change by paying the dealer $150 for one.

Paul, I'm with you 100%. It's just a damn seal for craps sake. I don't think it's any dastardly indictment of Porsches loss of quality or anything else. These are the finest cars around, if they need a seal, so what. A couple of months ago I thought I had an RMS myself, I tortured myself, for what? A freakin' seal. As it turned out mine was fine. Now I may get a leak later, so what, sh%t happens, it's not the end of the world. FWIW, my dealer told me Porsche now has a third generation RMS repair protocol started 11/04, since the new fix, no relapses at least through my dealer.

Yea Chris i remember when yours happend............Its ok then and now, as i said then Lets keep the faith!

Unfortunately some of it is indeed true, but it always amazes me that people will so freely hand over their money without due dilgence. Likely I have a family member who is a mechanic of high end sports cars so I will usually take him with me on any major repair issues. But even if I didn't , I would request an estimate before any repairs are commenced and it is my right and reponsibility to get other estimates to verify my purchase. As for the RMS issue..............it is not an uncommon occurrence in most sport cars and I agree not a big issue other then the cost for those out of warranty. In saying that, however, there is no reason why a vehicle that costs as much as a Porsche should suffer from engine failures or any MAJOR mechanical failure of any kind for that matter. As a business owner, my philosophy is to provide the best possible service at the best possible price. If a mistake is made...............FIX IT and apologize for the mistake. If it happens again, fire those responsible and FIX THE PROBLEM.......... or suffer the consequences long term. It's up to all business owners to earn the repect of their clients, and more importantly to keep the respect in order for continued future business with the same clients. RMS is a very talked about topic. Everyone on every chat forum knows of the flaw with these cars. Wether the problem is over exagerated or not is un-important and irrelevent . The fact of the matter is that it has now become PUBLIC PERCEPTION that all Pcars suffer from RMS flaws. This needs to be addressed by Porsche immediately . Until this perception is changed, future owners of these cars will continue to purchase extended warranties in fear of major engine failures and continue to suffer large yearly depreciation rates. Only time will tell for Porsche! For myself ........ well......... it's too late. I made up my mind that I will not purchase another 996 or 997 until the issue of RMS is addressed. And certainly not until PUBLIC perception goes back to the days when Porsche was known for producing BULLIT PROOF vehicles. Perhaps a Turbo model, but certainly not a 996/997 or for that matter a 998. I'm still waiting for an explanation by Porsche! Cheers and safe driving.

>>>Flame Suit On<<< I am 100% with you on this. There are always some out there with problems. Not a single car company out there is immune. My car had signs that an RMS failure was coming. You know...a little moist. That is all. The car had 25K on the ticker when I bought her and no warranty. After some constant driving and 2500 miles later, the leak appears to have cured itself. It's leak. Simple as that a leak. My personal philsophy...it's a car. Drive and enjoy. If it breaks, fix it. The 944 guys pay for the damn belts to be done every 30K for Christ's sake. And they are $250-350 for the whole deal. It's not a big deal IMO. Besides, if mine goes, I am prepared to do a LTW fly, clutch and a custom LSD all at the same time. Too much hype...just drive the damn things... I will be. That is all from this p-car nut. cheers... <<<<Flame suit off>>>> Chad

RMS leaks happen in GT3, TT as well, just not as frequently. It is a minor problem, but Porsche should do as ford did with the gt and issue a recall and replace the seals. Maybe they figure it is cheaper to fix them as they come in, who knows. I'll still buy another porsche when the time comes, I love these cars.

All good points, but a big part of the problem is some( not on this very smart boared) are NOT educated about the problem.Should it fail hell no, but it does and it will, but If i knew then what i know now.........I would have still bought the p-car , and why because I have wanted one since i could say the word porsche............I love this car for all of its points , good and bad. However with that being said I would like to see Porsche stand up , be men and say" Sorry we have an issue , and we will do what ever it takes to make EVERY owner happy"

couldn't agree more... quite frankly im sick of hearing about it -- just deal with it people! (i just jinxed myself -- im next)

I would basically agree that, if its just a seal, in the big picture its not that big a deal. However, don't forget there seem to have been more than a few circumstances where you can't fix the seal and you need a whole new engine - that aspect of RMS is a big deal and a recurring problem that should have been fixed. Because of that, I really wonder if I want to own a 996/997 which is no longer under warranty.

I think that's a fair comment. The problem is PAG is standing up to warrantied cars, but not those out of warranty. There's the rub, they continue to build defective engines without telling the new buyers there is a defect. They should either fix it or tell people about so they can make up their own minds at time of purchase. As you can see by the posts a lot of people will think it's only an $800 problem while others will view it as a misaligned eng/trans and pass on the purchase. Just my .02

Just a question, but let's assume the worst... you notice an RMS leak, chalk it up as a leak, and keep driving when really the crankshaft and tranny are out of alignment??? What would be the potential damages here beyond replacing an engine that would need to be replaced anyways? I guess my question is whether the "preventive maintanence" of changing leaky seal is really worth it... or are you tripping over dollars to save some pennies here? Any logical thoughts are welcome.

10 hours will run you about $1k. I know two people in town who are on their 3rd failed RMS in less than 1 1/2 years (one of those two has had 3 fail IN a year!). When the warranty is out, what's potentially $3k/yr in RMS repairs anyway? No biggie, right? I mean Jesus, they've had NINE model years to fix this problem. That and the fact out of warranty RMSs can (and do) add up is entirely unacceptable.

A leak is a leak is a leak. You can't see droplets of oil on your garage floor and not pay attention to it and have it be on your mind. You guys kinda sound like you're in denial. It IS an issue. Perceived and real. Porsche been the opposite of proactive in addressing all the questions and doubts. Makes the non-GT/Turbo 996 Carrera all that much less desirable, though still very desirable, but out of the lineup, almost undesirable.

I am so sick of this RMS bull crap...I look at it this way. If it leaks then you got to fix it and pay the price. I know two shops in the area that can fix a RMS in 4 to 6 hours...Local Porsche dealer charges a full day rate and then some...why do you suppose that is? The RMS issue has been so blown out of proportion it has become laughable. If and when it happens to my cars then I'll deal with it. I just wish those that belly ache about it try to get a life and try to understand that it happens to some P/cars but not all AND it happens to other marques as well. I just wonder if all the abuse that a lot of P/owners put their cars thru and brag about just might have something to do with the fact that the RMS blows...who knows...I sure don't...I have just heard about all I want to hear about RMS issues...for Christ sake its just a damn oil leak that can be repaired!!

The only 100% way to fix an RMS leak on a 996 is to REPLACE THE ENGINE . The seal itself is not the problem, there is no problem manufacturing the seal or with the seal seating properly (although some have been installed backwards at the factory), the problem is with the engine block. If the problem was only a bad seal and easily fixable then people would not be complaining as much.

My RMS was replaced at around 20k miles. It just turned 60k miles and it's fine. As a matter of fact I had the smell of oil when the car was hot so I took it in because I thought it might be the RMS again. Instead it was the spark plug tube o-rings on cyclinders 1 and 2 that were the cause. The car was checked out and found to be leak free.

