996 RMS follow survey out shortly

Hello everyone, As promised, I have created a follow up survey of all 996 owning members from whom we have not received a reply to the first RMS survey. This mail out is to just over 900 members, and should go out next week. If this is successful, I will do the same for the Boxster owners. We need to keep this problem under review. So far as I know, it is the only formal survey of this issue anywhere in the world. Note that Porsche them selves have not acknowledged the widespread nature of the problem, nor given any substantiated statistics from their owner base.

Nic I never received the initial survey. I have had my 996 for 2 years and filled in all the details at membership renewal time. Is it because I haven't registered with the 996 register? , and if so are there likely to be many more members like me? Whilst on the subject I'm RMS problem free to date at 5 years and 27,000 miles (touchwood).

David, its more than that, I have just checked and there is no car linked to you on the Club system. And because of this you are shown as an associate member! Could it be you have not filled in the car details on a renewal form? Could you please ring Sarah at Club Office and give your car details and ask for a RMS survey form to be sent to you? I would definitely like cars like yours without problems to be recorded in the Survey.

Nic I was sure I'd filled in details, definitely had my 993 details on there prior to swapping. I'll ring Sarah next week and sort it. Thanks

David, looks like a glitch somewhere along the line, perhaps you could email me (not on the Forum please) the reg nbrs of both cars and I will check if they are some where else in the system

Nic, great work mate. I hope other members don't mind me speaking out for them to say that your doing a sterling job keeping on top of this. In relation to the survey, I recall several weeks back you made a passing comment that you had not received my survey result. Did you get it? If not we can assume its lost so would you mind sending me out another. Cheers,

Berny, I just checked, and you are in the list, so you should get the envelope the end of next week, a big thanks to Angie and Sarah at Club Office for doing the hard work!

I have been Boxstering for 6 years and this is the only formal survey(s) I know of. I give due credit to the PCGB. I have seen a hundred internet polls over the years. I do not know how it is in the UK. I know the guys who work at the parts department at my local Porsche dealer. A few months ago I asked one of the guys how many seals were 'sold' in a 2 month period at this dealership. He pushed the buttons on the parts computer and gave me the numbers. I posted these numbers back then, somewhere. There were more than I expected. 'Sold' means they were put in a customer's car - not sitting in a box in inventory. Porsche can push the same buttons and tell you exactly how many have been sold around the world over the years. If you folks happen to be in Silicon Valley on April 9th then come over to the tech session at my local dealer. It is for the 997/987 but I am going to ask that the issue to be covered again, like it was done 2 years ago, now that the newest tool, seal, and models are out. Jeff http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15&st=0&#entry24 http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4333

Jeff, I want to do some number crunching and see if there are patterns as to the number of repeats needed. For sure there are many cars that have been cured by one or two replacements and I want to quantify these. Then there is Berny!

My RMS Survey form came today, filled it in and returned. Strangely it states that I didn't reply to the prior survey for whatever reason..possibly because I didn't get sent one.!! Well done though for organising the survey, it at least gives the club and those who have suffered this problem some bullets to fire at Porsche cars. garyw

Gary, I wrote "and for what ever reason, we have not recorded a response from you" covering all possibilities. Sorry if wording not perfect, heart is in the right place.

Nic, Received the survey this morning. Will be in the post this pm. Minor detail, I drive a C4 Cab not a C2 Coupe. [ ]

I know [ ] garyw

John, I have just updated you on the live system, thank you

Hi Nic - as a PCGB newbie and 996 C4 proud owner of all of 4 weeks I have sent the survey form back to you today. Many thanks for including me in this. I await the results with bated breath!

Steve, I have just set it so you will now show as a member, and thank you for completing the survey!

ours in the post tonite.

Nic, Have all the questionairres gone out as I aint got mine yet? And I am quite sure I changed my details when I sold my boxster and bought the C4 RB

Nic, completed and returned today ....... Regards

Nic, updated my details with the Club Office, and have recieved my survey form. My car is in for service next week so I'll wait until its back before I fill in the form. You'll have it ASAP after that. Thanks for all your hard work in the RMS arena

Ron, actually, you have a response from last time (no RMS failure) and this time I sent out only the ones who hadn't replied. I will email you a form if you want to update the result

Nic Mine went in the post today.

