113 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHmore than one type of IMS replacement?
Leading reported evidence
Install without warranty
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
In fact, all 700+ of the IMS retrofits we have done here over the years have been installed without warranty, with a warranty disclaimer signed by every purchaser.
Leading evidence: 'Install without warranty' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check cam timing etc' (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
A plain (babbit style) bearing, which is lubricated by clean, cooled oil.
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
Just see that it is lubricated somehow, and give it a try.
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 also see that its time we do a video on the true history of this development scenario, to help people understand how things have changed over the years.
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 borrowed the special tools, used a buddy's lift, and did 99% of the work myself.
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
In fact, all 700+ of the IMS retrofits we have done here over the years have been installed without warranty, with a warranty disclaimer signed by every purchaser.
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
We even had one shop fit one without the oil line and it survived being driven with just splash lubrication until an oil leak was found from the hole in the flange (which proves there is enough oil at the IMS if it was sufficient to lubricate a plain journal bearing).
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
We haven't manufactured the Classic Single Row in almost five years and any car fitted with a Classic Single Row IMS Retrofit is likely due for a replacement based off our recommended 4 year / 50,000 mile interval.
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
By the way, if the results and recommendations of other owners isn't enough to convince you - take a moment and just consider that the inventors/manufacturers of the product we're recommending are taking the time to respond to your concerns and answer questions that have already been asked and answered a thousand times.
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
Any direct feed system with our recommended bearing that we install at our store, is covered by a life-time warranty under the condition that the owner follows our maintenance schedule and we are the first contact if a problem occurs.
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.
113 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: 20261027T201111Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I'll hopefully be buying a 996 very soon, and I'll want to replace the IMS bearing.
Is there more than one vendor/solution? Difference in cost and/or effectiveness?
Thanks.
Oh man you have opened a can of worms. There is 20 years of information on this topic available online, and a near-infinite number of opinions. Get ready!
There is only one "solution" and that's The IMS Solution manufactured by LN Engineering. Check out theimssolution.com This puts the Carreras on par with the Mezger engines. The bearing will last the lifetime of the engine and I've heard of people moving the IMS Solution bearing over to a newer engine.
The IMS Solution is not cheap, but worth every penny. It really boils down to your budget. LN Engineering has less expensive options, but the bearings will have a service interval.
"
This puts the Carreras on par with the Mezger engines."
Nutty indeed!
^^^ Uh... Not really...it only put the IMSB on a par with the Mezger...the IMS(B) is only one of the many differences that make the Mezger engine (as in the GT3) far superior to the NA M96. One other major difference being the Nikasil coated cylinder bores. There are many others as well, that both create far more power and increase reliability/longevity of the Mezger design used in the GT3 and the Turbo's (as well as GT2). This is not to say "The Solution" is not a great upgrade for the M96 platform - it is...Just that it doesn't make a M96 on a par with a Mezger (except for the IMSB)
As always... NuttyProffessor/Embassador of LN
It is good that you like the IMS Solution by LN, but please, don't give misinformation to people
. There are more than one solution out there. DOF from TuneRS is another one, without going outside of US
So, after dong some reading, it seems like these are the options (please let me know if there are others):
Pelican Parts makes a replacement that doesn't seem to improve on the flawed design
LN Engineering makes the "Retrofit", which uses ceramic bearings and is much better than the original, but is still a sealed bearing
LN Engineering makes the "Solution", which uses roller bearing which are oiled w/ engine oil
Just looking for confirmation that I understand the situation.
I assume most people here, when they address their IMS, get the LNE Retrofit?
"
There are more than one solution out there. DOF from TuneRS is another one, without going outside of US"
Actually there is only one "IMS Solution"... and it's patented (it's also a plain bearing - as used in the early air cooled cars as well as the Mezger designed water cooled turbos etc.). The DOF from Tune RS is just an oil feed for the existing ball or roller bearing. I won't go into all the intracies of this but suffice it to say there are many (both good and bad)...
Yes, other options - Get a 98 or 99 model year. Original Dual Row IMSB. Change oil frequently and don't worry about it. Get the LN spin on oil filter adapter and magnetic drain plug.
That's a start, but it is incomplete. The PO needs to read the FAQ thread and not expect it to be spoon fed. This is well documented stuff, not something esoteric or obscure.
Well, thats a commercial name. If we are accurate, there are several manufacturer that claim to have a solution to the IMS "problem" (also outside US). Letting aside the old discussion about if the IMS is really a problem for all engines or only for those affected, LN claims to have a solution called "IMS Solution" and TuneRS claims to have another solution called "Direct Oil Feed".
Different technical approaches, for the same "problem" but both claim to be a definitive solution. We can discuss which technical approach each like more (I kind of prefer keeping the Porsche design bearing), but further than that I don't see why I we should give more credit to one solution than other (so far, the results are quite similar)
Obviously, the topic of this thread is about IMS bearings and that's what I was referring to. Of course, I'm not that out-of-touch to think the performance of 31 failure mode M96/M97 engines are going to be on the performance level of the Mezger Turbo, GT2, or GT3. Gimme a little credit, pweeeese! I was speaking of the plain bearing design of the IMS Solution.
