104 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHBudget IMSB Retrofit for $165 Thread
Leading reported evidence
Replace bearing dimensions
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
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 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
Changing the 04 to an 03 changed the bearing dimensions.
Leading evidence: 'Replace bearing dimensions' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean dust' (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
from what i recall, KK sold his car to unsuspecting buyer thinking the IMS was replaced professionally and not with a 50 cent part.
Replace opinion the ims issue and the different aftermarket
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
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 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
My own personal experience has changed my opinion the IMS issue and the different aftermarket that sell "update" kits.
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
FWIW, when I replaced my original IMS bearing with the LNE one at 100k miles, the bearing was good as new when inspected.
Replace with the ln bearing as preventative maintenance
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
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 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
No dog in this hunt, but all this bearing number jargon made me go out on my shelf and check out the removed perfect condition IMSB I replaced with the LN bearing as preventative maintenance.
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
And given the nature of the retrofit bearings having an open design for oil to lubricate, coupled with the ceramic hybrid designs, as long as you keep up with regular oil changes, I can't see the retrofits breaking down or needing replacement unless you plan on hitting really really high miles with your car.
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
However, the OD of each bearing varies greatly because the cross section is different, so you can't change a 6204 for a 6304, they are not the same dimensions:
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.
104 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: 20261027T173940Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
This would be the Pelican Parts
IMS
kit? I've been meaning to ask people's opinions (oh no!!) and perceptions of this budget kit.
You're not getting the
flange
as well? For another $145?
Dare I say that the swap is done for your upcoming 300 miles trip?
FWIW, there is a difference of opinion between BR at Casper and LN regarding the support stud.
So I wouldn't necessarily call it "improved" which can seem misleading. Thicker, beefier, more robust seems more appropriate to describe it at this point.
The irony of Krazy "you best be rich if you're gonna own a 996" K championing the budget IMSB retrofit isn't lost on me, but I'm interested to see the outcome just the same.
"There is nothing wrong saving a grand for future projects."
Well, he is not really saving a grand. The cost of the LN Engineering IMS bearing is $650, everything else is labor. So the savings here is less than $500, and that does not factor in the time required to source the parts and plan the procedure (time is money for most of us).
Going the cheap route on any Porsche repair is rarely a wise decision. KK seems to have the skill set to perhaps make this solution work... but in the end he is only saving a few hundred dollars over the cost of one of the professional, tested, warrantied solutions. When balanced against the potential repair costs of the, admittedly somewhat rare IMS failure, this might not be the best solution for most owners.
But good luck!
The labour savings were included in my quote but to be fair, the LN bearing is alot more than $600 if you include the LN bearing puller that most people have to buy. Yes time is money but that only matters if you are doing this during work. If it's on your free time then instead of sitting on the couch and watching Fancing With the Stars, you can work on this project, one hournat a time. Then in 2 weeks, the project is done. One bolt at a time and sooner or later every project will end.
LN doesn't warranty the bearing if you install it yourself, and only 30 days if it is professionally installed. That's not a warranty IMHO.
Good luck KK!
I think as far as being a "wear" item might be more for liability reasons. I don't doubt that it wears(just like wheel bearings for example), but when it will actually wear enough to break down will vary. Look at all the original IMS guys that have over 100k+ ? And given the nature of the retrofit bearings having an open design for oil to lubricate, coupled with the ceramic hybrid designs, as long as you keep up with regular oil changes, I can't see the retrofits breaking down or needing replacement unless you plan on hitting really really high miles with your car. In your case, the Pelican retrofit should last you 2-3 lifetimes easily.
Man, just when I think this guy couldn't get any more ridiculous and over cautious, he goes and does something like this.
...and totally redeems himself.
Exactly what I was trying to say. This retrofit will last him 2-3 lifetimes but since he changes his oil at 200 miles or 1 month, whichever comes first, I expect him to change the IMS every 10k, which in reality will probably be his lifetime.
But yet you did not refuse to pay $30k+ for a car that you can't drive more than 300 miles.
This car is going to lead to your early death. You stress over it too much. I recommend you sell it and get a GT3 or a Turbo.
FWIW, when I replaced my original IMS bearing with the LNE one at 100k miles, the bearing was good as new when inspected. The only reason I swapped it out was because I was in there anyway and for future [possible] resale value since the internet has lead the average person to believe this bearing is a time bomb.
K-Dog, you so Krazy! How dare you defy peoples pre-conceived notions! Next you will have them changing their paradigms, along with their diapers! (in other words, YOU GO BOY!)
Playing Devil's advocate here, some people would rather pay the extra for the peace of mind and reputation along with the lengthy track record that companies like LN has had, especailly when dealing with a 15-20k motor.
