I was right! RMS but another oil issue surfaces

I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago regarding the dreaded RMS and that I had found oil on the garage floor indicating it was my car's turn to suffer at the hands of this design fault. I have just had it confirmed by my OPC and following the advice from the forum, principally Scouser, I have asked for this repair to be carried out under good will but I still await a reply. Apparently though I have another oil issue which could explain a slight rise in revs when idling. It would appear that an O-Ring or O-rings are leaking on the spark plug tubes. Anyone had this problem before? and would it have an effect on the rev rate if there is air entering via this fault? (If someone could confirm this for me I would be grateful) Regards RB

With all these oil leaks, I don't know why Porsche just doesn't fit a giant mobile drip tray under the engine, collect the spoils and recycle. It really is pathetic and we have only ourselves to blame. By any measure of objectivity, this should not be happening on a car at this price level.

RB Yes, had the same problem on a '99 C4. Together with one or two more that are not uncommon. The plug tube seals can be replaced when the plugs are changed I think. If not it is a cam-cover-off job and a lot of money. Had mine done when the cam covers were off to stop another enormous leak from their sealant (common problem) hence why I'm not sure. As regards the tickover generally, anything that allows air to get in (including all the places oil can get out) will cause tickover problems. Here's some other known ones: On the top of the flywheel end of the engine (nearside ofthe car) there is a plastic oil separator box that is part of the crankcase rebreather. Attached to this is a £2 neoprene bellows that I think returns oil to the sump. This splits regularly on the 3.4 and drops oil all over the nearside exhaust manifold. Makes the car smell lovely and idle like a bag of nails. The oil filler pipes also split sometimes (and the seal on the filler cap can go too). Same effect on tickover. There are also lots of little vacuum pipes all over the engine. Any of these comes adrift and the tickover is all over the place. The last two items that affect the tickover are the O2 (lambda) sensors in the exhaust and the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor on the intake. Lambda sensors fail after a few years and as they effectively control the mixture at idle you've no chance. Check these if your revs keep going to about 1100 then settling. The MAF measures the air mass going into the engine and the DME computes the fuel delivery from this input (amongst others). As it is corrected by the lambdas at tickover it's not critical to this phase of engine operation and tends to have a bigger effect on performance above 4000rpm. No correction is performed here and a seriously out-of-calibration MAF (happens due to erosion, corrosion and contamination over time) will run the engine lean, hot and down on power. At tickover, the extra and rapidly changing correction due to a faulty MAF can make the idle erratic. Faulty lambdas or MAF should show up directly on the PST-2 tester. Air leaks usually give rise to very high 'long-term' fuel correction values being stored in the DME and need someone who knows what they're doing to spot them. Then it's simply a case of finding where the air's getting in! Hope this helps Ian W

The O-rings on the spark plug tubes are a known problem. The seal material has changed over the years. My dealer always replaces the plastic tubes and the O-rings because the tubes can crack or chip. Never heard of this as having an effect on the idle but I learn something new every day.

Thanks for all this info everyone. very helpful and tool pants the photo helps to understand a little more now. One thing that I never mentioned regarding the RMS is when I got the call from my OPC to tell me that it was leaking, The surprise and denial that this is a know issue, almost as if I was the first person to raise the request for this to be done under good will. Now I know this is not the case but is this the first of a series of synical tactics to squirm out of rectifying a design fault that should be fixed free without question and a test of the customer to see just how much they (the OPC) can get away with? RB

Just had the call to tell me that Reading will not offer anything toward goodwill for the RMS repair due to the age of the car (2000 C4 with 47K on the clock). Cost £500 for the repair! Ah well I tried, hope someone at the club alters the figures of the survey to show another one to the RMS slaughter. RB.

ARbee. It's now time to go into Plan B. Call Reading direct yourself and get on the bounce. Tell them its bearly 5 years old and it's only done 47k with FPSH. Tell them that your a member of PCGB and that you want to register an official complaint and will follow up in writing. There is no reason why on "your car's merits" why they can't offer you some good-will. Tell them that everyone else is getting good will so why not you? Tell them how dissapointed you are with the reliability of this car. Tell them it will be the last Porsche you will buy if they don;t come to the party and explain that your not asking for 100% just a contribution towards costs. PUK suck big time. I wish there was some way we could all learn to bypass PUK and buy direct from Germany. For one, you get it cheaper, you can pick it up at the factory (which is fun) and you can still have it spec's for c16. If we can cause PUK to suffer with sales because of their business practices they might sit up and ask why.