Great! I always wanted to be royalty. My first appointment is to name you my personal protologist. Scratch n' sniff Doc Parris!
As in my post to Dporto, I meant the darn plain bearing in relation to the Mezgers! And no, Neither TunerRS DOF or the "EPS solution" are real solutions in my book. Just copy cats.
But if you want them, more power to you. Can you say, "BOOOM SHAKA LACCA BOOOM!!!"???
NP, why don't YOU provide the general public a head to head prospective analysis of LN IMSB vs all other replacement options out there? (we'll leave out the "solution" since it's a different device altogether) while at the same time eliminating all the confounding variables so that we have clearcut proof why LN is superior?
And be sure to define what "superior" means
I'd be interested to see if any genuine scientific analysis supports this
No, no, plase make the honors!
I have heard so many times that the IMS Solution is the definitive solution that I would like to know the actual numbers of installed vs failed in order to you say that is the unique definitive solution (or, at least, better than others that also claim to be definitive) I am not saying it is or its not. But I see other options on the market and its interesting knowing why the LN fans defend the uniqueness of something that is not...
If you can�t look at the design of the IMS Solution, and tell that it is radically different than anything else on the market, you�d never be able to grasp any form of �uniqueness� that would be explained to you. Do you understand what a ball bearing, and plain bearing are? Start there.
Never has an IMS Solution failed in the hands of anyone other than me, the inventor. That occurred in testing, and in some instances failures were forced to occur. That is what I do. It is my job to think of it, then try to destroy it.
Let�s remember who invented the tools, who invented the procedure of IMS Retrofit, and remember that it is one hell of a lot easier to be an imitator, than an originator. The �others� out there still use the tools that we invented, and they use the procedure when peddling their own copycatted parts.
Lots of people are loyal to those who took the time to originate, rather than imitate. That sort of brand loyalty is damn sure earned, and is never given.
When we developed these procedures the �myth�s were �Can the IMS Bearing be removed, Porsche says that it can�t be�. Thats how far we�ve come.
Maybe its pretty simple:
Poor bearing and bearing carrier design. results in a failure mode.
The removal of the bearing without splitting the case was a challenge that LN took on.
The hole in the case is "fixed" mostly, so any option has to fit the hole.
Porsche simply came out with replacements that fit within thier world of an acceptable service item. (We all might not agree on whats acceptable... )
Most of the alternatives are a variation of the original designs, with more durable parts, and basic material science driving them.
Hartech promotes using a standard bearing and pulling the seal to allow the oil to flow through normally.. (K.I.S.S.)
The IMS solution is a developed multi dimensional product that replaces the flaws adds pressure oiling and provides a dynamic adjustment that should logically work. (Proven enough to hold a presence)
The two that seam to claim the longevity award based on significant production sampling would be the LN solution and Hartech's Philosophy.
Interestingly,, was talking to a local shop that's been around since the 356
He said he actually sees very very few IMS problems these days, he said that the ones they did see, many had the cases having the porosity problem, basically he thought a lot of the early incidents may have been engines with really minor porosity problems that didn't show up with a milkshake , but bled enough water in to the oil to affect the ball/roller style bearings when parked a lot..
Oh well just more deep thought from the internet...
People have short memory spans. When we first came up with the tools and the IMS Retrofits, everyone said the bearings could not be changed. The only option at that point was to wait for a failure and have to buy a new engine. Years before the class action lawsuit, we were flamed on the forums for inventing a problem where one did not exist and questioning what we did and why at every turn. Now we all know it is a real issue and owners have many options. Without our efforts, owners likely would not have had options and it's possible the class action suit may have never seen the light of day.
There have been zero failures of the IMS Solution. We even had one shop fit one without the oil line and it survived being driven with just splash lubrication until an oil leak was found from the hole in the flange (which proves there is enough oil at the IMS if it was sufficient to lubricate a plain journal bearing).
There have been zero verified dual row failures. I am aware of two videos floating on the internet about noisy dual row bearings, one of which suffered through an engine failure and was reused after being pulled and re-installed.
There have been single row bearing failures - it's the weakest of the bearings and once Jake developed the Faultless IMS tool to allow production of the Single Row Pro (which is patented, like the IMS Solution), it superseded the Classic Single Row. We haven't manufactured the Classic Single Row in almost five years and any car fitted with a Classic Single Row IMS Retrofit is likely due for a replacement based off our recommended 4 year / 50,000 mile interval.
Owners who choose to ignore our recommendations and drive any bearing to point of failure I don't consider a failure any more than when a timing belt fails because it wasn't changed at the manufacturer recommended service interval.
