Oh man, this is hard to watch...

https://vimeo.com/118923581 Can't be more intrusive than that! Roller bearing + non precision drilling...wonder how the 997 folks feel about it.

Interesting. I didn't know this existed, but it does seem like a logical solution to remove and replace the larger bearing. Does anyone know how much engine block material is removed? Is the hole enlarged 1/4" or so? More? Less? To have any level of comfort with this solution, I would have to know more about the engine block stiffness, the accuracy of the drill guide, how much the bit wanders during drilling, etc. etc. Knowing more about the track record/longevity of this retrofit would be interesting.

Astonishing. What about all the swarf from the drilling operation ? I hope the kit includes an aluminum magnet ! Perhaps the LN full flow filter adapter? Why a cylindrical roller bearing instead of a deep groove ball bearing ? If you watch any EPS installation video - for example their DOF -you will wince at the sloppy workmanship.For comparison ,watch anything Raby does !It is surgeon vs butcher IMHO. Of course EPS/Vertex will never respond to such questions -so I'll rely on Rennlist to supply the answers :-).

Quotes source post: 12178551

Looks like the only drilling involved is to remove some material that doesn't really do anything more than get in the way. Plus, the contraption they have seems to be pretty accurate. No worries there really. Not really intrusive either, since the other option would be to split the case - not sure what is more intrusive than that. Interesting they went with a roller bearing, rather than ball. I'll have to look into that. But yeah, that's one way to solve the issue to splitting the case.

One of the dangerous aspects of an IMSB failure is the collateral damage caused by bearing debris .It causes blockages in the tiny oilways & scoring . Both are potentially terminal problems. The aluminum swarf could be a problem unless every last spec is removed. Hipocratic oath - first - Do no harm. I am not sure EPS meet that standard.

Quotes source post: 12178762

When clearance is measured in thousandth of an inch, their drilling bit does not look and feel that precise. From the tip of the drill, looks like they take off about 1/4" or so material of the casing where the ims flange mounts on, totally weakening that part. If the drill bit is not centered completely, the IMS will twist the roller bearing. While ball bearings can tolerate a little about this off center load, not so for roller bearings. Of course the shaving is an obvious issue as well. The 997 bearings may only have 1% failure rate. After this procedure, I'm not sure the odds have vastly improved, if at all.

Ashai, You are correct - the deep groove ball bearing is much,much more tolerant of misalignment than a cylindrical roller bearing. We have discussed this many times yet EPS never responds. The IMS was never designed to be perfectly aligned(?) because the deep groove ball bearing would easily tolerate a little misalignment. You are correct ,this hack boring job is likely to create more problems(including misalignment) than it solves. This technique would be prefect for the shady car-flipper who bought a big IMS bearing car because the problems would not show up for the first 500 miles ?

Quotes source post: 12178858

Exactly. Also, the jig uses a bearing trying to center the drill bit and keep it perpendicular to the engine casing but still, it doesn't feel that precise.

Wow - you would have to brave to try that.

Other than the sight of my own blood not much makes me squeamish but after watching this I got a little woozy and had to double check the posting date to make sure it wasn't April 1. A nice hour long drive to no where has me steady on my feet once again.

I was about to comment in detail how this method of machining for a bearing race of a known poor design is legit, but wtf do I know im only an engineer.

omg! what if that tool was even a smidgen misaligned? if i was even thinking about using EPS's product for my 996, their solution for the 997 is sure is making me think twice.

Quotes source post: 12179443

Not being an engineer but I have seen this method used before on large electric motors and they went on to run thousands and thousands of hours. Don't really see a problem with it.

And there's no mention of how the larger hole that has been "bored" is sealed. The things people will do to keep from disassembling an engine. Debris is enemy#1 in the fight to keep an M96 engine together.

DeWolf, On theses electric motors - how did they remove the swarf from the milling? Since the electric motors did not have a vital lubrication system in the vicinity of the bearing ,it would not be critical anyway? If this is just a shade-tree hack - fine Just mill it slightly oversize and slap on some metal-filled epoxy. Cough. Hey ,it may work . Who wants to go first and promise to report back. If it works ,it would be great news for the M97 IMSB issue? If it fails and you have a honking big hole that leaks and in other ways does not work, what is the remedy? New crankcase halves ?