My car had it replaced at 7.5k. now has 15k. This was prior to my purchase. I see it the way Robin Williams in the The World According To Garp did when the plane crashed into the house he was looking to buy " I'll take it, it's been pre disasterized"

Well I am new to the p-world-infact I havn't taken delivery yet. I knew nothing of the RMS issue until I joined this board. Well--people perceive things differenty and a persons perception is his reallity. This issue does not effect my desire to own a p-car. It has been 25 years I have been dreaming and my car is certified so I will have a warranty but I must say that if I did not have a warranty and my car failed in that way once or twice and I knew this was a design issue from Porsche, I would be sceaming and cursing the Porsche name. And then find out that it has happened to the same car 3 times in one year.....well...I don't see how Porsche could let that happen....German car? A little tempermental?...OK But a piece of &%$# that can't hold a seal?...CMON ALREADY!!!!....just my 2 cents..........Jeff

I'm curious what your source is for this claim.

I've had a total of 6 RMS leaks (And I even got a tattoo commemorating it!), 2 ISS leaks and a cam cover leak...(not including all the other stuff)...and I STILL WOULDN'T TRADE IT FOR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD!! I LOVE MY PORSCHE!! Okay, I'm done. Dreams do come true...I'm driving mine. I owe myself a couple of drops...

OK, everyone chill out. Let's put this into perspecive. First of all we "ALL" love this car and that's why we are here. Secondly, any 996/997 or 986 owner who is not covered by warranty has to be in total denial or has bags of throw away cash if he/she believes this isn't a major worry for them. Things to consider: * Most RMS failures are fixed once replaced. But once an RMS failure is repaired you have a much higher chance of it reoccuring again. * Porsche are fully aware of the problem but won;t admit to it. There have been 4 different seals tried and they still fail. * The problem persists in the 997. This is outrageous. * All cars even none Porsche cars can suffer an RMS failure but the rate in the 996/986 is more than comfortable. That's why its discussed so often. * A failed RMS may be a sign of much worse conditions such as engine block misalignement. * The long term effects of leaving an RMS unfixed are unknown but it may lead to catastrophic failure or clutch/flywheel contamination. * The RMS should "NEVER", I repeat "NEVER" be replace unless it is leaking. If you remove the RMS and fit another and there is no leak, you may regret it as it may lead to future RMS failures. You broke the seal......I dont mean the RMS either....I mean you ripped the sticker off that says your engine is RMS failure free. Mess with it and you may induce a reocurring RMS problem. * PCGB have done two surveys. One on the 986 and another on the 996. The 996 results are not fully known yet. The 986 results show overwhelmingly that the RMS "IS" a prolem and the 996 results are showing similar results. Basically 1 in 4 cars will have an RMS fail. * In the US, it seems there is a policy that if you have 3 RMS failures in warranty or not then Porsche will replace your engine if it has FPSH by the dealer network. This is not always the case but from what I have read mostly the case. In the ROW this is not the case. * The RMS has affected residual values. Porsche don't seem to care. In some respects, it is to their advantage as it loweres the car value to a market that most can not afford. This gives them a bigger market share as the masses buy them up. Once you own a 911 you are very likely to want another and these new type of Porsche owners are prospective new Porsche buyers once weaned onto the 911 at a knock down price. * The very reason Posrche won;t admit to the RMS being a problem is because there are so many RMS failed cars out there and they will get sued to pieces. But better still, they are likely to buy into the extended warranty scheme. If these cars were so perfect then who needs the extended warranty? * It's simply not acceptable for an engine to suffer such a major problem at these relatively low miles. And more so on a �65,000 Porsche. Porsche should just put it right each time without quibble and there would be nobody complaining. * Someone mentioned that abusing your Porsche may cause the RMS problem. How do you abuse a Porsche? The car is limited to safe revs so how do you abuse it? It is made to go fast and furious and even to be tracked. Is tracking the car abusing it? I don;t think so. You may be sick of hearing about the RMS problem (as I am) but the fact is it is real, with us, and it may be about to hit your car. If you are in warranty then you don;t give a dam. But if your out of warrnty then you just have to be concerned about this problem. And for those who don;t already know, I am on my 7th RMS in 15 months and the 7th is leaking!

Damn Robyn, why didn't you just buy a GT3? I didn't realize you'd gone so far on that car. Looks good though. Have you had a chance to take it to the track since the SC? Scouser, you've got to be the most unlucky pcar owner ever, I feel your pain. Chris

That is a GT3 Robyn has isn't it?

Another RMS thread?

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all which I am not, I will posit the following. Dunce hat off... Great car, bad seal/engine design margin. Simple as that. This is a tolerancing stack up problem and is statistical. This occurs at initial design. With all the sophisticated CAE around, I would be very surprised if they didn't know, but rather just took the chance. The life of the seal or more precisely, the mean time it takes for an engine to start leaking from the crank or intermediate fails expectations (OK, I can only surmise this by reading polls and counting messages in various forums so you can ding me for that :-) ). If this were the 100,000 mile RMS problem, it wouldn't be a problem; it would be a wear item like a timing belt. But because to more owner than what seems to be reasonable, myself included, it can be a 3000 mile, 3 times a year problem, I believe these people have a right to bitch all the way to a lawsuit depending *heavily* on how Porsche responds. And this would have to apply to those out of warrantly, because it is nothing more than an inconvenience. You're not going to be caught stranded somewhere w/ a dead engine because of it, or having to cough up $13K for a reman motor. So to those who are sick of the Porsche bashing, I can only say you have a warranty or too much money. And as far as bashing, at least in my case, I am not bashing Porsche, I am bashing Porsche's decision to allow this to happen. Yes, I am pretty confident they knew. Who knows, maybe there is an ex-Porsche mid-manager hanging by a tree somewhere. They knew there was a risk, just not the magnitude of it in production. If I knew I had a say 50% chance of having a motor that will have zero problems vs. 3K/3 times a year, I would not hesitate to add the what I would consider the "mandatory" extended warrantly as part of the cost of ownership. In the end, it is how Porsche responds to those out of warranty to a problem that is their fault. I believe they are taking generally good care of these customers, myself included so far, and this is what is really important. And to the degree that is generally true, the Porsche mark does not deserve bashing. What perplexes me is the problem has been around for so long. I bet they have a QA step for each and every engine to check for this. Does this mean the engine moves out of spec over time once it leaves the factory? Only they can know. OK, dunce hat back on... Dan

Sorry, didn't catch the prior thread to which mine is a repeat but not as well worded. But the 7th seal? Shake, shake...

PCNA wouldn't have a two strikes and your out policy for replacement engines if a faulty seal was the real problem.