While we are discussing IMS options, it's important to throw out that Porsche came out with their own "Retrofit" using a sealed, single row ceramic hybrid 6204 ball bearing about two years ago. Basically a copy of the Classic Single Row IMS Retrofit.
The other big issue is that manufacturers of kits with roller bearings are overstating their load ratings - they aren't twelve or even five times stronger than the original single row bearing used by Porsche. Here are some real technical specifications, which can be verified in any bearing manufacturer catalog and spec book:
6204 (original dual row, Classic Single Row, Pelican) dynamic load rating
2900#
5204 (original dual row, Single Row Pro, Classic Dual Row) 4000#
6305 (06-08) 5845#
NJ204/NU204 (most roller bearing ims kits)
3750#
NUP204E (RND RS Roller)
5800#
As you can see, the 6305 bearing is actually the strongest one. Hartech has been using these with the grease seal removed for a very long time successfully and why we recommend just removing the grease seal as preventative maintenance on the 06-08 models.
Ball bearings can handle 50% of their total load as thrust; roller bearings can only handle 10% in one direction (center race is not captive and shouldered on both side, with exception of the NUP204E which can handle thrust in both fore and aft internally)
Well... I am also an engineer (I guess like you) and I think both we'll agree that a different technical approach doesn't mean:
1- been the best solution
2- been the unique solution
Do we agree on that? If you are an engineer... I'm sure we will
Im not going to discuss the benefits or not of your solution (my field of expertise is not mechanical) but I know a little about development, R&D and quality. I work for one of the most important OEM part manufacturer and I have my opinion (and personal approach when addressing that "problem") on differences about development capabilities of small workshops (I am not only refering to your) or big companies like Porsche for instance.
The only point that I was mentioning in my previous posts, is that when somebody ask about options in the market for a permanent solution to the IMS "problem",
is not accurate at all
(neither from the technical point of view or the commercial) saying that "The IMS Solution" is the only one, because there are in the market other different options that claim to be definitive solutions (as you do), like, for instance, here in the US, the Direct Oil Feed.
Incorrect. The IMS Solution is NOT a �roller bearing�. The IMS Solution is a PLAIN bearing.
Over the holiday I shot a Rennvision video about the �confusingly similar� differences between the IMS Solution and other products that are marketed to confuse the unknowing into believing they are the same.
Subscribe to Rennvision to receive the video once it�s edited.
The Pelican kit uses the factory sealed single row ball bearing Porsche used, but they recommend a 3 year/36k service interval.
The IMS Retrofit is not a sealed ball bearing. What people commonly mistake as a seal is the ball cage.
Jake already commented on the IMS Solution being a plain bearing, not a roller bearing. It backdates the M96 engine to a pressure fed plain bearing like the Mezger engine.
Thanks for the clarification.
I realize that many of you know this stuff like the back of your hand, but for anybody that hasn't spent hours on research, it's all a little opaque. Having a FAQ on this issue that lists the options, their physical attributes and the pros/cons of each would be really helpful.
The existing thread mentioned upstream, while useful, is hardly concise.
To the OP: There are several means and methods for resolving the IMSB issue, and by now they've been covered pretty well. All of them are by now mature enough to have gathered some run data. The problem that I have with the IMSB fixes is that there is very little effort, and almost no failure data to be found on any of the fixes offered. The only thing I would say definitively is that any one of the fixes offered to date is better than leaving the time bomb in there. Even if it's an early 99 engine with dual row and a presumably straight IMS with little RRO.
My other op-ed is that any investigation, remediation, repair of the IMSB is better than nothing when done by a qualified person. We've seen pics on here of bearings removed in early stage of failure, middle stage, and of course complete failure. Just like a cancer, catching a failing bearing early will provide best opportunity to mitigate serious issues later. Even if you take out an old bearing and put a new good quality standard bearing back in there, that would be an improvement. I was originally a fan of the DOF method, provided both of the bearing shields were removed. Some cases of this fix the inner shield of the bearing was left in place, and that didn't make a lot of sense. I was planning to use the DOF method, along with a new unshielded bearing to provide pressure flow of oil to the IMSB. However, after further investigation I realized that this would be pushing un-cooled, and non-filtered oil to the bearing. The first thing the oil pump does is send the fluid through a filter, and cooler before circulating it through the rest of the engine bearings. The roller bearing is a better bearing in general, but the failure mode doesn't really equate to a bearing load rate issue. The failure mode is more often a contamination, or material degradation issue(although that is by no means definitive). So, the roller bearing while having a higher radial load rating didn't sound like a real gain either.
At this point, with the time, effort, and cost involved in remediation, you might as well go with the type and quality of bearing that Porsche should have used at the start. A plain (babbit style) bearing, which is lubricated by clean, cooled oil. This type of bearing has been used for a long, long time with excellent wear and load characteristics. a properly designed, installed and lubricated plain bearing has a lower coef of friction than any ball or roller bearing. This means less heat, and less mechanical vibration, less drag, and less installed parts to potentially fail. Even a minor defect in one of the ***** of the dual row bearing will eventually ruin the race, and then the other *****, and then the other race, and so on to complete failure. The fractional increase in cost of the lubricated plain bearing fix is a worthy upgrade over all other fixes. The trans will be out, the time and effort to get in there, and resolve this sort of defines the correct fix one time.
