R...M...S...nooooooooooo!!!!

Three letters that strike fear in a 996/986 owner's heart. Sadly, I'm the latest member of the RMS leak club. I noticed a few black spots on my garage floor while washing the Carrera Saturday, and the dealer confirmed it was a RMS leak. They use a tool to test if the crankshaft is concentric to the opening for the seal, to determine if a new engine is needed. Mine passed the test, so they just needed to replace the seal. Here's a few pix for those (like me) who had heard of this evil thing, but weren't sure what it was. The transmission, clutch and flywheel are removed, exposing the front of the engine: Close-up showing the crankshaft (silver circle at center, with 8 small holes for the flywheel bolts). The RMS is the black circle around the crankshaft with a bunch of dimples in it: The culprit--the rear main seal: Rector in Burlingame once again providing excellent service.

Thanks for the info. How much does the dealer charge to have the RMS replaced? Thanks

Sorry to hear about your RMS issues. How many miles are in your car and are you the first owner? Thanks.

Sorry to hear Poursha...

'04, 7,000 miles, I bought it new in September.

Wow. That sucks. It's nearly new!

Sorry to hear about your RMS problem, mine happened at 10K. My car failed the tolerance test and "qualified" for a new (remanufactured) engine. The dealer tried to comfort me by telling me to think of the new engine as I would any other part. Nice, but what happens when I sell the car? Not sure. I am thinking about a lease on my next P-car, and if it is as plauged with problems as the 996, I will turn it back it-- before the warranty expires.

Now you have to put the logo in your sig, like Scouser has for the RMS club.

I am picking up my first ever Porsche (used '03) at the end of the week and I must admit that reading about these failures was a BIG factor in why I picked a car from a dealer instead of a private sale. Does anyone have any information on what %age of cars are affected with this problem? Is it worse on cars that are used hard, track days, or in traffic?

Actually the big silver thing in the center is the crankshaft, not camshaft. The 4 camshafts are in the rocker boxes/cam towers on either side of the engine.

Yes--I guess I was typing too fast...

houldsworth, It can happen to any 996/986 irelevent of how its used. In fact the RMS can be a problem in any car no matter its marque. But it seems to be a real common problem on the 996/986. Let me put it this way, you have more chance of your RMS failing than your tyre blowing out. My car from new has never had a problem until 24,000 miles. Since then its had 4 RMS's and the 5th goes in tommorow! Even if they give youy a brand spanking new engine, it could happen to that engine too......the bad news is that its very likely it will! Just in case you want to know: I have NEVER tracked my car. It gets treated like a baby. It's been meticulously serviced by the Porsche UK dealer network. Two weeks out of warranty and bingo the RMS goes. I had to pay for it (although some pitance of help through good will). And I haven't told you about my gearbox problems......

What's this tolerance test you speak of? Is there a tolerance test on all 996 models that is offered by Porsche? If you don't pass do they swap out your motor for FREE? What is the cut off? Any info you have would be great! -Eli

HA.... Like PCNA is going fishing for RMS. You should read the grief Scouser went thru to get the repair. The fifth install is absurd..

Sorry to hear that..... So what you're saying is that everyone is on their own from the point they hit the street? -Eli

It's an '04, 7,000 miles, and still under warranty, so no charge.

HAs anyone had an RMS repair covered under extended warranty (Warranty Direct)? I have read my policy and cannot tell if it is covered... no signs of my joining the RMS club... yet

I'm picking up my 01 996 on Saturday and after checking the service records with the original selling dealer, the RMS has already been replaced at 3000 miles. I also have a 2002 BMW 540i and the RMS was replaced on that car at 29,000 a few months ago. To confirm, the Porsche service dept told me it's common!!

Any one with a Tiptronic ever have an RMS issue? I have never heard of a Tip having a RMS Leak.

I believe it costs about $600 bucks to change the RMS if it leaks if memory serves correct. I also think that RMS problems are pretty common on other vehicles and makes as well. Seems like RMS is a bigge issue for us because some engines are not concentric qualifying for a new engine, ETC. The problem may not be as big as we think it is because the 997 is just a larger displacement version of our engines. Bobby

Tiptronic is no vaccine for the dreaded RMS. (Speaking from experience.) Hey, what's another $1000 after tires, gas, insurance?

I've seen costs on this board from 800 - 1800. I don't think common is a good characterization when describing other cars RMS issues. It may be common w Pcars because of the Boxer engine (my guess). I find two things remarkable: 1. The issue remains for years even tho it is produced by arguably the best auto engineers in the world & they don't even have the right fix yet. 2. They kept this away from the general public. I didn't find out until I came on this board less than a year ago.

I had my RMS repair covered under the extended warranty offered by Porsche. Here's a dumb question. Do you have to repair this leak when it occurs? My friend's 996 had a small leak and it took about 2 months for him to take the car in. In that time he never had to add a drop of oil since the loss was insignificant. Although he could see small drops of oil on his garage floor, the amount he lost had to be fairly small. Does it get worse?

I think the problem arises when the car runs out of warranty and the dreaded RMS problem occurs. If your car happens to be out of spec and you're out of of warranty, you are looking at an engine replacement which could potentially cost you tens of thousands of dollars. While the replacement of RMS alone is doable financially, the engine replacement isn't 'cheap'.

There is a 2002 Boxster owner with a tip and his car goes in this week for a seal replacement.

Following these and all the other threads about RMS, it occurs to me that the tolerance question has nothing to do with crankshaft float, more the long suffering nature of Porsche devotees. And yes, mine failed at 48K!

Sorry to hear about your RMS. Glad it is fixed under warrantee. I got my 2000 996 1 month ago now, with currently 28.000 Kms. No leak. Knock on wood. When is the latest anyone has experience RMS?

Poursha Sorry to hear of your and Scouser's woes. My question in your circumstance would be: If the the engine seal face is considered acceptably concentric on your engine then why would the seal fail in such short service? That photo showing seal, the distortion to the lip must have occured when the tech picked it out of the case.

Z0650th: Using your great idea, if they want to keep pace with the new M3 and new Z06 they might just leave the GT3 engine as it is.

I think everyone is over reacting on this RMS issue. I know Scouser is getting ready to flame me already - save it. The fact remains that even if we have 100% of the people who post on this forum having a RMS problem (which we don't)...it is still like 0.0005% of the entire 996/986 world-wide fleet - let's put it into persepctive guys. If it was so bad, people would stop buying the 996 and the Boxster, and that hasn't happened. For every one person I know who has had a RMS issue, I know 10 that don't. If it was as "rampant" as everyone here seems to suggest, it would be all my friends and I ever talk about when we get together for Porsche track days and the such. I'm not trying to call anyone a liar, or a scammer, or saying that this RMS issue is all in their head, b/c that's not true either. People have had problems but its not the "doomsday" that this thread and many many others suggest it is.

