43 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHEuropean Parts Solutions?
Reported or suspected cause
oil fed or the bearing replacement
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
He did not clarify whether it was the oil fed or the bearing replacement that he had seen failures on.
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 that thread was another guy from Harris Racing who had an idea of useing a plane bearing with the direct oil feed and even posted a engineering drawing of that looks incredibly close the what is now called the "Solution"..This was in mid 2012, the patent for the "Solution" was filled later at the end of 2012, but the product was not for sale untill quit some time after.
Leading evidence: 'oil fed or the bearing replacement' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'oil fed or the bearing replacement' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Fill later at the end of 2012' (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
In that thread was another guy from Harris Racing who had an idea of useing a plane bearing with the direct oil feed and even posted a engineering drawing of that looks incredibly close the what is now called the "Solution"..This was in mid 2012, the patent for the "Solution" was filled later at the end of 2012, but the product was not for sale untill quit some time after.
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
He suggested it and installed on a number of vehicles with no ill effects.
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
As long as you follow the Porsche TSB on inspecting the engine and use the newest RMS seal, installed properly, you won't have RMS issues.
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
2000-2005 single row used: quite a few failures: a lot were still in warranty or CPO coverage to 100k and replaced by Porsche;
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Fill later at the end of 2012
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
In that thread was another guy from Harris Racing who had an idea of useing a plane bearing with the direct oil feed and even posted a engineering drawing of that looks incredibly close the what is now called the "Solution"..This was in mid 2012, the patent for the "Solution" was filled later at the end of 2012, but the product was not for sale untill quit some time after.
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
It's my understanding when I filled a provisional patent with the USPTO along about the same time, that filing the "provisional patent" holds your place (date) that after the actual filing,(within 1 year) if granted, you receive the earlier filing date of the provisional filling.
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.
43 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: 20261027T150039Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Anybody use any of their upgraded parts? Was interested in the RMS upgrade, clutch disk, and suspension parts specifically. I like the idea of their cylinderical bearing IMS bearing too. Here is a link to their parts.
https://www.europeanpartssolution.com/full-catalog
Is there an emoticon for "take cover"? Not well liked around here, based on prior comments. I'm not personally against their products, but I've read a lot of less than supportive comments here.
Nope. I'd go with an OEM bearing before EPS. I've read their patent which is limited to one aspect (i.e. thrust control) of their IMS product, but yet market it as a ground up patented invention. Plus, since they're in competition with LN Engineering's IMS Solution, they have conveniently called their product the IMS bearing solution and setup a special website called "imsbearingsolution.com" and claim is the ONLY real and permanent solution. Ugh!
My indy used the EPS Eternal IMS in my 996 when I bought it. He suggested it and installed on a number of vehicles with no ill effects. If you do a search you'll find a few posts with people having no problems around here with it.
It's a shame this place is so one sided when it comes to certain products. Competition is healthy! Anyway, it has a 5 year warranty. If it goes I'll be sure to bitch about it here.
So they've got a bad rep because of how they've handled/named their IMS "solution," but has anyone here tried their "upgraded" clutch kit that claims "30% more contact area" supposedly resulting in longer life and better engagement action?
I've got their LCA's - both wishbone and coffin arms on my car. They seem to perform well - no problems after 3 years. I wouldn't use their engine parts on my car.
No, EPS (a.k.a Vertex Auto in Miami) got into the IMS game early on and quite a few of Rennlisters experienced bearing failure from their early bearing products. That's what started it. Then when the IMS solution was released, it wasn't long and copycat products started emerging. The entire IMS Solution assembly is patented and the name is trademarked unlike the EPS "IMS Bearing Solution" that has a patent for one little aspect (i.e. Axial control assembly - part#58 in the patent) of the entire assembly. Read the patent. They don't hold the patent for the actual cylindrical bearing or the flange. If I'm missing something in the U.S. Patent document, I would love for EPS to clarify.
Plain and simple, it's a matter of business integrity. When you make a IMS direct oil fed product that competes with the IMS Solution and then set up a special website and call the URL -
imsbearingsolution.com
and name the bearing on the site "IMS Bearing Solution", then that's pretty lame in my book. That would be like someone creating a cheap soda and calling it "Cocca Cola" and painting the can red and slightly exaggerated logo design similar to Coke.
