68 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIMS cost?
Reported or suspected cause
dealer did not know what they were doing
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
It turned out that the dealer did not know what they were doing.
Leading evidence: 'dealer did not know what they were doing' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'dealer did not know what they were doing' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check wheel bearing basically' (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
I just had the IMS Solution installed by a �Certified Installer�.
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
Without getting in to whether Porsche had the right to declare the original bearings "lifetime" or not, the LN ones are supposed to be replaced every 6 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
In addition, I replaced one output shaft seal in the transaxle and both output shaft seals on the front differential and replaced the fluid in both:
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 a side note, when I replaced my INTERMEDIATE SHAFT BEARING (IMSB) with the IMS Retro, never had to worry about the seal leaking again.
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
Without getting in to whether Porsche had the right to declare the original bearings "lifetime" or not, the LN ones are supposed to be replaced every 6 years.
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
You can rationalize the problem in your mind anyway you want, to fit your "risk tolerance" or "cost/maintenance vs investment $$" or "self grandiose" , but that doesn't change the FACT...
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.
68 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.
2 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Outcome without a verified action link
They screwed up the repair and then had to send it out to an independent to get it fixed.
I know a lot has been said about this but I can�t see anything on the threads with current 2019 prices.
2004 C4S with 54000 miles. The dealer is telling me the cost for the LN engineering IMS fix + clutch+ flywheel+RMS = ~$7000. They are estimating 18 hours of labor. This seems high to me. Does anyone have any recent experience or knowledge regarding the cost of this service? Thanks
Which IMS bearing? the ceramic dual row is about $800 for the part alone, the IMS solution is more expensive, around $1500 I believe?
The quote seems high, I think usually people pay around $3-4k for that kind of job.
I did mine myself.
Here is a copy of the bill for my 04 c4s from june of last year. Note that mine consisted of LN engineering IMS, RMS, clutch, mobil 1 oil change, clutch slave cylinder and an alignment (steering wheel was off center). I was told that low mileage cars rarely need the flywheel replaced.
the shop that did the work are prior porsche certified mechanics. Great guys to deal with and the owner of the shop and tech are both fellow rennlisters.
sounds to me like your case is another dealer bending over a customer.
sh-eeeeit. I'm a backyard amateur and it didn't take me 18 hours to do that whole job. If they are using the 'Solution' it would have taken a bit more to drill and run the oil line, but still - that's a ton of hours.
I believe that seeing the word "dealer" should be your clue to shop elsewhere for the work. The dealer does NOT want you in their shop with aftermarket parts. Right or wrong, it's an easy way of telling you to please go fornicate with a circular mobile pastry.
I have a brand new kit for sale that I bought for my 2003 targa, pulled engine and found out that engine was new, so don't need kit.
my email is
[email removed]
. please contact and I will send photos of box and receipt.
Thanks
John
Look at the copy of the bill i posted above. I was charged $950.00 for labor (10 hours). This was done by a highly respected indy in the central florida area.
The IMS Solution (installed by a prior owner of my car) cost $4700 but that included clutch, RMS, AOS and if I recall correctly flywheel servicing (not replacement).
At a dealer, that's not a bad price (for the IMS solution). I did essentially the same thing as this - myself - and spent almost $5k. Here's a breakdown of my costs. Granted, there are a few extra things in there - and I had to buy some tools that I didn't have. LN now offers the toolkit as a rental, so that will help drop the price slightly too.
