997 brethren suffer RMS too, appears systemic

From the 997 discussion forum: I can now officially verify for everyone that Porsche has NOT fixed the RMS problem on the 997 (and, now, I should add, presumably, the new Boxster). My car (launch 997s) now has just over 7,150 miles on it and I took it to my dealer this morning to have the oil changed. I also asked them to take a look at everything else to make sure there were no problems. In the process of doing that, the mechanic spotted slight RMS leak. The necessary parts are on order now and the dealer is going to fix it ASAP early next week. Of course, I grilled my service advisor about the situation, explaining it was unacceptable and they said they are going to take care of it. He said they frequently fixed this same problem on base 996s (as I knew) but he explained that they key was fixing it early on. He said some customers with out-of-warranty 996s or Boxters would be told about an RMS problem but would not fix it due to the price (about 10 labor hours), which only compounded problems for such owners later down the road. Based on the experiences the rest of you have had (and what you have read), it would be good to develop a consensus about how "serious" this problem really is, given the launch of a new generation of 911s by Porsche. This, of course, raises another issue. I definitely will NOT keep this car outside of warranty. __________________ Austin [email removed] '05 997 Carrera S Black/Black

I truly believe that the problem is not whether or not you keep the car.......the problem will be selling the car. After all lets all be frank here............would you buy a Pcar with RMS problems. And that my friends is the underlining problem with RMS issues and major mechanical flaws. Hence the quick depreciation value of these vehicles. Soemtimes it is better to just lease the vehicle. Good luck on your problem I hope it all gets resolved.

I told all of you a while back that this would NOT be corrected in the 997. I had a gut feeling. Think about it, PAG CAN fix this issue. Hell, if they can build a supercar like the CGT it would certainly seem to me they could tackle RMS and should have years ago. But we keep buying them and paying their prices to keep them #1 in profitability on top of the fact that these RMS repairs are keeping many dealerships in business. In PAG's eyes, why fix the RMS, they don't have to.

Yet another reason why my current p-car is my last. No BS.

The Dealer is giving you a bunch of BS about fixing it early will prevent problems later. What a crock car dealers will say anyhthing.

It is BS. Stop the production line, find the source, beat the crap out of the engine builders, MAKE IT RIGHT and stop sending out failure-prone cars. It's ridiculous. Can't believe there hasn't been a class action on this one.

A class action experienced attorney, tried to get stats (from this board) to support exploring a class action. He owns a CTT & 911TT, benefits acquired from a class action suit, by his own admittal. I suspect he didn't get them, because the incentive is there.

I don't see myself owning this car beyond warranty, I'm afraid. My next will be a 997GT3 or TT.

Maybe just maybe this is PAG's way of moving all of us into even more profitable Porsches. Have you noticed how the 986's and 996's and now the 997's leak but the GT2, GT3, TT's, and CGT don't leak...Hmmm

I plan to drive the car and enjoy it. However, before the warranty runs out, I will trade the car in on something else. What that will be, I don't know. This is sad but I don't think Porsche cares.

fixing rms early or late has no difference. USUALLY rms leak is not due the defective seal but due to engine out of spec (the two parts sandwiching the seal). replacing the seal if only a few hundred bucks, but if you don't fix the underlying prob (out of spec) you will be replacing one seal after another to no end. my dealer used some factory tool to measure how out of spec it is, and if it's beyond some PAG determined spec, you get replacement engine. some replacement engines are also out of spec, LOL. if that's the case, you will keep on leaking. i got lucky. after replacing engine, it's been dry.

Thanks, Mooty. Per your post, I will make sure my dealer does the proper measurements.

And so dashes my dreams of getting out of LAW school and possibly buying a new porsche. I guess I should just be satisfied with maintaining and running my 951 :-(.

After the seal is replaced can you look at your paper work and post the part numbers that were replaced.

My car got a new motor after 10,000 miles. That can't be financially in Porsche's best interest. Its more likely that they know exactly what the problem is but its too expensive to fix. The 997 is just a 996 anyway. I expect when the next generation comes out this problem will be solved. Porsche is a business like any other -- they are weighing the good-will they lose verses the cost of retooling. They are not stupid. That said, my dealer has been good to me so far with my car, and I'm expecting that to continue. Does anyone have knowledge of when the dealer wouldn't fix the RMS out of warranty?

You are right on target. I test drove an 02C4S during the summer. It had low mileage, looked good, and it had a "new engine" because of a RMS leak. Of course after I challenged the new engine claim, the dealer admitted that it was a rebuilt engine. They were asking $67K for the car which is what low mileage '02 C4Ss sell for in my area. Well the car languished on their lot for about three months until they dropped the price to $59K and then it sold quickly. Apparently the word is out on RMS.

