Another IMS Failure

Took my 2006 BS with Tiptronic in for a 45K oil change and check up at my Indy Porsche . Got bad news. The first call of the day was to inform me I have a crack in my coolant reservoir that will cost about $1000 . About 2 hours later, I got a call that he also found metal flakes in my oil filter and he was diagnosing an IMS Bearing failure (he has done over 13 of these so he knows what he is doing) . No hint of this came up on my PPI 10 months ago and 5K miles! The first owner never been tracked the car, oil changes we done using Mobile 1 5W 40 every 5K-well ahead of minimum suggested Porsche intervals, and the car was maintained maticulously. So, it seems obvious to me this is strictly a 'luck of the draw" thing that arrises out of an inherent design flaw and that excessive preventative maintenance provides little in the way of insurance against. I thought all along I was in better shape since I bought an '06 instead of an '05, but with Porsche 's inconsitancy during that transition period and a build date of 11/05, it looks like I got the old '05 IMS design. I was extremely lucky that I caught this before it blew the engine because there were no funny noises or telltale oil leaks to give me a hint . UPDATE 6/8/12: BASED ON A VERY EXPERIENCED MECHANIC WHO HAS DONE 2 DOZEN IMS REPAIRS, AND HIS FINDINGS OF 1 MM FEROUS SHAVINGS IN THE OIL FILTER, I AUTHORIZED DIAGNOSTIC REMOVAL OF TRANSMISSION TO VIEW THE SUSPECTED FAILING IMS. JUST GOT A CALL BACK THAT THAT IT IS NOT FAILING AND IS IN FACT THE DOUBLE ROW INHANCED IMS SHAFT AND BEARING ASSYMBLY FOUND IN M97 ENGINES! THE LN UPGRADE CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT CRACKING THE ENGINE CASE. SEE MY DISCUSSIONS BELOW This confirms to me that if you want to drive these 986 and Gen 1 987 Boxster's, that the only way to avoid this problem for sure is to bite the bullet and do the LN bearing change as preventative maintenance. Otherwise you take your chances and suffer the consequences. On the positive side, I love the car and am getting the work done without tearing down the engine and without the catastrophic failure normally associated with it. I will get to drive the car for the forseable future without having to worry so much about this issue anymore (it was always in the back of my mine). At least given what we know now about the longevity of the LM retrofit kit .

I've been away for few days from this forum but then again here we are facing another sad story about another victim... Do you have blue paint on your engine, Michael? How many miles do you have on your engine?

If he caught it in time, he saved you a lot of money. I do not know if you can install the LN engineering solution in the newer cars without an engine breakdown. Best of luck, and keep us informed!

No blue paint showing and just turned to 45,000 mi. All numbers matching and no history of prior failure.

Any chance you can take a picture of the filter if they still have it. I am curious what the particles look like and how much was present in your filter. I am looking at a similar situation.

He has an 06 Boxster with the 3.2, so it is much easier to upgrade the bearing. Only the transmission needs to be dropped. The 3.4 requires the engine to be dropped and the case split to replace the bearing. Much more labor intensive and costly unfortunately.

Michael, sorry to hear about your engine problems, you can't lump a 2006 Boxster into the same pool as the 1st generation Caymans and certainly not the 2nd gens. The 2007 Boxster and the 1st gen Cayman have a different engine "M97" with an upgraded IMS bearing. The 2nd gens have a totally different engine all toghether. Has anyone reported an IMS failure on a Cayman, 2007 Boxster or newer? I'm way more concerned about the oil starvation and rod bolts than the IMS on my 07 CaymanS. I have the LN magnetic drain plug which I got as one of my first upgraded more to keep track of overall engine wear during breakin. Plus for added protection, I rigged up some super magnets on the outside of plastic oil filter case (from old hard drives, a rubber strip and zip ties). It works pretty well collecting a thin film of metal particles against the inside of the cover. Could always buy one of those magnetic sleeves. Good luck with your repairs!