YMMV, objects in mirror, contents have settled, and may cause **** leakage.
One can Google "ball bearing" then "roller bearing" then "plain bearing" and end up with the differences in a few minutes. There's even images for those who don't understand technical terms.
See, the copy cats use the terms to make it appear as if what they have is like everything else that is held in higher regard than what they've imitated. That's the only angle they have. Its the only target they have other than the "fresh meat" that just bought a car, and buys the cheapest thing they can find to "fix" a problem they never knew existed.
This is the same way that the imitators try to use the word "solution" to describe their offering. "IMS Solution" is capitalized, because it is the actual name of a product. The imitators always target the originator, the people that did it first, did it best, and originated the whole thing. The people that answered the call first, developed the procedure, and invented tools, and procedures to actually perform the retrofit. If you Google "IMS Solution" you'll see that these imitators have worked hard with SEO and Google Adwords to spend money to try and nab the unknowing that are looking for a Solution to the problem.
I see that a Rennvision video on the topic of different bearing designs is necessary to help keep people from being tricked. I also see that its time we do a video on the true history of this development scenario, to help people understand how things have changed over the years. There's a lot more to all of this than any of you know, or would know, unless you were under the roof here at F6, or at LN during that period. The one and only person who inspired Charles and I to do what we have done was Bruce Anderson, and if you don't know who he was, well, you are likely not a very well educated Porsche enthusiast.
If you go back to the time around 2005-2008 you'll see that these posts were much different. They were more like "I have an IMS bearing failing, or something like that. The dealer says the bearing is impossible to change, and Porsche doesn't sell them, so I need a new engine."
It was during those days that our challenges were real, and it took 12 bucks worth of parts from a local hardware store, some junk in my scrap pile, and a Bridgeport milling machine that was originally used to build parts for WW2 B-24s to change it all. You don't see those questions about the 1997-mid 2005 bearings being impossible to replace anymore, and there's one reason why.
Just get the IMS Solution installed and enjoy your car. It's the first thing I did when I bought my 996 and I just shake my head whenever I see people debating whether or not its worth it. I could write an essay listing all of the reasons why it would be foolish to choose anything else at this point, but I'm too busy enjoying driving my car with 0 concern or worry about the IMS bearing because I know that mine is going to outlast every other part on the vehicle.
EDIT: Please don't take this personally, but your spreadsheet is a waste of time. The problem anyone new to the topic has, is that when you start doing research you're including TONS of outdated information about products that were developed, evaluated, and used, prior to the release of the IMS Solution. Jake Raby and LN Engineering have SOLVED the IMS bearing issue for 996 engines. ITS OVER. DONE. There is now a bulletproof bearing available that puts the issue to rest once and for all. The sooner everyone gets it through their heads the sooner the demand and sale price of these cars will get more in line with their actual values.
By the way, if the results and recommendations of other owners isn't enough to convince you - take a moment and just consider that the inventors/manufacturers of the product we're recommending are taking the time to respond to your concerns and answer questions that have already been asked and answered a thousand times. This isn't the LN Engineering and Flat 6 support page, these guys proactively provide their expertise and insights. To me, that carries a lot of weight and warrants respect - and when it comes time to choose what company to buy from, it makes it an easy choice.
Charlieaf92, the one thing I would add to your statement above is that the LN Solution probably isn't a practical or cost effective upgrade for people with the large single row bearing engines. Splitting the cases is major work, and costly if you pay someone to do it (few of us here are qualified to do that kind of work ourselves, with exceptions of course). I have a newer AT engine that requires the cases to be split, and when I contacted LN tech support they recommended that the most I should do is remove the outer grease seal if I'm in there for some other reason.
I guess I'd also add that the LN Retrofit is a good option if you aren't flush with cash. The Solution, while awesome, is costly.
Agreed, splitting the case doesn't sound like a lot of fun. But, I don't agree that the retrofit is a good option to save money, I believe the IMS Solution is about $1k more? If you're going to do it, do it right the first time. The problem with the retrofit is that it has a service interval, so you or the next owner is going to have to pay to have it done again - and now its cost more than the IMS Solution. And, just to clarify, I'm not knocking anyone that chose to go the retrofit route. A few years ago the IMS Solution was pretty new and a bit of an unknown, and I'm sure lots of folks decided to stick with something that had been proven in the market and reliable vs. trying something different. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that after years of real world application, its pretty clear the the IMS Solution is the way to go and I don't think it makes sense financially (or from a risk standpoint) to consider any other products.
I believe we all need to take a little break and stand up. Stand up children... stand up now. We're all in this class together.