Amen, brother. The seriousness of RMS pales in comparison to the VANOS problems we M5 owners have - it's a $2k fix and seems to be far more common than Porsche RMS. Yet there doesn't seem to be any hysteria about it on the M5 boards. I had the VANOS go on my M5; BMW fixed it, the car is awesome, and life goes on, no BFD. Steve 99 996 76 930 64 356C 00 M5

RR- I'm not going to flame you for your thoughts. However, I had a 99 Boxster that had an RMS fail and now I have a 99 C2cab that has an RMS failure. What are the odds of this, if this is not a common problem. -Rick

Just brought my 2002 C4S in for 15k service. They mentioned that there is a oil sweat build up around the rear main seal. My Porsche is still under warrenty so I am not worried, they said to check in a month to have it replaced. Takes 9 hours. They need to take photos of the problem and it isn't bad enought to do yet, hence the bring it back in a month deal. They said the new seal won't have the same problem. Also asked how it could happen with so few kilometers. He mentioned that when the car sits for long periods of time without use. The oil pan is below the seal so the oil doesn't keep the seal lubricated.

That�s what I was trying to get to with my earlier post asking how prevalent the problem really is. I know that on the MR2 Spyder there was a similar type of hysteria over cat failures that caused severe engine damage. It now appears to be that people were overfilling their cars with oil (the dipstick is inaccurate / impossible to read if you follow the procedure in the manual) which clogged the cat� Clearly some cars are prone to RMS failure and others are not. Here in the US most (all?) states have the lemon law, which allows you to force the dealer to buy back the car with almost no loss of money. I used this to force a total engine replacement on my wife�s Ducati Monster m/c after the bike was in the garage for over 2 (summer) months and then came back with the same problem. The issue is that it is difficult to see if this is a �common� problem since people that have the problem rightly complain, and often very loudly, whereas people that don�t have the problem are not clamoring to put out a post saying �Hey, I don�t have an RMS failure!� I think the only people that can really put this to rest is Porsche since they will be the only people that know how many they sold and how many they have fixed. The problem with that is, of course, do you trust them to be honest about it? Does anyone have any real hard data on the %age of cars that experience this problem from a reliable source? Barry

So...what you are saying is "use it or lose it" Works for me - I plan to drive mine every day.

Not really saying that. It just means that it doesn't matter if you use it or not you will have the problem with the seal. The new seal is suppose to not have this problem.

This seems to make sense..... After reading this thread it may be that those that are not driving their cars on a a daily basis may find their P-car facing that dry seal thus forcing you to join that RMS club. Just a thought...... Is there anyone out there that owns a daily driver that has this problem recently? Now I know there will always be some but I'm sure the % is lower than those that aren't driven on a daily basis.... -Eli

My car is an '04 with 7,000 miles, 8 months old (July 2003 build), daily driver, and the seal that failed was the new design (the new design has all those small dimples on it). And I broke it in by the book. You have to laugh at the various theories that these experts at the dealers have regarding why the RMS fails. My '02 Carrera was my weekend car (with only 6,800 miles after 18 months when I sold it--it sometimes sat for 2 weeks without driving) and no RMS leak, so who knows what causes it.

Can you share with us what kind of driving you normally did with each that you've owned? I'm guess I'm working on several ideas..... Normal Shifting, Speeds, how often, etc. etc..... -Eli

I remember when Scouser first posted. He was flamed and villified by many of the Porsche can do no wrong group. Everyone has the right to express themselves here; and "here" it's done with restraint. I just think it shouldn't f**king be, period (after so many years & at that price level). just my .02.......

I don't buy into the dry seal explanation simply because these are not made of organic compounds like they were 50 years ago. The seal compound will be one of these: Nitrile -65� 275�F , Polyacrylate -20� 300�F, Silicone -80� 400�F , or Viton� -15� 400�F. The last 2 are likely as they are suited to high shaft speed applications. These materials are able to keep oiltight without the need for wetting. This is a quick guide to seal problems borrowed from Action Seals. The most common faults and their causes Fault Axial cracks on the sealing lip. Hard and brittle sealing member. Excessive wear and too wide sealing face. Varying sealing face width. . . Scratches and other surface damage. Cause Excessively high temp. Excessive shaft speed. Excessive temp. Aggressive medium Rough shaft finish. Inadequate lubrication. Pressure differential over the seal. Contaminants. Housing eccentric with shaft. Seal located out of true or deformed when fitted. Careless fitting

My '99 has nearly 26k and has never had any leaks. I at least would like to agree with the gentleman who said those that experience it are vocal and those that don't are not, but I am a bit worried after reading RMS story after RMS story. Here's to hoping it is a rare thing indeed.

Thanks for the support Torags. To be honest I don't give a two f*cks what RR says. His time will come. I guarantee it I just ignore him. Anyway here's the latest on my RMS saga (long): The dealer calls me, said they can't do the RMS because the gearbox is so broken that it is causing the seal to fail. He said if they fix the RMS it will certainly go again. So I have to have the new gearbox fitted first else they won't do the seal. It will cost me �3700 for the gearbox + fitting.....and that includes good will (even that's changed, it used to be �3000 all in). Hmmm me thinks. That diagnosis is very suspect...... They knew about the gearbox problem when I took the car in for its 1st RMS last november. Since then they've done 3 more. They knew about the gearbox problem then in Jan , Mar, Apr and now in Jun so why all of a sudden do they want to say the cause of the RMS is the gearbox. What a load of crud. So I took the car down to Tech9 Motorsport (independent). Phil Hindley looked at it and said there is definitely a noisy 1st and 2nd gear but apart from that it's no big deal. The gearbox is definitely not dead in the woods. He said they have driven gearboxes on track that have had iron filings fall out them and they have been repairable. He said that they can not only fix the gearbox (they have another busted gearbox in stock with 5th gear broke that they can salvage the dogs/cogs from) but they can also fix the RMS at the same time all for about �1000 inclusive. He explained further that the main issue with the Getrag gearbox is getting parts. Apparently Porsche and/or Getrag haven't released parts for them yet but will. In the meantime you have to try to salvage the bits you want from other gearboxes (and he has a pile of them). I explained what Porsche told me about the gearbox causing the RMS to fail. He said that that notion a load of crap. I might at that the tech9 Motorsport fellows are one of Europe's premier race groups (Gruppe M). The owner Phil Hindley, the guy who took my car out to test drive it today and gave me the diagnosis, is the guy who took the number 76 car to 2nd place at the 2002 Carrera Cup. I think I can trust my notion that he knows his stuff. Oh yes, a titbit: when I picked my car up from the dealer, I went round the back and spoke to the engineers. There were 3 cars up in the air with gearboxes out and oil drip pans below. I commented to the engineer in charge that there seems to be a lot of 996 engine/gearbox jobs going on. He said, "Oh them, yeah they are all having RMS replacements." I said really, is that a common problem, he then pointed me to a large oily box in the corner. It was crammed, i mean "crammed", full of RMS seals. All used! (actually there were other bits in there too but mostly RMS/IMS seals.) I asked to take a picture just for kicks. Of course I was refused :-( I learnt a few things today: 1. the 996 RMS problem is very very real. It is common as hell. If your a newbie and contemplating your 1st 996, you better have a f*cking good slush fund. 2. Porsche UK dealer service is f*cked up. It's independents for me from now on. 3. I would not even think about owning a 997. Even if I was given one I would sell it. The pain of RMS/gearbox and crappy service is too much. If I go for another porker it will be a good history 993. The old builds are better quality. (yes I know the 993 has its problems too). 4. It's about time I finally got my gearbox done. It hasn't got any worse but it always pops up as a PITA. Besides Tech9 have given me a good offer to fix it and cheap way out. 5. Warranty, extended warranty, any warranty......its an absolute f*cking must have!

