17 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHOld IMSB Return To LNE (WHY?)
Reported or suspected cause
original unit
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 · Original poster
So the reason the bearing was replaced was due to a failing original unit.
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
Somewhere out there a 996 is driving around with a single row bearing installed 1/2 way into the IMS shaft, because the car was supposed to have a dual row installed (a dual row was sent in as the old bearing) and the bearing that was fitted was a single row.
Leading evidence: 'original unit' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'original unit' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Install 1/2 way into the ims shaft' (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
Somewhere out there a 996 is driving around with a single row bearing installed 1/2 way into the IMS shaft, because the car was supposed to have a dual row installed (a dual row was sent in as the old bearing) and the bearing that was fitted was a single row.
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 · Original poster
So the reason the bearing was replaced was due to a failing original unit.
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 really wanted the 5k paper weight in my mancave next to my piston that is used for my cigar ash!
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Install 1/2 way into the ims shaft
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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
Somewhere out there a 996 is driving around with a single row bearing installed 1/2 way into the IMS shaft, because the car was supposed to have a dual row installed (a dual row was sent in as the old bearing) and the bearing that was fitted was a single row.
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.
17 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: 20261027T044418Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
So, I had an LNE Retrofit IMSB put in my 996 a few weeks ago. The Indy gave me the registration/warrantee card. On the card it states I must return the Card
AND
the old stock bearing to LN Engineering. What is the reason that I have to send in my old IMSB to them?
Thanks.
@Charles Navarro
will see this thread and respond or you could message him and I'm sure he would respond promptly. response above seems a likely reason but you ask a fair question.
So the reason the bearing was replaced was due to a failing original unit. A very small amount of metal was noticed in the filter material during an oil change. The car was taken to the shop immediately (within 10 miles of discovery) and the bearing replaced. The removed original bearing showed signs of spalling on the inner race and the cage had separated on one side.
So, IAW with the LN Engineering terms and conditions, my situation and subsequent installation doesn't meet conditions for any warrantee of the LN Retrofit IMSB. Am I reading that right?
This is way beyond my minimal level of knowledge but I�d suggest having a talk with your installer and perhaps LN engineering about your precise situation. Did you go with one of LN�s preferred/certified installers? The installer should have told you whether
they felt it would qualify or not.
Here�s a video explaining the four stages of failure. Jake Raby discusses the pre qualification process around 2:50.
https://youtu.be/hX2k6b0ywGc
Correct.. It is also done to ensure the proper unit was ordered as the replacement. There have been issues where someone would order a certain bearing kit, and the bearing that was returned wasn't compatible, sending up a red flag that was created by the wrong installer doing the work.
Somewhere out there a 996 is driving around with a single row bearing installed 1/2 way into the IMS shaft, because the car was supposed to have a dual row installed (a dual row was sent in as the old bearing) and the bearing that was fitted was a single row. This is what happens when you find the cheapest guy to do this type of work. It is occurring frequently these days, and some have been registered after being installed at Midas muffler, or an Aamco transmission shop.
There are reasons for all of the things I put into place for the IMSR program, some of them won't make sense to drivers. Once I created all the protocols I left it all behind, and don't miss it. At all.
Makes prefect sense given the impact of any mistakes here. I�m sure others have gone further out of their way than me but I passed up 2 other �experienced� installers much closer to me to go to one that was on the preferred installer list. It felt great seeing my VIN on the registry a few weeks later.
Using the program the way it was intended is what the wise owner takes advantage of. Cutting corners will always compromise some aspect of the final outcome.
I kept my old bearing (larger single row - 997). I figured that the coolness factor of having it along with a small single row that came with another car I owned briefly outweighed the need for warranty given the low failure probability.
So far so good.
LN said they would ship mine back for a small handling and shipping fee after inspection and registration.
I really wanted the 5k paper weight in my mancave next to my piston that is used for my cigar ash!