I will see if I can get a picture. Not is town this week but will try. He described it as more of a 'flake' then a particle and that is what he has seen in the past on his experience in repairing 13 of these (he used to work at the Scottsdale Porsche dealership for many years).

You are correct that I should not have included the Gen 1 Cayman which has the M97 engine in 2006 (unless you are in the UK which did have the M96 in early MY '05 production runs). I made an edit to make the correction. My engine is the M96 with the less robust IMS design. What is confounding for many including me is the fact that some Gen 1 987 BS's got the upgraded IMS bearing and others didn't, and it there is no hard transiiton date. I have read on this site of some midyear '05 986 BS builds got the upgraded IMS and my early build (11/05) 987 BS got the old style. Go figure! Porsche using left over inventory to save money I guess!

Just out of curiosity, what's the full engine code listed for your engine on your build sheet (possibly on a sticker under your trunk lid)? Mine is a May 2006 build Boxster S , and the code is given as M96 -626 (no failures yet, knock on wood). Just wonder if yours is the same.

JST-my engine code is M96.26 and my manufacture date was 11/05 Boxster S. Not sure if one of us is missing or has an extra '6' but it looks to be the same. Not sure the engine code identifies the IMS type though.

Some interesting discussion here, both of the failure modes and of the meaning of the engine codes. IMS failure with LN engineering... - 6speedonline.com Forums They're talking about 911s, and the codes he mentions are in the nature of M96/05. Does the "2" in the second position of our engine codes denote Boxster/Cayman use? EDIT: And I just went down and checked, and what my build sheet says is: M9626-626

Send the engine number to Charles Navarro at L&N Engineering and he will tell you if you have the IMS bearing that requires the case to be split for replacement.

Can I ask for more comments on why people say that automatics are more prone to IMS failures and that low revs around town are not good for the engine. Mine is a 2008 Box with Tip. 9 quarts of oil and these bearings are sealed..so you are not oiling this bearing with higher revs...its friggin sealed..and the location of the bearing is not that high. Mine wants to runs around 2K rpms in town..

The short answer is that one of the alleged sources of the problem is a failure of the bearing seal, which lets oil in and eventually washes the grease out. As long as the oil continues to get in and lubricate the bearing, the theory goes, everything is OK--it's once the bearing is dry of grease and insufficient oil gets in that you have a problem. The LN engineering link I posted above is the most comprehensive discussion I've seen of the issue, but if you search both here and at Renn Tech you'll find dissenters who aren't sure that LN has it completely right. I am not an engineer, so I have no idea who's right and who's wrong.

Jeepers this bearing thing scares me to death ! I keep reading of failures in the US but am not aware of any in the UK. Mine is a Cayman S 06 987 so I think I might be ok ? I emailed by local OPC a couple of months ago and they said its covered by the warranty - is it really ?

Paul: Very unusual for a 987 IMS bearing failure. Almost all of the problems you hear about turn out to be 986 cars. I change oil at 5,000 miles. More if I do track schools. I use 5w40 Total at the recommendation of my tech instead of 0w40 Mobil 1 . I have near 60K on my car and no problems. I try to use the top half of the rev range now and then after the car is fully warmed up. I've heard that a lot of the failures are on cars that never get revved beyond 2500...like on automatics that are driven in traffic all the time. Hope that helps, and puts your mind at ease a little. Somewhere, I think on this thread, I heard that there were more '06 Caymans made than the whole run of Gen 2 cars. :crazy: So, you're in good company. :cheers:

Re: Another IMS Failure-MISDIAGNOSIS! UPDATE 6/8/12: BASED ON A VERY EXPERIENCED MECHANIC WHO HAS DONE 2 DOZEN IMS REPAIRS, AND HIS FINDINGS OF 1 MM FEROUS SHAVINGS IN THE OIL FILTER, I AUTHORIZED DIAGNOSTIC REMOVAL OF TRANSMISSION TO VIEW THE SUSPECTED FAILING IMS. JUST GOT A CALL BACK THAT THAT IT IS NOT FAILING AND IS IN FACT THE DOUBLE ROW INHANCED IMS SHAFT AND BEARING ASSYMBLY FOUND IN M97 ENGINES! THE LN UPGRADE CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT CRACKING THE ENGINE CASE. SEE MY DISCUSSIONS BELOW . I have really mixed feelings about this. I am glad to find I have the new inhanced M97 IMS assymbly since these seem to have a very low failure rate. This is one of the reasons I bought the '06 over the '05 but my mechanic assured me I had the 986 single row style of bearing based on my 11/05 build date, so I went forward with the investigation. On the the other hand, I am really pissed this has been misdiagnosed and now I am in negociations about how the cost to do the diagnostic will be shared and I don't get squat out of it! Now the real mystery here is what is the source of these shavings that looked so much like a failing bearing? Another owner in this thread above is seeking answers to the same question. Any suggestions on what is fair in terms of sharing the cost of this misdiagnosis with the shop? I have been a 10 year customer and have spent lots of money over the years so I would hope that will count. Any other suggestions about this situation? I am sure their are lessons here for many.

I'm glad you have the revised part, since it tends to confirm that the 06s are lower risk for this problem than the earlier cars. Sorry to hear that it hasn't solved your problem. As for how to deal with the diagnosis--I would be friendly but would suggest that since this turned out to be an expensive wild goose chase, I'd like the shop to cover the costs of actually getting to the bottom of the problem (within reason).

Your mechanic was able to see the bearing is fine without doing any disassembly except fro dropping the transmission? That is interesting and good to know. My mechanic also said it was definitely the IMS , but I had doubts, and this confirms those doubts. I have no idea what it could be then. I will be sending a sample of my oil out for analysis soon and hopefully that will shed some light on to where the metal is coming from as it appears a handful of us have the same metal shavings in our filters and therefore the same problem.

I think he meant that the mechanic could see he had the larger bearing without disassembling the engine, not that he could tell the condition.

Re: Another IMS Failure-MISDIAGNOSIS! So let me get this straight. You have an 06, your mechanic "knew" you had a single row bearing, even though it was an 06 (although you knew there was a reasonable probablity that indeed you did have the upgraded bearing). Due to paranoia, you authorized a diagnostic service, that found that indeed it was not a single row bearing, and you do not have to spend money to fix it (which is good news), and now you don't want to pay for the service? I don't get it................... The main lesson is that internet paranoia will usually bite you.................

My main point is this - you agreed to have work done on your car with your mechanic based on a given senario and assumptions that you both understood, and you don't want to pay him for his work since he did not find anything obviously wrong. That is what I don't get........ Any suggestions on what is fair in terms of sharing the cost of this misdiagnosis with the shop?

To the OP, In re-reading this I now see that you have an 06 BoxsterS, not CaymanS , so from that perspective, I certainly agree with your concern over the single row bearing, and I would have assumed as you did, that it is a single row. My apoligies for missing that point (kind of a big one), and I take back my undo paranoia statement, although I also still beleive that it this a issue is a bit overblown but I do know several 996/ 986 owners that have had IMS failures (but no 987 owers)! :cheers: However, my position regarding paying for the investigative work does not change.

O.k., so check the metal "shavings" in the oil. Are they all ferrous, i.e. magnetic. Are they aluminum alloys (they will dissolve in caustic)? And finally, are they soft like bearing metal (lead bearing alloys will have a low melting temperature)? This could give you some clues as to the source of the wear problem. Or, ... send the oil filter samples to a laboratory for analysis.

One question: how do we know that the mechanic actually contacted Porsche instead of saying to himself "I know what the f*ck I'm doing, I've done these dozens of times"?