I fully intend to do what you suggest Scouse so i will keep you posted, thanks again. The car has been repaired and I have taken out extended warranty, I am 2K worse off and just have the Fuhrer to face when I get home and tell her that the new kitchen will have to a wait a while longer!! (can I get access to the forum from a hospital bed does anyone know??) RB

Sadly, if it's already repaired you will have a hard time getting any money from them. The only time to push for good-will is before the repair is carried out.

Guys, Can we keep a sense of proportion please, one RMS in 5 years is no problem at all. If anyone bought a Porsche and expected no bills over five years, then they have not done their homework. What I fight for are; seal failures just beyond the guarantee expiry, multiple seal failures and major engine failures. One seal failure at five years doesn't sound like anything to worry about. And now, with the extended warranty, you have "full" cover including get you home. And Berny, you want to cut out PGB, and the OPCs, do you want to take your car back to the Factory for all problems and servicing? be like a Carrera GT then.

Nic, I just think PGB and the UK Porsche network treat us unfairly. If you buy a Porsche new from Germany direct and have it spec'd for c16 then it will be no different to the cars that PGB sell and it will still have to be serviced locally while it's within warranty. After its warranty expires then the owner is in the same boat as any other out of warranty owner iresepective of where he/she bought the car. PGB will still charge you for the repairs. But the initial cost saving (thousands) would outway the cost of serious repairs that PGB won't entertain as manufacturing faults like the RMS that may occur in the future. There's always the independent network too and legally they can now perform repairs on our cars without affecting our warranty. In fact, the independents will soon be selling Porsches along side PGB! While the RMS is not considered serious it is still a gearbox out job and is expensive. Since PGB are being generally unfair and/or unsymaptheic to the RMS problem I don't see why we should treat them differently. We don't owe them anything but they owe us a lot. They represent Porsche AG in the UK and the RMS is a manufacturing flaw so why should we have to pay for it 3,5, or even 10 years down the road? They have us by the curlies so to speak but if enough of us started to buy our cars direct from Germany they may come to ask why. And the answer is simple, give us the same warranty system and service policy as that aforded by our American friends and we will buy from PGB again. As for my own car, yes, yes and yes again. I would certainly drive my car to Germany if they would offer to replace my engine. For general service though I would use my OPC or an independent. But if I ever buy a new Porsche again, I wouldn't give PGB the pleasure of my heard wearned cash. They have to understand that we live in a very competitive world nowadays and cutomer relations and after service policy is paramount to future success.

Nic , I'm sorry but i dissagree. It's simply not acceptable for a car of Porsche's "legendary" reliabilty not to mention initial cost and "build quality" for the seal to be leaking in the first place. I would suggest that good quality rubber/plastic does not deteriorate in four years. At 47k you should not expect for the vehicle to be suffering from excessive bearing wear or the like either. So either the seal is defective or there is some other reason for it's demise, none of which I could easily count as being "fair wear and tear" . A rms is not like a clutch and expected to wear out as such, if it were you'd expect it to be part of the service regime, and then at least expect the big bill. Without doubt seals do wear out eventually, due mostly to work hardening and age but this is more likely at 8-10 years or more and much higher mileage. If it was me doing the buying I think i'd prefer that Porsche sorted the problems before i bought the car rather than offer the extended warranty to sort them out afterwards. All that said, it took Porsche till around 1981 (i think) to solve the chain tensioner problems on the old air cooled cars. we might be in for a long wait.

Guys, you are harder than I am. Like I said, for me, £500 after five years of pleasurable Porsche driving is nothing. Depreciation is 30-40 times that, or more. There are many bigger things to worry about in todays world.

I would fully agree with you if the only outlay in five years is £500. But of course it's not. It's an additional £500 for something that really ought not be there in the first place. Regular maintainance, wear and tear and the odd MINOR electrical or mechanical glitch I can understand but not a £500 one! If £500 is an insignificant amount of money then please send it on to me if you don't miss it[ ]

Excuse me if this is posted in the wrong section. I have finally after many months of being a member been able to access the forum. I was under the impression last year that the club were conducting a survey of 986 and 996 owners regarding the RMS problem, can anyone tell me if this was the case and were Porsche GB approached with the result ? and if so what was their answer. I had a Boxster S before the 996 and neither had a problem, but it is a worry.

Actually only independents that have met Porsches strict quality control criteria can do that. I read somewhere that most independents probably wont bother to spec up to Porsche's requirements just to get some extra servicing work done, as the costs would be prohibitive. So dont hold your breath.