We are one people!
Let's join hands and sing...
You Tube
Well, I guess I won't be "sleeping like a baby" there is an L&N sticker on my drivers door, it was done 5 years ago, (but only 2000 miles!) so it was not the latest of the replacements....I am going to do it
again soon...but which?
I totally see where you are coming from.
In my case, I'm not keeping the car ('00) and just wanted it done so the next person doesn't sweat it. Besides, I can install two, maybe three Retrofits before I get to the cost of the Solution, parts wise (and my labor is free, except opportunity cost).
I guess my point is that it is hard to speak in absolutes, but what you say makes sense for most people.
This was the same path I chose. I knew the car was going to be sold within a year, and the retrofit was cost+my labor(free) so I went 'cheap' and good, but not the big bucks. I sold the car 10 months later, with IMS taken care of for my satisfaction. Had I been planning to keep the car for 8-10 years, I would have chosen the plain bearing. The buyer was very happy it had an LN IMS retro.
'
The retail prices for the bearings are a known quantity. The differences are in the labor. Some of us are DIY, and we have $0 labor. Others send it to high end shops, and have a lot of ancillary work done along with the IMSB. I would say the variability of the total cost is so wide as to not be relevant to something like a chi square best fit, or median, mean, or any kind of population distribution I can mention. I know a shop in Dallas that got a 2003 car in for IMSB, and before it rolled out the door had a bill for $8860. Gulp.
My total bill for the IMSB job ONLY was $688 plus 2 twelve packs of Lone Star. I borrowed the special tools, used a buddy's lift, and did 99% of the work myself.
For those of us (? %) who just can't undertake an involved project...it would be nice to get a cost baseline....Parts....Labor (at what $ rate) what other work was done "while you are in there)
Manual.....Automatic Miles on the car.....??
At best, you can show the msrp for the bearing kits and *maybe* approximate/book hours.
Even msrp is a guideline. For example, I bought mine from LN during a sale, so paid less than retail.
Anything else is garbage in/garbage out - hourly rate for shops ranges widely, geographic price differences, Indy versus dealer, book time versus actual time spent, approach taken (drop engine versus do in place), tools used, shop/tech experience with the job, etc.
Also, "while you are in there" is a can of worms. Sometimes it is a new clutch, flywheel, RMS, clutch arm update, etc. Even AOS for the adventurous. How are you going to compare apples to apples on that?
For us DIY folks, the cost is the bearing kit itself, access to the specialty tools and consumables. You can google for prices and have the up to date price in seconds.
I'm not a fan of the idea of putting in a retrofit because you're about to sell the car either. As a buyer I'd view that as more of a red flag than a selling point. I'd think to myself, why replace the bearing and then turn around and sell the car? Maybe glitter in the filter? The problem with that scenario is it sounds like the original bearing started to fail, you slapped a replacement in, and now are unloading a time bomb to the next owner. Now, if you'd had it replaced by a reputable shop that did a proper pre-qualification that's a different story. I'm not saying that's what anyone did, but just pointing out that even the 'I'm not keeping it' scenario doesn't make sense. Just save the money and sell it with the original and let the next owner decide.
Whatever. Can't win either way. Nobody wants one with the bearing not done, but you're insinuating that replacing it is a downside too. Totally f'ed up if you ask me.
Still like to see ALL the input and make a decision from there....there is a TON of HYPE about the IMS (and the "replacement" bearings....)
I personally think that the "PEOPLE" at PORSCHE who really knew about this mess that they created and never took care of should take the blame and admit...yeah I know a few engines did did get fixed,
But an 8 to 10% failure rate....please...that is CRIMINAL.....and don't give me crap about my statement...I have owned at least 20 Porsche's over the past 40 years including 4 Boxsters a 997 and a 996 (now)
I photo or video everything when the work was being done. I handed the old bearing to the buyer(did not avail myself of the warranty as it only covers the bearing, and not the entire engine). I had an independent Porsche specialist watch and verify the work was completed but before the new bearing installed, and the old bearing was good when removed. At some point, there is no further security that one can offer. Either one trusts a person with a reputation, or one does not. For those with that level of trust issue, nothing will suffice except a replacement engine from Porsche wrapped in plastic with a signature from Hanz and Franz.
I'd be confident in your work, especially since you drove the car for another year prior to selling. My comment was more aimed at people with the intent of throwing in a retrofit for the purpose of selling the car.
Lots of people do this.. It was about 15 years ago that someone said "The day will come when it'll be really hard to sell one of these cars without one of the bearings you designed fitted to it"
That person is no longer with us, but he was an icon in the Porsche world, to those who had been around it for decades. Today, he isn't exactly right, but we see cars with this work done selling faster, and bringing more money from the purchasers that know the problem exists.
