23 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHRennlist "statistics..."
Leading reported evidence
Use similar statistical analysis
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
And I have used a similar statistical analysis before.
Leading evidence: 'Use similar statistical analysis' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'same' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Recommend service intervals' (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 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.
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.
Suggestion · Original poster
Most of us don't follow the factory recommended service intervals because it seems counterintuitive.
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.
Suggestion
Considering there seem to be plenty of these motors running well into the 150k+ to even 200k+ ranges I don't think you can set the bar at 100K
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.
Suggestion
To finish the thought, if we use 100,000 miles as the benchmark for a "good" engine, it MIGHT be possible (or more likely "less impossible") to get a reasonable estimate of the percentage of "bad" M96 engines among the early 996s because many of them have hit the 100,000 mile mark.
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
To finish the thought, if we use 100,000 miles as the benchmark for a "good" engine, it MIGHT be possible (or more likely "less impossible") to get a reasonable estimate of the percentage of "bad" M96 engines among the early 996s because many of them have hit the 100,000 mile mark.
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 · Original poster
Basing your decisions on the "voodoo economics" of this week's IMS "statistics" is less useful than trying to educate yourself about the various maladies from which our cars suffer, put the ones you can address in order of importance, and address them if you feel that it's the right way to use your resources.
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 · Original poster
what I suggest avoiding is using the percentages thrown around here as anything other than AT BEST a snapshot of the statistics as they existed at a moment in time, and AT WORST a fictitious number cooked up using three-beer math.
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.
23 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: 20261027T070717Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
In the endless stream of IMS threads, one constant is the appearance of statistics regarding failure rates, some based on the settlement docs, some based on books published several years back, and some extracted from members' backsides, rinsed off, and posted here.
There are a fixed number of 996's, and a dynamic number of bearing failures. Deniers swear the number is close to zero; folks who deal with busted motors figure it's higher. Nobody knows. Even if we had a complete accounting of what the statistics were on day X, cars will continue to fail for A NUMBER of reasons, including some 996's that fail from IMS-related woes.
What's my point, other than yet another damn IMSB thread? Point is, anyone who throws out a statistic is AT BEST sharing an educated guess, and at worst a wild-a$$ed one.
Fact: general consensus is that the IMS bearing is a wear item with a finite lifespan. What's your tolerance for risk? What do you consider a greater risk, spending money on something that may not fail, or something POSSIBLY failing that you could help prevent?
Most of us don't follow the factory recommended service intervals because it seems counterintuitive. How often? You choose an interval that seems reasonable based on what experts suggest. I recommend using that same logic to determine if, and if so when, to address the IMSB. what I suggest avoiding is using the percentages thrown around here as anything other than AT BEST a snapshot of the statistics as they existed at a moment in time, and AT WORST a fictitious number cooked up using three-beer math.
Educate yourself and act based on your tolerance for risk, but consider that YOUR odds and THE odds are seldom the same. I had cancer a decade ago, so my odds: 100%. Your odds: something less. The point: even with something with a known likelihood of occurring, your mileage may vary.
Basing your decisions on the "voodoo economics" of this week's IMS "statistics" is less useful than trying to educate yourself about the various maladies from which our cars suffer, put the ones you can address in order of importance, and address them if you feel that it's the right way to use your resources.
Flame on...
Given the Class action suit which Porsche settled, I think you could get a better statistic by adding up all the models subject to the settlement although not all failures were IMS.
X percent of a given population had died of heart disease as of 2012. If the population is youngsters, X will be small. Will X be a correct assessment of the percentage of the same population that will ultimately die of heart disease? No, heart disease is progressive.
A snapshot of statistics like this in time may not reflect the long-term. By all means, use the best data available to sway your opinions, but taking Internet statistics as cold, hard fact is dubious at best.
I for one profess the "3 Beer Math" concept. After the 1st beer my math "could" be wrong, after the 2nd I'm thinking naw no way could I be wrong.........after the 3rd you bet your a$$ I'm f'g right. Complex yet such a simple concept.
