RF5BPilot

In anticipation of loosening some rusted nuts/bolts on a vintage engine, what's your favorite, most effective penetrant? I used to like Thunderbolt -- but haven't seen it in years. What's your favorite?

Thanks Loren. It is happens rarely and doesn't last long (almost feels like a flakey ground....but it's not particularly repeatable like you often see with loose grounds). It would simply be my preference that, whatever it is, it gets handled under warranty (esp. as it started happening while under warranty). btw, happening or not, I have appreciated a warning from the system that it's an instrumentation issue rather than a genuine drop in pressure. Yet.....if it's the oil pressure sensor, how can the system tell it's not the engine? Are there two sensors or another source of oil pressure info?

Every few months, the oil pressure gauge on my 2003 996 drops to 0 with a warning of an instrument failure. I previously asked the dealership about it. They said there wasn't much to do (because it is working by the time I can get it there), but if it did it again, bring it in right away so they could read the error codes to see what to fix. It happened again today, I took the car in right away, they checked the error codes which confirmed that there was a problem somewhere in the wiring, the sender or the gauge. Nothing that we didn't know before. So, their best guess is that it is the sender and will replace it tomorrow under warranty (it's under warranty through April 28th). However they stress that if it doesn't happen again before the end of warranty, any gauge replacement, etc., won't be covered. The car is a CPO, so there's a small chance that it might be covered later under the CPO extension. But at the moment, it seems as if even though the problem started under warranty, I may get stuck later. A little frustrating. Any ideas? (There has not been any clear event that seems to trigger the failure. It's not as predictable as just going over a bump.)

Smart or not, I bought a 2003 from a dealer with a CPO and took the CPO to be equivalent to a PPI. (In mycase it also had a year of full warranty.) That said, the CPO does not cover a lot of the small electronic items, nor the consumables like shock, clutch or brakes. During the CPO they would have estimated the wear levels on the brakes & clutch. I'd want to see those numbers before the final deal. I'd also want to take some time to make sure every button/switch works as it should. It never hurts to have a PPI from someone other than the sales source but many have said that a paid PPI from a dealer is the same inspection they do for a CPO. (I can't confirm this.) Good luck.

Remember that the posts on Renntech/Rennlist are not representative of the majority of owners. A relatively small number of Porsche owners participate and even among those, the ones that post are ones who are more likely to have had problems. It would be challenging to have to read through thousands of posts of people saying, "No problem, here." Not unlike the evening news. If you base your entire view of a country or the world based on the evening news, then the whole place is falling apart. Even the posts about the Infamous RMS issue in 996's, if you look at the actual posters....relatively few people have experienced problems--but many have talked about it. (In some ways, it's stories of ghosts and boogey men around a camp fire. Often, more entertaining than factual.) Most people own their Porsches through a service-life of use with no major problems (that's why I prefer them). One of the good things about Porsches is that they are not high-wear cars. I have owned some Italian cars where it is assumed you will need to rebuild the engine every 15K-25K miles depending on how hard you drive them. Very gentle driving might get you 25K miles. I think most Porsches, with normal use, can get well over 100,000 miles before significant rebuilds are necessary. Will the occasional water pump, etc., go bad? Of course. It's a car. That said, taking any newly-purchased, used car on a long trip for the first time you ever use it, has an element of gambling to it. The newer the car & lower the miles--the lower the risk. If I bought a car at a long distance from home, I would seriously consider having it transported (at least the majority of the way)....if nothing else, because those are long, not-particularly-interesting miles to put on the car. Yet, I used to regularly buy used cars in Atlanta, GA and drive them home to Ohio (8-10hr drive); never thought twice about it and never had a problem that genuinely disabled the car. It did feel like a good way to get used to them. Good luck.

Actually, I took my '03 006 to the dealer about this last week. If I set the temp to 64F, the cabin still warms up well past that. The service writer said that the system bases how much heat it adds on the temp of the incoming air, so it might well heat up beyond the temp set. If it seems warm, turn it off or open a window. This didn't make sense to me. Why have a temp setting if the system essentially ignores it?

Don't worry about the interior pics of Gabrelle. I think those are for a different forum. ;)

It seems that part of the question is, "Would you get unusual handling characterisitcs from different width sidewalls, front and rear?"