You're not understanding the point. The point is whatever bearing that LN is using(whether off the shelf or proprietary to their specs) and assuming they've been using the same manufacturer, has held a lengthy and healthy track record. So in other's eye's it's a proven product with very minimal risk.
Just because you use an off the shelf "new" bearing doesn't exempt you from potential premature failures which can come about from manufacturing defects, quality of materials, tolerances, etc. There's simply no historical data in terms of reliability from Pelican's kit since it hasn't been around and used in a huge volume to date. That's a fact.
Now some people such as yourself would be willing to take a chance(odd one at that) while others would rather spend a few hundred more than to gamble with their $15-20k engines.
One of my theories of the Porsche single IMS has always been that due to Porsche using many various IMS manufacturers through the 996 and some 997 run, there's a chance that some of the IMS manufactured from some of the origins could've not been as robust or had some very minute manufacturing defects that would've caused it to go bad. I don't know and this is pure speculation on my part.
By using an unknown source, one could argue that you are doing the same thing that Porsche originally did and pick out a bearing blindly with no real long term testing or mass historical data. Remember there have been members that have reported broken IMS with low mileage cars as well(under 30k).
It really boils down to the individual and whether they are comfortable in taking that chance. All I'm trying to say is not everyone will be and they will not be "wasting" a few hundred dollars more for a proven track record and peace of mind.
Mine was a dual row and got it online from BOCA Bearings. Haven't checked prices since I bought mine late last year but then was and might still be, $99+shipping. The single row would be cheaper but since I didn't need one, never checked it.
Hope this is an appropriate place to post this:
So, what are the odds of getting one with a bad bearing? 100% 50/50? I am new as well but don't roll your eyes. This is a great forum . I have always worked on my cars because I had to buy beaters. Never worked on a porsche. I'm not scared of basic stuff and some more technical repairs....but the IMS scares the crap out of me. I am looking at a 1999 911 Carrera 4. 24 service records and 1 owner. Previous owner replaced water pump, fuel pump, rear seals, window regulators, crank shaft position sensor in Nov of 2012. All done by the dealer that I talked to my self yesterday. But have not replaced the IMS. Car has 103000 miles.
Says the guy who stresses over driving the car 300 miles. I bought my car 6 weeks ago with 46k miles. It now has 52k and runs like a champ. If sh*t hits the fan my warranty will cover it.
Sell your car, quit adding to the depreciation of these cars with your paranoid threads.
I think this deserves a public service announcement: The engine that was retrofitted using the $35 ceramic hybrid bearing that OP mentions suffered what appears to be an IMSB-related failure 7,000 miles after retrofit. Caveat emptor.
*Edit for clarification* The bearing provided with the Pelican IMSB upgrade kit was NOT used by OP and is not the bearing mentioned in the above sentences.
It's not generic. It's the same part number from the Porsche bearing. I wanted to put a dual row OEM bearing back in as mine has lasted over 100k miles.
I'm confused apparently.
Ok, I had a previous thread where I obtained the NSK (oe supplier) dual row bearing part number and ordered it. I too had planned to use the updated bolts seals etc with the OEM dual row bearing and pitching the pelican single bearing.
I will do more digging before I install my setup. Everytime I think I know what's going on something else pops up.. I read about LN bearing failures, was told not to buy the Vertex kit, and by god I better not leave my oem bearing in there.. Seems like no matter what I do someone is going to tell me the motor is going to be toast. I do not plan to pull seals or modify the bearing at all, just oem for oem.
Gotcha
Personally I wouldn't risk it and go with one of the tried and true products. We are talking about a ~$15k-$20k engine here.
There's still some speculation around OEM bearings that are manufactured from various countries as Porsche has used bearings with the same part numbers from no less than 5 countries that I'm aware of. I've been trying to see if there is some correlation on bearing failure tied to any specific country of manufacture but the one person that hold this info isn't willing to release that to the public.
I can get where Krazy K was coming from the stand point of the bearing price, and trying to see if he could go about it a different way. But with the new owner experiencing engine failure maybe due to this experiment, it makes you wonder if the IMS would have let go anyways if it had not been replaced?
Not taking sides here, but I have been researching the 996 and it seems as the forum knows the IMS update is not a guarantee that one wont experience engine failure. I think some of the members have done the update and have experienced engine failure. So when your paying in upwards of $800 for a bearing update kit or almost $3k for a "complete solution", but not guarantee, you have to wonder.