We get lots of calls saying "I am buying an xx 996 and want to know the cost of having the IMS work done, so I can negotiate with the owner for a better price for the car". When a car has the work done already, (preferably by a Certified Installer) this type of buyer doesn't exist. The opposite buyer comes around, and he generally has a thicker wallet, and has educated himself on the problem, and the true IMS Solution. This is why cars that have the work done will sell faster, and for more money than others that have not. Sometimes people come to us looking for the right car that has the work done already, and they don't even care what color it is, or what options it has- they just want a car that we've done the work to. Since we seldom do IMS Solution installs here anymore (no time for it) these calls get in the way of business.
At any rate, I just wanted to weigh in from the opposite side of the table on this one, with direct experiences.
I think the IMS work is to the 996, like a fresh, inviting bathroom or kitchen can be to a house that's trying to be sold. You might spend 8-10K freshening up that room, but done right it can make or break the sale of the home, and determine how long it will be on the market, and the price it sells for. Once upon a time I had a home that was on the market for 6 months, and had a ton of people view it, but no reasonable offers were made. I spent 3 weeks redoing the bathroom, and put in some new cabinets, spending 8K total, and some of my time. The house sold within a week for 25K more than I had it listed for previously, and the 2nd family that viewed it signed the contract. The fact was, people wanted it move in ready, and they didn't;t want to deal with some dated rooms, and having to pay to have that work done. The exact same thing applies to a 996~
When I finally decided to sell, I had about 9 serious contacts. Of those 9, all but one contacted me because my car had a IMSB replaced. The one guy who didn't ask wanted to trade a 2009 Mustang, and had no idea about the 996. Some folks on here expressed a bit of interest, but frankly - there was a disconnect between the price they expected and what I was willing to offer. My un-scientific findings are that a IMS Retro adds around $2000 to the price of the car. So, for someone going to a certified installer, and having the clutch, PP, RMS, AOS done at the same time, it's gonna be a loss of maybe $1500-2000 on the deal. Which is to be expected, as labor on a sale car is a sunk cost.
Now on the more important note, the intrinsic value of having the new bearing in there was worth 10x the cost of the parts and labor. Before I did the work, every time I drove it more than about 20 miles from home, I was always thinking: "is it coming apart now? Is it coming apart - now? Is it coming apart -- now? Has it come apart yet?". After, I could drive all the way to Houston, or up to Tulsa without much of a care. Very valuable, notwithstanding the value add of having been in there, and seen that.
Yep.. Exactly what I'd expect, and have seen first hand.
The lower mileage, and nicer the car, the more the price is impacted by the IMS. The owners looking for these low mileage, impeccable cars don't want to deal with having the IMS work done. They want to stroke a check, and drive into the sunset in their dream car. (Damn, I hear that all the time).
They get it home, give it a name, and call it baby. They don't want to deal with the hassles of putting it under the knife right away.
Back in our payday of IMS procedures, we'd get a lot of cars here that had just been bought, to perform the IMSR procedure right away. We'd see the car before the owner, as they'd ship it to us on the way to them. At times people would look for cars local to us to make this easier, or cars that could be shipped here on the way to their new home.
Min cost of IMSS installed in CA is 5k
Add clutch, case bolts, AOS 7-8k preventive (no performance upgrade) to a 996?
No way this adds 5-8k in value ie increased sales cost.
Gamble but no way this adds value to the seller.
Had one done in Sacramento last winter. Bought the bearing myself at LN's 20% off sale. Came with free tool rental.New OEM clutch, etc. $3,500 total cost at an non certified Indy.
Too cheap. No way they are taking the time to qualify the engine, and perform the procedure correctly for that kind of money.
They probably have a tech that can jam the job out in 6 hours, and is paid on commission for how quickly he can get work done.
I will ask if they are qualifying the engine.
And I need to correct my post - they would use the RND roller bearing, not the LN Retrofit. I'm currently reading old threads on the RND roller, but if anybody here would like to compare it to the LN Retrofit, I'm listening.
Yes, you must inquire to get an itemized account of what their labor charges include, precisely.
Despite the product used, the procedure is the same.
I developed the RND Roller bearing also, working with LN on the project in 2007. SSF auto parts requested a roller bearing kit, so the project was re-born and LN delivered.
Never buy anything because of warranty. When I was involved with all that I mandated NO WARRANTY, because I didn't want anyone to make a selection based on a damn piece of paper.
The only product I would install is the IMS Solution. Having developed them all, I take the most pride in it, and appreciate the removal of wear components.
Yes, that was the LN Engineering IMS Solution invented by Jake Raby. Even used Jake's tools to pull the old bearing. I haven't watched Wheeler Dealers ever since Edd China left, but Ant was really good, but unfortunately, they left out a lot of steps that Jake Raby has been very vocal about here on Rennlist.
He claims he's seen evidence (on the internet, not personally) that the ceramic hybrid ball bearings may not be as durable. He also said the roller bearing from RMD utilizes a "Porsche" bearing.
Yes, they are certified. This shop is near my home and has been recommended to me; it is not the place that did the PPI.