Maybe I am wrong, but I think that there is a big point here that was missed. It is not the seal that is actually failing. It is the crankcase that is out of round. That's why they measure it with a special tool. The tool is only going to tell them if the seal will be able to account for the concentricity issue. Plain and simple - this is a manufacturing defect. And it is quite common. I've had 4 leaks on two cars. I believe that Porsche is not saying anything because any amount of acknowledgement opens them up for litigation. The other thing that scares me is that no one knows if these seals are going to hold up over time. What's going to happen if your car has 75K miles, the seal fails (again) and based upon the test with the tool, Porsche says you need a new engine? I believe that is when the s*** is really going to hit the fan....

The RMS topic gets hot about once a month. I started Boxstering 5 years ago and it was old news then. There were seal issues in the first Boxsters, 1997. Sorry, Benny, l but having owned a few English cars and motorcycles I was use to having a pan on the ground. I should have saved the pan just in case I need it. I am on the UK Boxster board and there are 996 owners there as well. The RMS is an issue in the UK and the Porsche Club of GB has sent a survey form out to owners so they can talk to Porsche. UK owners are treated differently than US owners. Some UK owners have to pay for a seal replacement, then they try to charge for the next replacement. In the UK they replace seal after seal - they do not replace the engine after a number of failed attempts like they do in the US. In the UK they tell the owner that the seal was not installed properly or the seal is faulty. That would then mean Porsche needs to hire people at the factory who can slide an oil seal into a bore, and mechanics that can replace a seal at the dealership. As for faulty, the redesigned seal went into production in Feburary 2000. It leaks because the crankshaft is not centered in the middle of the seal due to the nature of the design of the M96 motor which has a separate cradle for the crankshaft. Then it is time to make the owner feel guilty. You drive it too hard. You do not drive it hard enough. You drive too much. You do not drive enough. And so on. For Benny, how an oil seal shoved inside a engine crankcase can have anything to do with a transmission is a mystery to me - maybe your tire pressure is too low and that is why there is oil on the ground. Porsche simply needs to do something so people will trust them. Instead of making announcements about how they make more money than any other car company, they need to announce that there is a problem and how to take care of the owners. Extend the warranty to 100k for the seal issue is an example. Other cars companies do this. On message boards I see people who are thinking about buying a used Porsche but are concerned about the issue, and people who want to get rid of their cars before the warranty is over. Every few months for 5 years I see someone on a message board who says their dealer said it is not an issue anymore. Then we have Russ with 7k on a 2004 and on 6speed there is a guy with 4,700 miles on a 2004 C4S. The funny one was a report on the UK board that there was a new 996 in the showroom and oil under the car. Porsche is silent and needs to do something. As far as I know the 997 has the same M96 motor design, so.....

I just got a call from the dealer, and apparently Porsche has finally come up with a permanent fix for the RMS leak problem. Before installing the new seal, they apply RejeX to the crankshaft--and the key is to let it cure for 12 hours before installing the new seal... I couldn't help myself...thought I'd try to lighten things up a bit...

Scouser, I think it was about time you went to see an independent. Too many people buy a car in UK because it has OPC stamps. So what? You have just proved to me that some OPC just don't know a thing. You are better off finding someone you can really trust to get the job done. I've yet to find one but I will have no qualms about having a good independent service my RS. The problem is finding one without having to travel to the other end of UK. Harry

OK�I�m going to have to stop reading these posts now. I have been wanting a 911 since I was around 8 years old (I�m going to be the big 4-oh late this year) and have finally reached a point in my life where I can afford the car, the insurance and won�t get any grief from anyone about it. I find a car that I fall in love with and buy it and then�BAM!�people start telling me that it is going to start leaking oil and Porsche won�t help me. The car I am getting will have 3 years of warranty left so I not initially concerned. If I still have the car after that and it starts leaking I think I�m just going to put Triumph stickers on it and leave it �marking it�s territory� Barry (off to stick my head in the sand until the problem goes away)

Hey, Barry - same here. Make 4-0 later this year. I just bought a 996 and all of these stories are giving me the *******. I should stop reading them else I'll jinx my car. I'm not sure I could walk away from Porsche anyways, it's been a life-long love affair.

A proper British solution would be to direct to leaking oil away from the clutch to a collection point where it would provide much needed corrosion resistance.

I just heard that on the 997 Porsche is having Lucas do all the electronics!

With Positive Ground!

I've also heard that to save space, Lucas is going to put the battery inside the windshield washer container. If either one goes, you have to replace both.

What a great post this is turning out to be. Having had two english bikes and cars, references to Lucas hit home. BTW Your comments about the seal are profound. Folks are fixating on the seal. That is only a condom, it's the pr**ck (who designed it) in Germany who's at fault.

Make fun of Lucas all you want - the Prince of Darkness. Why don't they have cold beer in the UK - because...... My first 2 English cars and a motorcycle had Lucas electronics. The first, a Sunbeam Alpine had a positive ground. Lucas is still in your cars.

That's amazing!!! I had no idea that Lucas put a small brewery inside the car to make warm beer. What a great idea.

Second Lucas pic.

it is amazing that people still buy 911s ... I bet nobody would ever buy a honda accord if it had the same RMS issue. it is also very interesting that there hasnt been any classs action lawsuit filed for such case knowing there are lots of lawyers who own Porsches. As much as I love my car, this is pretty annoying. Everytime I see my fellow 996 owner's having an RMS, it makes me pretty upset. Porsche should come up with a solution not a fix-up, and honor all 996 w/RMS issue regardless of the warranty status...