Mandatory (in my opinion):
1,860.45 IMS Solution (after tax and shipping)
525 LN Engineering IMS Pro Toolkit and Supplemental
100 New synthetic oil
Other costs (if you don't have them already):
130 Harbor Freight Transmission Jack and 4 jack stands
25 HF Creeper (it sucked and I stopped using it half way through the project as the wheels didn't roll well)
100 Misc tools (various extensions, hex bits, torx bits, swivel heads, socket adapters)
25 3/8 drive air ratchet
30 Craftsman torque wrench (you can rent these free at AutoZone)
30 Spline grease, sealant, gasket maker, loc-tite, etc
17 c-clip pliers
Other parts (optional depending on condition)
550 Clutch, pressure plate and release bearing
850 Dual mass flywheel
160 Clutch slave cylinder
27 Brake fluid
50 Motive pressure brake bleeder
In addition, I replaced one output shaft seal in the transaxle and both output shaft seals on the front differential and replaced the fluid in both:
125 Seals
14 Seal puller
200 5 quarts of Porsche transmission fluid
30 Drain plugs and crush washers
-----------------------------
4,848.45
Here is the invoice from the PO of my car. Looks like he got a "winter discount" of $470 so he only paid $2800. As you can see he got the clutch replaced as well. This is a local indy with excellent reviews and reputation in his area so I would say $3000-$4000 would be reasonable if you are doing the clutch at the same time. If not it could be a few hundred cheaper. I think you may have to open the PDF, I didn't upload as a photo. Sorry.
I have to get a bunch of stuff done and I got a vague quote from the shop that did the PPI but I see prices all over the place. IMS, AOS, RMS, Clutch and whatever odds and ends go along with that around $5k.
I have the kit if you want to buy it for $400, buy the other parts, seals, clutch etc yourself and find a shop that will do it for the labor and save a lot of money.
John
The dealer quote is absurd. Honestly, I don't even think the dealer is a good place to service the 996 (independent of cost). When models are older, typical dealers (in my opinion and experience) don't respect older cars and they know a lot less about the idiosyncrasies related to older models than specialized independents who have kept pace the whole time about every issue related to those models as they age.
About 10 years ago I took my '87 Carrera 3.2 to a very well-known dealer for service, thinking I was doing the "right thing" to use a dealer even though I expected the service to cost a lot more. It turned out that the dealer did not know what they were doing. At all. I don't doubt that their mechanics were first-rate for the latest models, but they simply did not know what they were doing on an older car. They screwed up the repair and then had to send it out to an independent to get it fixed.
There may be some dealers that are an exception, but as a general rule, I think qualified Porsche independents are much more skilled in servicing older models (especially the 996 with all its idiosyncrasies).
You can buy the highest quality IMS bearing (SKF,NSK etc) for around 20-40 dollars depending on the model you need. Pay much more and you are just being ripped off. Service the clutch, flywheel and RMS...and put your new IMS bearing on a shelf. The IMS does not need servicing unless it's failing, which the mechanic can check when doing the RMS. Same as checking a wheel bearing basically. Read the IMS bearing thread on this forum (it's a sticky)....page after page after page of perfect bearings being pulled, the IMS bearing is not a big issue. Search this forum: You will find much more cases where the aftermarket bearing failed and took the engine out than original bearings failing. You will also find threads about failed replacements turning perfect engines in to a big head ache. I can't even remember when was the last time someone wrote about an original bearing failure (note: confirmed IMS bearing failure).The path of less risk is to check it and leave alone if ok.
Put your IMS bearing money towards other maintenance and repairs instead. It's better used there to keep your engine healthy.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/541x406/source_daa0231e548177bdd971625cb578da89962f2449.gif
Folks, think about this for a second. The "sticky" thread posted by RL Admin called "IMS Bearing..."
...takes a poll of 996 forum readers of which 1423 have participated with a vote on whether you have had IMS failure. As best I can tell, you can't take the poll twice. What the poll shows is that 128/1423 or 9% have had a IMS problem, and 1295/1423 or 91% have not. That 9 out of every 100 cars.
But when the problem does occur, your engine is toast.
Now think about this, our cars are ~ 20 years old and continue to get older every day, month, year. Do you think the number of IMS failures will stay static at 9.1% going forward, increase or decrease as our IMS gets older? Common sense tells you that it will increase.
