Great visual understanding on the IMS bearing (VIDEO)

I do not know if it's been posted here before but I thought this video would be really helpful for people that want to visually understand how the bearing operates and why it may fail...20m clip but the first 12m or so is really what you need! https://youtu.be/hzUq2DFpeKw

Anxiously waiting for Jake's reply

There's our buddy Pedro!

Quotes source post: 12115679

Never argue with a fool... The people standing around won't know which one is which.

"Never argue with a fool... The people standing around won't know which one is which."

Very informative video, and great job explaining in terms that anyone can understand. He'd get my business in a heartbeat if he was local. How does the oil stay circulating?

I like when people can talk and work problems out with each other... I would always respect someone's opinions as long as they are cordial and make sense to me... I am not an engineer, yet I can follow and understand what Mr. Pedro and what Mr. Jake are talking about. I have a new updated bearing in my "Refreshed" motor and hopefully will not need Mr. Pedro's or Mr. Jake's products for a while. When the time comes for a preventative item or a whole new setup I hope the discourse is still going on since it will only cause the products to evolve and get better. Rant off...

I don't know Jake personally, I do know Pedro. Nice guy. That said the DOF makes no sense to me because the same centrifugal force that he claims causes the bearing to shed oil from splash/immersion will also repel a stream of oil sprayed at the spinning bearing.

Quotes source post: 12116255

While I'm not a fan of the DOF (or other IMSB solutions), while the spinning bearing will throw off/shed oil the oil stream is continuous. At something like 60psi oil will get to the bearing.

Quotes source post: 12116255

Then consider aeration, and how that comes into play engine- wide.

Here is a link that has a $/time comparison chart at the bottom. For the same price as The DOF TuneRS/Pedro product ,you can get the LN Single Row Pro. Don't forget to add the cost of special tools. http://www.thepopularmechanic.com/Po...MSOptions.html

seems pretty logical and good solution.

I'm an EE, not a ME, but I've been around moving, flinging, flying, noisy things for pretty much all my life since I was 10 and built my first go cart with a mower engine. In that time, it's been my experience that there's never only a single way to engineer something. This is true in my field previous of nuclear engineering. We have a pressurized water reactor, and a boiling water reactor. We had Fat Man which was implosion of shaped charge, and Little Boy which was a gun type critical mass, we have U fired plants, and Pu fired plants for differing reasons. They all do the job as designed, and some ways are better than others. In my current field we are well known for our technology, but honestly, our competitors product will get the job done. Maybe not as fast, but it'll get done. Sad to see a respected member of the 996 community bad-mouthing the competition. Extra sad because the engineering of the oil feed system looks very sound to me. We've been oiling bearings, journals, and the like for many, many years and all the fuss about the ancillary effects of the oiling process are like stray neutrons in the reactor. Meh - stuff happens. Does the DOF divert too much oil for the bearing that engine lube is compromised? Hell no. Does the DOF exacerbate air entrainment/foaming of the oil? Possibly, but looking at the discharge orifice, gee, how much oil is going through there, and how much of that oil is being aereated? Doesn't look like much in a system that uses about 8 quarts? Does the DOF cause the existing bearing to wear quicker? Hell no. Is there skidding/flat-spotting of the ball in the race? I don't know, but if there is, show it to me. No one has a lock on engineering. If this product doesn't do what it is sold for, it'll start failing prematurely, and then you can show me some data. But - predicting failure modes? Yah - you should have been at Porsche when the first IMS was designed so you could predict that one. uh-huh. If I have a 996 in the future, I sure would consider the DOF, it looks elegant to me, and the cost is reasonable considering the alternative situation of a blown engine. BTW, I have no affiliation with DOF, or whatever their name is. <edit: I just remembered something, if aeration is a problem, then the engine is fitted with an AOS right? As long as the system is working, and the vent is at the right pressure, that should not be overwhelmed by this small amount of added jetted oil.>

Lotta info here, very informative for all 996 owners!