Read "Scousers" threads. Porsche should hang their heads in shame at the way they are treating their customers.

I was about to open this reply with "unbelievable!" but in truth I am not surprised at all. This has now convinced me that my current Porsche will be my last one.

Any dealer will fix or replace the engine out of warranty. The issue is who pays for it. PAG doesn't manufacture the block. they may bore for the transmission fit. Somebody's tooling is out of line.

all the people paying for the engine replacements (such as me, $25,000+ of my money in their faulty engines sofar) and rms fixes are paying for all of the warrantied porsche owners.. so for porsche it all works out... out of warranty customers pay for the warrantied customers, what a perfect business plan to make them rich as possible without paying out of their profits... what disturbs me most about it all is how shady porsche is... you call their customer service line, and they act like they don't even know what RMS is, let alone of it ever going wrong, heaven forbid... they've never heard of that happening... their shady business tactics, as far as I am aware are illegal and fraudulant and the execs involved in this coverup should be punished criminally and civilly... it's one thing if porsche pays for it, but when you are out warranty and have to pay to fix something they KNOW you will have to fix because of them releasing a faulty product without letting the customer know it "will happen" upon purchase... that's consumer fraud.. when you guys bought your porsche, did the dealers tell you that as soon as soon as the warranty goes out, you will have to pay for the RMS/engine replacements? no.. even though they know it has to be done... extremely upsetting... it's like going out to eat expecting only to pay for the food and then getting your bill at the end and being hit with a $100 fee for sitting at the table that they never told you about before you sat down... as i've said before, add me to the list of the last porsche for me ever... i don't care how the car drives, the company behind these vehicles is the worst car company i've ever dealt with in my life.. shady shady shady...

I've had done: Intermediate seal leak fixed at 16,000 km Jun 2004 RMS leak fixed at 26,000 km Dec 2004 My dealer told me that this is a common problem with the old seal but has been fixed with the new seal they just put in. I am hoping its the last I see of it but if it happens again before warrenty runs out I am not sure if I will keep the car. I'd love to keep the car but I might get a non problematic 996 Turbo even though I think my car still looks better. I won't go with a 997, just don't like the look.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. My understanding is that the 996-997 NA motor has the crank bearings carried by a sub-assembly to the block. This subassembly seems to be drifting the crank away from being concentric with the block crank bore. I can see no logical fix for this except to redesign the entire block to carry the crank mains as one unit. In other words a completely new ground-up motor design.

Webtool, I think that you're absolutely right! This is a basic design problem, not a quality or machining problem. I think that PAG has been in denial about this problem from day 1. For a time they have tried "band-aid" solutions of different seals and seal fit-ups. As an engineer with 32 years design and support experience with heavy equipment and all of its components, I recognize a basic design problem when I see it. Trust me, I've been there and done that. Basic design problems only get fixed through REDESIGN. In the meantime the manufacturer suffers the cost and lost sales from a dissatisfied market. The later hasn't caught up with "the most profitable car company in the world" YET. It is unfathomable that PAG did not execute a redesign for the 997. I've lost a lot of faith in a company with whom I've purchased products since 1975.

I hate to see the RMS problem carrying on to the next generation. But then again, it will probably save me money in the long run... no need to "trade-up" for a 997 anymore... that interior, handling, and slight power increase is not worth the extra $40k anymore. $40k also buys a lot of extended warranty.

If you trade up, do it for a GT3/TT, the m96/97 is a POS.

C4S Surgeon, Amen on that!

They can't do that with an aluminum block. The bearings are encased within cast iron "holders" that are bolted to block. Different metals (many times unfriendly) have different rates of expansion/contraction and this is an engineering challenge, especially with an engine going 6,000rpm. If the holders were floating you would have excessive bearing wear, not necessarily rms. If the "test" for a new engine, is the distance of offset from center (at rest); then floating bearing holders cannot be measured. That distance measures an offcenter bore that the transmission centerline doesn't match.

Bummer, guys.

Very sad news....If they did not correct this problem in order to crank out a so called 80% new car, then they are laughing at all of us idiots all the way to the bank................. I might have to wait for a gt3............

My next Porsche will most definately be in the flavour of GT3/TT. Less of a head ache overall

Torags: I am surprised that it is impossible to contain the main bearings in aluminum bearing carriers cast integral with the block. Perhaps the stresses in big flat 6 architechture are beyond the safe yield of Al? The cast iron bearing carrier sub assembly is probably stiffer than the Al in the block but may not be able to transfer this stiffening to the block assembly whereas a cast integral carrier asembly would help to stiffen the entire block assy. I am sure Porsche engineers are tops at stress analysis and this has all been carefully designed, but something is going wrong. Maybe the best solution is to return to dry sump lubrication and try using a flinger just ahead of the seal.