We aren't talking about a turn signal that hasn't failed yet, which if it does, has no consequence on destroying an engine. We are talking a part that if it does fail, with certainty it will grenade the engine. There is no "Oh I think my Ims bearing just went, no worries, I'll drive it to the shop next week and get it fixed". Your engine is finished if it happens.
Why play Russian roulette with your engine? I don't get it.
As a side note, I keep contacting Rennlist Administration to set up the same post for a Bore Scoring Poll. But for some reason I am not hearing back from them. Maybe I am contacting the wrong folks or there is already a poll that is hidden. If so, let's get it added as a RL Admin sticky so we can start to quantify Bore Scoring like you have with IMS failure. PLEASE!!!
Wouldn't common sense then say we should see more IMS bearing failure threads? But, we are seeing less....close to zero(!?) the last years.
The bearings will have less and less failure because they don't fail because of wear-and-tear. Even the so-called weak 6204 is over kill for the application, with an estimated life in the area of a million miles. Please read my reverse engineering in the IMS thread.
As you can see from the poll, 9% have had failures...that is WAY higher than the total average(which is just little over 1%). Most people find this forum beacuse they had or feared they had a failure. Some of the failure in the thread is also not proper IMS failures.
If you look at it statistically, and logically, the best thing is to not touch it. If you are full of fear, logic goes out the window and you pay multiple thousands of dollars for something that claims to solve the 'issues'. I mean, you are actually more likely to have a car crash than IMS bearing failure. I doubt you feel like Russian roulett every time you take the car out for a drive?
Can we at least be clear about one thing? I don't mean to be picky, but this really bugs me.
IMS=Intermediate shaft (this is the intermediate shaft inside the engine)
IMS
B
=intermediate shaft
BEARING (this is the BEARING the intermediate shaft rides on)
IMSS=intermediate shaft solution
When you use only IMS when you are actually referring to the IMSB (bearing), it sounds stupid.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/541x406/021eaeed_e1a8_4236_a43d_4892a7246f88_10213ef2aded6ae19211bc4e36d82396770ef5ba.gif
Look dude, you are arguing with people who are 4-5k in the hole already because they bought in to the hype. They're just not going to concede that they wasted their own money.
The funniest parts to me are in order:
1) I highly doubt a majority of IMSB customers actually pre-qualified their engines. That means LN won't even warranty the work if things go kaput since they'll blame it on one of the other ticking time bombs in the engine. By the time you address them all, you might as well just buy a spare M96 or LS3 and wait to throw that in when the first one gives up.
2) If you went ahead and got the IMS "Retrofit" as opposed to "solution" - it times out! Without getting in to whether Porsche had the right to declare the original bearings "lifetime" or not, the LN ones are supposed to be replaced every 6 years. So you haven't fixed a liability, you've created an obligation. Especially since the peak of IMS hype was more than a decade ago at this point, that means many of the original "retrofit" customers now need another new bearing!
3) Statistics. The failure rates are over lifetime, not per year or per mile. As in point 1: with a 1% failure rate, you could buy 100 996 cars in your life and replacing the IMS would be a waste of time and money on 99 of them. With a 10% failure rate, you could buy 10 996 cars over your lifetime and replacement would be a waste of money on 9 of them. At 4-5k a pop, you're spending 40-50k for no return for most of that money.
Nick,
I produced the IMS Solution installation video and continue to manage the YouTube Rennvision channel. Now, let me give you some hard data.
This video is linked to the LN Engineering website. You'll notice that the video has had a steady increase since it was released in 2018. These numbers coincide with the sales numbers from LN Engineering. (ignore the gap in Sep 2020 and a small gap in Aug 2021 when the video was taken down for a short period)
The same thing could be said for standard IMS retrofit bearings from LN Engineering.
The point is that most owners are NOT drinking the 6204 flavored Kool Aid. They are taking corrective action with their engines and replacing the IMS bearings proactively instead of reactively. That's not fear, that's good common sense!