If RMS is truly a manufacturing defect then there must be an interval of mileage that is passed such that the defect will not show up right? all the RMS leaks seem to happen before 38,000 miles... haven't heard of a FIRST RMS leak happening after this mileage. If you've got the defect, yes I agree it could keep happening... but if you've cleared your first 38,000 mile then your home free right? If it's about defective tolerances they will show up within a certain time... that's why these leaks show up eary (7,000 miles) on some cars.... what do you guys think about my argument... any engineers in the group? cheers Pete

Peter B reported earlier in this thread that his failed at 48,000 miles. All of this RMS talk is keeping me from buying a 996. That plus the ones I've test driven (both 1999 model years) were not nearly as solid feeling as my '93 RS America. This is all very disappointing because I love the styling of the 996 and would love to have a newer Porsche. But I think I'm staying with what I have. Wiedeking's Wonders will kill Porsche.

At least the 996 RMS issue is not a fire hazard....unlike the early 993 wiring harness issue (which Porsche eventually fessed up to and paid to fix after many years of denial).

I can't speak for how solid your '93 model is but I found a big difference in feel between the pre and post 1992 models...of course that could just be that they were younger

Surf Twang, I couldn't agree more, that's why I never bought one either. Now, it's ironic that people tout the 993 over the 996 because it is too soft. Perspective is a wonderful thing!

The odd about the concentricity issue is that many of the seal mfrs. allow twice as much concentric error than the 0.003" for which P is replacing engines. If I had an out of warranty leaking 996 engine I would certainly try cutting the case concentric to the next available standard seal size before throwing anything away. Incidently I have also heard of a misaligned transmission housings pulling engine casing out, causing seal failure. I have a pair of 350 V8's lurking in my bilge which lose oil out of their rear seals but no clutch, no worries and bilge mats are cheap. Heck with MG's Triumphs, Austins, A-Healeys and American Fords in my past I always assumed 'oil-under' was a fact of life, its just too bad about the Porsche clutch thing.

My 2002 C4S (6 speed manual) @ 24,000 kms had both RMS and IMS leaks that Porsche repaired about 3 times over a 8 month period. In the end they replaced the engine..I wanted the same serial number as the factory engine so they rebuilt the existing engine with a new engine case.. Half way through assembling the new engine - Porsche AG contacted them and told them that the would be sending them yet another new replacement engine case (997 part number). More delays and they started rebuilding the engine yet again with the 2nd engine case...This was in Jan 2004. The new engine case is a 997 part number and has a redesigned (different) water pump as well..Not sure if this engine case fixes the RMS leaks or not...This new engine case has superceded the previous 996 engine case... I also got a X51 powerkit for a good price as well because of the delays etc.. No problems as yet.... ThunderC4S

Interesting. So do you think that a gearbox with a wining 1st and 2nd gear could be the cause of my RMS problems? If so, could the Porsche dealer engineer be correct in his diagnosis? Are you kidding, most astute Limeys will have a drip pan fixed as a permanent feature of their garage floor! The take used to be, if your engine don't drip it must need oil so fill her up.....overfill....then it'l drip BTW: whos Benny? That is absolutely spot on Jeff. According to my conversations with Porsche UK customer relations in Reading, they have "never" replaced a 996 engine because of a faulty RMS and they don't see the need to change that policy. But would it really matter if they did have the same policy as PCNA? Even if they replaced the engine, there's no guarantee that it too won't have an RMS failure. So they may have to replace the engine again. where does it stop? Here Here! But will they do anything. I don't think so. Going back a few months, I offered to start up a web page for RMS sufferers. I did make some headway with it but then I canned the idea because in order for it to have any impact (if at all) I would have to manage a database of RMS plagued 996/986 cars. This would require all of you RMS suffering 996/986 owners to punch in your car details such as VIN. I communicated offline with some rennlist/renntech members about this and it was agreed that people won't want to publically make available their VIN (BTW: the VIN decoder work was born out of this), so it probably won't work. You would also need to register as a 996/986 owner with the RMS club as a show of support for its cause. My idea is that if over some time we built up the database then it could be used as a form of public complaint to Porsche AG. We could have "tatsefull" stickers made showing support for the cause, and so on. I am sure the car mags, press etc would help us move it along too. I was thinking we could even hold car runs in aid of "Fix the RMS problem". Porsche AG just has to be made accountable for this manufacturing fault. As my grandfather once said, "you can either sh*t or get off the pot". I think we should get off our pots and do something about it. Of course there is an easier option. I would suggest Porsche AG makes a statement that they will extend the warranty for RMS and engine replacements due to RMS failures to 50k miles and then on a realisticaly acceptable pro-rata warranty good-will scheme to 100k miles. If, and only if I ever did go for a 997, I would want the above statement given to me in written form from the dealership. time fur me t'get offa me soap box

Jeff/Toolpants, Exellent info and posts as usual, you are a real asset to these boards Mine at 50k and out of warranty, and Porsche here did not cover it on good will either. Porche needs to be forced to solve the issue by extending the warranty on RMS issues (and start to invest in fixing the damn thing also BTW), this would not only solve the debt they have with their current 996 customers that trusted them but also solve the problem for those future 2nd hand 996 onwers as well. But Porsche will only do this if its worthwhile $ for them. That is exactly why even some 996 owners try to downplay the issue against the interest of their fellow 996 comunity, like RR, who patrols the RMS threads in various forums and always tries to cover it up saying its no big deal, bla, bla, bla, as he even came to admit once saying and I quote: So you save it RR... Scouser for president!!!

Mr. Scouser Sir! Unfortunately my experience on this is purely anecdotal (I had a friend with a troubled Chrysler who came up with this diagnosis) but as a former Accrington industrial transmission fitter I would suggest that it is entirely possible. My experience with leaking seals and gaskets is less anecdotal. I had a Jag for a short period which was in danger of hydroplaning on its own fluids. I fly to the Sceptered Isle tonight!

I hope Porsche finds a permanent solution to this problem. I would really like to buy the '99 I drove this week (body rattles and all) but I'm not going to touch it with the shadow of repeated RMS repairs hanging over it. I would like to know just how widespread this problem really is but I guess only Porsche has representative statistics and I'm sure they won't share unless made to do so in a court of law.

This is interesting about a 997 crankcase. In the US they never take the motor apart to realign the crankshaft. They just send over a big cardboard box with a new motor in it because it is cheaper. Jeff

Has there ever been a survey of owners or PCA members on the RMS issue, i.e., frequency, severity, and average mileage at failure? Seems like it would be fairly easy to do, given the reach of this board and its members. If nothing else it would give the problem some more publicity. I know that PCNA wouldn't like it, but maybe they would decide to address the warranty coverage issue before it snowballed into a class action suit. Or we can just keep bickering over the same issue and let them keep building flawed engines.