I have their upgraded "tuning fork" control arms in my vehicle and am very pleased. For my purchase, had good communication, excellent quality parts and no concerns. That is all I have used from EPS.
Thanks for the clarification for those of us who weren't in the P-car world as that was all happening! You're absolutely right that such a history reflects extremely poorly on the integrity of the people running the company. I asked because I might be doing a clutch soon as a while-you're-in-there-item if my misfire problem turns out to be the flywheel (that's a whole 'nother story/thread), so their "upgraded" clutch caught my eye. Based on this history I'll likely rule out that idea unless a bunch of users start to vouch for that product despite EPS's questionable IMS claims/practices.
I would stick with the genuine OEM Porsche clutch kit and the OEM LuK dual mass flywheel. Many times, the flywheel is fine, but it will need to be tested for wear. I would think your misfire problem would be associated with the coil packs and/or spark plugs.
You would think so, but not in my case. The thread on my issue is already into the sixth page and has defied all attempts at a sensible explanation. Current theory is that there might be damage to the flywheel and I'm waiting on my overloaded indy to oscilloscope the output from the crank position sensor to find out:
Baffling Fuel Injector Faults and Misfires: need help!
I have the LNE IMS bearing in my car and no issues. Had the RMS replaced with OEM part and still have a leak that is getting progressively worse. Was thinking the EPS RMS 8th bearing kit might help. Hope my crank is true and that the shop might have incorrectly installed the RMS. I won't take it back to the same shop. Have another Indy that is much better and trustworthy, but he is swamped with work being the only reliable German specialist in the area. I hope to have him do my clutch, RMS, input shaft seal, and AOS at some point. Might have him do the suspension bits while it is there too. I might have to buy another car to drive around while he has it though. Sounds like EPS uses some questionable advertising practices. They claim that there have been 0 IMS bearing failures with their product. Sounds like this is a false statement. Also noticed that there are lots of unanswered questions on their web site. Makes me a little leery of using their products.
They sent me the wrong AOS twice...But where very responsive and quick to get it corrected. We'll see how the refund process goes as I had to pay again to get the correct one before they received the returned parts.
We use their Cayenne Driveshaft Support Bearing repair kit all the time in our shop with great results. That's the only part I have experience with, but have been very pleased. I will be trying their clutch kit when mine is due.
Just to add my 2 cents (or a local indy shop's 2 cents), having a discussion recently with the owner of the shop he said they only use the EPS oil fed solution and have had cars in with failed LNE products. He did not clarify whether it was the oil fed or the bearing replacement that he had seen failures on. These guys only work on Porsche, do regular engine rebuilds and race Porsches themselves. Take it for what it's worth. I'm new to this p-car world and I have no dog in the fight. I'll back whoever can prove they have a better product.
As far as naming the product similar to a competitor...welcome to the real world. If LN didn't have the name copyrighted then it's fair game. Technically, EPS's name is more correct as well.
^^ Oh really? Do you or "your Indy" have any proof of these so called LNE "products" failing? Or, is it true because he said so? How are you going to "back" whoever proves their product? Why don't you name the shop if they're so prominent in the Porsche world? The problem with the EPS "solution" is not that they named it similarly to another product (you're right, other unethical businesses do the same thing all the time without consequence...). It's that they did no development or research of their own, they use an "off the shelf" roller bearing, and they shoot unfiltered oil into it - and then call it "a lifetime solution"... I wonder what they'll do for you when it breaks?
It's bad for your blood pressure to be this sensitive on the internet.
KMC in Lawrence, MA. Give them a call and ask yourself. I don't ask people for proof when they tell me their experience. I presume they are telling the truth unless they've given me reason to suspect otherwise.
Let me ask you something... Which is a more trustworthy source?
Tim Kachell, that has only owned a shop for 10 years and his technicians are very young. (I would guess in the 20s based on the information on their website).
or...