And based on surveys, most Porsche 996 owners do not actively participate in forums. Believe it or not, Rennlist makes up of only a small pool of actual ownership.
thanks for asking, b3freak. I would direct you to visit the webpage of the �LN Engineering� company where it explicitly states that IMSB and IMS Solution must be installed prior to failure. Ergo, every product they have sold has been to a customer who did not need it. Or if you would prefer to use the higher failure rate, 90% of their customers didn�t need it.
They don�t sell the product at cost. It�s for a profit. They are a business and you would defend that right to make a profit. So how is it controversial at all to suspect they are participating in fearmongering when, as previous commenter clearly states, it�s highly profitable for them to do so?
LN Engineering is an American company and yes, they sell products... yep... to make money. It's called capitalism. That money pays the salaries of many hard-working Americans, not to mention the millions of dollars in manufacturing equipment and other costs of running a business.
Stating that this company is involved in "fearmongering" or "hype" implies exaggeration of the truth. I know Charles Navarro and he is personally one of the nicest, trustworthy individuals I've ever met in the business.
The fact is, the IMS bearing and cylinder bore scoring problems are real and are corroborated by most rational thinking Porsche groups, individuals, and shops. If you don't believe me, watch PCA videos on the subjects of IMS bearing failure and Bore Scoring. You'll find they asked Jake Raby and Charles Navarro to be a part of the discussion, not Liamm or Nick_L.
IMHO, the only people that are still trying to suppress the truth are Porsche AG and some of their faithful following. I've seen it first hand at Porsche of Atlanta. It's easier to brush it under the rug than risk tarnishing their reputation by admitting fault. Heck, it took a class-action lawsuit to put their feet to the fire!
For the record, I'm on my 3rd Porsche and still love their cars!
Here are some behind-the-scene images of LN.
I just had the IMS Solution installed by a �Certified Installer�.
For me it was money well spent.
I�ll never have to worry about the IMS bearing again.
Plus because it passed the pre-qualification by someone who really knows the M96 engine, I�m confident that my 996 is in good mechanical condition.
Joe, couldn't agree more. Maybe some day we can get all of the IMS - Intermediate Shaft product manufacturers that produce seals, bearings, shafts, etc. To get in alignment. Fat chance. I say this with humor and no bad intent. 😁
Not certain how long you have owned your 996, nor do I know who your product suppliers are, nor how much you have done to your car, but I will give you an example of Porsche stupidity that over time has become a bit funny.
If you remember early on ~2003, the RMS (rear main seal) was the big problem. If you found a couple of drops of oil on the garage floor, you would take your car into the dealer under warranty and they would inevitably find a leaking RMS. So they would replace it with the latest RMS. Eventually they realized that the seal would tear a little too easily and as a result, kept upgrading and replacing the seal. At this time, AOS failure, IMSB failure, Bore Scoring were not major mainstream problems just yet. During the RMS failure era, Porsche started to measure the alignment by using the "go-no-go" tool. If it was out of alignment past a specific range, they would replace the engine. Hence why many 996s may have a replacement engine.
In addition, over the same time period, they began to realize that they had an Intermediate Shaft Seal problem, which began to deteriorate and leak as well. So every time the dealership would replace the Rear Main Seal, there was a pretty good chance they would also replace the Intermediate Shaft Seal.
So here is what is so funny about your point. Even Porsche couldnt figure out what to call this stuff. I use the Intermediate Shaft Seal as an example. Below are all of the names that Porsche called the Intermediate Shaft Seal from 2003-2006, as they were trying to address the RMS issue and before they realized that they had an IMS Bearing issue.
Intermediate Shaft Sealing Ring (IMSSR)
Intermediate Shaft Oil Seal (IMSOS)
Shaft Sealing Ring (SSR)
Intermediate Shaft Seal (IMS)
Intermediate Shaft Cover Seal (IMSCS)
Kinda silly that even Porsche couldn't figure out what to call this stuff.
