48 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH150k 996.2 on BAT
Leading reported evidence
Inspect last oil filter
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
He inspected last oil filter, test drove the car, and put it on the analytics.
Leading evidence: 'Inspect last oil filter' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'failed imsb ( or some other unlikely failure)' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean car fax, and never lived in northern climates' (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
There are plenty of m96 engines out there with upgraded bearings, All engines from Porsche or Dealer repaired engines after 06 were the Large bearing.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No, plenty of engines were repaired at Dealerships under warranty after the authorization was given to open-up the engines in house.
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 have since read that the factory replaced failed engines with like kind.
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 have an 02 car that the engine was replaced by Porsche (I have the work order to document this) and it has a verified large bearing in it.
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
Correct, the engine would not have had the cases split just to do an "upgrade" of the IMSB, it was likely a failed IMSB ( or some other unlikely failure) that was completely disassembled and cleaned then reassembled with the "Porsche Approved" updated Large bearing shaft assembly, or the shaft was sent to L&N and was "rebuilt" using the Large IMSB..
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
, no repair parts are available, no repair instructions, no repair authorizations, the complete units, once determined as failed, are returned unopened for analysis.
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
With that statement documented on the repair order by the inspecting technician, I would be 100% certain the engine is fitted with the non-seriveable Large IMSB.
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
The Technicians would have to do a cost analysis sheet of the cost to repair vs the cost to replace, Porsche would chose the lesser of the two cost sheets.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
failed imsb ( or some other unlikely failure)
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
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
Correct, the engine would not have had the cases split just to do an "upgrade" of the IMSB, it was likely a failed IMSB ( or some other unlikely failure) that was completely disassembled and cleaned then reassembled with the "Porsche Approved" updated Large bearing shaft assembly, or the shaft was sent to L&N and was "rebuilt" using the Large IMSB..
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.
48 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: 20261026T133652Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/20...11-carrera-33/
Interesting one to watch for a number of reasons. But I'm curious about the supposed larger non-serviceable bearing noted by the mechanic. Seems that it should have an engine number indicating it was rebuilt - with an AT. Seller just uploaded images indicating otherwise.
Is that not always the case? Or is it possible the mechanic made a mistake and this is still running the original motor. As I understood it, a Porsche rebuild would be the only way for an M96/03 to have a larger bearing.
He just took it. I'm thinking mechanic mistake, but that's a big one.
Last place to buy, but probably the first place to sell as long as you can take some annoying comments in stride and have the IMS done.
It’s true. On rennlist it’s like a small bubble of people who are paranoid and think every seller is out to screw them and every 996 is about to explode. Selling a 996 is awful. Whenever I have put one up for sale I get calls from some d-bag who wastes my time and is unsure of what they want or if they want it. On bat, the people are legitimate buyers who have cash on hand and ready to buy for a good price. No ppi’ s or hoops to jump through. Bat has their own subset of buyers who get excited about cars on their site but don’t look elsewhere. Cars can be for sale on other venues for a year and nobody cares. Then it’s on live auction with bat and people freak out. It’s so crazy.
take a look at the blue 1999 996 currently on bat. It’s complete trash. The seller is a huge real estate d/s bag from Arizona. The car is full of bondo with an awful paint job and barely any pictures. It’s probably going to sell for 25k and nobody cares that it’s had awful repaint. That guy has been trying to dump that car for a year at very low teens.
It's funny because the last comment is praising how great the seller is. There have been cars that seem questionable popping up much more frequently lately on BaT.
I find it funny on the the High mile 996.2. The mechanic writes some huge paragraph about the ims bearing like he is doing the seller a favor for “documenting” the ims being done. Seem strange. Also they put used catalytic converters on it? That’s illegal. Not a big deal. But cars will not need catalytic converters unless they are burning a lot of fuel or oil. It’s not supposed to be a serviceable part.
Best I can make out the engine serial number from the photo is "M96/03663..." Am I reading that right?