I talked to service tech who has worked for a Porsche dealership for about 20 years. I questioned him about a 996.1 that I was interested in and they have serviced it since day 1, the clutch had been done around 52k miles, but the IMS was not updated or replaced. He told me the bearing was fine and showed no signs of issues. He has opinions on the IMS update kits out there and said if Porsche felt there was an update needed, they would put one out themselves. (I took that as an opinion only, as we all know Porsche has had issues)
While I understand why the dealership would not install the IMS update kits as they would be liable for any issues that would arise, if the part was not "Porsche", it made me wonder why the IMS has become some such a heated discussion that is spilt down the middle. Is there a solution? A guarantee? There seems to be warranties but only for the bearing itself and not one that would cover the cost of a engine failure by using these update, that's too much of a liability for these companies to cover, I understand that.
So its something that the 996, 997 owners must think about when purchasing? My own personal experience has changed my opinion the IMS issue and the different aftermarket that sell "update" kits.
This cheap IMSB replacement thread needs to be linked to the current implosion of his car thread:
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...ong-story.html
That way, some future person reading through this thread will know not to do this.
I am cross referencing my post to this thread so others do not make the same mistake as KK.
The information I'm about to talk about is not in the spec sheet. I had to use one of my textbooks from college to get this information.
46qqa33.jpg
This chart is used to determine your dynamic and static load rating for an equation used to figure out the life cycle of a bearing. Before I did any math, I noticed the load ratings are very similar, indicating to me the bearing KK used appears to be a 02 series deep groove ball bearing.
All bearing part numbers are made up of a type code, series, and bore. The second digit is what we're interested in as that indicates the robustness of the bearing. A number 2 series bearing indicates it should only be used for light duty applications. The item ID for the bearing used is 6
2
04. The 6 indicates it is a roller ball bearing, 2 for light duty, and 04 for a 20mm bore. (Except for 0 through 3, the bore size is simply five times the third and fourth digits together) The spec sheet and item ID lead me to conclude the reason the bearing failed is that it's only a light duty bearing. As a mechanical engineer, and a human being with common sense, would not recommend this bearing for this application.
Interesting. The SKF bearing I have is a 3204A-2RS1TN9/MT33
Your post would indicate that it is a light duty bearing. If the same scale applies to dual row
Yes. The catalog you used to find that part should have a nomenclature guide. From lightest to heaviest duty, 8,9,0,1,2,3, and 4. (Not very intuitive I know) I don't know if a 4 series ball bearing in this size exists. You should be able to find a 3 series no problem.
Changing the 04 to an 03 changed the bearing dimensions. I have attached the spec sheet on the one I have for review
http://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearings/angular-contact-ball-bearings/double-row-angular-contact-ball-bearings/double-row/index.html?designation=3204%20A-2RS1TN9/MT33
Sorry, tired and stressed.. Understood.
Also apparently changing the 2 (second digit) changes the bearing dimension too for SKF.. So I can't just assume that would indicate the correct part for me.
RRTEC, are you sure you want to do a similar experiment? I know that the LN bearings are not cheap but the dual-row ceramic has perfect record with a huge install base. Remember your whole engine is riding on that bearing.
Actually no I don't want to experiment.. I thought I was swapping for a stock bearing as mine has been good for so long. But if this isn't a stock bearing then no... I won't be putting it in.
I don't think Porsche used an off the shelf bearing. I found a picture of an IMSB that has an NSK bearing with a suffix attached to it that doesn't exist in their catalog. I know other brands (sfk for example) have a suffix to indicate a deviation or modified internal design with the same boundary dimensions. Interesting stuff.
You are better off buying a tried and true part RRTEC.
IIRC, the dual row with the perfect record is for the 99's only. Maybe the dual row pro has a perfect record also, but has not been out nearly as long.
My understanding is the dual row has perfect record, regardless of year. Quote from LN:
"Considering all three revisions of the IMS found in the M96 and M97 are known to fail, we know the use of a ball-bearing was a manufacturing constraint and a poor choice. That said, even the addition of a ceramic hybrid ball-bearing with its superiority over conventional ball bearings does not eliminate completely the chance of failure. Only the IMS Solution provides a permanent, worry-free solution to the IMS problem. With zero failures of our Dual Row and Single Row Pro IMS Retrofits, triple bearing IMS Upgrade, or even with our upgraded ceramic hybrid bearings used in the model year 2006 through 2008 intermediate shafts, we have almost a perfect track record, however there have been isolated single row IMS Retrofit kit issues, due to excessive thrust load wear that has been found after evaluating these rare instances. However, we still have a near perfect success rate even considering most failures are due to improper installation, failure to properly qualify an engine or are collateral damage from other failures (there are dozens of confirmed modes of failure for the M96 and M97 engine that can damage or cause your IMS bearing to fail)."
Source
http://imsretrofit.com/ims-101/
Disclaimer: after a few vodka shots.
