69 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHAnother IMS question (Replace LN Retrofit?)
Leading reported evidence
Install solutions
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
Here's a point of bias for you - Charles, Jake and LN Engineering know more about this problem than anyone, and have developed, marketed and installed solutions with recommended service life based on their knowledge - 4 years or 50K miles.
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've seen everything from bearings cut out to work orders requesting used oil to be drained and re-used after the new bearing is installed without pans being removed to inspect the sump for debris.
Leading evidence: 'Install solutions' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'ims itself being out of tolerance' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Inspect sump' (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've seen everything from bearings cut out to work orders requesting used oil to be drained and re-used after the new bearing is installed without pans being removed to inspect the sump for debris.
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 car had the IMS replaced 12/13 @ 78k with a single row IMS retrofit kit.
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.
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 know it's crazy changing a part that can last say 15-20 years (average age of my porsche's 16 years all without exception had original IMSB) to one that has to be changed every 4 years whether you use the car or not.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Inspect sump
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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
I've seen everything from bearings cut out to work orders requesting used oil to be drained and re-used after the new bearing is installed without pans being removed to inspect the sump for debris.
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
Here's a point of bias for you - Charles, Jake and LN Engineering know more about this problem than anyone, and have developed, marketed and installed solutions with recommended service life based on their knowledge - 4 years or 50K miles.
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've seen everything from bearings cut out to work orders requesting used oil to be drained and re-used after the new bearing is installed without pans being removed to inspect the sump for debris.
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
We do still see single row retrofits fail from time to time, but as referenced to above, we still recommend anyone with a single row retrofit to change the bearing out as they are all well out of the advertised service interval for time, even if not for mileage.
Recommend regular maintenance and replacement every 4 years
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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
Not that I want to get in the middle of this debate...but I think you have to look at what Charles has said (I am not an attorney either)...He has stated that they recommend regular maintenance and replacement every 4 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
Here's a point of bias for you - Charles, Jake and LN Engineering know more about this problem than anyone, and have developed, marketed and installed solutions with recommended service life based on their knowledge - 4 years or 50K miles.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
ims itself being out of tolerance
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
You also have to subtract out all of the early failures which there is credible evidence was caused by the IMS itself being out of tolerance which we can assume is no longer an issue as they should have all failed at this point.
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.
69 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: 20261026T220748Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I purchased my 4S about 6 months ago, and like many of you have the IMS crosses my mind pretty frequently. The car had the IMS replaced 12/13 @ 78k with a single row IMS retrofit kit. Part number on the receipt reads the same as this:
http://www.new-part.com/product/engi...er-996-carrera
So now, my car is @ 101k. I believe LN rates this part's wear life at 4 years or 50k. The part only has about half that mileage but we just crossed 4 years since installed in my car. Is there any data on failure rates for LN Retrofit bearings? Does it make sense in my situation to open it up again and replace? If I did so, I'd most likely bite the bullet and go for the solution. Am I overthinking this?
Pic for views
I read the OEM IMS failure rate is cited to be around 8%, is there any data showing the LN Retrofit failure rate? Trying to weigh the risk/benefit ratio on this one. Another point to consider is the clutch was just replaced on the car in the last year so unfortunately I can't kill two birds and knock out the IMS "while I'm in there".
I�m in the exact same situation, ironically with a C4S, too. I bought it in December. I called LN, & the person I spoke with was suprisingly forthright. I expected the recital of the 4/50 service life recommendation, but he told me that they have had maybe 5 of the �classic� retrofits fail, all in engines that had debris from either a partial IMSB failure or something else (I�m paraphrasing here). He didn�t say �don�t worry about it,� but he sure gave that impression. You may want to give them a call next week to see if you get the same feeling I did.
I�m under the impression that the materials & available lubrication are far superior to a stock bearing that had the seal compromised. Certainly the �pro� retrofit or the solution are better options, but the classic should be better than the stock one that had a 92% (not sure how relevant the 8% failure figure really is) success rate.