The factory AOS isn't there to handle foamy oil, its placed in a position where it helps to reduce airborne mist and vapors, and is fitted as an emissions control device. If the AOS wasn't there, a road draft tube or catch can would be fitted, neither of which are environmentally friendly. The devices in the engine that are fitted to assist in the control of aerated oil are the swirl pots. These are fed with oil from the secondary oiling system and direct oil thats gathered by the scavenge pumps located in each cylinder head, back to the sump. This is done by passing the oil through a series of circuits in the crankcase, where the oil passages meet at the parting line of each case half. From there the oil passes through a pair of swirl pots with a tangential flow thats designed to reduce aeration as the oil falls from suspension within the swirl pot. When the oil completes this cycle it is fed back into the sump, where it is hopefully de-aerated. The issue with this is the factory system is marginal at best and isn't adequate at hi RPM, as I have proven in a series of studies as I work to develop lubricants with Joe Gibbs Driven, where creating oils that resist aeration is always a primary objective of development. To further prove that the system wasn't adequate, Porsche swapped to a different design with the Gen 1 Cayman, and then a year later in the 997. This design creates a tangent of flow that utilizes the entire sump to act as a swirl pot, giving the oil further to fall from suspension, as well as entering the sump on the outer perimeter, furthest from the oil pick up tube. Porsche doesn't make changes unless they are required, changes cost money. The 997 system isn't much better and also hardly controls aeration. In 2007 when I was working with uncontrolled oiling of radial components within the M97 engine, I learned the hard way about aeration and what it will do.I learned that adding anything to these engines that further promotes aeration will overload the early de-aeration system quite easily, while the later system has a slightly larger margin of error. Lots of the issues that we deal with from track engines (DE and AX) are directly attributed to aerated oil and the loss of film strength that it has. When an engine has every component that uses boundary layer protection worn, it does;t take a rocket scientist to figure out that aeration and a loss of film strength was the common denominator. I abandoned "project spray" in mid 2007 due to aeration concerns, but the one mistake that I made was not Patenting it. People knew I was working on it, but Iu didn't care, because at that time we hadn't perfected the IMSR procedure for dual row IMSB extraction and I was trying everything I could, to keep the bearing in the shaft, but still keep it alive. Just after that someone else in Puerto Rico posted a picture of the same arrangement on a Porsche Technicians newsgroup, but mum was the word from me. Then in 2012 a fellow over on Pelican posted the exact same product in an extensive thread. I watched that thread closely and I did admire his inventiveness. A few months later, here came a "new" product from the opposite side of the country.. Keep in mind that it is claimed that the real issue behind IMSB failure is lubrication. I don't agree with this for many reasons, and primarily this is why: The dual row IMSB requires 90% more oil volume to run cool and to reduce wear over the single row IMSB. If lubrication is the real issue, why aren't the failure tables turned with the factory admitting to 8% failure of dual row IMSBs rather than singles? Fact is the 8% failure rate is for single row bearings, not for dual row bearings. If the lubrication only hypothesis is correct we should see more dual row bearing failures than singles, because they require 90% more oil to keep the cool and lubricated. That said, the second row of bearings is deeper within the shaft housing, and operating behind another row of bearings, so why don't we see spalling and race erosion on the inner race of the dual row bearing than the outer race? Thats easy, because the issue isn't lubrication; the issue is load. The dual row bearing carries 1/2 as much load per row of *****/ races than the single row, which is why single row bearings fail more frequently. Back in 2013 I paid for some time with an Electron Microscope to survey some races and ***** between single and dual row engines with the same miles on them, and the differences were staggering. These photos were taken for use in my book. The smaller orifice is part of the issue. The smaller passage allows the oil to spray in lower volumes, but with higher pressure, which aggravates aeration even more. The oil is spraying from the flange onto a radial component (IMSB) . Its not just that the oil is spraying, but that its spraying onto that rotating surface that creates further aeration. Lets back up a second. What did I say? My quote was basically stating that I'd not enter into any arguments on the topic, because its foolish. My next statement said "consider aeration". I made the first statement after another poster tried to instigate a "Rabid response" from me. I don't sell a single IMSR product to the open market, and haven't since 2011. Once my development work is done, I collect my portion and check out. Pedro, or anyone else isn't my competitor; because I have no product to sell. In fact when I carry out IMSR procedures here I have to buy the products from the same distribution that every other shop in the country does. No, I do not agree with the video, but if people want to listen to it, thats their prerogative. I should do my own version of that video, but I have put all my info into my book, and don't need youtube to feel like a Super Hero.