I have been on the Boxster and 996 message boards for 5 years and there has been a hundred surveys and polls on various boards. There have been 2 in the past few months on this board. The only formal survey I know of is being done by the Porsche Club of Great Britian, and a written form was sent to just the Boxster owners. When warranty work is done it is entered into the Porsche computer with a code. PAG can push a button (which I'm sure the bean counters do) on their computer and get the most accurate info in the world - their own records for the entire world. If PAG wants to know how many engines have been replace due to the RMS issue then they push another button. Engines are sent back to Germany to be studied by the engineers - fine - but the M96 motor has been in production for 7 years. But you are right, it sure looks like nothing will happen until Porsche gets hits with a class action lawsuit. I think there is one going on now with GM and piston slap on certain engines. In the meantime, we just bitch and moan. Then repeat next month.

I have the same question, I've a 2000 tip w/ 55k miles on it and no drips at all. I did have a front transaxel seal go out (it is a C4) about 30k miles a go. They fixed it under warranty. Since then, not a single issue with the car in over 2 years of driving.

While those records would be valuable they might be beyond US discovery - a US atty may not be able to get them. But a state Attorney General might be able to, if enough folks complain. He could pose a threat to stop P car sales in the state. PCNA would fold. Lets see What the near future will be with '99 Owners out of warranty having to replace engines.... The screams will be heard.. Personally I would feel comfortable with a 100K warranty. That removes owners risk and puts it where it belongs...

I don't want to be one of them so I'll stay on the sidelines until this is all over.

Gretch, unfortunately it affects Tips as well

That I think is the most constructive advice I have so far read. Good one Torags. But I just wonder if Porsche (sponsors of rennlist) actually read this stuff and give a damn. Jeff is right in the fact that this subject reawakens several times each month on one board or another. But we have to keep the momentum going until something gets done. Jeff, can you please prey tell us more about the boxter RMS survey being done by PCGB. I would like to contact them and see if I can find out why it doesn't include 996s and what they plan to do with the results.

Here is a link to the PCGB board on the RMS survey form that was mailed out on May 7th, but you cannot see anything unless you are a member of the PCGB. http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tt.asp?forumid=5. Obvioulsy I am not a member since I am in the US. But someone in the UK gave me their login info so I can read the messages. Send me a direct email if you want. The ability to get records is not an issue. PAG sells their products in the US and US courts have jurisdiction over foreign companies doing business in the US. In addition PCNA in Atlanta is their North America distributor, and processes the warranty claims.

Which States have the most Boxters and 996s, and which of those States have the most aggressive Attorney General? That would probably be a good place to start any legal action. Are Boxter engines also being replaced because of this? The Boxster has been built for a longer period than the 996s so there must be more out-of-warranty Boxter owners who are facing the RMS problems. Shouldn't this provide a glimpse into the future for 996 owners.

Caifornia. The land of Bill Lockyear, our attorney general. With Att Gen you don't have to start legal action, complaints by citizens that threaten the welfare of CA residents will do......... There is a consumer division (?) somewhere, I'll do some research.

Beaut! If you want to do a survey the right way, an owner would enter his model year, model name, VIN#, state of purchase, RMS fail boolean, mileage, and diagnosis (engine replace, seal replace, no action, etc.). Also a way for owners to enter their vehicles' info if they had not suffered a RMS fault. But I'm sure that Porsche is keeping reliable statistics on the problem.

This is the CA dept consumer affairs: http://dca.ca.gov/cic/ It appears the divisions handle broad based complaints. Our complaints would be considered narrow and probably wouldn't be handled by this division. The good news is , it's very high profile and my guess is that Lockyear's office would handle it, if approached properly. PCNA does not have a lobby in Sacramento, so that hurdle isn't a problem. My guess as to how PAG bean counters look at this is: Replace the seals as many times as needed during the warranty period & absorb the cost, rather than go thru casting & setup expense of a redesign. After the warranty; cut subsequent owners loose (afterall they're usually not new car buyers) & the unit risk drops to zero. Just my .02...

Porsche dealers make a lot of money off of used cars. If the 996 gets a widespread bad rap and becomes difficult or impossible to sell then it hurts the dealers. Of course they could up selling many extended warranties if the warranties cover RMS problems. Then where else would you go to buy a used 996? Porsche dealers would have a near monopoly on used 996 (and 997 in their time) sales. Maybe these guys at PAG are smarter than we think they are.

Keep your eye on the bouncing ball. PAG makes no money from used cars.. & they lose money fixing cars on warranty. They keep reserves on their books to cover these liabilities. If they would offer 100K warranties for RMS issues, they would have to increase these reserves substantially - that would reduce profits until reserves are met. They will not do this willingly, you must threaten their income stream; an atty general has the power to threaten that stream.

Does anyone know if the 996TT has this same issue? I know the motors are different but don't know if it's a problem with them. In my HO, a high end car manufacture that sells cars for $100K and has what seems to be a regular problem (based on this board and others), and does not do anything about it (outside of warranty) needs to give their head a shake! I was looking at either a 1999/2000 for the extra leg room vs the 993 I have just sold, but I am starting to think twice about that. Especially if the vehicle is out of warranty! Flame me if you think I am a "scaredy cat", but I'd rather not spend my money fixing Porsche's mistake. Either way my love for the cars will do me in, however I will insure the history does not include an RMS issue. Rob

On the UK Boxster board (2 year warranty in the UK) there are 2 reports that their Porsche dealers offer for sale a warranty to cover the seal. The turbo, GT2, and GT3 have a different motor than a Boxster/996. Their motor is base on the air cooled 964/993/GT1.

Daily driver, 25000 miles in 10 months and two RMS leaks and one new engine. All the theories here really are entertaining to read. Don't read anything it use, miles or VIN....it's hit or miss, plain and simple. Porsche isn't casting their own cranks, it's outsourced. So we get what we get and they aren't coming round. I've had six RMS leaks, two Intermediate shaft leaks and a cam cover leak between two Pcars and five engines. (We won't go into strut bearings and transmissions) Sure it isn't as rampant as we may think ...but it's more common then Mr Z06 thinks. (Since when do Corvettes NOT leak...give me a break. )

Hmm. I own a 2000 Vette coupe, and it has just started to develop a leak around the rear axle seals which will be fixed at no charge under a GM extended warranty which I purchased when I bought the car new (covers six years and 100K miles from new and cost about $800). I hang around here from time to time since the new Vette I might buy in a few years would be the C6 Z06, rumored to be a $65K car, putting it in Porsche 997 territory. It amuses me to see all of the money Porsche spends on advertising without addressing this issue. Don't they think someone thinking about spending $70K on a new car might just do a little research on the internet? I would imagine there are more than a few observers watching to see how this works out.