In2Esses-We all expect a professional and competent level of knowledge to guide our decisions in these instances. They screwed up on 2 things they should have shown more competancy with. First, the bearing seal is intact and not showing any signs of failure so they arrived at the wrong conclusion that preciptated this whole drama. Second they should have known that the vast majority of 06 Boxster S 's have the upgraded M97 IMS and not the older M96 single row bearing. This never came up as a possibility. If it had it is unlikely I would have authorized the investigation because of the purported reliability of the upgraded M97 IMS and the fact that I would have to tear the engine apart at tremendous expense to find out anything definitive. This is like a surgeon performing unnecessary exploratory surgery based on a misdiagnosis and this my friend is called MALPRACTICE. I am more than happy to pay for competent service but not incompetent service. As it turns out the shop agrees with me and won't be asking me to cough up 15 hours of unnecessary labor at $140 per hour. They are only asking me to pay the mechanic's salary for 1.5 days so I think that is fair considering I also had to rent a car for a week at my expense. I agreed to this because I understand I shared a part in the decision to move forward and at least I know now What kind of IMS I have. Get it now In2Esses?

Thanks for this suggestions Gasman. The shavings were indeed ferrous but I will send in an oils sample for analysis.

Are you sure that metal shavings are not from the thread of the oil pan (where the oil bolt, well, bolts)? Are they long and fine, like parts of metal helix (the size of parts of a clipped nail)? You can see all of the oil pan thread from below (with the bolt out of course), if there are missing parts at the end then you know where the shavings come from (usually when changing oil, shops tend to over tight the bolts, and this is an aluminum thread)

I had the same thought, but some of the metal is more of a flake than a sliver and not consistent with stripped metal from a thread.

and, are the flakes soft, can be easily bent or break with your nail? do it looks like a paint flake, more alum color? I dont know for sure, but I am pretty sure that metal from IMS (or any bearing) should be extremely hard and very shiny

The flakes are extremely thin. Thinner than paper even. I haven't really tried, but I amm sure they would bend and break with little pressure because they are so thin. I would say they have more of an aluminum look. Dullish and not shiny metal.

All these complaints yet when I searched the NHTSB site I didn't find 1 complaint for the IMS failure for Boxster , Cayman or Carrera . If everyone filed a complaint maybe they would force Porsche to do a recall or at least pay the people who have had the thing replaced. As well we may get some real numbers on how bad (or not) it is: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/ Bob James

This doesn't really qualify as a safety defect though. It is a mechanical issue which can lead to mechanical failure.

It's not judt about safety, read through some of the complaints. If there is a know problem, or a problem that is rampant in the design/manufacturing process, they would push the maker to fix.

I didn't realize that. Thanks.

Re: Actual NHTSA Failure Reports So given that these have been reported (remember our campaign to report the Cayman engine oiling/bearing/rod problems) why does the NHTSA do nothing about it? I never received a reply to my submission. Not even a "thanks for submitting"

The NHTSA reports show no IMS problems at all for the '06 Boxter S, but several for the Cayman S . If the engines are the same, it seems there should be a more even distribution of IMS problems between the CS and the BS. Interesting, unless the BS owners are not reporting. I have '06 Boxter S (built 05/05) with over 50,000 miles and no problems, but every time I read of these IMS problems, I cringe. Guess I should get it checked. I love both my Porsches, but if I didn't own the BS and was reading this forum, it would make me not want to even think about buying one. Cheers

That is goods news re the 2006 Boxster S . The engines are not the same in the 2006 Boxster S and 2006 Cayman S , as the former has a 3.2 liter M96 .26 engine and the latter a 3.4 liter M97.21 engine. On the other hand, my research shows that they have the same IMS bearing and assembly.

Thanks Professor. My bad on that one. It is an interesting conundrum with the IMS situation being on both engines, but no complaints registered with the BS.

i'm almost afraid to ask what the blue paint means... Please elaborate.