Scouser: Although I unsderstand the loyalty that many owners have to Porsche, I believe that you are on target with your observations. The RMS problem has been around for many years and Porsche to the best of my knowledge has never even publicly admitted that there is a problem. Porsche should have conducted a 996 recall a year or two ago. They should have inspected each and every engine for RMS leaks, and replaced defective seals on all cars in and out of warranty. There's no doubt in my mind that in the past, that's exactly what Porsche would have done. Unfortunately the new corporate philosophy at Porsche is to put profits above all else, and hence we have Porsche in denial about RMS. The result is that 996s appear to be depreciating much faster than any other 911. Granted that I have no evidence other than a few anecdotal experiences to support my view, but at least in my area I have seen a couple of 996s languish on dealer lots since last August. On the other hand 993s in my area seem to sell within a week or two, which would suggest that dealers are selling them at the asked for price.

I truly believe if this was such a big problem for some of you.....You wouldn't be still driving the car after 3,5 or 7 RMS repairs. I know there would be no way in hell i would . This would be like a women walking all over you again and again, how many of you would put up with that? There are so many great cars out there in the price range you wouldn't haveto worry about RMS leaks.In rebuttal to Fast1...Tho you have a good point that 993 could sell faster then the 996, however i think thats because the 996 was the most built and sold Porsche ever. The depreciating 996 is just supply and demand.993 owners are of a different bread i think, they will pay more for less, and at the same time the 993 has it problems too.I know after having a RMS leak, it doesn't change the fact how i love this car,after 7 it would. I just know i wouldn't buy a 997 .

What kind of crap have you started now KILRGT? Suspension time yet?

Well Alon I hate the word RMS now after going thru this bored. I have a wedding tomorrow so its no good, but we can hook up sunday for a coffee....Hey did your friend buy that car??

He did put in an offer subject to an inspection by his mechanic (tomorrow). Another wedding? You have too many single friends. Don't forget, every wedding attended puts a dent into your 996 mod budget.

I have said this before, it's not the car its the company. I am a long time Porsche owner having owned 2 other 911's since 1979 and my 996 is my 3rd. Porsche should be more sypathetic towards its loyal customers. If Porsche would just fix my engine and be done with it then I wouldn't be moaining. I love the car and that's why I will keep it so long as I can afford to do so. I hope to own it for many enjoyable years to come, but it will be my last Porsche. Not because I don't like the car but because I feel that the companies arrogance and lack of compassion towards its customers as well as its failing to put this problem to bed has failed it. Porsche should be asahmed of themselves for letting this RMS issue go on without even a sign of hope of it ever ending and I am not the only loyal Porsche owner/customer they will lose because of it. As for getting rid of the car, that's not an option. I have too much invested money in this vehicle. Even if I have to purchase a new engine in the future I intend to keep it and run it to the ground. It's a great car and I intend to use it and enjoy it and to hell with the company that built it. But I will not give up the fight and I simply don't give a damn if my or other posters RMS threads bug you. In fact I look forward to seeing many more RMS threads until this problem is finally resolved. If you don't like them then don't read them.

Scouser, I thought you bought your 996 used, not new. Quite a bit of a different situation - that I don't think you could expect Porsche - or any manufacturer for that matter - to be responsible for. Caveat Emptor.

Where did I say in this thread that I bought it new or used RR? And what has this bit of trivia got to do woth this thread? Yes, I bout this car used with 562 miles on the clock. It was bought 3 weeks after it was delivered from a company owned by a friend that went chapter 11. I took over the car with full warranty and while it was bought used, it was all but a formality. Had I not bought the car and carried on the payments for it through Porsche finance then Porsche's only option would be to reclaim it back under English law. They would then have had to sell it used. So if anything I did them a favour but for all other intents and purposes it was a new car. Regardless, I expect Porsche to be responsible for the machinery they build and especially when it has an in-built design flaw. In previous posts RR you simply just want to flame me for no reason and without provocation. So, I will give you the benfit of the doubt here, if you wish to just flame me as per usual then i will just ignore your posts. If you want to carry on a decent open minded discussion on this topic then that's fine with me. But the second I see you just "having a go" as per usual, I will just ignore you. However, please get your facts right first.

Fix? There is no fix. A complete engine re-design is required to cure this. The question remains is it worth it to Porsche. The answer to that comes down to whether or not P sees this as a threat to their income. I'd buy another 997 or lease actually but thats because there is that lovely warranty underneath the whole deal, oh yeah almost forgot, and they are spectacular cars.

I agree with Scouser.. yes I had my issues last year with my 996... spending $47,000 in repairs in the first 1,000 miles of ownership sure put a damper in my feelings towards porsche.. yet it doesn't mean i don't enjoy the car intensely... it's the company itself that needs to get a clue, and realize the people with the money to afford these cars, hate being taken advantage or ignored about problems or being told they are at fault for reasons not of their own.. basically, with RMS and other engine issues which they refuse to acknowledge, by porsche charging us all for them.. they are saying: "you have enough money to pay for our mistakes.. now shut up and pay for our mistakes or buy a new porsche and we'll pay for our mistakes for a few more years until it's out of warranty, and then buy another new porsche... etc.. nice profit model.." i'm still wondering why a lawyer doesn't form a class action lawsuit against them...regardless of what anyone thinks about RMS, personally i think it's complete BS that the 997 was released with the same exact flaws.. One must remember that this engine was most likely fully developed and tested 8-9+ years ago.. not 6.. (in 1997 they were track testing the 996) they know what's going on, they just realize that most people don't have access to the internet to share the stories, so they don't worry about the less than 1% of porsche owners discussing these problems together on the internet, when 99% of people think it's their own porsche's fault, and that it's a rare occurance.. it's cheaper for them to ignore, than start over again... pure profit motivated and greed... that's what it comes down to.. they have plenty of money now, and don't seem to feel the need to use any of that money on any of their loyal customers to fix problems they have created... i have $47,000 less in my bank account to prove it...

What would be your cause of action? Is Porsche honoring its warranty? It appears from all signs that it is. Does anyone have a legal right to force the factory to pay for repairs that occur outside of the warranty? No, the warranty contains an explicit time/mileage limit. Has anyone been physically injured by an RMS failure (in other words, is the RMS defect an inherently dangerous flaw)? No, I doubt it. Does Porsche contain misleading advertising regarding the reliability of its RMS? No, it doesn't mention RMS in its ads. Sadly, the fact that the problem is fairly well known also reduces the likelihood of success. I just don't see any legally cognizable claim that is not frivolous. If I am missing something, please articulate your theory. In reality, I think that the people who have a beef with PCCBs have a far, far stronger case. If I didn't like Porsche so much, and if I were a plaintiff's attorney (I am not), I would take that case. Just my two cents. Yes, I have had three RMS failures (one on the Boxster S) and two on the Targa. I don't like it, but it isn't anything to sue over.

Finally someone who makes sense. This post is ridiculous, ONCE AGAIN. We really have nothing else to do, when we begin to carry on like old bittys. Let's close this one. Really guys this horse has been beaten.

TD, good point, as common as this problem seems to be, if it had any legal merit there would have been a class action suit long ago. I imagine a few owners out there are lawyers anyway, maybe they'll chime in on this point. Chris

Me either........ I have done three(3) RMS's this week..................