I guess my biggest concerns would be color matching and differences due to fading over time.

By 2003, it seems that the frequency of RMS problems was reduced. I have never heard of any claims that the type of transmission makes any difference. Some have claimed that the RMS is more frequent in cars that are driven less....but I don't know that there is any solid evidence to support that. It's not wildly expensive to repair and is covered by most extended warranties. Other issues related to how well the car has been treated will probably make a bigger difference in the car's dependability & cost of ownership.

I have an '03 996 with the original battery and have been considering proactively replacing the battery rather than waiting to get stuck somewhere. (Sorry....I know....no sense of adventure!) I have a Porsche trickle charger that is attached through the cigarette lighter socket. Can it be left plugged in during a battery replacement so I don't have to deal with lost codes, etc.? Or is there a better way to maintain current in the necessary circuits? (I'd hate to count on it, only to have it kick off because it didn't detect a battery.) Thanks.

It has a stock shifter. Last year was my first winter. It did the same thing--but with only 9-10K miles on it, I wondered if it were just a low-mileage issue. Seems that by 18K, nothing should be too tight. On cold days, it really does not want to go into 3rd without excess pressure. It is still under full warranty--so will make sure I can replicate the symptom, then leave it at the dealer's overnight so they can check it in the morning.

As the NW enters 40 degree weather, I again find that during the first 5-10 minutes of driving, my '03 996 (18K mi) just doesn't want to shift into 3rd gear. 1st & 2nd are ok, but baulks at third. As the car warms, shifting becomes progressively easier. The colder the day, the longer the warm up needed before I can use third. Tried the old truck method of double clutching while going up through the gears (i.e., pulling into neutral, letting out the clutch--but no blip with the throttle like you would if you were matching gear speeds going downward) -- but has no effect. The car is still under warranty. Is this typical or is there something the dealer should adjust? Thanks.

Sometimes I just refer to it as a Karmann Ghia. Nice one, eh?

I have had an '03 for over a year now. Have not experienced any problems. Have searched the threads on different boards during the last year and have never found any mention of specific problems for the '03 996. In general, they seem to have fewer problems than many of the earlier years. I like its engine, seating and handling better than my previous '96 993. It would be nice if 996's kept their value as well as the 993's. In conversations with other Porsche owners, not many seem to have been aware of the Mk II update in '02. An '03 in good condition seems like a good choice. (Being unbiased....)

Drive the car that puts a smile on your face. FWIW, when I decided to get another Porsche, everything I read indicated that the Boxster was a better buy--if not a better car. Better value for the money, better handling, etc. I went to the dealership simply to confirm that it was the car I wanted. However, during the test drive, I just could not "make friends" with the suspension on the rougher roads in our area. Very disappointing. Returned from the test drive and drove an '03 996 Cab and it was like coming home again (after owning 3 Porsches in the past). While the ride was firm, it was pliant; better sense of interior room; handling that was familiar to me. So, I left with the '03 996. Part of your experience about a car is how you feel about it. For some years I owned a '67 Fiat Dino (with the Ferrari Formula II V-6 engine). The car's value went down the first day the factory put the Fiat badge on it (although it was never built by Fiat and had almost no Fiat parts on it {it was built by Pinninfarina & later in the Ferrari factory}). The first thing a number of owners do is pull the Fiat badges off the car; some go so far as to find "dancing horses" to put on the front grill. I was talking to a friend one day who was proud to have grown a particular flower in her garden. Some visitors walked by and started laughing. The plant was a weed in their part of the country. So, we tend to value what there is less of or harder to come by -- regardless of its inherent qualities. Drive what puts a smile on your face. A Noble? Model A? WWII Duck? You see some kids driving their first car, a real junker, like it's the greatest thing ever made....while the Ferrari owner scowls because it's not an Enzo....or a gold plated Enzo....or....

Some cars, in good weather, drive with full fog lights on.....so you can be forced to drive behind a car with an uncomfortably bright, rear light. Short of Stooge slapping them, there seems to be little solution. I suppose, like some engineers want on high-end airplanes, you could add a dog as a copilot--that bites you every time you reach for the controls. People shouldn't own cars if they can't even manage simple controls. Seems like I've seen this more on Jaguars than any other marque.