Obviously Jake does not believe in JB Weld for theses situations !

Quotes source post: 12179590

Trust me, I've repaired a 125,000 dollar 547/1 engine with JB Weld before. It has held for 15 years now, but the circumstance was quite unique. As far as the M97 IMSB goes, well, they really don't fail unless they are used on the track for a long while. From what we've seen there's no reason to make a product for them from a retrofit stand point. My IMS Solution Patent does include a method of retrofitting them non- invasively, and we have done it to prove the concept for inclusion in the Patent. Since the M97 IMSBs have proven themselves more than all the others, I doubt we'll ever need to bring it to market...

At 1:06s, you can see the drill bit has a step at the tip. It is like 1/4" smaller at the tip. I think the tip fits and rests on the stock hole to guide the rest of the bit. They must have a custom ims flange to cover the enlarged hole. I guess they could minimize the shavings by connecting a shop vac to that jig (airtight) to suck up the shavings as they drill and leave the oil filler cap off to let air in.

Or they could be keeping their cards close to their chests. Everyone seems quick to sh$tcan someone elses products these days.

Au Contraire DeWolf. We have made several suggestions to improve the 'procedure' -none of which are shown in the Vendors video. We have also alerted potential users to risks/precautions that are not mentioned in the video. And one helpful poster has given reliable evidence that the procedure is seldom necessary.Thanks Jake. We have also given the Vendor a lot of free publicity. Even negative publicity can boost sales - The EPS cylindrical roller bearing for the earlier cars is a good example. It has been panned here but gets used - even by Rennlisters. A very healthy sign I'd say. We always invite the Vendor to rebut objections and explain. EPS never responds.So all the objections stand. Good going Rennlist.

Yikes . . . . All that aluminum shaving material loose . . . I repeat, Yikes!!!

In the IMS Game of Thrones, why 'invade' if the insignificant marauders are hardly a threat.

Watch the video again... And again.. Tell me what you pick out.. it's plain as day.

I have no confidence I will pass a "Jake" test but I noticed several things: #1: Tool was covered with shavings in the box...head and bearings #2: Plate holes in fixture much larger than holes in crankcase. #3: Demonstration insertion of tool when covered with prior shavings. #4: Twin bearings fit loosely in fixture. #5: Wobble noted in drill, air gun and extension used to power bit. I'm sure I missed it, but that would be enough for me to say "No Thank you anyway."

Their 'attention to details and surgical cleanliness' is at least consistent. Here is a related DOF install video that is almost as cringe-worthy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xnVaMjaxGk#t=19 I am sorta surprised they did not fit a DOF with their 'gouge out your old bearing and slam in a better one' video.It is all rather silly because certainly for the DOF there are much cleaner ways to remove the metal.

Quotes source post: 12180396

Do what I'd do then. Go knock on the effin door. Fuch, no Rhodes scholar sh$t required. Maybe they feel they don't need to explain to bunch of keyboard engineers. I haven't seen their workshop in the flesh, I haven't seen them performing the task in the flesh. I have no dog in this fight at all, I'm on the other side of the known universe to you guys, but you are watching 2 mins of video. Now I'm no expert but I'm sure the whole process takes longer than 2 mins. If I was getting my Porsche painted I wouldn't just drop it off at the painter and 'yeh she'll be right mate'. I would want to see the quality of their work on other cars. No different here.

Quotes source post: 12179582

I'm under the assumption that the hole created isn't load bearing and just removes the material that's in the way. Unless I'm mistaken? If it was only in the way like that then a handheld dremel tool and burr would be enough to clean it up. Guess I didn't comment on the issue with the drillings, which would be my only big concern. I'm making an assumption that the person doing this has a plan for that and cleans their work up - if they didn't there is little point in doing that in the first place.