At one point in time I was actually having conversations with a law firm about a possible cause of action. Let me tell you where the problem is. For a suit to proceed forward, you need an engine expert who can testify about the issue. Not someone who is technically competent, but an actual expert who could be qualified as such under oath. The only individuals who really fit the category are those working for Porsche as techs in their shops. Do you think you are going to get one of them to testify. It's not going to happen. Or you could try to get someone like Bruce Anderson, but I seriously doubt whether he would do it. He has an excellent relationship with the factory and is certainly not going ruin that relationship. Therein lies the major stumbling block to anything ever happening in a court of law.

With all due respect, I do not buy that. With the right amount of money, you most certainly could get an expert that would be qualified enough to testify in support of a class action. Again, though, the far bigger problem is that there does not seem to be a cause of action. What was the theory of your case? P.S. I am not talking about individual cases where a Porsche Dealer is not honoring a warranty. Of course certain individuals may have been damaged and may have a case. I am talking only about CLASS ACTIONS which require that all class members share the same interest.

I confess that I am an attorney (and an engineer). That is why I could not stay quiet any longer. You know how hard it is for attys to keep their big mouths shut.

Whose billing address do you have...... "Me either........ I have done three(3) RMS's this week.................. " This rms thread is getting funny........

Check your PM for my bill

Yes Porsche is honouring its warranty. No doubts about it. But there is more to it than just warranty. First off this is far from a just warranty issue, t's a manufacturing default. The fault lies in the design and/or manufacturing process. In many cases it doesn't show up until the warranty has expired. Take my case, my 1st RMS showed up just a few months out of warranty but the problem was built-in. If it would have shown up in-warranty then I wouldn;t have a concern to worry about. So this manufacturing fault is not an issue of warranty but instead an issue of responsibility. And Porsche are responsible since they didn't do it right in the first instance. Secondly, it's also a case of looking after customers to keep them satisfied enough for future repeat business. Your customers are your asset. Without them you don't exist. Take the asset away and what have you got left? So while the warranty system may cover them in legal terms they are not giving due consideration to the hand that feeds them. This is what I mean by them being arrogant and lacking compassion. The legal issue is a difficult one. For starters we are talking global and not individual national law suites. While a case may succeed in the USA, it might not hold water in the UK. However, perception is a wonderful thing and since the US is the biggest customer for Porsche and is the most letigious nation, it would be the best place for the law suite to take place since such a law suite would have an embarrasing force for Porsche in the RoW. I think this is the main reason that Porsche give out a 4 year warrnty system in the US while in the RoW it is only 2 years warranty. IMHO, the best method is to gain the support of PCAM and PCGB and have them combine to act on their members behalf in pursuing a resolution to the problem or else threaten legal action. The might of both clubs acting together would be a big concern for Porsche. This is just MHO.

Please note to all that my comments are not meant to be a defense of Porsche's actions, but rather only a brutally honest analysis of the potential merits of a class action from a strictly legal standpoint. I know nothing about the potential for class actions in other countries. Under U.S. law, I see no chance for getting a non-frivolous class certified, and nobody here, or anywhere else that I have seen, has articulated a rational theory for a class action case.

TD, I knew you were an atty, thought I might bait you out of the closet. What would have to happen to certify this as a class action? Chris

Hey Scouser As i said in the first Post, there is some problem cars....yours being one......But you said you couldn't afford to get rid of it, and you will drive into the ground..correct me if i am wrong but how will you afford to keep doing all those RMS, after the warranty is done and after its done will you replace the engine after the third leak like Porsche does.....and then replace it again. I dislike the company as well but I will always drive a car like ours with warranty. With all due respect to the people who said a class action law suit, do you really think Porsche would loose this case? IN the Law's eyes they are doing what is required of them to do. It leaks they fix it, it leaks again they fix it again...then they replace the motor and it will to leak or most likely to. So in a nutshell there is not a dam thing to do about it.....**** or get off the pot... I Knew this would **** a few of you off.....This post was NOT directed to any one person....

I agree the RMS is not so much a legal action item and compared to other manufactures safety problems it is mostly an economic annoyance. What bothers me is "Where is the Porsche Engineering Excellence?" Wendelin Wiedeking may have done wonders to modernize the Porsche factory and reduce manufacturing costs, but did he lay off too many engineers/machinists. This problem has lasted through an extended manufacturing duration and apparently there is no foolproof fix for so many engines now on the road. Porsche Engineering excellence of yesteryear would have been all over this problem. Imagine that Porsche came up with a replacement seal that was 99% reliable for 50,000 miles. The problem would be over. Maybe Porsche would need to build a series of offset eccentric seals to be matched to particular engines based on the measured eccentricity. The solution could be a bit complicated like this. Maybe they should bring some of the brilliant German engineers/machinists out of retirement to fix this problem as they don't seem to have them on staff. Or maybe there is an opportunity for another firm to come up with a fix for this. I think one could get maybe $500?? per RMS kit times a few thousand?? units per year, this could add up to a good business if you had a good RMS kit. Those few with 7 RMS failures would surely pay more than this to put this problem behind them.

About a year+ ago an atty from Louisana (or deep south) had just bought a CTT (& a 996TT) from the proceeds of a medical class action suit. Because of the bitching and moaning, he was goaded into trying to collect names & the extent of the problem. It was about the same time as Scouser being called a heretic by many. It sort of petered out because there weren't that many excuses. In my gut I think you have a better chance with a state attorney general and the consumer protection laws of like say CA. The goverator may even side with the car owners. BTW TD in DC, torags has moved to a country without an extradition treaty with the US, so forward the bill to C4S Surgeon (doctors make the big bucks) ;-)

C4S Surgeon, Before we get to the point of deciding whether a class action could be certified, we would first have to figure out the theory of the case. For example, if the RMS problem could be dangerous (e.g., if it caused oil to spill onto the tires, which in turn increased the likelihood of an accident), then we could sue to recover damages under various theories (e.g., actual damages, the cost of repairs, the cost of diminished value of the car due to an unreasonably dangerous defect, etc . . . ). The members of the class would have to have enough in common to warrant certification, which would depend upon the type of claim you are bringing (e.g., if you are only seeking actual damages, then the class would consist of only those who have incurred actual damages through a wreck). For this reason, I think that we have to start with a lucid articulation of the theory people are interested in pursuing, and I haven't seen one and I can't think of one (of course, that does not mean that one might not exist). Is this helpful? TD in DC

I had already sent him a bill before you made the suggestion. All of rennlist should be receiving one soon.

Don't I get to invoice somebody too? Ok! line up here for my new $500 floating seal assembly. It might work if I can bodge it in there somehow.

Wasn't the real question of this post around whether or not you should just chalk up an RMS leak as another oil leak and let it be? I haven't seen any concrete arguments behind why you shouldn't just live with the leak? Are you paying $800 a pop just to make sure things aren't out of alignment? A small percentage of cars have had RMS leaks... even fewer have needed engines replaced because of it. The question really is whether or not the $800 "check-up" is worth it when it is coming out of your own pocket? Just trying to get the conversation back on topic... I am not advocating an opinion either way...

Have a nice wknd all.

