45 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHDOF QUESTION
Reported or suspected cause
load
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
Its because the root of issue isn't lubrication, the root of the issue is load.
Leading evidence: 'load' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'load' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean of them is the only way' (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 · Original poster
He did tell me to have mine replaced after 75000 miles just to be safe.
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 · Original poster
The IMS solution doesn't need to ever be replaced until the engine needs to be rebuilt.
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 · Original poster
Does anyone know the reason why the DOF is not recommended to be used with the LN bearings.
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 suspect 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.
Suspected cause · Original poster
The upgraded ball bearings are probably the second best fix but with his record of no failures ever from his shop over years of installations and none of his having anything other than splash lubrication its hard to see the benefits of DOF.
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
I must admit that I am thinking of an upgrated standard bearing and DOF when I do my clutch, if the standard bearing is 95% safe (based on the 5% over rated failure rate) in normal conditions, and all that I have heard of that are replace have the grease washed out even when they havent failed, surly the DOF makes it pretty much foolproof.
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
Well, the problem with that then is the LN solution is not fitted to the engine as it was envisioned at the LN factory during the design phase/test phase.
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.
Suspected cause · Original poster
The upgraded ball bearings are probably the second best fix but with his record of no failures ever from his shop over years of installations and none of his having anything other than splash lubrication its hard to see the benefits of DOF.
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.
45 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: 20261026T144035Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Basically, it is manufactured by a competitor so L+N will not endorse the DOF, if you search on here you will come across their view on the system and why they don't like it.
So there is no mechanical reason why a DOF would be bad to add to an LN bearing already installed? Maybe there is more to this than just competitive systems. It seems like the best of both worlds would be to have the LN bearing with oil squirting on it if you couldn't have the IMS solution. On the other hand there has never been an LN bearing failure that Jakes shop has installed and the DOF probably isn't necessary but
I am curious about what it could hurt if anything.
In theory you could turn this issue around - chose whatever ABEC/ISO grade of 6204 bearing(If it is a single row car) you want and use the TuneRS DOF kit . No need to use the bearing TuneRS supply.The bearing they supply is a generic $2 part.
An upgrade to an ABEC 5 ,6204 bearing is less than $4 or upgrade to ceramic+stainless for $75 :-).Just search on EBay for 6204+2RS ABEC+5 or 6204+2RS+ceramic si3N4.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-Snowm...item1e510d9323
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NACHI-6204-2...item258550962a
or this rated at 900 degrees !
http://www.ebay.com/itm/6204-High-Te...item1e50a63aff
You could say the TuneRs oil supply is unnecessary/vulnerable but it is difficult to conceive why it could be any worse than an upgraded OEM bearing with no external oil supply.The effect on the oil supply volume/pressure to the camshafts has been extensively discussed in other threads and did not seem to be a problem. Time will tell. The TuneRs system does require 'chopping' out a small piece of redundant flange. Not difficult.
It would help tremendously if those who know the reasons the TuneRS system is bad, would explain them.Otherwise we are doomed to have these faith-based IMSB discussions eternally.
Jake reads these posts regularly, if he wants to tell us he will and if he doesn't he wont. Maybe I will call him and ask if he or nobody else answers the question. That still doesn't mean I'll get an answer.
I just read the above posted link in its entirety. Plenty of opinions but nothing cut and dry. I am glad I got Jakes fix in my car and am happy with the results and the FACT that none of his installs has ever failed. I will always be curious about the DOF and until many more users of it have had it for many years it will be another unproved but possibly fine option.
Seems pretty cut/dry to me.
From post #31 of the referenced thread:
Thank you for your photo Pedro. The last photo shows exactly why you cannot use the DOF with the LN kit.
There is not enough thread engagement for the center nut with the DOF and the center bearing support in the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit. Installing one with insufficient thread engagement will not allow you to accurately torque the center nut. And even if you do manage to torque it, with subsequent heat cycles the top threads will likely not hold the torque. We've already determined an improperly torqued center nut - either too tight or loose will cause a failure! I hope for your sake there aren't many out there like this.
Additionally, we closely measure and blueprint (and have so for several years) to ensure proper fitment. How does someone installing the DOF know that the flange provided is made to the same specifications as the LN Engineering IMS flange?
Lastly, how can the DOF be compatible with both the stock center stud and LN Engineering stud since they seal in different manners. Our center stud is ground to a precise dimension to ensure leak free operation with the internal o-ring located in the flange. Stock flange relies on a larger o-ring located on the center stud. Lack of an internal o-ring will result in leaks over the long term. We also know this for first hand experience where users damaged the internal o-ring or accidentally removed it. Even with loctite and flange sealant, they will eventually leak and cause a comeback. Again, first hand experience.