If the car has a FPMDSH I believe it is possible to request a printout of the full service history by VIN. This should indicate any RMS related work. ?

And PCGB are getting in to bed with these characters? JCB..

Nic, Just letting you know it's in the post (again). Cheers,

Nic, Where's your post with the initial findings of the survey? I seem to remember you saying that engine failures seemed rare, but also that at the time I reckoned by my mental arithmetic it that about one car in four with a rms problem went on to have a engine failure. Is my memory or maths deluding me, because I don't remember anyone else coming to the same conclusion. Today my maybe rms leak turned into a maybe engine failure (all I know is clouds of white smoke so far) so suddenly I'm no longer a sceptic (or ostrich)[ ]

Mike, I didn't get any reliable data about engine failures from the Survey as it seemed people didn't understand. So I relied on emails or phone contacts to me, plus Forum postings. This was only a small number and with a number of separate causes. I made absolutely no connection between RMS and engine failures The "oil out" cases were due to an oil plug coming out.

Nic, If you're doing a follow up survey for Boxster owners, would this include all new members registered since the original survey? Out of interest, my 2002 Boxster is currently undergoing it's 4th RMS replacement, albeit 2 of the replacement seals have been dodgy and lasted less than 48 hours/100 miles: 1st RMS replacement @ 21,000 miles during the 24K service. Overnight my engine leaked oil on the garage floor, so car was returned to OPC the following day for this repair to be redone. A defective seal was blamed. 3rd RMS replacement @ 25,000 miles during the 36K service. I was surprised to learn the RMS was weeping and required replacing again, despite having only covered 4,000 miles over the 12 month period since the 2nd RMS replacement, plus my garage floor had remained clear of oil drips. The 3rd RMS replacement has lasted less than 100 miles and the defective seal excuse has been offered again. Notice a trend here? I have been assured that the bore tolerances are OK and that I've been more than unlucky to receive 2 defective seals. This saga obviously doesn't inspire confidence and at present I don't envisage buying another new Porsche, save for possibly a Chelsea tractor. Our other car is a 525 touring and lately I have been choosing this over my Boxster almost every time, sad but true. Might be something to do with the fact that the BMW has a near bullet-proof flat-6, so I don't have any reliability demons plaguing me! Regards, Andy

Andy, thats exactly what I would do, mail all those that did not respond, or are new. This leaves any multiple failures since the original survey, I dont know how to target these. Now in contrast to you, I had a seal replaced at 5 months, 23 months and no leaks since then - 5 months ago. I will try to establish any repeat patterns though. What about taking out the warranty?

Nic, That's good to hear"¦keep up the good work! I overlooked extending the original warranty mainly because my partner was about to give birth to our first child, so I was rather busy preparing [nursery/shopping/new car etc] for this life changing event. I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep my Boxster for, as it recently turned 3. On the other hand the current RMS repair is warranted for 12 months as I made a 25% contribution towards this. I really need to have a hard think about this over the next day or two because if I decide to keep the car for another season, I ultimately need the piece of mind the warranty provides and avoid the unnecessary purchase of a new engine. Cheers, Andy

Survey in tonights post. Waited for it being serviced and have no RMS leak reported. However while I was collecting mine, the other two people collecting their's both had leaking RMS's reported. The OPC comment was its a seal that wears out with time but for cars out of warranty upto 5 years old they get a goodwill contribution from Porsche.

I have been at Club office and we have a good pile of returned forms, thank you everyone. Sarah will start to key these into the system over the next week so I can start to crunch some numbers.

Sarah has entered 343 forms bringing the total for 996 to 807 they are still coming in and will wait till most in to do the analysis, one thing I did see was the number of failures in this batch seems lower than the first one, so will be interesting

Sent ours back last week

Nic, When I recieved the survey I had not had a failure but following a call from my OPC last week during a 24k service they noticed it had failed. Another one for your list! Luckily I had just re-newed the warranty so didn't have any fights getting it put right. I thought I was getting off lightly having had two fail on my Boxster S previously.

Andy, what luck - I have just emailed you another form to complete - actually it got bounced back so could you let me have your current email please?