Thank you And to point out my Post was to suggest that the RMS problem is not as bad as we think.The dealers may replace these when it is not a problem...then the owner of that car comes on here and says oh well another RMS leak...and in fact if the dealer didn't do this ( because its a good warranty job)....the owner wouldn't come on her saying dam ....Porsche.... RMS.....damm them..... This is a trickle effect of dealers taking advantage of PCNA and boiling down to making our confidence zero in Porsche.....There was a post the other day about someone wanting to change the RMS ............it wasn't even leaking, he wanted to change it like it was a maintenance, the guy was so paranoid that his motor would blow up because of the RMS. WHY?? because this is what he has seen , Not just on this forum, but on other forums and its partly to blame for this being bigger then it is. As i said there are some problems cars.....If my car had a RMS 3 times.........I would have purchased another car......END OF STORY

Guys...........this is heaven........... when are you ever EVER going to be able to get free legal advise from an attorney. Someone call the PRESS! Now, to my question: TDin DC, hypothetically , what if an accident was caused by and engine light malfunction display. The driver was involved in an accident while glancing at his display console and suprised by the engine malfunction reading. The reading was in effect directly attributeable to RMS failure. Can the automobile manufacturer or supplier be responsible for injuries caused by a defect in the automobile under the law of product liability.? Cheers

No simple answers, and the answer could depend upon the law of the state where the accident happened, the product was purchased, or the product was manufactured. The biggest problem would be to prove that illumination of the light would cause a reasonable man to have an accident (i.e., proximate cause). Otherwise, it was poor driving that caused the accident, not the illumination of the light (which, by the way, functioned as designed in your hypothetical). I think it would be impossible to prove that. Even if you could prove it, you could not have a class action unless you had multiple people who had accidents due to illumination of the light. No way Jose. To take it back to the original topic. No, I do not think that the typical RMS failure is the end of the world. I think that they are extremely annoying, but they are easily fixed. I would not consider those who have had 3 or more failures on the same car to have a "typical RMS problem." As long as Porsche replaces under warranty, no big deal. I probably will not own a Porsche out of warranty, but I may not have done so even if there were no RMS problems. I owned a Boxster S that had an RMS failure, and I knowingly purchased an '02 Targa anyway.

I just want to straighten out my story on my RMS problem for you guys that don;t know already. The 1st RMS failed at 28,000 miles. The car was just out of warranty so Porsche chipped in with a good-will claim. I had to contribute �237 towards costs. Since then there have been 5 other replacement RMS's making a total of 7 RMS's fitted to the car including the one fitted at the factory when it was built. Apart from the 1st RMS, I have not paid a penny. Porsche have replaced them all FOC. However, when the last (7th) RMS was fitted, I was told by Porsche that they would not replace any more in future FOC. They have suggested that the only fix is to replace the engine. They have offered me a deal of 50% cost for this replacement engine. My cost will be �4,700. This is a rip since as dar as I am concerened they never fixed the problem in the first case. Anyway, to so to sum up, I didn't in the past have to pay $800 for each RMS replaced like some of you have inferred. OK, so now that's cleared up. The point you are all missing is "this is a manufacturing fault". I find it rather pointless reading things like "can an accident caused by looking at a led flashing due to some RMS related problem in the engine be grounds for class action". I could think of a zillion like this.......The RMS leaked on my driveway and my granny slipped on the oil sludge and broke her neck!.......The RMS leaked oil onto the church's freshly paved driveway....blah blah. You are all looking to suite Porsche for the wrong reason. If there is going to be a so called class action case then should it not be for a product that is sold that was never fit for its purpose. We are buying faulty goods (engines) sold as perfect with the fault seemingly for the most part, lying latent and inconveniently showing up after warranty expires....i.e., it was and has always been there just waiting to happen. Finally, guys without meaning to offend you, can I remind you that this is not a forum just for US members. It's an International forum too. I see words like "law of the state" or "class action" for this and that. We don;t have "class actions" in the UK or Lemon laws so a lot of what you say is meaningless to me. Your comments are brilliant reading but some of us can't relate to them. Also, please remember that in the RoW we only get 2 years warranty NOT 4. Please try to think "global" in your comments. It would help greatly. Sorry if this sounds offensive but I read many posts from members who don't seem to be thinking out of the box. This RMS problem affects Porsches outside the US too you know......this is why I think a combined PCNA & PCGB forcefull approach is the best way....and any other Porsche Club that can come to the party of course. Sueing Porsche is one thing but embarrasing them to fix it is another. If every RMS afflicted owner would bother to write to their club expressing how dissatisfied and dissapointed you are in how Porsche are dealing with it, it would not be too long before they start putting presure on Porsche for a resolution.

I said earlier I know nothing about International law. I cannot make up things about subjects I know nothing about, and it has nothing to do with failing to "think outside the box" If you want to get a UK lawsusit going, talk to a UK lawyer. Sorry you seem to be offended by me trying to provide some free insight to all those in the US who keep talking about a class action. I do not appreciate the snide "brilliant comments" remark. It is not about trying to impress people but rather about trying to help a little in a narrow area that I know a little about. So sue me. Also, sorry about your problems, but I have heard you say numerous times you think it is a manufacturing defect. You have said it enough times that I doubt anyone is "missing your point." Maybe it is a manufacturing defect, but that doesn't mean you will be able to force Porsche to do anything about it. Good luck (said sincerely). I am sure you are a fine enough fellow and I don't blame you for being upset. Don't take it out on me. I don't work for Porsche, and I didn't screw up your RMS.

TD in DC, sorry mate you read me wrong or I mislead you. Absolutely no way was this aimed at you. You made it very clear in your prev post that you didn;t know about Internation law. I was referring to some of the other guys postings. Sorry again.

No harm, no foul. I meant it when I said that I am sure you are a fine fellow. Next time we are on the same side of the pond, the beer (or wine) is on me.

Can I posit a question? Has it been proved,categorically, that it is a design fault? I happen to believe it is from reading the many anecdotes recounted here.The causes of RMS failure suggested are numerous,i.e. (a) Failure of the seal itself (b) crankshaft out of specification (concentricity)(c) seals installed incorrectly (backwards) (d) seal not adequately lubricated (due to long periods parked) -there are others that have slipped my mind,but I remember them as not being too far fetched. Our learned fellow Porsche lover, TD in DC,has succinctly articulated the problem(s) with this,and that is we don't have proof,ie legal proof, that it is a design flaw and more to the point, to formulate a class action requires a large cohort of "victims" that have suffered the "same" problem that is proven to be a danger to life and limb.I remember a case, in your country, involving tires on SUV's. I think it centred on a problem of tires blowing out at inopportune times like cornering. There were many cases of rollovers resulting in fatalities. I not sure of the outcome, but I think the it was that the tires were not at fault, it was the design of the SUV-its low centre of gravity- I think? or was it a combination of the tires and LCOG? Anyway, my point is is that it involved many people being involved in the same incident-not a small cohort with varying characteristics. Like someone has said before, Porsche would rather repair the seals as they come in. Recalling zillions of cars would have the number crunchers having a fit. I guess, without sounding defeatist,its something we have to live with.