Should I trust trust a team that has proven itself for more than 20+ years and trust the owner that not only has 5 US patents, but also over 30 years of proven engine research and development experience? Someone that is regularly quoted in PCA articles, trained hundreds of Porsche techs, well known expert in the aircooled VW and Porsche world, and can build a engine blindfolded. (He actually did that at an public event).
Hmmmm.... Let me think... ok... I'm going with Raby and the IMS Solution.
p.s. copyright? I think you meant trademark as it applies to a US Patent and yes, if a product name is associated with a US patent, then it becomes a trademark and protected by law. And it's trademark infringement if someone tries to "copy" it under than same name.
I provided feedback from someone who makes their living fixing these cars. You can take it or leave it but it's pretty ridiculous to act as if it's not valuable information in a discussion about the EPS part for this car.
I was being serious. This degree of sensitivity over a car part is not healthy.
Against my better judgement, Im jumping in.
First, I have nothing but respect for LNE/F6I. I have read through an immense amount of forum pages over the last 1.5 yrs when I began this crazy obsession of owning a 911. I understand what they do, see how they give back (a lot) and have no issues.
Given the choice, I would install the LN IMS Solution, and still probably will. But many like me purchased, or considered, a car with the EPS bearing and information is limited. I think people are hesitant to speak up here if they have one installed because of the reactions. That is a shame because I would like to hear from more folks who have installed this product. Not because I want to harm great forum sponsors/community members but because I want to take care of my car.
For what its worth, I have learned this is a popular choice of shops in S FLA. I had also emailed (twice) EPS when I was going through my PPI seven months ago as I have several questions. I never got a reply. Not good.
So, if you are EPS and reading this, please PM me. If you installed an EPS bearing and dont feel like posting for pretty obvious reasons, please PM me as well.
Thanks,
MajicB
Looking back at the timeline of the IMSB debacle give a view of what transpired.
97-99 dual row bearings used: very few failures
2000-2005 single row used: quite a few failures: a lot were still in warranty or CPO coverage to 100k and replaced by Porsche;
The IMSB problem heated up as more failures occurred outside of warranty or CPO coverage, and the common repair was a complete Porsche reman engine install at a cost of 19k -20k.
2006 - 2008 used larger single row bearing: very few failures.
The IMSB problem though was in full swing as more 2000-2005 cars failed out of warranty or CPO coverage, everyone was discussing ways to fix the problem , or a better bearing, many types were being talked about/used.More people/shops were repairing/rebuilding m96 engines and some still installing Porsche remain engines or the newer Larger IMSB/shaft, or even converting the IMS shaft to accept the larger IMSB ( I think I remember LN providing this service of rebuilding your shaft with the "updated" larger IMSB)
2009 no longer an IMSB issure with 9A1 engine
The m96 IMSB debate still in full swing and , everyone still trying to come up with a "solution" for the increasing number of single row failures, and a few more odd failures of the dual row bearings.
2011 IMSB Class Action Lawsuit
IMSB debate still in full swing, intensified by the Class Action Lawsuit (showing legitimacy to the failures)everyone still trying to come up with a "solution" after a decade since the single row bearing was released. All sorts of stuff was being talked about/tryed. I remember a thread over on Pelican by a guy named Feelyx who was working on the "direct oil feed".
In that thread was another guy from Harris Racing who had an idea of useing a plane bearing with the direct oil feed and even posted a engineering drawing of that looks incredibly close the what is now called the "Solution"..This was in mid 2012, the patent for the "Solution" was filled later at the end of 2012, but the product was not for sale untill quit some time after.
2012 LN "Solution" patent applied for.
2013 EPS "Eternal Fix" patent applied for
2019....no new patents or inventions since 2013, I guess the patents have stopped them , or every angle has been covered? We are still debating about the IMSB and probably always will.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/200x150/0ymv_f_maxage_0_s_200x150_5bfc93ab3d1d883fc3800cb74b3a76ab2aa22601.gif
US Patent 8,992,089 �published� in 2012 for viewing, this does not necessarily mean that the filing was made on this date, as for an extra amount of money spent a �private� filing can be established, where the art only shows up in a formal search at USPTO. I have learned that doing this carries a host of significant benefits.