He says 996 in the first 10 seconds or so when the Title clearly says 997...He also says "the IMS cannot be removed..." and "the IMS is defective...", when I think he's refering to the IMSB(bearing)...Obviously, neither of these mistakes is an indictment of the technique or tool itself, but it does speak to a certain level of "sloppiness" when it comes to their marketing efforts and/or production skills... Also, the holes in the "guide plate" don't fit the two mounting holes on the block properly - I'd think that if you want to drill into the crankcase with any sort of precision, the holes in the plate would have to fit those two mounting holes precisely so as to keep the guide from moving. I don't think if I'd trust them with my car, or trust their products...

Quotes source post: 12181513

Depends on how well the tool fits the original hole too. Again, the level of precision depends on how precise it needs to be. If the material removed doesn't do much then a little slop is ok as long as it's removed. Still would like to know how they cleaned that up.

You guys still haven't caught it, yet.. Watch closely and pay attention. Interesting part of this was the drawing that a German fellow brought to Charles from LN at the recent International Motorsports Show in Germany.

At 1:26s I see that the "ridge" of the IMS hole on the casing is thinner at the 1-3 o'clock compared to the 9-12 o'clock. That may indicate the hole may be off centered. I checked some IMS photos but can't tell whether the 1-3 o'clock position is thinner to begin with before boring.

Quotes source post: 12182769

C'mon Jake, spill it! The suspense is killing me!

Quotes source post: 12183121

Just keep looking, one of you guys will see it. :-)

I'll take a stab. They show a C-clip removing the old IMSB. Seems that's an M96 motor?

Well, at 1:50s you can see the new bearing stud is also full of debris...but we already knew that debris are flying everywhere.

Umm, he repeatedly says "Porsh". That alone did it for me.

Going to take a stab. My IMS experience is having it changes twice by two pros's and watching the videos for removal. But here's my stab at it. The stud. If you saw it off then how do you get the bearing out?

My impression from the video is that you use the tool to remove the imsb in place but the saw is not hollow so it is impossible to cut the hole while the imsb is in place but the whole point is to cut the whole imsb out and some of the surrounding metal. Or I don't at all understand what I am looking at, which is entirely possible.

I think "dnitake" got it. The bearing removal appears to be a 996 and not the 997 engine that was bored on!? How 'bout it Jake?

That's actually what I thought I saw. Split the block to take the IMSB out, put it back together, drill hole, and put in smaller bearing? I'm with you - not exactly sure what I am looking at.

Why remove the snap ring with two pry bars before the case opening is bored? Thats not "it", just another thing I noted.

Dang, duplicate post. See below.

Well, the guy keeps calling the IMSB an IMS. That always bugs the crap out of me. They are two completely different parts. Like DT, I just don't get how you can bore out the hole with the IMSB and shaft in place using a milling bit. If you look at 1:47, it shows that the shaft is still in place and doesn't even have a scratch on it from the bit.

No we are talking!! You are getting warmer! I am amazed with how much their bolt on guide unit looks like my Faultless extraction/ install tool. Just a lot weaker.

Keeping swarf out is the easy part. Just use pressure on the crankcase from a blower like the output of the shop vac. You can see the blowback while they are cutting. Old school, been done since there were cutting tools. Registration of the cut is dependent on those two bolt holes. I'm pretty sure they are done with a jig bore, so I'm not really worried about that too much. The video quality isn't very good, but I'll bet it works fine. Would want to verify the chain tension after the job is done. Guessing also they will replace the oil and filter. Having seen some weird shilt come out of the crankcase of a perfectly fine running engine, the swarf issue doesn't bother me a bit. They should have a cleaner vid, but as mentioned, maybe they don't want to give away the cow here. I could make up one of those special tools in a few days. The custom bore bit would be -- pricey though.

Alrighty then, if you look at 0:58, there is no IMSB even in the motor, before he mounts the bit. .

Well, there seem's to be a pressure regulator connected to the oilsump plug. So most of the debries will come out. Most of it... 1. Is there room to install lock ring on to the new bearing? 2. Oilpump cover is getting a hell of a beating in the install process. No cooling for the bearing before assembly

They don't use one, and claim that it is unnecessary.