Hi Nic, I managed to mess up my account changing my e-mail address so should now work under this user ID account otherwise [email removed] Cheers, Andy

Nic Can you send me the forms to [email removed] Ta Hugh

Nic, I sent back my completed form stating that i had never encountered an RMS problem. However, on opening the garage door yesterday I saw an oil slick the size of the Thames heading towards me. (Ok, a bit of an exaggeration) I just didn't think it could happen to nice people like me. I mean the warranty is 5 days out of date too. Could you make me another negative statistic and inform me of my rights when you have a minute. Thanks Simon 996 C4

That doesn't sound like an RMS failure.

Simon, I have just emailed you a survey form to complete. If you are just out of warranty, then you should make a goodwill claim via your OPC. Normally this would cover half or all the cost.

How long is "shortly"?

Mark, good point. I just logged on to the Club server and these are the latest 996 figures BUT I have not cross checked and verified them, nor cut and diced by year, mileage of failure etc yet So DRAFT figures only Headline figure is 18.5% cars affected out of 813 replies received, this is slightly lower % than for Boxsters Only a smallish number of multiples (so far, at least) Nbr RMS Failures 139 with 1 failure 7 with 2 failures 1 with 3 failures 2 with 4 failures 1 with 7 failures 150 18.5% total 813

... and how many engine failures (as I have said several time before I am much more worried about something really expensive, rather than a few drips)

Mike, Well, 25 members reported "engine failure" but I want to speak with each owner individually before publishing the figures, cos they may have misunderstood the form and counted RMS as an engine failure. Only a couple gave any details, so I doubt this figure has any value.

On the face of it, it seems that if you do have an RMS failure, replacing it is likely to fix the problem which will unlikely recur. Questions in my mind: - Is failure linked more strongly to mileage or year of manufacture or is it random? - Did Porsche have a bad period with cars made during this period more likely to fail? - Are they getting better at fixing the problem when it does happen? It does worry me though that there are reports of 997 failures which suggests Porsche have not sorted themselves out at the factory yet.

OK, Here is the latest on my 2000 996 C4 with 30,000 miles. Took it down to OPC Reading where they confirmed it was the RMS. It's due for a minor service in a week, so they'll do that first, and then they will fix the RMS a week later FREE OF CHARGE as a goodwill gesture! Even though the warranty is 2 weeks out of date. There is a condition that I extend the Warranty £725 (Which I was about to do anyway). So I'm quite relieved. The Oil leak is now more of a weep and is fine to be driven. I'm changing my name to Scouser II by the way[ ] Scouser II A member of the RMS club

Ah yes but are you a Scoucer [ ] Sorry to hear you joined the club. The avatar can be found here: http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/rmsclubfailed2.jpg Feel free to use it.

I went to the 996 open day at Porsche Centre Cambridge yesterday - Gary Sorrel said that they have a new insertion tool and he doesn't think they've had any repeat failures since using it. Maybe Johnny McGirl can get more precise info?. Dan.

If that's true then they should get my car in pronto as it's the prefect test case car for this new insertion tool. If it fixes my car they and we can be certain that it works. I see two issues: 1) The OPC get paid from either the owner or PGB through good will claim for every RMS they replace. It's easy money for them. The RMS problem is a great money earner so they won't be in any hurry to implement a new tool that will take their bread and butter away. 2) Even if the OPC's have or use the tool, are they all trained up to use it. Very doubtful. The OPC has to pay for their own techs to go on any courses. They must be getting sick and tired of paying for RMS replacement courses. My last (7th) RMS that was replaced was "apparently" done correctly and incuded the blue engine bolt change.....but it took a lot of coaxing and convincing on my behalf with discussions between my OPC and Reading to finally get them to follow correct procedure. The main reason was as I saw it is that they (my OPC) just didn't know what the correct procedure was! . I.e., lack of training.

I guess the word "new" is relative. We had a tech session for the new Boxster at my local dealer last week put on by the shop foreman, Peter Smith, who I have known for the 6 years I have been Boxstering. 2 years ago he put on a tech session and covered the RMS issue. I wanted to know what had changed in 2 years other than what we all know, that a third generation seal had recently come out. I had heard rumours there was a new insertion tool. Peter said no. They still used the tool that came out in August 2002, the very same tool he covered 2 year earlier. I asked him to check to make sure that the newest tool is still the one that came out in 2002. We went over to the shop computer and he pulled all the new tool bulletins issued by Porsche for the past 2 years. Could not find any mention of an insertion tool that was released after August 2002. I then took this picture. The 996 shop manual and insertion tool 9699 on my notebook. 9699 is the tool that came out in 2002. Next time you are at your OPC ask for the part number for the "new" tool. 9699 has not cured the RMS issue.