Prior to this a provisional Patent was in place, which can be in place for 1 year before the actual filing must occur.
Since the first Patent was issued, I have been granted 3 more IMS related Patents. Two of these were filed after 2013- FYI. The most recent of these was granted in September of 2018. This process takes years, the fastest Patent I have received to date was 33 months after the filing date, and was paid to be expedited. The longest took double that long. It usually takes a full year after the filing to receive the first office action, which is the first time the examiner writes back with the first round of questions about the art.
Anyone who has been through these processes themselves understands this. Without that first hand experience, its pretty hard to value what it takes from a time, and effort point of view, along with cost. We have a great Patent attorney, and he made sure that not only the art was protected, but that the right things were done, at the right times to help with commerce, and marketing of the products associated with these Patents.
He is currently working with my daughter, and I on her first Patent, and she is 7.
My blood pressure is fine, thanks!
I call it as I see it, I'm only sensitive to people expressing opinions as facts - as gets done often here and elsewhere on forums. You're clearly entitled to your opinions/theories etc., but when you present them as facts "because that's what someone told you and you presumed they're telling the truth" - you are in effect presenting them as facts... Which in turn just adds to the ever present "noise" that clouds everyone's ability to separate truth from fantasy. Now that you've clarified your position and I know how you vetted the information, I can make an formed decision on whether to file it with useful information, toss it aside with so much of the other trash that's peddled on the internet.
It's my understanding when I filled a provisional patent with the USPTO along about the same time, that filing the "provisional patent" holds your place (date) that after the actual filing,(within 1 year) if granted, you receive the earlier filing date of the provisional filling. correct?
It was clear from the get go that I was relaying the comments made by the shop owner. I didn't present anything about the performance of the products as fact nor did I take any stance on whether one product was better than the other. The only fact is that the shop prefers EPS over LN. They make their living doing this so I presume they have a reason for their preference because knowingly installing an inferior product that could cause engine failure seems like a really, really bad idea for a business owner. Still, I've not presented this as a FACT. It is SPECULATION. For all I know they might prefer EPS because they've gotten good service from them or they like the EPS logo better. Who knows? All I know is they told me they've had failed LN products in their shop and I'm not in a position to question that. It would be pretty odd to go around telling people that just for giggles...but you never know.
The only lifetime solution is the IMS Solution with its plain bearing like a Mezger engine. I don't care what other suppliers say, give it time, and their bearings will fail. Any ball or roller bearing has a fixed life and oiling isn't the problem, as some claim. There are literally thousands of LN IMS Retrofit bearings that are beyond their recommended service intervals. Our IMS Retrofit was designed as a preventative AND regular maintenance item, like a timing or serpentine belt.
For me, I question any company who would advise owners to bore their engine to replace their ims bearing or shop that recommends carrying out such an invasive procedure:
https://www.vertexauto.com/porsche-i...l-p-10551.aspx
What kills me is that people read some stuff on the Internet and think just because they see it online it's a good idea. For the record, we have fixed engines after this boring operation was done and the engine failed, as shown below:
Oversized EPS flange cover for bored block.
Note the surface finish left by the boring tool. No way that will seal anything without copious amounts of RTV.
IMS Retrofit flange with repair sleeve to correct block for oversized hole. Sleeve has to be glued into the block to seal properly after the shortblock is complete. This allows the new flange to have the proper sealing area to seal with the Porsche triple lip seal.
Another photo showing the corrected block and retrofit flange.
Nice repair !! I love the locating block/depth stop.This is how the factory should have done the m97 engines to begin with, it would allow the use of the same flange and still be able to remove the sleeve and larger IMSB for replacement without splitting the case.
I bought a pair of these headers from them about 2.5 years ago...
https://www.vertexauto.com/porsche-9...e-p-12206.aspx
When they arrived, they weren't the headers shown in the photo's. They were generic $125 "ebay" headers - definitely not Schnell, no identifying marks etc. I contacted Vertex, and they were super apologetic and offered to give me a credit of $250... "Uh, no thanks" was my response - "and I'd also like you to take down the photo of the Schnell headers on your website"... "Oh we definitely will" was their response. They're simply unethical...