After reading about all of this I was understandably paranoid after picking up my first ever Porsche this weekend (see pictures elsewhere). After a nice 'spirited' drive yesterday evening I brought it home and parked it and then thought "let me just take a quick peek underneath to make sure everything is OK". I looked underneath and ARRGH! a small shiny pool is under the car. I dip my finger in it and it was.....water! Phew Hope it stays that way... Other than my paranoia this car is everything that I dreamed it would be and more. Talk about a gentleman's express. Wow. Barry

Not to freak you out any further Barry, but why would there be water condensation in the back of the car? I'm not sure if that is at all correct. As far as the RMS is concerned, don't worry about it. It's under warranty. Congrats on your car...but keep in mind, it's not exclusively a "gentleman's" express. We ladies enjoy them as well.

I might be getting a 02 or 03 996 next week What is the warranty of a 03 996? Is it transferable? Will a ppi find evidence if theres a RMS problem?

Don't worry - it's perfectly normal in an air conditioned car. All that humidity it takes out has to go somewhere. As for the ladies enjoying things - my wife will most definately be getting regular use so no problems on that front. All the best! Barry

But the compressor is in the front of the car, isn't it not?

If you are serious about trying to get PCNA or PAG to step up on the RMS issue, you may want to search the old threads on the 993 boards so see how the wiring harness issue was ultimately acknowledge by Porsche. For those unfamiliar with the issue, early 993s (in the US and worldwide) had faulty engine wiring harnesses due to a substandard component. This caused the harness to become brittle and cause all sorts of electrical gremlins, and in some cases caused engine fires. Porsche at first denied any defect issues and owners were required to pay out of their own pocket...in many cases the replacement harnesses were also defective and the electrical gremlins continued. After a very long time and thanks to the efforts of a E.J., a Rennlister, (including contacting US state and federal consumer agencies) Porsche finally did acknowledge the problem and issued a notice in the US and worldwide a few months afterwards. The notice listed the VIN and build dates of the cars covered and Porsche replaced the wiring harness under warranty and reimbursed the costs of repairs that owner had previously paid for. Even now, if you buy an early 993 with the old wiring harness, Porsche will replace the harness under warranty. For any headway here, the 996 community will need an E.J. type to step up and take the lead.

Good one David. All I can say is I am trying. But I am on the wrong side of the pond. Someone in the US needs to take this up, maybe work with me. Certainly the US market is the most important one for any car manufacturer so the bitchin has to be done that end. But that info of E.J's work is a testament of what can be achieved. So who's up for this? Cheers,

A defective wiring harness that causes an electrical fire is a safety issue. So the government can force the manufacturer to do a recall if the company will not do it on their own. An oil leak is not a safety issue. Now, if the oil were to catch on fire....

Just a question on the RMS issue - are these leaks heavy? Or just heavy enough to ruin the clutch? Or just a few spots on the garage floor? I've never seen one. My '99 I just bought is a Tip and has never had a leak anywhere. I've been concerned reading a lot of this stuff on the RMS, but since I don't have to worry about a clutch (if it were to rear it's ugly head), all I really need to worry about is spots on the garage floor, right?

Typically just a drip or two per week max. But over time this can (rarely)build up in the bell housing and get on to your clutch. BTW both my Porsche dealer engineer and Phil Hindley at tech9 Motorsport said that the RMS leaking is NOT something you should be generally concerned about.......Apparently, it don;t mean the engine will blow up or something drastic is about to happen.....just the seal is leaking...... Hmmm... yeah but I don;t know about you guys but on a car that costs as much as these do I don't like to see any oil drippin from my engine. Regarding the clutch: I have read that the clutch is expected to last about 24,000 miles on a 996 but mine is still the same original factory fitted clutch and I am just hitting 38000 miles. Also, I might add that my gearbox has been out 4 times! to replace 4 fault RMS seals. For each RMS replacement I asked the engineer to inspect the clutch and if it needs replacing then go ahead. They haven't replaced it so far so I assume it still looks like there is plenty of meat on it What I am saying is, with 5 RMS seals gone, and 38k miles my clutch is still (fingers crossed) OK.

No, the TT and GT3/2 are not affected.

Scouser, I noticed that you have a 2000 911. As you are approaching the end of your warranty, have you had any discussions with your dealer as to what is going to happen when you have a leak outside the warranty period. Based upon the number of leaks that you have had, I would guess that if they were using the measurement tool that's used here, you would have had a new engine already.

At our work on cars days we can get up to 20 cars. And we have had it every few weeks for several years. Come by and I will show you what it looks like and you can meet people with mulpitle seal and engine replacements. If we are working at Henry's house, he has a nice clean new concrete driveway and we chase away the leakers. Oil does funny things when it starts moving and gets flinged around. It can get on a clutch. The cars I have seen in the shop with the transmission and clutch out did not have enough oil thrown around to soak the disc - but there are a lot of cars I have not seen.

With a Tiptronic, I guess I don't really have much to worry about then if it does happen. Thanks, scouser.

Jeff - The govt never forced PCNA on the recall...if you read the progression of the threads you'll note that the gov't case was investigated and dropped....they did not force PCNA to do anything. The arguments that EJ and others initially stood behind was the safety issue as you pointed out...but there was never enough concrete proof (so they were told) that this was a safety issue and to this day PCNA will deny that there is a safety issue. PCNA ultimately did the recall "voluntarily" ( :rollleyes: ) due to the overwhelming evidence/bad publicity/goodwill/stink (pick your choice). My 1994 993 had the harness replaced by the previous owner in 1997at a cost of apporx US$1500, and that harness was also defective. Porsche sent me a notice about 2 years ago asking me to bring the car in...at the time my car had a few electrical gremlins, esp in heavy rains (intermittant starting, rough idle and acceleration, etc). Problem was found to be a bad harness and cost to me to have fixed was zero. My point by brining up this example is to show that with the right amount of "pushing" PCNA has in the past done the right thing...not always, but sometimes. Best of luck for all 986/996 owners...I hope this issue gets resolved, never know if I will be a future owner.

Here is my $.02 on this. A lot fo manufaturers face this. It is part of making cars I guess Honda - NSX Snap Ring failure from 91-early 93 BMW - Current VANOS problems Porsche - RMS many,many others... What makes the charachter of a company is how they deal with it. Fix it, get on with it... I think the problem I have with Porsche on this is that they cannot/will not address it. I mean WOW ... 1997 for the boxster until today for both the Boxster and the 996 ? Jeez that is 8 years worth of cars that suffer the same problem. I know it may represent a small problem but it is one that can cause engine failure. I am not sure worse.. they choose not to fix it and don't care..as you say .. it is such a small amount it is easier to sweep it under the mat. OR even more horrific is they cannot fix it (It is Porsche and I find this highly unlikely) Mine has not failed on my MY02 and shows no signs of it at 22k but, and I am trying to be honest here. I feel like I am driving a timebomb sometimes .. I listen for every little sound, question everything the car does. For the money you pay for a Porsche and the reputation I would have hoped they would have addressed this by now. They seem to work with folks when they go wrong, but isn't that like locking the barn door once the animals are out ? I love mine and will probably be trying to sell it here soon to upgrade to an early 996TT (intrest rates willing while I stash a little more cash to put down to amke the payment manageable). It is a great car with an unfortunate blemish that Porsche is deciding to handle on an "as it happens" basis. If it fails under warranty the dealer makes out on labor.. so Porsche has to throw a new engine here and there. The customers don't seem to know,mind,care... they sure keep buying... All you can do is vote with your dollars and not buy one, or keep driving it and hope for the best if it does fail and that your delaer will take care of you (hope indeed) It does seem a shame doesn't it ?