[ ]If 9699 had cured the RMS issue there shouldn't have been any problems with 997 & 987's but apparently there are still [&o] My gut feeling is after 9 years of failures it's incurable!

The magic pill is the third generation seal that just came out.[ ] Part number ends in 41 instead of 40. This is the seal that is used in the 997/987. The size of the 41 seal is identical 40 so it is now the replacement seal to be used in the 996/986. Berny can correct me if I am wrong, but I think his current seal is 41. There are two 997 owners on rennlist who have had 41 replaced with 41 as there is nothing else to replace 41 with. In my mind 41 is not the cure. To be on topic since this is the only formal survey I know of, I guess you would need to factor in a number of things. If a seal was replaced what was it replaced with and what tool was used to install the seal. If it leaked again what was done differently the second time around. And so on.

[ ] In my mind I think I will stick with the "there is no known cure" theory for now and I doubt there is even one on the horizon hence 997 horrors continue where 996 left off [ ]

I thought as much Jeff. Thanks for that info. The pic is the last seal they took out my engine (No.6). You can see it is the 40 type. I was told they put the new seal in. Not sure if I can find out for certain from my OPC that this ws the case. This morning, I took my car in for a major service to Tech9, my local independent. I have given up on my OPC's capability. Coincidentally, the engineer who always looked after my car at my OPC now works for my Independent! I am really glad about this because for the 1st time I can talk open and frank to him. He has replaced all my cars seals in the past. I will ask him if he recalls if my car had the new (41) seal fitted last time. Not sure if he will remember but worth asking. I asked why he moved to Tech9. He said he was going nowhere at the OPC and already at Tech9 he has been on 2 training courses. Need I say any more.

Is there an invoice you can check to see what the part number is. I seem to remember you announced the existence of a new seal before your last replacement, because I did not believe it without a part number.

Good one Jeff. Never thought of that. Here's the invoice. I have pointed out the seal (41 type) and the replacement (blue) bolts. I presume that's what they are? The seal is still leaking [ ] Also, you can see what it cost me for a new gearbox (I take it the CX means its refurbished not new)? I removed my details for obvious reasons. My OPC are so competent they think my car is a 968 ha ha.

This is the job sheet. Note the ref to 4/6th RMS replacement. Again showing their incompetence. This OPC has replaced all my RMS seals. They have done it that many times they have lost count. They think it's either it's 4th or 6th. What a joke.

I think you finally figured it out. They have been putting 968 parts in your 996. X at the end of the part number means it is a rebuilt. You have the latest and greatest 3rd generation seal since it ends in #41. The 3 bolts on your list are for the intermediate shaft flange. Check with Loren because the part number does not match the bulletin that came out for the Boxster last year. But there may be a newer bulletin or part number or something different for the 996 I thought you also had the 4 rear crankcase bolts replaced but I do not see it on the list. No big deal because I never assumed the leaks came from the bolt holes based on the history of your car. Those 4 bolts are on the Porsche part list as blue coated screws.

Thanks Jeff. Hmmm...... yes I instructed them to replace the crank bolts with the new blue ones. They said they did them. I will check with Loren re the part numbers but it would not surprise me if they didn't do them and told me they did. This is Porsche OPC service in the UK and we pay top dollar for it too, not to mention we get the lousiest deal with 2 years warranty from the start. Anyway before I go kick up a fuss I will check with Loren that the part numbers are or are not the blue bolts. For anyone that cares, my cars in for a major service not because it'd due but because I am about to take it on a major trip and I want to be certain that it is for all intents and purposes in tip-top condition. 9th May I start a 3000 mile round trip to Northern Spain via France on the PCGB Spain trip. It should be a good test of the car's reliability even with a leaking RMS. Fingers crossed.