So, "foamy oil" <> "aerated oil". Noted. In response to this: Anxiously waiting for Jake's reply You wrote this: Never argue with a fool... The people standing around won't know which one is which. Sorry, but in my book that's bad-mouthing. You can call a donkey a fish, but that doesn't make it one. Calling someone a fool, particularly a competitor makes me less likely to invest in your product, even if it were a better design, which hasn't been proven. I'll be waiting for that failure analysis of the bearing that fails due to a jet of oil sprayed on it. Lemme know when you have them lined up, and how you did your FA to determine the oil spray was the factor. I'll stand by my amateur theme(not owning a 996, nor ever had one apart), there is more than one way to engineer something. I noted that LN advises removal of the bearing seal. Presumably this is to aid in lubrication. But - I'm sure that none of the oil touching THAT bearing gets aerated as it's slung out of the cage area.

Its getting late, I'm going to bed :-)

...and we were doing so well. Jake, do us all a favor and don't take the bait in these situations. It historically devolves into a pissing match...and you vowed to not engage in those any longer. I have been a critic as I don't agree with your style or delivery, but respect your experience and talent. Stop wasting both on these types of exchanges...let your work speak for itself. You're a smart guy, pick your battles more wisely. .02

Quotes source post: 12118169

Doing well probably because I have been busy with other things and haven't been here. I tried early on to stay out of it, let's blame it on the guy that said he couldn't wait for my response! I'll remove that latest post and save it for a rainy day. No use in starting the storm all over again, especially when I really have zero reason to care.

No, "doing well" because you haven't been jumping in here being a ********...Our collective "doing well" isn't dependent on your work level, it's dependent on your internet decorum. I get it...but it was still "bait". Many of us here are "type A" personalities and dont shy away from much, so we get "it". Stay frosty, and let it roll on by. Keep doing what you do best, and let it stand on it's own. Regarding the "aeration" topic, I can speak on that with some authority, although I'm no ME. "Aeration" of a viscous fluid used for lubrication and cooling can lead to "cavitation" of said fluid against the subject object. A "cavitation" of fluid can be described as a physical separation from the subject. ( Aeration introduces air pockets into a fluid ) ANY surface separation of a cooling or lubricating fluid from a subject matter introduces a friction/heating value that was not there previously. We deal with it with jet engine and 3000psi hydraulic components at altitude... its important. And that is generally undesired. eg- an over-speeding prop on a submarine "cavitates" and stalls the blades of the prop: making noise but no propulsion. an aerated hydraulic pump "cavitates" and makes foam, but no actionable hydraulic pressure. a bearing subjected to "frothy" "foamy" or otherwise "aerated" lubrication suffers...of that, there can be no dispute. What level of... how much... and what kind of "ill" is acceptable in your Porsche? I'll go with as little as possible.

"let's blame it on the guy that said he couldn't wait for my response!" Hahaha very funny ... You can blame it on whoever you want, but the response remains yours Jake . I was actually hoping for a more "fact based discourse" with perhaps some specifics based upon your in-depth experience/research. While you may not agree with Pedro or his methods (I seriously question re-installing a used IMSB...) his video is well presented and seemingly balanced.

So in conclusion of an ongoing 15 year struggle of IMS bearing failure, the problem would be avoided if our cars are stored/garaged on an incline right? I see Rhino ramp sales skyrocketing!