For those of you who asked, I've posted my update about the RMS issue on my 997s to the 997 board: https://rennlist.com/forums/997-forum/182123-rms-update.html Carlos in Spain copied my post to Rennteam and there, the veracity of my claim is already being questioned (go figure!). However, I have e-mailed Carlos my full VIN and I will be more than happy to provide anyone with my VIN through e-mail. I just wasn't sure about posting my full VIN online, since I haven't seen that done too many times. If someone also has the resources, it would greatly help if you could verify the part numbers especially for the gents over on Rennteam. My post on the 997s board has a scan of my service record. Thanks!

I'm an Electrical and not Mechanical Engineer, but your suggestion makes sense to me. The only thing that would stand in the way of its implementation is costs. The unknown is how often does this problem occur. If it's less than 5%, then from an economic perspective it's undoubtedly better to rebuild the engine. Even if the problem is rare however, the damage to Porsche's reputation could be significant, and of course it negatively affects the car's resale value.

Austin, Sorry to hear about your RMS problems. I hope this is the last you see of it. But sadly I doubt it. It is plainly obvious now after reading your posts that the exact same RMS problem in the 996 persists in the 997. I have just had my 7th RMS fitted! Perhaps now is a good time for you to start displaying the "RMS failed" banner in protest. You can get it here: http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/rmsclubfailed2.jpg

Pardon my ignorance, but if there are no RMS issues in the GT2/GT3/TT versions of the 996, what makes their engine design so different? And why couldn't PAG adapt this version (albeit with less HP) to the base Carrera models? I know the dry sump etc. is more expensive, but if the fundamental structure of the first generation of flat six water-cooled engines was designed incorrectly, even the higher -performance versions would have been leaking....

Alum (housings) must be cottage cheese when rubbing against steel (bearings). a couple of contributers to the Cayenne board had breakin oil analized. The diagnosis was too much metal (seating rings?). Subsequent readings were closer to norm. Dry sump engines may have the same bearing holder design. I'm at a loss as to why more turbos haven't got the problem, it's the same family of engine.

AACK! RMS AGAIN!! Bought 2001 Boxster S new < 12000KM - RMS failure - Fixed 75,000KM - Engine Blown <- new engine replaced under warrenty 82,000KM - RMS Failure on new engine - out of warrenty now and they want me to pay the whole $$ They can HAVE the car as far as I'm concerned. Going back at end of lease. Giving up on the brand entirely.

Old thread I realize, but mine went again too! Every 10,000 miles it seems like, on the original motor, and on the replacement also (original motor 2,000 miles, 10,000 miles, new motor 10,000, 20,000 miles). Porsche has a new fix to the RMS that came out a month or so ago. They seem to keep coming out with slightly better seals, so you might want to ask about the new fix before throwing in the towel.

I love my car..but i am on my 4th now and it has around 25,000 miles.I think the new seal is better tho,have some fate guys its just an oil leak if your going to keep the car just make sure you know its going to leak and accept it. How many with leaks have had then motor replaced because of it ? They are not replacing them for extra measure of safety they are replacing to make the owners feels better. Porsche is not the same car company they once were.If you have a 996 with an oil leak you will always have a 996 with an oil leak.**** or get off the pot I guess and oh this thread is old!

I've heard that the RMS problems are also on the 997 models too but was hoping that it was untrue since I've been eyeing them. The only option now is to go back to aircool or buy the GTs or TTs to avoid the RMS issues. I wonder if RUF engines have the RMS problems too? Why did Porsche have to go and ruin a good thing?

vove, If you want e-mail me. As far as I know, I had the first RMS on a 997 (launch car at just a few thousand miles). I also had a coolant link. My dealership fixed the problem and I have had no issues whatsoever since. I've now got over 23,000 miles on my car and still going. If you do a search, you will also find out that the GT3s have had RMS replacements, even if fewer since fewer of those models were built.

As far as I know, every generation of 911's have leaked oil. Mine did at least! Porsche was always running around trying to come up with fixes. For the 911 SC and 911 Carrera's it was upgraded valve cover gaskets. The difference, I guess, is that now the RMS may ruin your clutch, but I do wonder how badly it must leak before that happens. As for me, I try not to look under my car . Besides, there are also other leaks on current 911's, cam covers, etc. With respect to those that really had to replace the RMS because of impending clutch doom, could it be many of us are worrying too much about some oil drops on the garage floor? Geert

I don't understand how Porsche could be No. 2, behind only Lexus, in the three year JD Powers survey released this year based on the 2002 model year. It seems like everyone here has RMS problems. I am very confused.

There is such a small percentage of Porsche owners represented on these boards. Probably 90% or more owners don't even know the boards exist. Addionally, many people who have problems will only come to these boards to air their complaint so you do not have anywhere near a good representation of Porsche owners. It's kinda like taking a survey of how many people feel ill in a hospital. The RMS issue is no where near what you would think it is reading here.