I don't have a problem at all with the roller bearing in there. If it has lube, and is installed properly, it should provide decent service. There's really no loading reason to use a roller in this application, and it might be superior to a single row ball bearing as well. If your tech likes them, and has some good service history with the roller, it's a matter of choice in cost. Roller bearings are found in many 2 stroke crankshaft applications and it is very rare to hear of a crank bearing failure in the 2 stroke. Just see that it is lubricated somehow, and give it a try. Put a mag drain plug on, replace the stock oil filter with a full flow and see how it goes.
He may be "certified", but he's shoveling some serious BS... There is no Porsche roller bearing... Also, what does "seeing evidence on the internet" even mean?... just ridiculous
If they are an IMS Solution Certified Installer, and they are doing this, they may not be certified for long.
Message me the name of this shop, please.
I did not specifically ask if they are certified; I assumed that if they are able to provide the warranty (which he said they could) that they are certified.
Is my assumption incorrect?
Assume nothing. Quantify everything.
Lots of resellers of the products apply their own warranty, well beyond that of the mfr of these components. Whether that�s worth a damn, is another question. No, to receive �a warranty� one does not have to be a Certified Installer. If I was still a part of the sales of these units, that would be a different story, and nothing would have a warranty. In fact, all 700+ of the IMS retrofits we have done here over the years have been installed without warranty, with a warranty disclaimer signed by every purchaser.
I�ll ask again, what is the name of this shop, and where are they located?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the standard warranty on any of these bearings applies to the bearing itself. Assuming your engine was pre-qualified, and assuming it was installed by a certified shop, if it fails you'll get a new bearing or a refund for the bearing. You don't get a new engine, you don't get a new car, you don't even get the labor cost back. So, the warranty pretty much pointless. However, I do believe that in the very rare cases that everything was done correctly and the bearing was actually found to be at fault that LN has stepped up to help the customer out, but I don't believe the warranty requires them to.
Yes, thats the way any component is..Even look at the Porsche warranty for a replacement short block engine that Porschetech3 posted a couple of days ago. They only warranty the short block, they don�t warranty the whole engine. A component warranty can�t ever include the original portion of the engine that was not related to that component. If you buy a water pump, and the water pump fails, the product warranty covers the water pump- it does not, and cannot cover the engine.
Knowing what I know about these engines, it would take an absolute fool to install a component onto one of them, and warranty the entire engine along with that component. This is the reason why I make sure people sign the warranty disclaimer before the work is even done. My entire goal is to avoid the person who has an IMSR performed on their engine, and thinks that will solve all 31 of the things that I know can take the engine out.
Some people would have the work done just to get this warranty, and they don�t come here, because of how I run the business. They may initially inquire, but when the reality hits them, they sometimes don�t appreciate direct business, with known understandings up front.
Yes, LN has stepped up when I believe they should not have. They paid me to repair an engine that hasta- certified installer in Florida after the guy left the snap ring out of the rear of the IMS assembly while doing a classic dual row installation. Once I did a tear down of the engine, I tried to figure out what happened. No where could I find the spiral lock that is designed to hold the bearing into the IMS shaft. I documented the whole thing, and LN gave me the number to the shop. I called them and the tech that did the work was on �paternity leave� (what the hell is that anyway? I had to work the day mydaughter was born, and took zero days off!), he had been gone for several weeks .. Luckily that was the best case scenario, since I was able to send the car owner to the shop to �look for something that was in the car when he dropped it off�. I had sent the owner of the car a pic of what the spiral lock looked like, and I�ll be damned if he didn�t find it sitting on top of the technicians tool box. The tech left it out, and hadn�t even paid enough attention to the kit to realize where the part belonged.
That got really interesting, really fast. LN paid me, and took care of the customer. The car owner was never a jerk, and wasn�t demanding. It was at that time when I demanded the IMS Solution would have a team of Certified Installers that I�d train, and hold to certain standards.
One time I bought a new printer and the cashier said �Would you like to add the warranty to that?�. My reply was �Hell no. When it breaks I�ll take it out back and blow it up�.
"
One time I bought a new printer and the cashier said “Would you like to add the warranty to that?”. My reply was “Hell no. When it breaks I’ll take it out back and blow it up”."
^^ Or at least run it over with a Tank!
A warranty is pretty much worthless. While in business vendors always tried to sell me their substandard material claiming "if it fails we give you a new one for free!" My reply was "Do you warranty any damaged caused by your substandard part to our $120+k engine when it fails? How about the delay to the train the locomotive was pulling when your substandard part fails? Will you reimburse us for the costs involved in such a delay? How about all the customers that get pissed off when they don't get their product on-time because your substandard part fails? Will you cover those costs when they leave us as a customer?"
I wasn't real popular with vendors...but it was fun!
I'll add that one of the reasons we came up with the pre-qualification and warranty registration procedures was to ensure that false product failure claims can be weeded out. Just like we see here on the forums from time to time where a shop "saved my engine after my IMS bearing failed", we know that many shops don't want to qualify engines and don't because the IMS job is a gravy job for them and they don't want to lose the job.