I think Pedro replied in a later post they provide a different flange customed for LN bearing so the stud will fit properly.
OP, my understanding of the alleged mechanical issues are:
1) the location (the head) where DOF tap for oil which may affect oil pressure and flow on that bank, which in turn could affect timing chain tensioner pressure and variocam operation. Note JR tap the oil for the IMS solution from the oil filter with the LN spin on adaptor, the main oil supply source as opposed tapping from one of the branches.
2) friction on the bearing with too much oil. I got this info from a retired bearing engineer. Of course the extra heat will be cooled down by the oil flow. Nonetheless, it consumes extra power of the engine and raises the oil temp.
I must admit that I am thinking of an upgrated standard bearing and DOF when I do my clutch, if the standard bearing is 95% safe (based on the 5% over rated failure rate) in normal conditions, and all that I have heard of that are replace have the grease washed out even when they havent failed, surly the DOF makes it pretty much foolproof.
Well, the problem with that then is the LN solution is not fitted to the engine as it was envisioned at the LN factory during the design phase/test phase.
The LN installation then becomes a hybrid. It makes sense that LN would therefore not support its bearing with the DOF fitted.
As for the concern about too much oil, there may be an issue with the bearing churning the oil and increasing its temperature.
There is the real possibility of another problem arising from too much oil.
The *****/rollers of rolling element bearings must actually roll. They can't slip or slide. To this end the bearing lube and how the lube is supplied is specially designed so the bearing *****/rollers do not slide, but always roll. In some high speed gear boxes -- machine tool bear boxes for instance -- the lubrication at some point, as the speed of rotation rises -- transitions from a fluid to a mist to avoid over lubing the roller element bearings at their higher speeds.
The issue I believe with this DOF is this can over oil the bearing and the concern is the bearing *****/rollers slide on a thin film of oil rather than roll through it. The sliding if it occurs can't continue indefinitely and the oil film breaks down the ball/roller then makes metal to metal contact with the race but if the bearing ball/roller is not turning at the same speed there is an instant of metal to metal contact that over time can result in exceptional wear and tear of the bearing which then can lead to premature failure of the bearing.
The bearing *****/rollers and the race in which they reside is similar in some respects the tires of an air craft and the pavement of the landing strip when a plane lands. The tires are of course stationary but have to come up to the proper rotational speed in just a fraction of a second. We have all seen the puff of tire smoke and hear the tire noise watching planes land. In some respects this happens inside the bearing if the rolling elements stop rolling and instead slip/slide then of course resume their rolling at some point.
I find all these theories fascinating, they all sound correct depending on who is explaining them. For me it always comes back to they are mostly theories or opinions. I've spoken with Jake before and I never met anyone so focused, I believe he's made more tests and had more real world experience with this subject than anybody on the planet. His ultimate fix for the IMS is the IMS solution, I believe that is as good as it gets. The upgraded ball bearings are probably the second best fix but with his record of no failures ever from his shop over years of installations and none of his having anything other than splash lubrication its hard to see the benefits of DOF. He did tell me to have mine replaced after 75000 miles just to be safe. The IMS solution doesn't need to ever be replaced until the engine needs to be rebuilt.
The cut/paste I supplied in an early message was written by CNavarro (Charles Navarro) who played a role (I believe a substantial role) in the design of LN Engineering IMS solution that you are discussing, as Charles Navarro is IIRC the 'N' (for Navarro) in LN Engineering.
We seem to have forgotten who originally had this "idea".
I am in a position to take the higher road. Therefore I will not comment on this thread. Nothing good will come from it.
When the engine is running there is oil EVERYWHERE. So thinking that splash lubrication is somehow inferrior is not really true. If a bearing gets enough lubrication without a direct line then there is no point making things more complicated.
"If a bearing gets enough lubrication without a direct line then there is no point making things more complicated."
That seems to be the big "IF" in the equation... Some say Yay, some say Nay...
IF lubrication IS the problem, and a dual row bearing would require TWICE as much oil to stay alive, then why do they have the lowest failure rate? Those are from the figures of the Eisen Vs Porsche Class Action Suit that state 8% failure for single row engines and less than 1% for dual row.
Its because the root of issue isn't lubrication, the root of the issue is load. It always has been, and we learned that over a decade ago.
Jake, I know you are an expert and I have a ton of respect for all the work and R&D that you've put into the imsb issue and the M96 motor in general. All I was saying is that there are differing opinions on the issue, plain and simple. I didn't pass judgement either way.