Schnell, if you could somehow edit the original post to sprinkle a few boobie pics between the paragraphs, it would help me ______________ (complete the sentence).
OK, I will get sucked into this thread here....
Sure, no one knows how many IMSB failures have happened, and as pointed out failures keep happening.
But, to be able to discuss or communicate with one another about the problem, we have to have some numerical basis to begin with.
Otherwise, why discuss something that happens 1/2% of the time?
OTOH, we're more likely to discuss something that happens 25% of the time. Or somewhere in between.
I agree that when we see a number (1%, 2%, 10%) posted somewhere, we tend to grab onto it and repeat it.
The chance that the number we use is a correct number is nil, but what do we do when someone asks the question "what percentage of failures.....?". We try to answer the question to convey at least an order of magnitude about the chances of a failure.
Your point about these numbers being less than accurate is true, but it will not stop people from continuing to throw out numbers until the last 996 is dead and gone.
Realize though that this "guessing at numbers" thing is not some unusual phenomenon associated with IMSB problems on Porsche 996s.
This kind of numbers guessing is what makes the world go round and is found in sports, healthcare, education, demographics, etc., etc., etc.
I have 1 1999 porsche 911 Carrera 4. The IMS failed. Therefore in my vast experience, the failure rate is 100%.
And I have used a similar statistical analysis before. My wife and I are both of eastern european descent. 50% of all children born in the world are asian. My wife and I wanted an asian child, but after 6 tries they all keep coming out white. How is that possible?
So do 996's also have three beer headlights?
Or perhaps one Bourbon, one Scotch, one Beer?
More importantly, does Kate Perry make my 996's *** look fat?
OK, I'll bite. First things first - we need to define what a "death" (complete engine failure) really is for the purpose of counting it as a "bad" engine. We know from Jake that there are many more modes of failure with the M96 than the infamous IMSB. Do we really care if an M96 dies of an IMSB failure or a D-chunk? For determining overall engine reliability, probably not. But for identifying the modes of failure that can be avoided with preventative measures (e.g.-IMSB swap), then yes.
Also, because all machines eventually wear out and fail, we should define a mileage limit after which a complete engine failure doesn't count as a "bad" engine. For example, Cuda's engine failed at 119,000 miles. Does that mean it was a "bad" engine? I think we all would agree that if an engine lasts 200,000 miles, it's a "good" engine. What about 150,000 miles? Probably the same. 100,000 miles seems to be a number that most people would agree "all bets are off" for reliability. If we say that an engine that lasts past 100,000 miles is a "good" engine, for example, then Cuda's failure doesn't really count.
To finish the thought, if we use 100,000 miles as the benchmark for a "good" engine, it MIGHT be possible (or more likely "less impossible") to get a reasonable estimate of the percentage of "bad" M96 engines among the early 996s because many of them have hit the 100,000 mile mark. So, all you need to do is determine the number of 996s you need to have a statistically reliable sample size and go measure the number of engine failures. I'm not a statistician, so I don't know if that number is 1%, 5% or 10% of those cars produced for the population you are measuring (for example, the dual row IMS bearing cars of 1999 & 2000). And of course, you must ensure that the data you have is accurate (difficult to do if a car's history is largely unknown to the current owner - Carfax & Autocheck might be helpful here).
Anyhow, until someone comes along who is willing to foot the bill to conduct a statistically reliable survey, then we are all just guessing. In the end, we come full circle to realize that we don't have reliable statistics on "bad" M96 engines, and we probably never will have them.
Considering there seem to be plenty of these motors running well into the 150k+ to even 200k+ ranges I don't think you can set the bar at 100K
This type of motor should go 150K easily with proper maint. Of course some percentage won't make it for a variety of reasons just like all makes and models.
At last an IMSB thread that frames the issue correctly. This is not statistics nor mechanical engineering, but rather philosophy. That which does not kill an IMSB makes it stronger. If an IMSB fails and no one is there does it make a sound? An IMSB is an IMSB is an IMSB.