Incorrect. It's now EU law. A specialist car independent now has the right to carry out OEM warranty repair and/or service work without affecting the car's OEM warranty. Basically, it means that a specialist independent can work on a warranted car without affecting its warranty, or the specilist independent may fit OEM warranted parts to the car and they are covered by OEM warranty. Seel also: http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/blockcars.htm Additionally some independents are now importing their own cars direct and competing directly with PGB.......Camtune already does this. In fact they were selling UK spec c16 997's before PGB started selling them.......remember the 997 out in the field saga at Brands Hatch last year

I guess it makes sense otherwise I could set up my own workshop and service 911's using 'used pinball machine parts', without invalidating the warranty.

Kenneth , I conducted the survey and would be happy to talk you through the results - you can find my phone number in the Porsche Post

[/quote] Nic I agree with Lawrence and others. I appreciate that you have done a large amount of work on the subject of RMS failures on behalf of the members - but why are you only looking into failures "just beyond the guarantee expiry, multiple seal failures and major engine failures" . Most Porsche owners I know are enthusiasts that get as much enjoyment out of just owning their cars, polishing them, using them on a Sunday only and put on very few miles. I cannot see why you are only looking at the limited period just beyond the 2 year warranty. Does this mean that after 24,000 miles (average daily use) over 2 years usage we can expect no help from our Club or indeed very little support from Porsche AG/GB themselves So what would happen in my case then - a Sept 2000 C2 Cab that has covered just 2400 miles from new. Are you saying "sorry, we are not interested, it's past the warranty period and its 4.5 years old. You need to broaden the scope of this "fight" and include those of us that don't pile on the miles, and as absurd as it may appeal to some owners, it suits a large proportion of us to own / use a Porsche in this way. Your statement of "£500 after five years of pleasurable Porsche driving is nothing" is not a relevant statement. Nobody, not even a Fiat driver (like myself) should EXPECT that. Oh, and by the way I once had a Fiesta that did 75,000 trouble free miles in 3 years and only a couple of years ago a Fiat that did 50,000 trouble free miles in 2 years. Hardly prestige - but trouble free non the less. This is a ridiculous state of affairs for one of the worlds leading prestige sports car manufacturer to be in and I find it incredibly inept of both PAG and PGB to allow this public slanging match to continue to irreparably damage the company. As the RMS survey was carried out for and on behalf of the clubs members - can we have the full results on the forum please?

I must agree with Nic.

I think Peter makes a valid point about Porsches` reputation being sullied,but how much of this dissatisfaction is actually caused by the factory and how much by their franchise holders? To quote David Newton`s piece on p7 of the current PP "the club developing closer ties with the factory and Porsche cars GB via a more formal contact of operation" The acid test is, if this comes to fruition will this forum be allowed to continue to criticise the perceived shortcomings of both PGB and Porsche AG?and , if the owners` club is in the pockets of the above is there any point in remaining a member if it evolves into some sort of altar at which to worship the Marque in a non-critical- accept what you`re told sort of way. The relatively few dealings I`ve had with Main dealers(not just Porsche to be fair), has left me somewhat jaded and the thought of them having some sort of influence over the owners club is enough to have me reaching for my letter of resignation after 18 years of membership. I was considering buying a Boxster (despite the name) but there`s no way I would after what I`ve read on the forum, I`m looking for an air-cooled car , as over a period of time I think that they are a better investment of one`s cash than one of the new range and I won`t have to have any dealings with an OPC. regards, jr.

[/quote] I know that this is off thread but 'jr' has a valid point that I would like to pursue. For many years the Club has fought fiercely for our independence from PAG, particularly from the board of directors under the Chairmanships of Fred Hampton and Paul Kelley, and which I was proud to serve. I now hear on the Club's grapevine that we are close to being sold down the proverbial swanny and that 'jr' could well be right in his interpretation. If this happens, which I dearly hope that it doesn't, then the current board will be held accountable. From what I have been told it's a done deal and will be too late to reverse by the time of the AGM. If I have been mislead in the information that I have been given I apologise unreservedly, but if it is indeed true then I think the board should come clean and let us know what is going on. A major decision like this will change the Club's constitution forever and cannot be left to a few to decide. Would any member of the board please care to enlighten me and tell me that the information I have been given is incorrect.

Hi Peter, Now you`ve got me really worried! I don`t have the contacts within the club that you have, so my comments were my own reaction to the piece in PP.Perhaps this should be pursued in a separate thread. regards, jr.