I think you missed the part in the video where they slather epoxy over it ? I thought you said JB Weld was O.K. for Porsche engine assembly - or am I misquoting you? :-).

At 1;28 of the video they show the freshly bored opening but it appears there is no bearing orcenter stud there?!? Where did they go? The boring tool leaves no opening to accomodate the stud so how did it come out. Kind of a catch 22 here. What am I missing here . . .

The most alarming omission is that after 4 pages of comments about a new product,on the most read Forum focusing on their Target Market - not a word from the Vendor. And the same has happened with prior products from the same Vendor. Can you imagine if a product Raby invented and LN sold, got to even 4 posts before Jake or Charles chimed in to explain/rebut .You have to ask why after 4 pages of ridicule there is not one word from the vendor? We've even offered some suggestions to improve their product. I'll offer one more helpful suggestion to EPS - make Martin/Scott whatever his name is this week- of Porschland your spokesman.He is already your customer !

Quotes source post: 12191793

Schnell Gelb, the video is in no way tied to Martin/Scott. The only common thing here is the use of the same type of bearing.

Quotes source post: 12191793

Perhaps they prefer to avoid a thread created solely as a repository for your "vitriol [and] banter." You make repeated snide comments about those of us who actually ENJOY participating in this forum, yet you have no problem dumping all over any thread that mentions the roller bearing or any other product/process that you have deemed unacceptable. I recognize that you don't necessarily appreciate the levity that some members add to threads - but I suggest that similarly some folks (like the gentleman currently documenting his X51 conversion) don't appreciate your incessant derision of the cylindrical bearing design...especially considering (as far as I have read) that your repeated proclamations about the fundamentally flawed/doomed to failure product seem entirely unsubstantiated.

I guess it's time for me to come out of the closet. I, too have designed a method to enlarge this factory hole. I bought a spun rod bearing car and performed the procedure on this engine. Sadly, I was hoping my first Cayman had the shot IMSB, but no, it was a rod bearing. The chips in the oil pan and the crap in the filter looked exactly the same as the IMSB fail. I saw that on the first 987 engine I rebuilt. I have acquired another car and will be doing the acid test, engine in the vehicle, just to prove MY concept. There will be cleaning to be performed in any of these procedures. Do you think the failed bearing schrapnel (if it got that far) will just vanish on it's own? The sump will need cleaning and lots of flushing unless it's just a preemptive strike by a nervous owner. It will still be quicker and cheaper than a full disassembly and rebuild. Later dudes!

Sapientoni, Welcome to the spun-bearing club ! I had that issue and had a few lucky breaks that may be of interest to you. The collateral damage was minimal because(I speculate) of the LN filter the P.O. had fitted. I also found a machinist who was familiar with the engine and knew the right guy to refurbish the crankshaft. Then there is all the nuggets of M96 from Jake Raby scattered over the Forums. That enabled me to do lots of measuring and observation to decide if the engine was a rebuild candidate or junk. I probably know less than 10% of what is necessary to make a totally informed decision about rebuild-worthiness but was astonished to find nobody else in my budget range knew even 5%. For that reason they seldom rebuild the engines, they just fit slightly refreshed used engines and call them rebuilt. The skill level required to do the required measurements for bore taper and ovality required new,higher precision tools than I had and significant practice to use them adequately. Measuring to 1/10th of 1 thou is a challenge I did not learn as an apprentice. The other tool(s) I found useful was lenses for inspecting surface defects. I have a Jewelers headset and a large laboratory bench lens. The extravagant purchase I made regarding parts was ARP fasteners. It is astonishing to observe the differences in their fasteners compared to O.E.M. Good luck with your build and I hope a few of theses comments are useful in this daunting and expensive project.

