13 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHNew to Porsche- IMS question
Reported or suspected cause
solution in 2010 are pretty slim
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
The odds that it was the Solution in 2010 are pretty slim.
Leading evidence: 'solution in 2010 are pretty slim' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'solution in 2010 are pretty slim' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check /' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I replaced the IMSB and the one that came out was no different from the original.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Although they may have replaced the rear main seal with an upgraded seal.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
Nevertheless, if they did do the IMSB, it was most likely the Retro, which has long since timed out and needs to be replaced.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
In the case of my one owner car, the dealer would not tell me why the transmission was removed and replaced reported in the CarFax, but it was likely to fix the RMS.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
13 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T113718Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hello, just picked up a 2002 996.2, one owner and always serviced at Porsche. My question- it looks like thru the CarFax that the clutch was "replaced" at 29,453 miles in 2010 (car currently has 66K miles on it). I am wondering- if they serviced the clutch, would they not have done the IMS at the same time? It doesn't look like the CarFax system has a category for IMS.
Welcome to the 996 club. You will have a blast with it.
Cant remember the year that LN rolled out the Retro which was then followed by the Solution, but it was around that time. I did the Retro in 2010, which was the time that everybody started to realize that there was an IMSB problem that could be addressed with the Retro when doing your clutch.
Depending on whether it was ever registered at LN or not, you can always call the Porsche dealer to confirm if it was ever done. While they may not give you copies of the historical service records, they may be able to confirm if the Retro or Solution was ever done on the car.
Fwiw, in 2010, I never sent in my registration to LN for my Retro. Quite frankly, I knew Charles from the Chicago PCA and didnt worry about registration or any warranty. It was a viable solution that made sense to do and then i moved on to the next enhancement. The previous owner of your car may not have registered it either. Nevertheless, if they did do the IMSB, it was most likely the Retro, which has long since timed out and needs to be replaced. The odds that it was the Solution in 2010 are pretty slim. But you never know.
You can also look around the frunk hood or door to see if there is a LN sticker. But like I mentioned earlier, many of us just put in the Retro and drove the car without a worry knowing that we would have to replace it in the future as it timed out or eventually decide to go with the Solution which was a permanent fix.
As a side note, I am on my 2nd Retro. The first was in perfect shape when it was removed. Even after lots of track days. I'll eventually go to the Solution in the next couple of years when I decide on what I want to do with my elective engine rebuild. Until then, I am not loosing any sleep over my Retro.
Good luck tracking it down.
My thoughts too...Somebody must have hamnered the poor thing. Don't believe as gospel anything from CarFax. Since the car is a 2002, you MAY have the more robust dual row IMSB or the weak single row IMSB. You won't know until you pull it. Save your pennies and schedule to have it replaced. Then you will know what is in there. Porsche services typically repair/replace only what is busted, so probably nothing was done regarding the IMSB. Although they may have replaced the rear main seal with an upgraded seal. Again, you will never know until you open it up.
^^^This.
My Porsche Indy did the Retro for me in 2010. At that time the dealers generally stuck with OEM parts. Today is a different story on the 996. So you may or may not find if the dealer changed the IMSB. It would wise to find a great indy that specializes in the M96M97 engine and replace with a Retro or Solution.
Thanks for all the great info on this! It is definately a fun car, so different than the BMW's I've owned.
I will look for those stickers. In the meantime, I've contacted the dealer where all of the service has been done, and I'll be continuing service with them.
Nothing wrong with the Porsche dealer that serviced it if you can get past service info, fair prices and quality work. Good luck with the journey. I've had my 2002 for 22 years and don't ever plan on getting rid of it. Too much fun.
Here are some diagnostics for you. Can you post the exact wording from the CarFax on the clutch replacement here? We can give a better idea on what actually happened if the dealer won't share that information. If they do report to you, that would be helpful, but an actual inspection by you can determine if they installed the IMS Solution. Look at the oil filter. If it is a metal can and there is a stainless braided line from the filter to the bearing, you have an IMS Solution and you are home free. If you don't have an IMS Solution from LNE, then you still need to replace the bearing.
The fact that it was a one owner and you have the CarFax is definitely a plus. In the case of my one owner car, the dealer would not tell me why the transmission was removed and replaced reported in the CarFax, but it was likely to fix the RMS. I replaced the IMSB and the one that came out was no different from the original.
Yours is a cab, right?
Even if the IMS bearing was changed in 2010, it would have received a single row 106-08.2 kit, which is well past its service interval at this time. I'd just make the assumption that it needs to be serviced, and by chance if it does have one in there, you can then take advantage of the
mail in rebate available when upgrading an IMS Retrofit bearing
.
Nice find. I bought the same car in hardtop on Christmas 2024, but more owners. When going into the purchase I figured that I immediately would have to invest $5K + in repairs. You should have the same mindset, but if it was a 1 owner car, you may do much better than the average. My IMS was on the imsretrofit site as well, but is due for replacement because of age.