"That seems to be the big "IF" in the equation... Some say Yay, some say Nay..."
^Seems pretty neutral to me^
Old thread, I know, but I wondered the same thing about DOF and the LN Ceramic Hybrid bearing and found it on search. Talking with the bearing lubrication experts at work, though not automotive, the first thing to come to mind was that the standard sealed bearing requires grease to operate correctly. You can't just take a greased bearing, clean out the grease, and spray oil in it and assume it will operate the same, or last as long. The Ceramic hybrid bearings are designed for lubrication with minimal oil, not grease, so while a minimal misting might be beneficial, a steady stream is not beneficial. I saw Pedros video of how the bearing supposedly spins the oil away and starves it and was not impressed. The location of the bearing relative to closer surroundings, prevents projection of oil out and away by the bearing, and naturally, any projection REQUIRES liquid contact, so I don't see how the bearing starves in the situation it lives. Still, I did wonder if a small DOF mist would not be beneficial, hence my search.
My well known Indy has done about 400+ LN installations, does a pre-qualification inspection, and has had zero known failures of his installs over the last 8 years he's been installing them. Many of his customers track their cars as well. He did mention that he sees more Boxster failures than 911, but then, I assume there are more Boxsters out here to fail.
If you read Pedro's comments carefully, you will understand that the oil flow rate was substantially reduced in the current versions of the DOF .
You can also read that the DOF may make the ceramic bearing redundant. It
seems
that the regular steel (GM alternator bearing) works well enough with DOF.
You'll find more details at the Pedro's Garage website.Lots of helpful diy there also.
Empirical/chronological evidence are lacking pro/con.
Ultimately the field data of usage & failure or success trump all the opinions - which is why I am not offering an opinion :-).
Yup but for that, people need to start trying them out and post their findings because those that know, all have bussinesses to run and their data/info is not shared by the public.
What is shared just makes it easier for the other guy to replicate things..
I learned about 3 years ago that people have to make their own minds up about what to use. When I watch the videos and etc that are posted by some of the people who have "developed" (term used very loosely!) other kits I am astonished at what they try to pass as fact.
A few months ago I made phone calls to all the other guys and asked them questions, as a purchaser. I thought at least one of them would recognize my voice, since he had been in a couple of my classes. No one did, so I was able to find out that none of them knew the speed that the IMS operates at, in reference to crank speed, and they didn't know anything about the underlying causes of IMSB issues. It was all quite laughable.
All but one of them put me on the phone with some sales person sitting in a cubicle, who admitted that he'd never carried out an IMSR personally. All of them bad mouthed the LN product line, but they had NOTHING to say about the IMS Solution that was negative. They know that I spanked their asses, and that nothing will ever compare to it. :-)
I'm not sure I would be so quick to determine the technical ability of the engineering that went into a product based on a couple minute call of drilling a sales guy.
A VP of Engineering here. While I strive to transfer as much of the 'why' a product is the way it is with my sales/technical support guys (as the Why is way more important than the how), I know damn well that they aren't engineers (that's not their job) and so a lot of it doesn't stick, or can't accurately explain it to anyone. Depending on the customer, sure I'll get on the phone and really explain they Why, but again 99% of the time the people asking aren't engineers either so they have no idea what I'm talking about
The people you spoke with are there to provide answers to the common questions asked by people buying it - not to have engineering reviews of the product. Now if you got the guy who supposedly 'designed' the product on the phone, well that is another story
I feel that any representative thats dealing with phone communication relating to a technical product, should be proficient with said product. Maybe that makes too much sense, but we don't have sales guys.
Wouldn't a DOF ceramic hybrid bearing eliminate the failure of the bearing from contaminaned oil (something else sheading metal)? Since the oil feed comes after the filter, the oil would be clean. Sort of best of both worlds.
No. Because it's not "just filtered oil". The oil travels to the flange through a pathway that has the possibility of increasing contamination.
The reason we patented the method of oil delivery to the IMS Solution is because this is critical.
Oh, never mind. I thought the IMS solution taps oil from the regular LN spin on oil adaptor, thinking there may be an unused port there already on the adaptor. Didn't realize the IMS solution has its own oil filter adaptor.
You can't.. That will be unfiltered oil. The port in the IMS Solution flange goes to the center of the filter spud, which is where the filtered oil is found.
I keep hoping that one of these band wagon resellers will challenge the IMS Solution Patent. I can't wait for their first mistake, I might even smile for the first time since I started this company.
That would not vey forgiving as any debris could clog up the "nozzle"?
Btw, the piston oil squirters appear to have very small nozzles. I wonder if they could be clogged easily as well by debris in the oil.