As a side note, when I replaced my INTERMEDIATE SHAFT BEARING (IMSB) with the IMS Retro, never had to worry about the seal leaking again. Just sayin...
Just wanted to make this clarification for maybe someone new to Porsche and a 996. Go to a shop and tell them you want your IMS replaced. First they will look at you sideways, and then say sure, we'll replace your IMS. Total cost for this will be $25K plus your first born child. See you in six months.
I own a 2000 C2. I've owned it for 2 years now and tracked it on occasion, but nowhere near at 100%. I don't have any delusions when it comes to my racing talent.
Look, if you think I'm wrong, at least argue the point I'm making. Neither Nick_L nor I ever denied that the IMS/B can experience failure and that said failure can grenade your engine. Modes of failure have been documented and I believe they are true. I am arguing about the economy of scale. If you are a 996 collector with 10 pristine examples, then you can declare it's more likely than not that just ONE of them will have a failure. Even then, I'm not sure it would warrant 10 replacements @ (ballpark) 45k when a new engine is 20k. You can argue about replacement value, numbers matching, blah blah, but let's go back to the economy of scale. There's not 100 guys out there who fit that bill. For the rest of us, it's betting against a 90% chance that you're safe. Plus nobody can declare what causes deterioration. I have seen Jake say a couple of times he is studying it but have not seen a report. If it's high mileage, it wouldn't really factor into a collection car and how have so many gone past 150k with no issue? If it's age, why did we see so many in the early years?
Like I said, we agree that capitalism is the name of the game.. nobody goes into business so they can be your friend. I don't really have anything negative to say about Jake Raby, Charles Navarro or LNE, they can operate their business however they please. This discussion is about whether it's worth it for you or me, as an individual consumer, to replace your IMS Bearing. All I was saying is the fact that people buy the product proves literally nothing about whether or not it's a worthwhile use of money.
You may be right if you can buy the GT3 engine and install for the right price. You get an additional 60-80 HP with a true dry sump over a Gen 1/2 engine. Looking forward to the impressions of your engine as you learn the powerband.
If I can find one for a reasonable price during the next recession, I may very well buy one for a second engine. Whether I use it or just store it "just-in-case" has yet to be determined.
At this stage, I do believe we are in the beginning of a renaissance for the 996 engine with innovative solutions for longevity and rebuilds that will proliferate over the next few years which will address oil starvation/oil pressure stability issues not to mention add an additional 100-120 HP of useable power. Good news is AOS and IMS are already solved.
But your GT3 engine swap is very interesting.
Liam,
I hear you. It's ultimately your call and Nick's call. No worries to any of us what you guys choose to do. Just trying to help those that don't know what their options are to be better prepared to make decisions.
Everyone has three choices regarding the IMSB.
1. Do nothing and keep your Oem IMSB
2. Replace your OEM IMSB with a Retro Kit (from LN or someone else) that has a limited life span of 7-10 years that will need to be replaced again, but is relatively inexpensive. This was my choice because like all of us, I will eventually have to replace the clutch, flywheel, RMS and at that time I can drop a new IMS Retro in.
3. Go full throttle and replace your OEM IMSB with a permanent Solution (from LN or someone else), that is expensive, but you will never need to replace it again.
Again, this is a call that everyone has to make. No worries either way.
READERS DIGEST VERSION:
Jake Raby has said on our Focus On: IMS Bearing Failure series, that load is ultimately what kills these bearings within this application. Single row 6204 is the worst offender. The 6305 is the best out of all three offered by the factory with very few reports of failure.
My thoughts - If you and Nick_L want to be champions of the OEM bearings on the 996, then more power to you. I personally disagree and think you're making a horrible mistake, especially if you have a single row 6204. After 3 years of working with Flat 6 Innovations, I've personally seen countless submission tickets of people that have lost their engines due to IMS bearing failure. No, IMS bearing failure is not the only thing that will take out these engines, but if I'm going to invest in a M9X based Porsche, then I'm having the IMS Solution installed asap. Yes, I'm biased!