If so, the motor was built in 2003. No way it has the last bearing design. Plus, if I ever had the flywheel off, I would take a picture of the unique 22mm nut on the non-serviceable bearing. That would be proof positive.
same with the low mileage black c2 currently at 20,001. Seller guarantees over rev but hasn�t run report, then takes it to redline when it�s not at temp. Really hate that as I am very interested in that car.
M96 engines with "AT" in the serial number built after 06 did indeed have the "large" non-seriveable single row IMSB, but that is not the only way for a Large single row to get into an M96 engine.
The large single row IMS shaft was available from Porsche as a complete assembly and was used in engine overhauls after 06.
L&N was also doing IMS shaft rebuilds and updating to the large single row bearing..
So while the "AT" on an Factory Reman engine built after 06 "guaranties" it has the large single row, there are other explanations.
You may well be right. Won't argue your points. But with respect to the car in question, without paperwork that would accompany one of your scenarios, or a picture of the 22mm nut, the motor is a standard 2003. Anyone buying the car and expectecting something different is sure to be disappointed.
I will be bringing my '99 996 to BAT this spring some time. Original IMS still on board, and doing just fine. My Indy of 10 years will tell any buyer he recommends "just drive it". He inspected last oil filter, test drove the car, and put it on the analytics. "Just drive it". It will be interesting to see how much hot lead or indifference I take for original IMS. Build date Feb '98, FWIW. New tires, good service records, 3rd owner, having owned it 20 years and ~35k miles. Clean car fax, and never lived in northern climates. Contrary to frequent commentary here, it's not been a "$30k" car, meaning high annual maintenance/service costs. TCO has been very "Toyota/Honda like". Never tracked, Clean over-rev's report, and one minor respray on front left fender due to 0 mph parking lot crease by an idiot. I plan to photograph, video and document the heck out of it so bidders know everything possible without xray vision. Bone stock, no mods. Wish me luck.
I hope it does well. I know without the IMS being done its an automatic pass for a large pool of your buyers. When I sold a 911 for a detailing client of mine 99% of the conversations ended at "has the IMS be done?" Now, most of those people are internet mechanics that think they know everything because they read an IMS thread but it was still a pain.
If it doesn't move at a good price, I'll consider having IMS done, but doubt I'll recover anywhere close to 100 cents on the dollar of the cost of IMS [+ clutch, which it doesn't need]. Interesting market for sure...
I am sure it will sell on BaT but it depends on your risk tolerance. No reserves seem to do better in auctions and I agree you won't recover 100% of that cost but I think it does help. With an auction style site its probably not as big of a deal. I would have a good detail, paint correction done so it shows well, that goes a long way.
The answer I was looking for - thanks PT!
What could we conclude if it is in fact the larger bearing? It means the case halves have been split right? And that means likely some kind of rebuild was done as it's unlikely to go that deep just to upgrade the IMS.
With that statement documented on the repair order by the inspecting technician, I would be 100% certain the engine is fitted with the non-seriveable Large IMSB.
I don't think you could pay a Technician enough to make a statement like, that if it weren't true. He was obviously intending on doing an updated L&N IMSB at the time he was doing clutch/flywheel, but couldn't perform the operation due to the "large" IMSB and documented the reason WHY he didn't preform the upgrade..
He may have made an incorrect assumption on "how" the large IMSB got into the engine (without him personally putting it in ), but there is little doubt that it's in there.
It could easily be one that a dealer did in the early days when
nobody wanted to talk about the problem.. I know locally a mechanic
that used to work at the dealer told me they did quite a few where they split
the case and did the shaft and bearing because there was a brief period where
Porsche was telling them the shaft was causing the problems. They eventually figured out this
was mostly BS and just started replacing the bearings. was still a 5K+ job though..
Correct, the engine would not have had the cases split just to do an "upgrade" of the IMSB, it was likely a failed IMSB ( or some other unlikely failure) that was completely disassembled and cleaned then reassembled with the "Porsche Approved" updated Large bearing shaft assembly, or the shaft was sent to L&N and was "rebuilt" using the Large IMSB..