I hope nothing bad happens, because i believe i told you to drive to Spain and not take the Sick Boat!! Just take it easy and take a spare can of Mobile 1 with you[ ] Scouser II A member of the RMS Club

I won;t blame you mate [ ] Well, just got the car back from Tech9. Heffty service bill but a lot done....solenoids, coils, plugs, serpentine belt, hydaulic fluid replaced, filters etc etc. Car runs like a dream. They came up with an incredibly weird but novel idea regarding my RMS problems. They have not ried it yet on any cars because they want someone to be the guinee pig and take the chance/respinsibility etc. They showed me a seal (type 41, not that I haven;t seen one before....I have a collection of them). They also showed me another seal....NOT A PORSCHE SEAL per se. That is it isn;t a standard part but it is fitted to GT3 Cup cars (racers). They fit them to these cars in reverse. That is the seal is placed backwards. Th seal sizes and mechanisms look identical in every way except that the inner flexible membrane (the bit that faces with the crank itself) is deeper and way more flexible. The reason it is fitted backwards in their CUP cars is because of in-block pressures and temperature coeficients (beyond me this bit). Anyway, they said that they really do think this will solve my RMS problems. They didn;t want me to take any pictures of this seal and they also said that they will deny any knowledge of the idea. I think they are very serious in marketing this. So, they asked if I want to be a guinee pig. Guess what I said........but of course. So when I get back from Spain, I will set the ball rolling for another RMS replacement but this time a GT3 CUP car seal mounted in reverse and fitted by my independent.....who I trust implicitly. The part itself is not generally available. But they know a source for it.

Berny Good to see you have switched to an independent, and that you are pleased with their attitude and expertise. It doesn't surprise me. Tech9 are expensive IMHO, but they do have a lot of experience. Sounds like they found an awful lot that your OPC didn't. That's a really novel approach to the RMS problem. We all await the outcome with bated breath! If it can fix yours, it will fix anyones! BTW, the source of the GT3 Cup car seal will probably be Porsche Motorsport Department in Germany.

Nic Getting back to the original thread, I find the failure rate quite alarming at 18.5%. I assume you didn't include Turbos, GT2's and GT3's in this survey (different engine types), which could make it even worse.

When I started Boxstering 6 years ago an independent mechanic told me they tried 993 seals, or something like that. Still leaked. I looked up the GT3 and 993 seal and they have the same part number. The size listed is 90 x 110 x 12. Makes sense since I think they both have the air cooled crankcase design. The Boxster/996 seal is 85 x 105 x 11. I am going to have to get my hands on a GT3/993 seal and ask a mechanic how or if they can get it in because there is a difference in size.

Berny, now that is interesting! But I know of another rather good independent that reads the Forum, so the idea is now in the public domain. If it works, and I mean really, long term works, I would love to see the picture of faces at the factory! Of course, we are seeing replacement seals being required at four to five years, but with low mileage. Maybe we have to accept these as a fact, and treat the seals as a long term consumable?

I have just done some number crunching on the 996 RMS survey There seems a peak failure rate in MY2001, and drop off since. Model_yr %fail Total, RMS_failure, No failure, 1998 20.6% 136 28 108 1999 21.2% 151 32 119 2000 23.8% 84 20 64 2001 29.4% 85 25 60 2002 16.0% 150 24 126 2003 14.3% 119 17 102 2004 5.1% 79 4 75 2005 0.0% 3 0 3 As for repeat failures, these seem mercifully low, with only 12 members over all saying this. Of course, the data is only as good as the forms sent in. I encourage members to send in any change, so we can keep the survey going, as the statistics over time will be very interesting.

Thanks for the detailed information Nic. Its not been easy for you to collect all this data and I appreciate the effort that you and others have done on our behalf. Just what it will mean for 996/986 owners in the short term/medium term with AG will remain to be seen. Many thanks once again.

Seems to me that if you are having the clutch done - which we all accept is a long term consumable - you should also have the RMS replaced because the marginal extra work is minimal. That would be fine if you had 100% confidence that fitting a new seal will have a 100% success rate. Or is it a case that if it ain't broke, don't fix it? What is is about these seals which fails anyway? Is it deterioration of the material or failure under temperature and pressure or what? Or is it a random combination of the material and the skill/care taken in installing it originally?