We also have shops that will send us vin numbers and customer names when they fail the pre-qual on an engine and the customer takes their car to another shop to have the job done.
The shop may or may not communicate to the owner the risks, but even if they do, many of those cars end up being resold with an IMS Retrofit tag on them giving a new purchaser a false sense of security which in fact they are driving a ticking time bomb.
It is because of these issues that we have to stand steadfast on requiring jobs are pre-qualified and bearings are properly registered including detailed work orders itemizing the work carried out and sending in the original bearing.
The end result of any task is only as good as the prep work and care put into carrying out that task. It's just like painting a deck - you can use the best paint with a lifetime warranty and if you don't prep the surface you are painting, it's still going to look like crap and not even hold up a season.
Ruh-roh; OP - you have angered the 996 gods, and brought down the wrath of the Big Guns to this thread. You - shall - now - be - punished!!! haahahhahahahahhahahaaaa. I keel myself.
Although I understand the registration, warranty, pre-qual, certified, etc, ad-infinitum, I will opine that it is not anything that anyone needs to put themselves through. Of course, for those who want the full Monty, and want the full backing and feel-good of the product and process, it's a wise thing. But - it is not the ONLY thing.
A profit-maximizing(or cost minimizing) individual who has a modest set of mech skillz and access to the internet and YouTube can do this job with a decent degree of confidence. Of course, one takes the filter off and inspect it, takes the pan off, and checks for bits, and then proceed on to the bearing, and inspect that as it comes out. This is just good housekeeping for the new bearing. It would be done by any conscientious shop, notwithstanding their 'certified' status. This is also true no matter what replacement method one chooses. By the time one gets to the bearing, if there's metal bits found, the damaged bearing is going to be replaced anyway, the only question now is does the installer tell the rest of the world they've found detritus during the job. Which is why it is useful to have the old bearing in hand, and mount it proudly on the mantlepiece along with the foam bits from the AC vent, and the carelessly broken tabs off the sun visor, and squished motor mounts(hmmm).
Not saying that 'certified' is a four letter word, or that it is a wasted effort or cost. No sir, not at all. Many choose this method, and with the best results. Just that this is an expense that some of us decide to forgo, and take our chances. Lucky, mine is still humming along, not a care in the oil pan.
<edited to correct syntax>
to be honest that comes across to me as them peddling their products. There is no need to put down competing products as inferior or copycats.
I'll be the first to admit I just finished installing the LN retrofit in my 99 Boxster; my decision to use that is because of the reputation as being one of the most well thought-of alternatives to the original bearing, not because Jake or Charles come on the forum to promote their product.
I don't see any real world scientific head to head product comparisons. I suspect there never will be. We just have to be satisfied extrapolating technical data to real world use.
Not sure about peddling as JR has no financial interest in any of these products anymore.
But I am sure about the copycat part...JR devoted decades and 100's of $1000.00 doing something that had never been done before. Quite a few have been piggy backing on his work and I'd be a little irritated too!
DECISIONS DECISIONS
The "old" replacement IMS bearing (in my 03) from 5 years ago will need to be replaced again so,
D O F or SOLUTION.....TUNERS in S FL I believe only does the D O F....
I say use the best if you can afford. The IMS Solution is the cats meow in my opinion.
Also, I like to support the company that supports us. LN has been very active and extremely helpful in my short time here, I value that...The others, I never see them unless they're trying to bash and sell.
This topic has been covered many times, but we prefer to use a direct feed system with a cylindrical style bearing. It has been proven that bearings fail due to lubrication, heat, and actually wear. Any direct feed system we install on a car we offer a life time warranty. I have attached a picture of the style we use.
Any direct feed system with our recommended bearing that we install at our store, is covered by a life-time warranty under the condition that the owner follows our maintenance schedule and we are the first contact if a problem occurs. If you have any more questions feel free to e-mail or message me direct!
Bearings are rated by load. They fail when they're not matched up to the proper application. You look at the Porsche OEM M97 large single row bearing. It does not have an pressurized oil feed system, but has less than 1% failure rate within the same heat/load environment. However, IMHO, lubrication is vital to the longevity of any moving part, that's why many mechanical experts recommend removing the grease seal on the M97 bearing to let the engine lubricate it.
Question - if you believe in a oil feed type bearing as the one you have shown, why not offer the patented IMS Solution by LN Engineering?
I refused to pay to R&R my IMSB only to replace in 5 years, again. I gambled on my low mi 996AE. Annual oil changes, cut filters, mag plug, check cam timing etc... When the Solution was released I again waited for data and a little time. While the cost is high the design is what we needed.
So, after six years of ownership I paid for the IMSS.
I must admit my drive home was different. Not a single thought of IMSB failure.
Only 50 modes of failure left to address.
Exciting.