that's why there is discovery and depositions in a legal case... they will have to provide all relevant engine data, reports, and all porsche engineers and technichians will have to speak the 100% truth under oath about any and all rms, engine issues.. through that one will find the truth of the matter... because they sure as hell won't tell us unless required by law...

munro86 in the US, if a manufacturer is the cause of a life safety issue (like tires), a recall is announced by the federal government. TD alluded to this in a comment. Enterprizing attorneys can usually create a "civil lawsuit-one that is for money claims" on the basis of the recall - and if the complaints made by many people, the attorney can create a "class action" suit to achieve higher damages (usually for the attorney). These lawsuits are filed in a state court (not federal court) and with a class action the atty can file in any state that one of the attys clients reside in. Each state has their own laws dealing with the damages of class action suits. Most of these suits are settled out of court. TD weigh in on this, I'm not an attorney, but I've paid a lot of fees & learned expensive lessons The rms issue is essentially a consumer complaint, not a threat to life. I have received money from class action lawsuits that I was a member (4 or 5), from financial misdealings of companies I invested in. None of the checks were for more than $13.00, I don't even apply anymore - when I get an application. The ranks of rms problems are growing. The '99s are out of warranty and the population of the aggrieved is growing. Porsche may get caught in the Hydai syndrome and lose irretrievable sales momentum. It's a high risk adventure for them.

Excellent point. Upon reflection your analysis may be on target because implicit in my view is the assumption that all potential 996 buyers or at least most potential 996 buyers are aware of RMS. That's probably not the case. Also I want to acknowledge that the 996 is an outstanding sports car. My only concern is the way that Porsche has failed to address the problem.

Would a fair reading of your view be that a company has a legal obligation to produce safe products but not quality products, and that consumers can't legally compel a company to make a quality product unless it can be demonstrated that the product defect affects saftey? If a company knowingly produces an inherently unsafe product but fails to take corrective action, then a class action suit would be possible. Otherwise a company must merely honor its explicit warranty to remedy quality defects that don't impact safety. Therefore, the remedy available to consumers for a company producing inferior products is in the marketplace and not in the court room.

Additionally, if you purchased a 996 with the knowledge of the RMS problem, you might have waived any legal remedy...

TD, What about in relation to my engine blowing up on the freeway, causing me to almost run into the car next to me while rushing over to the side of the road, in the thought that potentially my car might explode due to the fire i saw in my rear view mirror coming from my engine..... and all the cars behind me slamming on their breaks behind me as they watched flames come out of my exhaust and smoke come out of my engine while driving on the freeway.. wouldn't this be considered a safety hazard within the engine as reasonable cause for suit relating to potential defects in their engine? (this is what happened when a rod blew out the first engine i had.. second engine replacement was more pre-emptive.. (it was going to explode, they just didn't know when...) it may have had relation to RMS, i'm not sure, as this happened, a few hundred miles after I bought the car and wasn't familiar with RMS back then..) but regardless, it was an "engine" related issue, as is RMS and could potentially relate to RMS, since porsche replaces engines after 2 failed RMSes.. through discovery and deposition one could find out if this potential safety problem hazard has relation to RMS. There is a fire department report to back the validitiy of this up if need be.. (unfortunately the fire department put my engine out before it reached the rest of the car... sigh) Wouldn't this be significant to start a claim and avoid it being thrown out as a frivilous lawsuit, and then pursue the case further into discovery, depositions, etc.. I'm sure suit on the base of a faulty engine causing a safety hazard could cause me to be the leader in a class action suit, and additional RMS issues could be addressed with other engine issue participants joining in.. what about that, any validity there?

Hey Bob? Are you sure you had a PORSCHE engine in the car. Is it possible that the Ford delaler actually installed an old PINTO engine?

1999Porsche911, good point.. well the porsche model numbers on the block of the engine kind of made me think that it was a porsche engine.. but i could be wrong of course... ford dealerships have been known for years to replace pinto engines into porsches for years now... as you know...

Okay, is this an occurance in a lot of Porsches out there, or does it seem more blown out of proportion because we're on a webforum, and people with RMS leaks are complaining, while those without them are happily driving their cars? I'm confused.

Only Porsche knows the answer to your question. Although I have no idea how often this problem occurs on 996s, it happens often enough that the Service Techs at all three Porsche dealers near me are aware of the problem. Interestingly enough when I ask them how many 996s are affected by RMS, each one refuses to respond and they suggest that I call Porsche to get the answer. Right, I'm sure Porsche will be delighted to share that information with me.

You have summarized things pretty accurately. I'd like to note that I am not a plaintiffs attorney, and I am sure that one of those guys would be more expert than I am in this area. I have worked for a judge before, and I have been in private practice for awhile, so I am drawing off of those experiences. The checks you refer to are typically settlement checks, which have little to do with the amount of damages to individual plaintiffs. Rather, the defendant (in this case Porsche) would say, how much to make this go away. If they come up with a number that satisfies the plaintiffs' attorneys, then the attorneys take their fees and divide the rest among all the members of the aggrevied class, which can lead to miniscule individual checks. However, even to get to the point where a defendant will consider a settlement, you have to have a colorable case.

I agree with you that there are probably numerous causes for RMS failures. . . You are also right about the difficulties of finding sufficient commonalities to form a class.

No, not necessarily. Keep in mind that I wish Porsche would step up to the plate and fix the RMS issue once and for all, particularly before the 997. My view is really simple. When you sue someone, you have to allege that they have violated a specific legally cognizable law or duty to you. I have not been able to identify any myself. That doesn't mean that there is not a law or duty I have overlooked, but rather that I am not smart enough to see it. Basically, there is no duty for an automobile manufacturer to provide you with a perfect car. They must honor their warranty and they must provide you with a safe vehicle, and one that serves its intended purpose. They also must not induce customers into buying cars with false or misleading advertising. I don't think that the RMS failures fit into any of those categories. As far as I know, Porsche has honored its warranty. As far as I know, RMS failures are not dangerous. As far as I know, Porsche has not advertised anything about reliable RMSs or leak-proof cars. Specific states have lemon laws, but I also assume that Porsche complies with those laws on a state-by-state and case-by-case basis. For this reason, I don't see any claim yet.

You personally might have a case and you personally might be able to get discovery, but, unless you can find others who have suffered fires AND you can demonstrate that the fires are related to RMS or some other common cause, I doubt that it would be the basis for a class action.

How about the guy that lost in arbitration to Porsche because they (supposedly) blamed his RMS leak on auto-crossing? You would think he'd stand a decent chance of making it to discovery? It might not be justification for a class-action but it would be enough to get the NHTSA to look into it the problem, they only need one "safety related incident".

Out of all honesty, my comments have nothing to do with individual cases. I am solely focusing on class actions. The merits of each individual case obviously differ, and a public forum like this is probably not the place to get into details enough to figure out the merits of individual cases. The problems with arbitration is that, typically, by agreeing to go to arbitration, you waive your right to go to court in the event of an unfavorable decision. It is a gamble, and it sounds like the guy may have lost. I wonder if he was represented by counsel?