CCL ACAB, Sheeesh! you must be joking. Sadly we only get 2 years warranty here in the UK. I bought extended to 3 yrs then I didn;t extend it again....and it was to my peril...... As maybe 3 weeks out of warranty at 24,000 miles...... oil drip drip drip What a fool I am. But then I also feel a fool for purchasing this car in the first place. Had I known it would have been so unrelaible with engine/gearbox problems at 24000 miles and no dealer backup I would have told them to go F*ck them selves. That is the very reason I would "never again" buy a new porker again. I am a perfect example of how Porsche will loose customers. I am an existing porker owner (this is my 3rd porker). This one bought from new, had it serviced by the book etc. My car is now 4 years old and its time to look for a new one. We know the 997 has the same engine problem, and I know that Porsch UK is an incompetent bunch of no hopers. So what incentive have I got to buy another. Go figure.

Scouser you've probably got one where they should have replaced the engine under warrenty but didn't. I feel for you. You need to sell it or trade it back to them and let them deal with it.

Jumper, I agree.... a trade in would be nice, make the deal before providing the vin number to them. . . . Hate to do it but they'll have to deal with the warrantee issues with someone else.

The latest Christophorus on the 997 motor, "largely identical to the tried and true engine of the predecessor model..."

Don�t think they�ll be using that in their marketing strategy this time around�� -Eli

Responding to the earlier comments about UK warranty, the Porsche Approved Warranty scheme operated in GB does not cover the failure of any oil seal. I have a letter from an OPC specifically denying my claim. As my learned colleague Scouser rightly points out, these old oils seals should be carefully re-fitted to employees of OPCs. Where the sun don't shine. Preferably whilst still warm. No anaesthetic either!

5 years on the Boxster/996 message boards (including a few on the UK board) and I have never seen 8 pages in a single thread. Can't wait until it starts all over again in a month or two. Porsche has lost Scouser and others as a potential future customer. There are people afraid of buying a used 996 and people who want to get rid of their car before the warranty expires. An oil leak is not the end of the world. Any manufacturer of any product can have a problem with it's product. How a company deals with a known problem is the test if they want repeat business. Porsche makes money from selling new cars. They are making money now. Some history buff correct me, but I think in the mid-1990s Porsche sold something like 4,000 cars in the US per year and was at the risk of being taken over by a larger company. The Boxster sales which started in 1996 kept the company independent as the Boxster was such a hit that for 1998 most of the production was outsourced to Finland as Germany could not build them fast enough to keep up with demand. Then there were problems with the M96 motor (that took 4 years to develop). Porsche responded by increasing the 2 year warranty to 4 years for the model year 1999 Boxster. When the 1998 996 came to the US as a model year 1999 it too had a 4 year warranty. Porsche, like any company, knows what to do to keep it's market share. It may not be an issue for Porsche now since they are making money. They do take good care of some customers, as they should. Having had a few cars with more than 100k miles and no RMS leaks, I do not expect to replace an oil seal more often then the oil is supposed to be changed. That is crazy for a modern day car. If you have a seal problem and it does not cost you money, then good for you. When your lease or warranty is up you can get rid of the car. If the hit or mis leak does not happen to you, then good for you. Some of us are in for the long haul and have no warranty. Someone pointed out that the risk should be on Porsche, not the owner, and I agree. I would never buy a used Porsche Boxster/996 if the risk was on me. I did not know about the RMS issue when I bought mine 5 years ago. I now know that the root cause of the problem is that the crankshaft has moved and it cost too much to rebuild a motor, so you need a new/rebuilt motor - about $10k. And the replacement motor may leak. A 2004 may leak - and we now have reports that they do leak just like in 1996, sometimes on the showroom floor. P.S. Not sure of the point of this post but it took me a long time to type. So here it is anyway. My January 1997 Boxster has the original oil seal BTW. Jeff

Perhaps it would have been better if they had been taken over by a larger company. What is developing is a classic business story that repeats itself over and over: chief executive comes in, sacrifices the future for short-term gain that he can take credit for, moves on before things crash and leaves his successor to clean up the mess. Interesting that this month's issue of Christophorus is the only one I can remember that didn't have the CEO's picture plastered all over the place.

I hope you're guess is right Steve.... I have a tiptronic, 7600 miles and guess what! RMS baby!!! just found the oil spot on the floor yesterday!!! I AM IN THE CLUB!!!!!!!!!

The other bummer is that we might lose Scouser on this board when he gets rid of his car

Not yet. There are a hundred places where oil can leak from any motor. Oil likes to escape. The RMS is just one place - there are many others. Other stuff/fluids can leak from any motor. You are not in the club yet. You need pictures. RMS with a tip.

ok, ok, we'll know on Friday when I bring it into the dealer to check out. Jeff, always trying to ruin my fun and not allowing me into the "Club"

Ooo I dunno Jeff. There's been some real humdinger threads. The biggest I think was the 78 page "Who are we" thread https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...threadid=90640 But for yet another RMS thread, yeah 8 pages is getting interesting Kirby, I really do hope your wrong. First Poursha's 996 and now yours, both at roughly 7000 miles. This is getting rediculous. Those cars haven't cut their first teeth yet!

Add me to the club....RMS replaced on my 2003 by my dealer at 8400 miles, but I suspect the problem started well before that. I planned to hold on to this car for a while, but now I am scared of what might happen after the 4 years is up...

RMS vs. Rejex thread...Who will win???? :hiha:

Not going to beat the Grid Girls in the off topic area https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...hreadid=136268

Ha! I was going to post the same thing.

Yea, and I bet their main seals are a lot tighter!

Update--the intermediate shaft seal was also leaking so they replaced it. Plus both doors window lift mechanisms replaced due to the famous streak marks on the windows (I've had this in all 3 of my 996 Carreras). Oh--and the amplifier, head unit and CD changer are being replaced today due to various issues.

Poursha, You had the window lift mechanisms replaced due to the streaks on the windows? I have this on both windows. Do you know if there is a TSB on this, or did you just mention it and they covered it under warranty? Dave

It's covered under warranty (but only if performed in conjunction with RMS and intermediate shaft seal leaks... ). Don't know if there's a TSB, but the dealers all seem very familiar with this issue--it seems like just about every Boxster loaner I get also has it.