Peter, I don't know what info you have been given so can't say if correct or not. But as David said, we are close to agreeing formal co-operation with Porsche Cars GB and AG. We have reached this point after several years of tough negotiation on our part and represents a reasonable deal for both parties. The agreement specifically guarantees editorial independence so members can continue to post any belief, provided not slanderous -no change from today. Peter, I think you know that I have been forthright on many issues and I am not about to lie down for any one. In my opinion, it is not reasonable to expect the Club to be both "fiercely independent" and the official Porsche club for the UK. That we could do so is entirely at the behest of Porsche Cars and in my opinion, this would not continue. You can try to both have and eat the cake for only so long.

Thanks for the reply Nic - and also for the phone call just now. I look forward with interest to the developments with AG, but I truly hope that the contract of co-operation works for us.

I'm certainly willing to give having closer ties with Porsche a chance - then they may sit up and take notice of some of the concerns owners have, and on the other hand, we may get better official information to make sure everyone has the correct information on which to base their opinions. As Don Corleone said "keep your friends close but your enemies closer". [ ]

sorry that this has gone off topic but I do hope we can encourage Porsche GB to start getting the basics right; as well as poor standards of customer care from some OPC's I wrote to Geoff Turral before Christmas setting out a grievance and never even had the courtesy of a reply[&o] IMHO it's time Mr Turral delivered on the basics. Andrew

There is another thread in General now for the "off-topic" topic --> http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=101662&mpage=1&key= So perhaps this one can go back to the original RMS/Oil subject?

I'd be interested to know from Nic how many people have experienced multiple instances of RMS failure? Also whether there is any indication as to whether the problem is greater with manual or tiptronic cars. I had the RMS replaced at the annual service last year. 12 months and 4k miles later I have another drip on the garage floor. PD 1999 C2 Cab tiptronic

I haven't been following the Clubs progress in this issue as i sold my Boxster after it had a third RMS replacement. but now i've been mad anough to buy another one. so i'll be alot more interested in this from now on. are any of the new cars 997/987 suffering the same problems??

Peter, I mistakenly thought less chance with Tips but Jeff Tool pants pointed out just the same possibility as same engine, and when I crunched the numbers, he was right, only 1% difference and yes, I will be digging down to multiples, but for sure some cars need only one replacement, others need more , a couple need many more. As we start to gather stats over a longer period, we will have more conclusions to draw. Helen, yes, there have been a couple of reports of RMS on 987/997, from the US, I think.

I pretty much agree with Nic, most cars have "issues" look at BMW M engine problems! The only thing that bothers me is the RMS & some engine failures do seem to be due to "design flaw" rather than "wear & tear", as such Porsche should at least apply some good will to claims affected by these areas! I think Nics approach by surveying owners & then putting the facts in front of Porsche to apply pressure via PCGB is the correct route & commendable, lets hope we get a positive response.

I fully agree with Peter. Can we see the full results of the survey and can we have an official line from the Club that they will persue this matter with PGB and keep us the members informed of progress. It seems to me that the matter is kept quiet as possible and away from the press until it blows up again and again as in this thread. The club is here for us the members is it not ? So please lets get this issue dealt with. If we have cars with dubious engines then Porsche should make amends.

I had mine replaced as i had minor drips on the garage floor, these drips (on a 986 anyway) are offset as in not central. As said above the oring rubber has changed over the years for a different PN. I wouldnt immagine it should have anything to do with rev rising !! The o rings are replaced with new tubes, £6 each complete tube

Not sure if this info has been posted before... "How to" from the Porsche Club of America Tech: Answer: I have installed many of these with just about 100% success rate. Very rarely do they have a problem once fixed. When the transmission and flywheel are removed have them take a close look as to where the oil is coming from. Make sure if it is still coming from the rear main seal at the crankshaft edge or elsewhere. They can also leak from the case bolts. Should it be coming from the rear main seal then recheck the run out. The new style tool needs to have a 1/8" hole drilled in the face of it. This keeps it from locking on the crankshaft and giving false readings. When I fix a rear main seal I do it all once so that it will not come back. I replace the rear main seal, intermediate shaft housing/seal and its 3 encapsulated bolts. I also epoxy the rear case bolts and just above and below the rear main seal after a thorough cleaning with brake clean. The epoxy from the rear main runs down to the intermediate shaft along the case halves not around the seal. A useful way to find an oil and especially for yours before and after a repair is a water based spray penetrating die. This die comes in red or white. To verify it was fixed after the repair is to spray the back of the case and rear main seal. fill with oil, reinstall the flywheel and run the engine for 30 minutes or so. Now remove the flywheel and look for any leakage. This works great for finding slow leaks. Scott Slauson - PCA WebSite - 6/13/2004