KK's situation is really a great psychological case to study. Whether it is Murphy's Law or " you attract what you think" I can't help but wonder about this situation. KK never drove his car, constantly disassembled his engine to clean dust and replace working parts...all because he feared CEF. All he posted about was CEF and was completely paranoid about M96 engine. His car suffers CEF, unfortunately, with the new owner. Situation like this make me truly believe that positive thinking and positive energy do transfer to material things.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/274x275/imsb_explosion_animation_b7960c985758a9545145bc1f11443b6f96e9803e.gif
Just so you know, the 2 you mention is the series, agreed it is classified as light duty (a 3 would be medium duty), but you can't put any other bearing in the IMS. The 04 controls the ID of the bearing, the series controls the OD of the bearing. So if you went with a 6304, it wouldn't fit.
The bearing is not wrong.
Here is what I am talking about. If you look at all the bearings in this picture, they are all mounted on the same shaft, so the ID of each bearing will be the same.
However, the OD of each bearing varies greatly because the cross section is different, so you can't change a 6204 for a 6304, they are not the same dimensions:
<img src=http://audipages.com/911/bearing.JPG>
Here's another picture showing a 6303 next to a 6203. They both have the same ID, but their OD is controlled by the load rating, the 6303 can carry more load, so it has more *****, a larger width, and a larger OD.
<img src=http://audipages.com/911/bearing2.JPG>
Hope this clears up the misconception that the "wrong" bearing was used, it wasn't. It was a like-for-like mechanical fit.
Woah - talk about coming to the party late!
Just getting caught up in YESTERDAY's developments on Rennlist (
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...g-story-8.html
).
Coincidence that this present thread and C4911's unfortunate purchase thread both came up.
Looks like I'll need to read about this issue in greater depth.
I didn't read the rest of the post so maybe this was mentioned. The OE bearing is not avaible, I've tried 3 years ago to find one. They only made them for Porsche. The replacement dual row (non hybrid) is slightly shorter than the OE therefore, a shim/spacer needs to be used to make it fit. All the aftermarket bearings (even the popular kits) use standard size bearings that are shorter than the OE. So to get an exact replacement for the OE is not possible.
What is Imo000 is saying is consistent with what I've found. The NSK bearing I found in someone's ims thread contained a part number not available in their catalog.
I am aware of that and researched it, that doesn't mean even if one follows the requirements of the solution, that its a guarantee of no engine failure. They have a great record as many have upgraded to their update kits, but the solution warranty is for the part only. Who wants to warranty an engine if a part fails? That's a nightmare
You're talking about the "IMS Solution" and Groovzilla was talking about the classic ceramic ball bearings.
http://theimssolution.com/wp-content...rochure_03.jpg
Two different things
The naming of the different solutions can sometimes be very confusing.
I thought I had stated the price difference between the 2 in my other post, apologies for that. But yes the point I was making if going the more expensive route, doesn't guarantee no issues.
No, I think he just took a perfectly good Porsche factory part with a 80,000 mile MTBF and replaced it with his home designed part with a 5,000 mile MTBF. It's that simple.
This is much more of an issue for the 'single- row' engines. Long ago we debated using an alternative Roller Bearing as an upgrade in the low-end kits from Pelican and Pedro's Garage. The logic was the KK logic- replace a cheap ball bearing with a roller bearing that may perform as well as a CH bearing.
*** NUP204E-TVP2
We concluded it was unwise and better to use the RND kit for the reasons cited in previous Posts.
http://rndengines.com/roller-bearing-ims-retrofit-kit/
http://imsretrofit.com/roller-bearings/
surprised there wasn't an update to this thread.
from what i recall, KK sold his car to unsuspecting buyer thinking the IMS was replaced professionally and not with a 50 cent part.
KK's engine blew up and buyer chimed in on a couple of KK threads. KK bailed and never heard from again.
a very long winded debate thread commenced. at one point i had a $100 bet with kcattorney regarding outcome of possible lawsuit.
any news??
C4911 was the unsuspecting buyer. As he says, the process is continuing.
BTW, whichever of us loses the $100 bet, I expect to pull a KK and go back and delete every post that refers to it.
It's fun to see those old KK posts from 2013 or 2014 that show at the bottom "Last edited by KrazyK on May 24, 2016." It's very thoughtful of KK to provide a smoking gun to present to the jury.
Hang in there & GL. The only one I was involved in took 3 years of waiting & pressure to extract the meat from the other side. It's tough to lose when you don't quit, financials permitting.
No dog in this hunt, but all this bearing number jargon made me go out on my shelf and check out the removed perfect condition IMSB I replaced with the LN bearing as preventative maintenance. Hmm. it is a NSK 6204DU17. This bearing is out of a Porsche reman 3.4 'AT' code engine. LOL, so glad I did not return the bearing to LN.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