Quotes source post: 12118178

That's nicely done. You covered aeration and cavitation well. Wondering then - is the jet of oil sprayed on this particular bearing causing cavitation?(yes, I'm being facetious here) Is it causing aeration? Do you have any proof, or are you basing it on generally accepted lubricating principles(adj)? If so, can you site those general principles? Can you also go into deeper depth on the difference between aerated and "foamy"? Is foamy oil aerated, or is aerated oil foamy? Finally, I can surely agree with you that less air of any kind in the lubricant is good, and even less is better. Now, all we need is some kind of causation of, or differentiation between a tiny orifice spraying oil onto a ball bearing verses a bath of oil contacting the same open case bearing. Hopefully one of the real experts in this mechanical engineering debate has full test data showing the comparison results that they can share. BTW, from my limited understanding of metrology, measuring/quantifying air entrainment in viscous fluids is one of the greatest challenges in the industry.

Quotes source post: 12116255

I agree fully wioth your posting..,..plus his explanation of a Garage Queen, the clean oil penetrates the bearing through the bearing into the hollow shaft to eventually turn acidic to THEN return to the steel ball bearings and to rot them (No mention or the seal being cracked) does not make sense to me.

If you watch the video, here is where I disagree with the author. He says that cars that "sit mostly" (4-5k/year in use) have engine oil up to the bottom third of the IMS while at rest. And that the oil eventually pushes through the fixed seals in the IMS. Then the engine oil gets through to the other side and can wind up on the IMS shaft. While cars driven 12k-15k/year do not have this happen. What is "wrong" with this analysis is a simple accounting of time. Whether a car is driven 5k/year or 15k/year, the total amount of time the car sits is virtually the same. If I use an "average" speed of 30 mph, the difference in driving time/year is only 3.8% less time for the higher mileage car. In either case, the car sits at least 94% of the time.

I love it when Jake posts. I learn something about these cars from almost all his posts. I don't care weather he has a personality that rub some folks wrong, there are plenty of us on here that like like his personality. I can't believe that someone won't buy the products that he developed because he has a personality they don't like. He doesn't even make money on them any more although that matters about as much as his personality. I shipped my car all the way to his shop (1500 miles) for three reasons, first I believed him to be obsessed with developing the best solutions for these engines and a many year track record of actually doing it. Second because his personality won't allow him to sugar coat anything, his knowledge formed his opinions not his theories. Third is he strikes me as being honest, he believes in making money the old fashion way, work for it and he became a success with that ethic. There may be other fixes for the problem, I don't have the knowledge or experience to give a worthwhile opinion. I hope they all keep posting and it only sucks if any of them quit.

"He doesn't even make money on them any more" And you know this how? I'd be willing to bet that Jake makes plenty of money on the parts that he's developed and patented for/with LN engineering (there is absolutely nothing wrong with this btw). Why else would he invest so much of his time and money to develop these parts? And, why would he be so bitter about the "ideas" that others have run with and made money on? Jake may not like "selling" his products (in the traditional sense anyway - his presence on this board is all about "selling" his brand) but he's surely a business man all the way - hence his military mentality when it comes to his brand/reputation (once again, nothing wrong with this).

Can someone tell me how this bearing oil squirter operates differently from piston oil squirters used in say GM LT engines? Wouldn't they suffer aeration as well?

Quotes source post: 12120044

The M96 has them too.. The aeration they create is a trade off for the cooling they supply to the underside of the Pistons. That said, lots of my engines no longer have them when I'm done with them. I have al alternative method of achieving the same result. As far as selling things goes, well, I have been the developer for LN since before they were a company. Their very first product is alive and well on my 2.6L, 220 HP 356 engine.... That's the first set of Nickies cylinders. Residual income on a development can't be assessed without a ton of crap. I do my work for LN and collect a check, or I invent and develop the component and sell it to LN or someone like them, if it's a BMW, MB or other engine. I care nothing about collecting from each sale, this for RS me to forge into new ground to find each awaiting paycheck. Why am I so intense about this if I stand nothing to gain? Well, it's no secret that I like to fight. Come spend a weekend at one of my classes, in my world, and you'll see how I'm wired. You'll be entertained and educated at the same time. We have a lot of fun, just ask Ltusler, he was here last month for Rebuikd school and will be back in 2 weeks for the M96 Performance Engine Class :-)

Quotes source post: 12119192

Agreed. Jake's style may not be everyone's cup of tea, but his knowledge is unparalleled, and is based upon the experience from examining many, many motors; something the vast majority of us will never see. Does he offer up his services, sure, but then again, he is a businessman. But if you follow this forum, you will see he also offers a great deal of free advice to owners who are stuck with a problem.