Mark, There are no answers to your questions. I think the way forward now is to collate detailed individual histories, that is, which seal type went in, inserted with which tool, to what depth, which bolts, any special sealing technique,. Then how long does it last? I will do this for any sent to me

Nic, Is it possible to normalise the figures for age? For example, I'd expect nearly new cars to show more RMS failures than new cars because they've had more time to go wrong. Likewise, eventually it should plateau once all the ones that are going to 'go' have done so. I don't know how you would do this (am not a statistician!) but if you just divide failure rate by age then back to MY 2001 you get a steadyish 5-7% pa. Then the pre-2001 cars are steadyish. That would suggest that the problem is ongoing [ ], but is a bit crude. Did the survey look at when the failure happened? That might answer this one.

Nic I have not received any survey but I would like to report the following. I have just imported my 996 from an OPC in Germany. My car is a manual 996 Turbo X50 LHD, with a first registration 26Jun02, MkII, with previous owner only Stuttgatrt, a factory car, with 40k, in showroom contition and with a year's extended guarantee. Guess what? I have a slightly "wet" patch at the RMS area, but obviously not serious enough to summon for a repair at the factory before released. I report this to show that the problem is evident across the spectrum of models and years.

That's surprising, I thought the 996 turbo GT2 and GT3 didn't suffer from RMS problems.

Panos, as Rodney says, the GT3 and Turbo are not considered to have the 986/996 RMS problem, but obviously arent completely exempt from oil leaks. Will be interesting if the fix is to replace the RMS.

Mike, I have done an analysis by model year and date and mileage the RMS was reported. This gives very interesting results.[ ] BUT the results are probably useless because: current owner was maybe unaware of RMS being replaced under warranty during first two years, or indeed by a previous owner. data reported may not be accurate. BUT here they are anyway (all for 996) BUT VERY APROX only Overall average 3 years and 23,000 miles For MY98 and 99, very few failures reported for first two years of ownership, most after 5 to 7 years. For MY00, the bulk reported after 4 to 5 years For MY01 most at 3-4 years For MY02, most after 3 years For MY03, most after 2 years like I said, interesting

Yes, very interesting. Looks like they all reacted at the same time to something that happened to the weather! [&:] Makes me feel better, though.

My 996 is going in to OPC Reading in 2 weeks to have the RMS done. When I first took it in 2 weeks ago for a minor service I commented on the oil around the Sump. The mechanic exclaimed " Oh no not another RMS"! Nic, have PCGB requested figures for RMS failures from Porsche GB given the closer tie up between our two organisations. They must have the official figures. Why don't they replace the RMS free of charge irrespective of whether the car has a warranty or not. Surely an almost 20% failure rate on a part should determine a free recall of all 996's? Thanks for your hard work in this matter, it's appreciated by all of us. Simon

Simon, when we first approached Porsche Cars GB over a year ago, we requested just this. In fact, they would never make an official statement but gave an unofficial figure based on supply of parts of only 8% failure. I requested to see the base data for this to check it covered all part numbers etc, but never got anywhere. For me personally, it is not so much an issue if the seal fails after five years, needs to be replaced when convenient, and you do the clutch at the same time, then the new seal lasts another five years. Some owners of low mileage cars have publicly disagreed with me over this, saying a failure at any age is a big deal, and that is their right. But I wont be their champion. Where I will weigh in, is failure at a young age, say in third or fourth year, and in particular, repeat failures, like for Berney. When I said the breakdown of the survey data was interesting, I meant, the newer the car, the earlier the failure occurred. I hope this is purely because the data isn't consistent across all the cars. Once we have Brands Hatch Festival out of the ay, I will re-survey the Boxster owners and maybe the 997 ones too. Simon, please send an email to Sarah at Club office with details of your car and RMS failure so she can update the survey

Nic Since the leak is only minimal, not a trace on the floor of the garage, and the car is not used excessively I will give it a few months and see how it goes. The car had the usual 111 points check at both OPC Nottingham & Cambridge and passed with all clear but tthe little wet patch. I will keep you posted of any developments.

Perhaps the earlier recognition of RMS failure in newer cars is due to awareness? Harry

Actually, it's my experience that some cars have an RMS issue early in their life (under initial warranty) and are fine thereafter.