Not everyone on this board has had an RMS. if you ask the question, who's had an RMS my guess is that most of the responses will be from people who've had the bad fortune of owning a model (Boxster or 996/997) that has had at least one RMS occurance. If you were to examine how often this occurred against the number of P cars sold I suspect it would be a low percentage. Now, take a deep breath and go out and enjoy your Porsche.

"It's kinda like taking a survey of how many people feel ill in a hospital. The RMS issue is no where near what you would think it is reading here." Great analogy... Regarding JD Powers... The leaks occur over a longer span of time than they cover and statisical percentage is so small as to be meaningless. Not meaningless of course - if you have one....

Me personally, I would love to say I've not had a RMS leak but I might just jinx myself DOH! Did I just jinx myself?

I just bought a 996 so pardon my ignorance here, but what is RMS? If is obviously an oil leak, but what exactly should I be looking for to see if it occurs in my car?

RMS means rear main seal. This is the seal between the engine and transmission. In short, 996's, 997's, and Boxsters have a weakness in that the seal fails due to vibration causing an oil leak. It is not likely to cause a big problem other than a puddle on your garage floor. It costs $800 to $1,400 to repair, but is covered by warranty. Porsche is on its fourth iteration of a seal trying to fix the problem.

[QUOTE=ToragsRegarding JD Powers... The leaks occur over a longer span of time than they cover and statisical percentage is so small as to be meaningless. Not meaningless of course - if you have one....[/QUOTE] I am not sure this is true. The JD Powers survey I was talking about was not the 90 day initial quality survey, but the three year ownership one. This was was released this year for the 2002 model year. Actually, it was this survey that convinced me that RMS could not be as big a problem as one might believe from reading things here. Also, I employed the following sick logic: Cost of a RMS replacement is about what a full service with valve adjustment was on a older 911. So, not the end of the world, right?

No, it is not.

Right, it (i.e. RMS) probably is not such a big issue--again, unless it prompts clutch replacement. Funny, but this eve I was actually thinking some of this through. We used to bash Porsche for its ridiculous interior door handles. They fixed those. We used to gripe about the interior door panels which stayed unflinchingly plastic vinyl $12.00 items for about 20 years. They fixed those. We used to bitch about the ridiculous VW heating/cooling system for occupants. They fixed that. We used to bitch about the $1,000 cost of valve adjustment. They fixed that. The rear engine wicked handling. Fixed. The hood struts. Fixed. The fade-prone key surround. Fixed. The chocolate 1st and 2nd syncro on the 915 tranny. Fixed. One can go on... Now...we bitch about the paint, the RMS, and the for-some-cheap interior. Perhaps, if you are at Porsche you either hit your head on the side of your desk at all this, or, you simply do not visit any listservs. So...here's my bitch: I hate the 996 windshield wipers. Previous 911's used to make me feel I was running Le Mans...800 wipes per minute, or so it seemed. The 996's stutter and squeek at half the speed making me wish I could rip them right off were it it not for utter need. Drive and beat the damn thing. It won't be worth more than $20-30k after five years anyway. Besides, it really does fare better if driven all the time and in the spirit it was conceived. Geert

wow.....and here I was eyeing a 997 or 997s.....keeping the Cayenne...for now....then switching to ......who knows

I guess the cost is not that much, but I was more frustrated not having my car for 4 weeks when they replaced my motor because of the RMS. So figure, between having the RMS fixed twice, getting a new motor, and other misc problems (horn broke, etc) I've probably lost use of my car for about 2 months total in 2 years of ownership. That is a price too, especially if it happens to be during the summer.

If the RMS is just LEAKing, and a small amount of Oil is being dripped (just ask the aircooled guys about oil drips - the saying is if it drips, thats good because oil's in it) - WHY ARE ENGINES BEING REPLACED? What the hell do you replace an engine for if a seal leaks?

Well, in the case of my seal now, the oil is being flung all over everything, including the clutch. I should take a picture...its an absolute mess.

Because the leaking seal is the result of misalignment between the trans & motor.

So the intermediate shaft going into the trans (clutch is between engine and trans) is aligned with both, thereby creating side stresses?

Beyond the sealing capacity of the ...(fill in the blank)... My read...

BTW. there is an allowable percentage of "slop" (I don't remember the numbers) when exceeded - PCNA will replace the engine. But I have read reports that even with engines with allowable "slop" that have seals put in 3 times they will replace engine. (Maybe lemon law deterrnets work?) This is in the US. The UK dealers don't have the same policies. A fellow by the name of Bernie in the UK, had multiple replacements in the UK and they wouldn't replace engine. He is the poster boy of the RMS victims.