Quotes source post: 12118178

Ha! Ya hit the nail on the head there, Mr. MacNeil!!!!

Quotes source post: 12120100

+1

Just a curious observation.... Why is Pedro's name-tag over his right pocket written backwards? I had to watch the whole thing thru a mirror.

Quotes source post: 12120877

Front-facing cameras flip the image horizontally. If they didn't, your head would explode, since right is left and left is right in non-flipped video. You see a mirror image of yourself instead, which the brain is much more comfortable with.

What matters to me is: Does the DOF (Pedro) IMSB last as long as a clutch change interval ? And if it does not, would we hear about it ? The answer for the LN IMSB products is Yes & Yes. DOF ?

docmirror would rather argue a position than have an open discussion. He requests empirical evidence of foam vs froth on a DOF spray bearing. Well, maybe in a few years there will be enough out there in use to get that evidence. In the meantime, I'm disinclined to automatically think it's better than the dual row ceramics. I don't know about you guys, but I don't have time for that argument for entertainment stuff. He calls himself a "thread-killer". Tells me all I ever need to know about him. Carry on, fellas.

Quotes source post: 12118930

Take a standard garden hose, stick the open end into your mouth, and turn the spigot full-on. Note results. Take a standard garden hose, place your thumb over 95% of the orifice, stick it in your mouth, and turn the spigot full on. Note results. How much air did you injest in the second test compared to the first? Even a caveman can do it. lol

English is after all not my native languge, I do however understand most parts of the video. But if I understand things properly, did the seal casusing the problem only happen when they updated it? Meaning cars pre 2000 should be safe? No matter 996, cayman or a boxster? With regards, Jonathan.

"Meaning cars pre 2000 should be safe? No matter 996, cayman or a boxster?" Nope...According to Jake (and many others, but he's the accepted Expert...) they can all blow up and they all have many different modes of failure. The early dual row IMS bearings (up to '99 - early 2000) seem to be the least susceptible to that particular type of failure, but there are many other types of engine failure that can bite you. The best chance at peace of mind is to be vigilant with preventative maintenance, but there is no such thing as a "silver bullet" to combat engine failure of the M96. At best it seems there are a whole bunch of small things you can do like oil type, change interval, spin on filter, ims guardian, lower temp. thermostat, third radiator etc. etc. etc... Good luck

Buried in this thread is an interesting issue that seldom gets much discussion in terms of prevention by the current owner -oil choice & aeration or foaming. As mentioned by Jake the swirl pots had several revisions, we have deep sump/baffle kits debates about 2 vs. 4 scavenge pumps and oil-squirters. Very little is said about anti-foam additives in oil(Other than JoeGibbs DT). Since Porsche obviously struggled with th e foam issue, it is surprising that the recommendation for an oil with relatively high foaming tendency(Mobil 1 -because of detergents and low anti-foam additives) has not been superseded by a specifically low-foam oil. Perhaps because it is an unseen problem ? There is a rare opportunity to learn about this from the problems of an engine that would seem the polar opposite of an M96. http://www.intellidog.com/dieselmann/powers~1.htm

oil stuff again it all comes back to the air cooled engines doesnt it

There are many ways for these engines to fail. Jake sees pretty much all of them and thats about the only reason he sees these cars. What is also posted here on this site is plenty of cars that never had one of the failures and they have some extremely high mileage. The odds are in favor of the cars lasting a long long time, but it is and always will be a crapshoot. Steps can be taken to help with the odds but its still a crapshoot to an extent. Personally I like the little upgrades that can be done according to Jake who in my mind is a fanatic about these engines. Jake says use Joe Gibbs oil, he works with the guy to develop what he considers a better way to go for these engines, why not listen to him, what can it hurt? When its all said and done these things will never be as reliable as a 350 Chevy, we just got to live with it and hope that the car each of us have will be one of the ones that comes close, it happens plenty.