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2003_porsche_911_carrera_15825575936e7dff9f98764daIMG_4877.jpg
Correct, this is NOT a Factory Replacement engine.
Yes, Porsche dealers were authorized to do engine rebuilds/repairs after the Factory had gained enough feedback from the initial mandatory "return all engines with internal failures unopened" that lasts for a few years after a new design is introduced.
The Porsche MO is that on the new products engines, transmissions, ect. , no repair parts are available, no repair instructions, no repair authorizations, the complete units, once determined as failed, are returned unopened for analysis. Then after a period of time ( that varies), repair parts are made available, and repair authorization is granted.
Thanks, Bill.
I don't know. I am not convinced that this is anything except the original motor or a used replacement unit. The serial number clearly indicates the motor is from 2003. The larger bearing probably wasn't even designed at that time. One would think that for the price to split a case and rebuild for any reason, there would be some level of documentation. By 2003, there were enough engine failures that engines were just being swapped. The attempt to rebuild them locally had long ended. If it was an "AT" motor, then maybe things are different. But it is just a M96/03 unit.
I stand by my earlier statement: Anyone buying this car and expecting any IMS other than original 2003 style is going to be disappointed.
Man, you're a real skeptic. That documentation is plenty enough for me.
The unfortunate owner at the time this Large IMSB was installed, who has more documentation, and probably would want to forget the whole incident ever happened, just didn't pass on the documentation. I find that very easy to believe.
I don't find it easy to believe that the Technician made a completely false statement in identifying the large single row.
While I am not saying the engine is anything "special" because it is just a m96/03 with a large IMSB, it does have some "history" (that is not documented) that includes how the large IMSB got in to an original m96/03..
And yes, I would be willing to bet (put money) on the fact that it does indeed have the large single row bearing and not the small single row original bearing.
Well, yes. But with good reason.
I bought my first 996 10 years ago. It had an "AT" engine. Factory paperwork showed build date as 12-23-05. Serial number showed "66X". I have been looking for a way to verify an upgraded unicorn ever since.
I have since read that the factory replaced failed engines with like kind. If a single row IMS failed, the factory stuck another single row engine in the car. The "X" in the serial number above seems to verify that. The car was a 1999.
In ten years, I have read about one (1) owner having an upgraded IMS engine put into their car. I also have found a listing of 997 engine numbers that show where the 2005 models with small bearing end and large bearing begin. Also, the professional mechanics over on Renntech have similar list for M96/03AT665 engines.
In this case, I agree the mechanic is not lying. However, I don't think he can tell one IMS bearing from another. If he could, he would have taken a picture of what is behind the flywheel. End of story.
Having an "AT" that was built in 05 with a small IMSB is not a good reason to be so skeptical.
Not true, The Factory/Dealers did in fact replace small single row engines with Large single row engines, many times.
The term "like kind" means a m96/01 was replaced with an m96/01, an m96/03 with an m96/03 ect ,whether it was small single row, dual row, or large single row.
The Factory replacement engines used what ever the latest bearing type was at the time of build.
m96/03 engines were built in 2002 with small single row bearings, and m96/03 engines were also built in 2006 with LARGE single row bearings..
For every rule or blanket statement concerning Porsche parts, there is always an exception. That's why there is so much confusion .
I guess this is where we really differ in opinion. It doesn't take a "Porsche Specialist" or even a competent Technician, just someone with common since to tell if a Large single row bearing can be removed through a smaller hole. He clearly states " IMS bearing that is present can not be updated unless engine is removed and opened up"..
Unless you are just messing with me:: End of Story.
PT3 is correct (once again). My ‘02 M96/03 had IMS fail and got the new big single row with the bore increase to 3.8. This listed car has all good documentation, so there is no real controversy.
LOL, no, not messing with you. Just telling you my experiences over 10 years looking for an upgraded AT motor.
To frame my comments, I have been discussing a warranty replacement program motor. No doubt, for extra money, a customer can get whatever they want from Porsche.