The old bait and switch game reminiscent of a so cal rebuilder that no longer is in business.
One of my employees bought for a Touareg many years ago (before I knew better) one of their "rebuilt" driveshafts and their "bearing fix" kits. The shaft had masking tape and was rattle canned. Bearing was the original one, just spray painted black. Ended up having the shaft rebuilt by a local rebuilder.
My beef, like dporto, is that they show one thing and provide another. Their engine rebuild ad makes a very many great claims. I'll just let the facts speak for themselves.
But when you read the fine print, their rebuilds do nothing to address cylinders and pistons unless you pay extra.
These engines already have piston squirters that oil the cylinder walls and don't need a piece of plumbing from the Home Depot.
As far as their RMS bearing, crank sag is a made up problem. It's not because of the dual mass flywheel being heavy. If an engine has repeated RMS issues, it's mis-machined. As long as you follow the Porsche TSB on inspecting the engine and use the newest RMS seal, installed properly, you won't have RMS issues.
I've seen several of their rebuilds - a Cayman S and the 3.8 911 we had to fix the IMS area where it had to be bored out. The cranks weren't turned for oversized bearings. The only reason to use such a bearing, which weakens the crank and machines away the case hardened surfaces (unless you re-heat treat the crank then finish grind the journals), is because you need to reuse a crank that has been damaged during a failure, which at that point, the crank should be tossed and replaced with one that hasn't suffered through some trauma.
Lastly, not to resort to quoting facts, but their ads for their bearing are outright lies. They aren't 5 times, 12, or 100 times stronger. And do they have a two or five year warranty?
Just open a bearing catalog (any brand will suffice as there are industry standards) and look up the load ratings. Hard to argue with facts.
The factory single row 6204 bearing a dynamic load capacity of 2900# with thrust max load rating of 1450#
The NJ or NU204 cylindrical bearing has a dynamic load capacity of 3750# with thrust max load rating of 375# <-- The EPS kit we purchased for testing used this size bearing - URB made in Romania
The custom dual row ceramic hybrid bearings used in both the Single Row Pro and Classic Dual Row IMS Retrofit has a dynamic load capacity of 4000# w/ Thrust of 2000#.
The RND roller bearing has a
5800# dynamic load capacity w/ Thrust of 580#
What kills me is some champion competition for the sake of competition. In this case, the uneducated consumer is the one that pays the price of competition in the marketplace.
Competition is fine and dandy as long as companies are honest and truthful in their advertising. There is a reason why false advertising is illegal:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/medi...th-advertising
This requires you to punch a hole in the plug that keeps the oil pump drive from entering the hollow intermediate shaft. The idea is that you rob a small amount of oil, pressurized from the oil pump, to feed oil through the empty ims tube to lubricate the bearing. Their kits did not have this option for a long time and was added after the fact, probably to address the "it's a lubrication problem, not a bearing problem" that others claim. Don't forget that "integrated dry sump" = wet sump, and the IMS shaft is located at the bottom of the engine. If there is no oil at the ims bearing, there is no oil at the oil pickup, which means you have no oil pressure.
Problem here is that it is possible to knock this plug free and then the ims drive ends up coming out of the oil pump. Pop goes the engine. Here is a cross sectioned early duplex single row IMS for your viewing pleasure to see how it's constructed:
Plain bearing side of the intermediate shaft.
Looking down the hollow ims tube, you can see the plug at the plain bearing end.
Cutting off the end of the IMS shaft.
As you can see, we cut it a bit too close and actually cut the plug too, which came free in the process.
I found this thread to be the best, most useful IMS bearing thread on Rennlist. I encourage you to read through it. It will answer most of your questions. Hope it helps you out as it did me!
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...his-first.html
I would bet good money that these rumored failed LN bearings where installed into motors that had a bearing failure previously and would never pass the prequal...
I have never read the instructions! WOWZA! Not my car. To each their own...I guess that's why there are different choices....and yes I understand this process is to remove the larger 997 bearing so not applicable.