Not for the 996. The 6305 came post-2005 on the 997 and 987 M97 engines.
Now, if you have the engine rebuilt, you can elect to have the larger IMS with the 6305 bearing. That's the method of Hartech in the UK.
Think I paid $3k for my clutch, EPS IMS, and RMS... the EPS was close to 1400.00 and required the block to be bored out to remove the latest Porsche IMS. At the time even the previous owner didn't know the engine was replaced under warranty by the first owner. At the end of the day, no regrets.
Yes, the denial is real !
A failure rate of 1% for a critical engine component is HUGE in the Automotive repair business.. ( not to mention the proposed 9% failure rate of the 6204 bearing) .
Just think if ALL "critical parts" of the engine had a failure rate of 1%...... eg,..... crankshaft, rod bolts, rods, pistons, valves, timing chains, rod bearings, timing gears, valve springs, valve keepers, camshafts, lifters, oil pump, oil pump drive shaft, head bolts, rings, piston pin, c-clips, head gaskets , block, head...ect..
If ALL critical parts of the engine had just a 1% failure rate, the engine as a whole would literally have 100% failure rate. SO YES, THE IMSB IS A DEFECTIVE PART/DESIGN.....
You can rationalize the problem in your mind anyway you want, to fit your "risk tolerance" or "cost/maintenance vs investment $$" or "self grandiose" , but that doesn't change the FACT...
I have seen the groups of 996 owners change over the years since I was there from the beginning of the 996 cars.
Group 1 : first 7 years : mostly new owners...
Group 2 : second 7 years : mostly second-third owners
Group 3 : third 7 years: we are at the end of this group now
Group 4 : fourth 7 years : group to come soon, will be interesting to see ..
The text in bold explains painfully why you should not take bearing advice from people who have limited knowledge(understand the difference between knowledge and experience) in this area. The IMS bearing
does not
fail because the load is too high....but you need to do some engineering to figure that out.
Nick_L, I don't know you from Adam's housecat. You could be anybody claiming to work for SKF, but if you did, what did you do for them exactly? You have been given ample opportunity to demonstrate your OEM IMS bearing claims, but you have failed at that. In all fairness to you, I posted an image from SKF (see below) that shows that 34% of bearings fail because of being OVERLOADED. But since you tend to hide behind a username anomously, I'm trusting two companies that have spent more than 20 years on the bearing issue as it applies to the M9X engine. They don't have a problem disclosing their names and experiences. Instead of attacking me, show us more substantive proof why the 6204 single row bearing is perfectly fine in this application - that is, supporting one end of the intermediate shaft.
In almost every IMS thread I write I keep referring to what I wrote in the IMS thread (around post 500 something). Haven't you read what I wrote?
Edit: Post #502 and/or #497. Read those, check the SKF bearing calculator...then come back here if you have any further questions.
Charles Navarro's position is more logical and plausible. When Porsche moved to the 6305 bearing, IMS bearing failures were almost eliminated and the key factor is load capacity.
Nick,
I always enjoy reading your arguments. Sometimes I am not certain if you just throw them out there just for conversation or you are truly committed to them. Either way, you do what you think is right. I for one really don't want to play Russian roulette with my 996. You may be right or you may be wrong, but I will approach this topic with an easy preventative solution.
Regarding your post 497 and 502, I have to honestly say that I have not memorized them yet. So you may want to consider adding the information next time when you reference them. Unfortunately, they are tough to find, nor quickly can be found.
This is a you problem dude. Internet stranger Nick has posted the post numbers. It's up to you to find this information, Nick is too busy engineering ball bearings in his backyard to have to spell this information out every single time. He just doesn't have the time to deal with the unknowing because of all the R&D that soaks up his time. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we see some documentation from scientific experiments that back up everything he states. Then we can all reference post number #6204 and #6305. Oh he worked at SKF too, so don't forget he has credentials....