I, like you, have been looking at posts for over a year and have never seen anyone with a compatible unit to the MOST system. A local high-end shop that installed my Escort SRX indicated that they had never seen a compatible NAV or head unit. Their only option so far was to replace everything back to the amp. Their clients often replaced the speakers as well. Not an inexpensive undertaking.

There is no loudness option on my menus. That sounds like the same as mine, although I don't know where to find the "speaker box" (which I assume would be a subwoofer). I had a longer drive yesterday and spent time fiddling with it some more. Found, oddly enough to me, that the radio sounded pretty good, but the CD's sounded flat. So, will try some different CD's--but that seems to be the main issue. (Previously, I have rarely listened to the radio.)

I suspect that you're thinking about a different RF5/RF5B: http://members.cox.net/motorgliders/RF5B-N99809.html

I didn't know that this year had an ambient noise adjustment. No mention of it in the manual. Since the adjustments seem to affect the midrange as much as the actual high's & low's, I've left the treble at 0 and the bass at +3. I think the radio in my Ford Ranger sounds better than this one. Albeit, the Ranger doesn't generate as much tire noise from our rough roads here. For what it's worth, I'm not against upgrading, but it would be nice to confirm that the current system is actually working correctly before I start considering alternatives.

I would not classify myself as an audio aficionado, but I have never been pleased with the audio in my 2003 C2 Cab. The midrange always seems too loud, not a lot of treble & bass (almost no sparkle to the music and not a lot of richness). My ‘03 has the Bose upgrade with a standard Becker head (I guess it is a 320). Although the radio manual talks about sound presets (like Classical, Jazz, etc.) these never show up on my display. I only have treble & bass controls -- and these don't seem to make the music sound much better. Also, even if I set them, two or three trips later, if I check them, I often find that they have been reset to “0”--no adjustment. (...especially if I have gone back and forth between radio & CD). At one point, I took it to the dealer (it is still under full warranty) because the radio was not turning on, or would spontaneously turn itself on & off. They said the amp was bad & replaced it--which cured the operational symptoms. With the engine off or at slow speeds, it's not too bad. On the road with tire noise (even with top or or with the hard top on), I can turn it up, it gets loud, but is never very rich sounding. I took it back to the dealer who said that sitting with the engine off, you could hear plenty of bass--so the amp was working. They also said that with the Bose upgrade, it eliminates the sound presets (e.g., Classical) and just replaces them with treble & bass controls—as most of the sound shaping is supposed to be done by the speakers. So, everything (in their opinion) was working correctly. - Am I expecting too much? Does this sound normal for a stock system? - I think the system probably has the fiber optic connections which makes upgrades a big deal--having to replace both the head and the amp. Is that so? Thanks.

Others can give you better advice, but Raby talks about rattling as a symptom of intermediate shaft failure. http://www.autofarm.co.uk/engines/water_cooled/press There are probably other, more likely and less expensive explanations for this sound.

Aviation fuel is 100LL (100 octane "Low Lead")....which is somewhat of a misnomer as it actually contains fairly high quantities of lead. So much so, that aviation piston engines have a continuing problem of having the plugs lead-fouled and other areas of the piston/valve assemblies coated with the stuff. Higher octane means that a fuel is actually harder to burn. That's needed so you don't get spontaneous combustion in engines with unusually high compression. So, to some extent, car manufacturers try to run the lowest octane they can that does not allow detonation. Going to higher octane for no reason will simply decrease your fuel efficiency. The lead in standard aviation fuel will trash your emission systems and foul the engine. When possible, many airplane owners get special permits to run unleaded autofuel. A few aviation engines specifically permit it. So, aviation fuel is not an advantage....nor is unnecessarily higher octane. It has nothing to do with "higher power" in the fuel, it just permits higher compression in your engine. If you haven't modified your engine to get unusually high compression, just use standard fuels and get a better fuel burn.

I have had my '03 Cab for a little over a year. The top has been down 95% of the time...either because it was nice weather, or the hard top was on for the winter. I see no particular creases or wear when I raise it for the occasional cold or rainy day. I do put a cotton cover over the car while it's in the garage. It stays cleaner (inside & out) and has a reduced chance of being scratched.