I thought the window thing was a "feature". You mean the "greasy circle smear" is something that can be fixed? ......

Or do you mean the single line smear down the window?

New Club: Greasy Streakers

I'm in the greasy smear club!

Depending on how "advanced" the problem is, it could show up as a greasy circle at the top of the glass (early stage) or a vertical grease smear on the entire window (or 2 if both pads dirty) in the advanced stage.

Oh no! I'm a new member of the advanced greasy window non-RMS for now club.

Now if only Scouser could take the RMS picture and smear it down a window..........I'm in both clubs......

ditto to both clubs What next?! at first I kept saying to myself, when I did I use my thumb to shut the door THERE!?!? It looked like a greasy thumb print each time...well you guys solved that one for me. Is there a TSB or anything or will the dealer know what I am talking about?

I just spoke to my dealer about it. He didn't recommend cleaning the window regulator. He said that they could clean off the excess grease, but then I run the risk of having the regulator wear out prematurely due to insufficient lubrication.

Based on my experience at 3 different dealers, I'd have to say your dealer is in the minority. The dealers I've been to all keep these parts in stock because they replace them on a regular basis. If there's enough grease on the pads to smear the windows, that's not normal.

The grease belongs on the roller shafts, not the roller faces. It comes off the face onto the fuzz/squeegee (rattle dampener) and builds up. I wonder if they change those?

Don't know if it is BS or not, my dealer said he has only seen the problem on Boxters. Does it happen even more often with Boxters. I do alot of class action work and though about this topic, but the problem is they are covering the stuff under warranty and not sure what the damages would be.

Doug, They are not always covering it under warranty. Check over at PPBB.com. There are a number of people over there that have had to pay for their own repairs. Lastly, I believe there are damages in the sense that the value of the cars has diminished if you are trying to sell it privately. If you have a history of RMS leaks and your car is not under warranty, it could be impossible to sell privately.

Just another take on this story. This RMS issue is not new to Porsche, 911 owners over the years have had issues with this seal. Here is a link to another guy having the same issues. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...7&goto=newpost . I just rebuilt my 2.7 RS Spec motor and have replaced that seal once and I�m about to replace it again. I�m hoping that I don�t have crankshaft location issues like some of the others on this board. My question to the group is: If Porsche deems your case to require a new engine (not really a big deal unless this is your daily driver) then what happens to all those engines that get removed? If the crank is out of tolerance w.r.t. it�s location in the case then that can be remedied by new bearings and measuring and possibly truing up the case. Do the engines make it back into production cars or are they kept as spares for other RMS seal cases? Tristan

When Porsche replaces an engine, it is my understanding that the old engine gets sent back to Germany. As some of the replacement engines are remanufactured (marked with an "X" at the end of the VIN) I would guess that the engines returned are re-worked and put into inventory to be used as RMS replacement engines. Just my guess as they are getting remanufactured engines from somewhere and they can't all be production engines that didn't meet spec.

I wonder if someone could take a minute to make clear what the out of spec problem is, exactly. Does the crankshaft sit in the two cases in an out of spec way because of a casting issue, or does the crankshaft exit the cases in an off-axial position, or are the two case halves simply joined in a misaligned way? Steve 99 996 no leaks 76 930 - some leaks, but not rms 64 356C - drip pan

Reading all these things can be really discouraging. What is frustrating (for everyone) is not really knowing what percentage of cars is thus afflicted. In 10 pages of thread, I've counted 16 actual cases of this happening (I counted multiple RMS on the same car as one case though). That perhaps is not really very much, but it is difficult to say with certainty. I am the humble owner of a Subaru WRX which has had no problems at all. But when I go on to various boards, I see all sorts of horror stories that make it sound like every car has major transmission troubles. Yet in the local Subaru club, only two people have had actual problems (out of a few hundred) so it looks COMPLETELY different from that perspective. Having said all that, it is clear that some 996 and 986s are definately having this problem, and it should be fixed. When I was in Germany recently I went to the factory to see the museum and the factory tour. Being an engineer that has been in many different factories, I was hugely impressed by Porsche. I hope this issue, however large or small can be rectified in a fair manner. Some other thoughts: 1) Porsche is a company of engineers, and constant detail refinement is the norm. I am sure the designers have been trying to solve this problem but the fact that it still seems to occur indicates that they have not yet (completely) mastered this. This indicates the the issues is probably affected by a number of variables and is consequently more difficult to remedy. To us outsiders it seems like it should be pretty easy to get a handle of this, but that is not the case. 2) I found the earlier discussion that the new 997 crankcase had been used in an engine replacement interesting. Perhaps Porsche has arrived at a design solution that will at least improve this situation. 3) In the meantime, look on the bright side, there are worse problems to have in a car, and all cars do have them. It's just that you usually don't find out until you have one! Try reading about what Ferrari owners go through...(again, its hard to really know the scope just from what a naturally vocal group of victims post...how big is the "silent majority"?) Thanks, Allan

I did a VERY quick and unscientific count of the postings with and without the RMS problem. I did not count mulitple occurances to the same car and I did not include Boxsters. Here are some stats (but don't hold me to them!): Total cars:26 % w/RMS problem 42% Cars without RMS problems: Total cars = 15 Avg miles = 27700 Median miles = 21500 Highest mileage = 74000 Lowest mileage = 2500 1999 = 6 2000 = 3 2001 = 3 2002 = 1 2003 = 0 2004 = 2 Cars with RMS problems: Cars without RMS problems: Total cars = 11 Avg miles = 23300 Median miles = 1600 Highest mileage = 48000 Lowest mileage = 3000 1999 = 1 2000 = 1 2001 = 1 2002 = 3 2003 = 4 2004 = 1 (only ten cars because one didn't include model year)

Surf, There are lies, damn lies and statistics I ASSume that you did this by going through the list of posters in this particular thread. Unfortunately that will skew the results horribly � a bit like putting a sign up that says �AIDS cure convention tonight� and polling the people that attend your meeting only to discover that 80% of the population have AIDS! What we really need is a poll of the whole group � even then you will only get those that are interested in the RMS problem so it will still be skewed. Ultimately I�m afraid that the only accurate figure you will get will be the one from Porsche but, if the figures are not good, they will probably not share. C�est la vie. Barry

I agree completely. I took the responses from the thread about not having RMS problems, and the various threads about those that do. As I said, this was not at all scientific and was done primarily for fun and out of curiosity.

Sorry - didn't mean to be a PIA - unfortunately I just took a statistics course all about making sure that your sample is worth having and couldn't help myself I'll go and flog myself now... Barry

I hear what you're saying. I'm a Six Sigma Black Belt by profession which means I'm very heavy into statistics. With a bit of elbow grease we might be able to uncover some statistically meaningful data but for now I'm just doing it for fun.