31 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996 IMS
Leading reported evidence
Check jr's compiled stats
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 contain suggestions
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.
Leading evidence: 'Check jr's compiled stats' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check jr's compiled stats' (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 contain suggestions
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.
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.
31 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: 20261027T035758Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
in case you missed this
PINNED
post when you searched:
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...his-first.html
P.S. Hurry up and put your flame suit on......just in case
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/355x200/200_aa9a949f50b98ce429335968cf960ee885d025d9.gif
I never really understood why people focused on the single row vs dual row IMSB. Since there is no real data regarding the failure rate of each, what difference does it make. They both can fail.
If you are worried about the IMSB, upgrade the bearing as a maintenance item. If you're not worried, then don't.
Kalish...great artwork BTW.
Thread closed.
Yes, there is a difference. Don't settle for anything other than the 1998 model. What these guys on here won't tell you is that there has never been even one documented case of an IMS bearing failure on a 1998 996.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/639x382/tell_me_about_ims_pic_30e4f5b2347a2d85520fea804e7a150350d4faa3.jpg
The comedy relief is fun but in all seriousness, the answer to your question is that statistics compiled by JR and others show the failure rates to be:
DR IMSB @ 3%
SR IMSB @ 8 to 10%
The forum poll stays between 9 to 10% failure.
Hope this helps.
Anyone claiming that there is a known figure for this is wrongity wrong wrong. People continue to drive their 996's, and thus more wear items are going to wear out - including the bearing.
If you have a dual-row bearing, it will last longer than a single-row bearing. This is the only "fact" I am aware of that is even remotely verifiable.
Krazy, you worked two new acronyms AND a reference to Jake into a single post - bravo. *slow clap*
Our IMS tech article
here
has a lot of good information. Scroll down to "Which Bearing is Inside Your Engine?" It should help with your question a bit.
I understand that if your St. Jake wrote it, you're going to parrot it back. But, "bro," attempting to hang a fixed percentage of failure on something that will be forever changing is a fool's errand.
I would expect you of all people, since you're the Paul Revere of IMSB failure, to understand that the bearing will eventually reach the end of its service life in EVERY M96 unless it is replaced or eliminated.
The number will of course never reach 100%, since 996's die of many things like drowning, fire, etc. - but as time wears on, the 3%/10% number will continue to be less and less reflective of reality. If the situation is really as dire as you like to make it out to be, the number will be FAR greater than what you suggest. We won't know what the actual number is until EVERY 996 is dead and accounted for - which, of course, will never happen.
If you truly believe the 3%/10% numbers, you must also accept that there will be no further IMSB failures. I have a hard time believing that you'll go along with this line of reasoning...
Schnelly, I gotta disagree wit you and stick up for my bruh KK. Those are not made up acronyms - "DR IMSB" is for Doctor driven cars and "SR IMSB" is for Senior or older driver owned cars (think Hurdi and JohnnyIrish). It is well known that the cars that are driven sedately have a higher incidence of failure, hence Jake's tracking of these categories. However, some doctors actually are able to exercise their cars to some degree (when compared to older drivers). Once a doctor gets to the age where he requires a prescription for the little blue pill, he is switched to the SR IMSB category for tracking purposes. Also contributing to the higher SR IMSB failure rate is the apparent accelerated degradation of the bearing caused by consistent driving with the left turn signal stuck in the "on" position. I know this to be fact. Jake told me so personally. He just didn't want to share this proprietary info with you parrots.
Gents, I hate to say this but I think we just got TROLL-ed. Have not heard back from the OP.....who is probably snickering in the sidelines watching us bite.
There is no such thing The IMF, IMS, RMS it is all figment of your imagination.
Joint venture Marketing scheme by Porsche and Mobile 1 oil to sell new Porsches and increase oil and oil filter replacement frequency
You have all been duped!
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