The shop that did my crank had it metalized by another vendor. He took forever and didn't get the material thick enough. They sent it back to him. I'm afraid they didn't grind it all the way back to base metal and he just put a second thin coat of material on the first thin coat. I'll be making my own bearing inserts undersize if I take it apart again and that'll be the end of that if the oiling system doesn't bite me like it did the former owner. I've modified my block to allow IMS replacement without engine removal and have bought a second vehicle to do the process in car and prove my concept is fool proof. I'll probably call the crank shop this week and question them on exactly how they handled the "too little material to clean up" on my crankshaft.

Quotes source post: 12233530

How do you support the new bearing in the now enlarged hole? Maybe with a thicker seal on the stock flange?

Ahsai, at the end of the video it shows the kit that EPS install, look closely at the brg. flange and it has a larger dia. where it fits into the bore. The video could have been better and gone into greater detail.

I posted this on the pelican parts forum but i might as well put it on here too. I watched it a few times and then read through the comments made by people and thought about some things that were left out of the video. The presentation of the video could have been better. I have numbered a few points that could be made to improve or explain to the layman about the process used. While looking at some of the tooling it was evident to me a lot of time and thought had gone into this idea. A person who isn't a machinist cannot visualize how these pieces are used. It was plain to me the first time i saw it but then again after 45 years of machining i know a thing or two and certainly understand how it looks "rough and ready" I'm not here to defend the company providing that service but merely making an attempt to explain to the "Layman/Person in the street" why some things look odd or out of place. I try to present my views to the Non Machinist people so as not to over complicate the description. If i was to explain all this in Machinist's language it would boggle people's mind. How may people understand these terms that we use on a daily basis: T.I.R. Eccentricity, Ovality, Chatter, Transition Fit, Interference Fit, Clearance Fit, Tolerance, Spfm, Feed/Rev. Parallelism, Top Rake Angle,and Side Rake Angle, Front Clearance, Side Clearance, Rigidity, Overhang and even more that i won't go into. ALL of these terms are applicable to the video. 1 The video showed the tooling in a box and chips all over the bearings and cutter. The bearings are sealed brgs. so no debris can get in them. 2 Cutting chips/swarf all over the tooling. This was probably taken AFTER the work had been done. 3 Method of alignment of jig to original bore was not shown. In the box was a large turned slug which would fit into the bore of the alignment jig and also into the bore in the engine case for precise alignment and then the jig would be locked down in place. 4 The arbor used to mount the cutter on is heavy duty and the locking bolt at the cutter end is the correct type used with arbors. 5 The narration could have explained more about the process to set peoples mind at rest. The cutter used is a modified Face Mill made from HSS (High Speed Steel)and has a lead ground on the front to reduce chatter. The cutter will give a good finish but over time will dull but it is easily replaced after a regrind. Normally two cutters would be used., a roughing cutter then a finish one but maybe they didn't show that part or didn't feel a finish cutter was needed. 6 The removal of the snap ring using a screwdriver and a pry bar. Should have been done with the correct snap ring pliers and not with a screwdriver and a pry bar. 7 No explanation of how they were going to "fill in the gap" between the case and the flange. The replacement flange has to be made to fit the bore with the same tolerance as factory. Some people were suggesting JB Weld being used to fill the gap. My method of machining the bore would use a Right Angle Head with a variable speed drive and a Boring and Facing Head to mount a boring bar in. This setup is then permanently fixed onto a precision tool slide with 7" of travel that can feed the tool into the bore. All of these parts are then attached to a custom made angle bracket which will span the full height and width of the engine where it mates against the gearbox. This is all rather long winded but at least explain some of the different ways to achieve the same results. Here's my website of some things i do for Motorcycles, i've done lots of things over the years and i'm going to update the site soon. Des Young aacycleproducts.com

That's the easiest part, just machine a larger flange to the clearance specs of the old flange. I have about 58,000 miles on mine now (2019). The biggest problem now is getting that seal into the bore correctly and I have a new machinist trick to do that quite efficiently.

I believe these blocks have had core shift during casting (or they are JUST MADE that way) and the flange area at the 1-3 o'clock area is naturally narrower than the rest of the circumference. At least that's how my block appears.