Finally, if the mechanic for this car is as competent as you believe, he would have added a picture as irrefutable evidence of the large bearing.
YMMV
No, I think you are just skeptical of mechanics/Technicians and don't believe a word they/us say . Even if a picture was included you would think the picture was of someone else's Large bearing that was put there just to fool you...lol
So what is your real problem with this scenario?
To me his word is just as good as anyone else's word. Either you believe it or you don't. It's not like the bearing is going to magically revert to the small bearing after it's been run for a while. lol..It will always be documented that he says Large bearing is installed. No if's and's or but's.
I never said he was competent, in fact I said he didn't even need to be competent ( just have common since) for such a simple logistic evaluation.
So unless you think the Technician/mechanic is trying to "fool you" :: Case Closed
How would one know that their AT engine received an increase in bore size? Not trying to be confrontational, just asking. I have an AT replacement that was built in 04 I'm fairly sure it isn't a 3.6 though. My car is a '99'.
WOW, sorry you are taking this so personal. Never intended that to happen.
OTOH, I am talking about 48+ years of Porsche ownership in general, and 10 years specifically looking for an upgraded bearing in a M96 motor. Also, for the record, I have found that there are a whole lot more Porsche superstar mechanics than bad eggs.
IMHO, the only plausible explanation for a big bearing in a standard M96/03 motor is a customer funded rebuild. Isn't the case machining necessary to put a big bearing into a standard case expensive of and in itself? Too much money would be tied up in this motor for there not to be some level of evidence of the work.
Put another way, there is something just wrong with the story about this motor.
Yea, I know you didn't do it intentional, but it happened. It felt personal because I felt sorry for the Technician who 3 years ago was asked to do a clutch/flywheel/ IMSB, on this car, and when he told them the IMSB could not be updated, I'm sure he was met with looks of disbelief from the customer may even his own employer, then the research/investigation started that ended up confirming his observation, then it was documented on paper, and now is met with disbelief again. three years later..
There are plenty of m96 engines out there with upgraded bearings, All engines from Porsche or Dealer repaired engines after 06 were the Large bearing. m96/01 m96/02 m06/03 m96/04 m96/05 m97/01, even the Boxster engines. m96/20 m96/21 m96/22 m96/23 m96/24
No, plenty of engines were repaired at Dealerships under warranty after the authorization was given to open-up the engines in house. And after 06 the Large bearing IMS was used in all repairs. The Technicians would have to do a cost analysis sheet of the cost to repair vs the cost to replace, Porsche would chose the lesser of the two cost sheets.
No, no machine work is necessary to install the Large bearing IMS, It fits as a drop-in.
The only thing wrong with the story is we don't know who was unfortunate enough to have spent the money to have the Large bearing installed, Porsche or a the owner at the time, does it really matter?
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, would someone like to take over for me? I am not enjoying this somewhat educational/dead horse beating..
Sorry PT for the dead horse beating and Hal's skepticism. But I have actually enjoyed your further explanations of how these situations would have played out in the post-06 Porsche repair world. This has been a very insightful thread for me, as I started with the understanding only AT motors would have the larger bearing.
I'm now looking at a 99 that had its motor replaced in the 2010-12 time frame with a "factory crate motor". 100k on the car, 40k on the new motor. Hoping to get some documentation before I start asking questions, but it seems likely it got a complete motor (and not just shortblock) from Porsche. Depending on the build date it should have the larger bearing and, as you've stated previously, all the latest revisions of various parts (chain guides, tensions, pistons with non-ferrous skirts, etc).
Only problem, it's up in Wisconsin. So I gotta travel, and it also seems the bore scoring risk would be increased for a northern car. Was stored in the winter, but he did go start it and let it warm up something like once a month in storage.
I'm glad you enjoyed the back and forth, it was worth it then
Yes, the 99 with 100k miles car and 40k miles engine sounds like a good combo, and if done in 10-12 will have the Large bearing