There are explicit and implied contractural obligations on the part of a manufacturer. Certainly an automobile manufacturer must abide by the terms of the warranty that they offer, but beyond that doesn't the manufacturer have the obligation to produce a car that will provide safe and reliable transportation? I'm not claiming that RMS is a safety issue, but it's certainly a reliability issue which in many instances lead to engine replacements. Although Porsche does not explicitly advertise that the seals of their cars don't leak, a buyer's expectation for a $90K car is that the seals won't leak for a reasonable time period. Since most of the RMS failures seem to occur within the first couple of years on cars with less than 40K miles, they would certainly fall into the "reasonable time period" that an owner could expect the seals not to leak. For the sake of argument, let's assume that a substantial number of 996s suffer from RMS failures and that Porsche has a documented history of such failures accumulated over the years. Would Porsche then have a legal obligation to diviluge this information to the public? Would failing to do so be the grounds for a class action suit? A precedent that comes to mind is the class action suit that was brought against BMW about fifteen years ago. The suit was initiated by a BMW owner who complained about paint pealing from his relatively new car. If I recall correctly, BMW dealers routinely clear coated cars shipped from Germany to improve the car's appearance. The claimant asserted that BMW had the obligation to inform buyers that the additional clear coat was applied. The claimant prevailed and won a very substanial award from BMW.

Good arguement... But PAG doesn't assert their cars will run 100 or a 100,000 miles to my knowledge. They do however make sure they run reliabilbly for 4 yrs or 50Kmi. If they are unable to fix the cars within reason periods, different states have different definitions as to what a reasonable period is. You seem to have confirmed TD's comment that an individual may be able to win a claim but a class action may not be doable. This claimant who won on none disclosure; now there's a possibilty to twist arms of PAG. Have a state attorney general make PCNA disclose the problem to new buyers.

Hmmm. I am playing Devil's advocate here, but I would bet (based on my gut but not on any research, which I may do just for kicks next week) that the law limits the contractual obligations to the warranty period. In other words, you have a right to expect a car without RMS leads during warranty period, but after that point you are on your own. Now, if there were a link to a safety problem, it is a whole other subject. Then, a class action would be possible. The BMW case you referred to, if my memory is correct, was NOT a class action. It was an individual case against BMW based on the fact that his car had been repainted before it was sold to him NEW. He said that a reasonable buyer purchasing a NEW automobile from BMW had the right to reasonbly expect that the car would have the original factory paintjob (which is more durable) than a repair paintjob before a single mile is on it. BMW's failure to disclose the paint repair was unreasonable. He won a huge award (punitive damages) in Alabama, which is the state that is most favorable to plaintiffs in the entire nation. The theory you outline would be, in my opinion, much more applicable to the PCCB situation. I am surprised those guys haven't sued in class action. I mean there, Porsche says that PCCB is better for racing, yet the first generation disintegrated with heavy track use, and Porsche did not honor the warranty in many cases (all of my knowledge is based on rumors, I have no facts). If that is true, they would seem to have a case.

Torags, I think you are on the same page as I am. With respect to non-disclosure, there is only one situation where I think you might have a reasonable claim: people who buy used cars from Porsche that are NOT pre-certified. Both new cars and used pre-certified cars come with warranties. I think that, so long as Porsche systematically honors their warranty by fixing RMS leaks during the warranty period, I don't see a class action (even after the warranty expires). However, what if Porsche knows that RMS failures are common and yet they sell you a used car without a warranty (claim would be even stronger if the car had already had multiple RMS failures). That might make a reasonable class of purchasers who could argue that Porsche had a duty to disclose a known defect (since they had no plan to repair that defect on their own dime under a warranty). Of course, Porsche would argue caveat emptor since the car was sold without any warranty, and it might well be difficult to beat Porsche's argument.

Here's what I don't understand: Ever since the first Porsche came off the production line, there has been an active after-market industry. This industry has provided non-Porsche solutions to many perceived deficiencies in the original product - you all are aware of the multitude of mods available, from suspension to engine uopgrades to ..... Why has there been no development of the real solution to this problem outside of Porsche? It seems to me that there is a great market here for a "no RMS leak mod!!! Pay a few thousand $ and you have a car without the problem. Maybe this route is a better way to spend the time and money which goes into the "RMS" debate. I can't believe that there is really no solution. Let's have some of these brilliant non-factory technicians work out the solution. Just my .02 on the subject - being a 1-RMS leak owner of a car still under warranty.

The legal hurdle(s) that TD mentioned aside, there are other uphill battles that make a class action lawsuit not very appealing to an attorney. I can think of two. 1) Class action lawsuits are appealing to attorneys when you have many plaintiffs, that is, thousands and thousands of users beacuse the big money is tied in with big number of users. How many 996's were sold in the US throughout its entire production period? Comparativeley not a huge number. 2) Juries are the ones who will give the big awards. Can you imagine trying to sell to a jury that a group of rich guys/girls must be compensated because their cars leak some oil?

"caveat emptor" does not apply in California law... ;-) Nicoff: I think most cases are settled under the doctrine of "cost of defense", and never get to juries. another issue not mentioned here that could dilute a class if it were possible is: All owners who have had cars taken back by PCNA (like me) sign a non disclosure agreement as part of the settlement and that has a penalty clause associated with it, if the owner opens his mouth. There may be some cars or repairs taken/made (of rms faults) that have this agreement signed. RRLOwen: The after market can't fix this issue its too big a problem. The surprize is that PAG can't reliably fix it either with a replacement aftermarket engine remanufactured by THEM. There are reports that replacement engines are still out of line and the replacements need to be replaced - WTF

I believe the key issue working against a class action suit is that as TD has pointed out, RMS is not a safety issue. If it were then even if a small percentage of cars were affected, Porsche would be compelled by law to ensure that the default was remedied. At least that's the way it is with US law. I'm not certain about Europe. In the past US car companies would have their bean counters determine whether it was more costly to repair a defect or simply pay damages to those who were injured because of the defect. In other words it could be far less costly to pay $1M to each family injured because of a car defect then it would be to conduct a massive recall and repair the defect on each vehicle. As I understand today's US law, Courts will impose draconian punitive damages against companies that fail to repair known safety defects. Hence, car companies that sell in the US have a strong monetary incentive to promptly repair all safety defects.

Now that I think about it, I believe that you and TD are right and this was an individual case and not a class action suit. I do remember however that the award was quite significant. So now the argument comes down to whether or not Porsche has a legal obligation to warn buyers that 996s may have premature RMS failures. Can you imagine if Porsche were compelled to put a sticker on the windshield of each used 996 warning prospective buyers that this car may have defective seals. Rather than suffering the ignominy of taking such an action, I would imagine that Porsche would make a herculean effort to correct the defect once and for all or at least to provide extended warranties on all 996s. Again BMW provides a precedent for offering an extended warranty for a mechanical defect. I believe BMW offered a six year 100K warranty at no extra charge to all owners of 2001 and 2002 E46 M3s. I believe that many of these cars had defective oil pumps that caused premature connecting rod bearing failures. With this example in mind, why wouldn't Porsche make the same offer. Of course BMW acknowledged their defect. I don't believe Porsche admits to having a problem.

First off, a talk about what a jury, trial or judge may think is really irrelevant.. because the first thing porsche will try to do is dismiss the suit, if it's not dismissed, the second thing they will want to do is settle... 99% of legal cases never even see a jury.. and yes that's a correct statistic.. whether it ends up in arbitration, summary judgement, mediation, etc... very very very rarely do cases ever go as far as trial.. so one should not even anticipate that has being a factor or happening.. it's all about discovery and deposition to tear them apart on the reality of the rms issue.. all of those are public documented for everyone to see.. and they would not in a million years want that information to get out... yet the legal system allows it to be public knowledge... and force them or be in contempt of court unless they provide what is requested. what's important is once a legal case is filed, regardless of the outcome, let the media aware of it and why it is happening, along with all the stats we have... and hopefully that will cause them to speak up... One must realize, their new money maker the 997 has the same RMS problem.. if new buyers were aware of how servere the problem is with so many current owners of vehicles with the same engine they are thinking of putting $80-$100k down for in a vehicle.. it may make them look elsewhere as the large amount of competition porsche now has... the key is media exposure.. with huge enterprises, sometimes the media can determine the winner, regardless of how good their lawyers are.. their loss will be known to all if published in car magazines or porsche owner related reading material.. the key is to let these companies know about the suit filed against porsche and why, and let them write a blurb, or hopefully in a porsche related magazine, maybe an article about it... hopefully then porsche will be forced to take action or more or less receconsider their ignorant stance on the situation... do you honestly think they don't have a minion trolling these postings as it is? they know what's going on, they just wont' speak about it.... legal battles can't just be won in the courtroom.. one must remember that... if things are looking bad for a billion dollar juggernaut in the media eyes, they will do whatever they can to prevent or minimize any potential or future damage... they key is to file suit to make the media aware, and the reasons behind it.. and go from there... provide stats from surveys people have taken from this board, etc.. once that is done, there's plenty of time one can do damage in the media with this case against porsche for... and they may want to settle immediately, before even attempting to get the case dismissed if done properly...

I hear you and understand exactly what you are trying to say. That could work, but only if the suit were plausible. A frivolous suit will not get attention and likely would not even make it to discovery. Someone would still have to articulate a plausible theory before you could make it to discovery and get the press to cover the story. Otherwise, you could just mount a media campaign without the lawsuit: it would attract about the same amount of attention as a frivolous suit.

I think BMW had a lot more at stake. First, those engines suffered massive failure (i.e., engines exploding without warning). That, arguably is much more of a safety issue than an RMS leak. Second, the magnitude of the failure is so much greater than an RMS leak. In most cases, an RMS leak is simply that, a slow oil leak that is annoying. Many cars leak oil, particularly out of warranty. However, few cars blow their engines without abuse.

That's why customers who experience the 3rd failure should enact the lemon law and get a whole new car or a refund. With that expense, Porsche might be inclined to go a little further for everyone else. This is really not an acceptable circumstance and should dissuade future customers. I wonder if a dealer will extend the warranty for this specific issue, if negotiated up front. AS

As I posted earlier Porsche has not acknowledged that they have an RMS defect. So if there's no problem, why would they offer an extended warranty on leaking seals? The typical process for a defect is for a company to acknowledge the defect, and then repair the defect, and finally as a sign of good faith, extend their warranty to cover the defect in the event that it should recur. Upon reflection, it's not surprising that there are instances of RMS leaks on 997s. Why would Porsche take corrective action to remedy a problem that they will not admit even exists.

Fast, My thought was to ask the dealer for a separate agreement specific to the RMS. I have definitely seen a bill of sale where the dealer agreed to a free loaner for all service. If I were looking at a 997, at the final step of negotiation where the buyer has accepted the price, I would simply voice the RMS concern, await the dealer's expected reply that it's a non issue, then ask them to put that in writing on the bill of sale. Specifically that any RMS failure will be covered for X miles or as long as the original owner keeps the car. Once the dealer thinks he has a sale, they might just agree to that. If the dealer really believes it's a non-issue, what do they have to lose? Of course, the buyer might need to be willing to walk if they say no. AS

Re the 997 RMS, didn't somebody (?Toolpants) post that the 997 RMS is the Cayanne component? Is there already a fuss about 997 RMS failures? AS

"997 RMS is the Cayanne component?" I don't know what that means, but the cayenne is a standard V8 format, the 997 is a Boxer(911) format.

Actually Porsche has acknowledged the RMS leak/Engine defect with Technical Service Bulletins.

Do you know what info is in the bulletin? My guess would be that there are instructions as to how to determine if the seal or the entire engine should be replaced. The info I got from my local Porsche dealer was that Porsche didn't issue anything regarding RMS, but they lie so much that it doesn't surprise me that there is a TSB. It appears to me that Porsche has advised their service teams to be silent on this issue.

There's a precedent for your suggestion. I believe that GM service dealers warrant their repairs for the entire time that you own the vehicle. At least that's what they use to advertise.

WOW I didn't think this post would get so much airplay!!.. I have read every reply, and there are so many great points. .As for a class action suit, this will never see the light of day, there was no law broken, the only thing broken was the love and passion from some of the current owners.As we all know Porsche makes Most of their profits thru money hedging, not building cars.I think this is a case where a Companys change......I feel they have put getting more cars in the market place First...........and making more profit Second.I know there was a time where Porsche would do anything to make sure you were happy........this was also at the same time companys would delivery Milk in a glass bottle to your house every morning.These times are over. Porsche still makes one of the best Cars in the world but you all need to remember they build their cars for different people now, before a Porsche was reserved for the true Sport car fan...............Now just about anyone can buy one.. Cayenne, Boxster and there is more to come a 4 door coupe and that silly Caymen.This is only giving more people more choices, and this is not always a good thing.Porsche will lose alot of their loyal customers , not because of the RMS, but because they are changing, I know I dont feel as special driving my Porsche , when i see S.U.V pull beside me at a light.....or when i get the is that the new Boxster....

Excellent point... They also have established what they believe to be the range of tolerance of offset (used to replace engines). This tolerance range is brought to you by the same people who brought you "600 miles per qt is normal", playing at your local dealer. If the offset is not quite offset enough, you don't get a new engine just multiple seals during warranty (up to three seals - according to some posters)

And in the UK at least, the extended warranty scheme now explicitly references that they cover the "RMS" along with all the other components of the car except the Bose system (I don;t know why this is omitted), except for wear and tear items such as clutch, brakes, tyres etc. So, I guess they have acknowledged that the RMS is a problem. Where to next? IMHO, I really do think that pressure from the media and the clubs is the way to go forward especially that this is an global problem. I mean by that, even if a class action suite was doable in the US, it would preclude me from joining it. So International press and media coverage and hopefully embarassment is the only way forward.