I wish you the best of luck with your decision. When I need a new clutch, I�ll certainly replace the IMSB, & I hope that it�s not needed before then!
IMHO you're good to go for a couple of more years. 4 yrs /50,000 mi. is the very safe interval, probably conservative to the extreme. Thousands of these same bearings have been in cars for 14+ years, 100K+ miles. And when those "old" ones are pulled by owners we've seen them come out in excellent condition and didn't need replacement. If you can't sleep at night, replace it. I wouldn't touch it, but it's your car, your money, and your peace of mind.
Bottom line, your car had a lifetime part replaced with a wear item that LN recommends replacement Therof at the stated intervals. You have three options:
1. Replace the part per the service interval recommendations of LN.
2. Replace that part with a lifetime part (the LN solution).
3. Roll the dice and see what happens.
If you do choose to replace it, there is a mail in rebate on upgrading to the solution.
http://imsrebates.com/
Re: failures. I'm open and honest about this and have said so publicly on the forums for years. It's all part of the public record. Any part supplier that says they don't have failures is straight up lying. Like with any mechanical system, things wear, and will eventually fail, it's just a matter of what and when. Same goes with the IMS bearing - how the car is serviced, what oil is used, and how it's driven, among a million other things will affect the projected lifespan for any one component. There are thousands of kits that have been in service now over 10 years without problems.
We just had a report of a failure of a classic single row IMS Retrofit that was in service past the 4 yr mark, but thankfully, the owner of the car had a spin on oil filter adapter and he changed his oil every 3k miles and cut the filter open and also regularly dropped the sump. His being proactive let him find the bearing in a very early stage of failure and the filter caught 100% of the debris. He's putting in a Single Row Pro and he'll be good until later in the future when he plans to do an elective rebuild and upgrade his engine and will go with a Solution at that point.
It's a shame when Porsche released their retrofit kit with a single row ceramic hybrid bearing (just like our classic single row ims retrofit) that they didn't release a TSB or directive with how to install, what tools to use, or how often to change it.
That said, of actual installs where the car was properly pre-qualified, following our directives, it's true that the failure count is probably no more than 5, where the bearing truly was defective. We have others fail over the years where corners were cut or bearings were fitted to engines that clearly should have never been retrofitted. I've seen everything from bearings cut out to work orders requesting used oil to be drained and re-used after the new bearing is installed without pans being removed to inspect the sump for debris.
Hi Charles, are you saying that it's your experience that there are Retrofit Kits that have been in service for 10+ years, or are you referring to the Solution?
plenty of scare stories around especially from mechanics desperate for business. However I can't find any evidence to say a retro fit by anyone will last longer than original.
There are people on this site who have had other supposedly better retro IMSB fail.
If it ain't broke don't fix it
There have been zero failures of the Single Row Pro or Classic Dual Row Retrofit kits. Likewise, the IMS Solution also has a flawless record. That said, there are Classic Single Row bearings that have been in service now 10 years, well past the recommended service interval. As with any mechanical part, the longer it is in service, the greater the likelihood that it will wear out or fail. There is a reason why manufacturers recommend timing belts on those engines where it is not a permanent chain - some at 60k, some at 100k. The idea is you change it before it fails.
don't forget for you to known something has 0 failures you would have to know every one that was fitted and be in touch with everyone that has one fitted, sounds like a broad claim.
I'm not doubting your product but do you know every car that has one.
Considering the expectations of customers that spend the several thousand dollars it takes to preemptively replace a part that has an 8% failure rate, I suspect that LN Engineering would hear about any failures.
To your point, maybe they should claim they�re not aware of any failures instead of stating they�ve had no failures.
and don't forget 8% over the life of a car, so 15 year old car
0.5% per annum, so 1 in 200 per year most people keep these cars for around 3 yeas so 1.5% chance on average while you own the car,
changing it does not make sense unless it's gone
Is that a fact or your opinion,
Worst case and unlikely an engine rebuild, best case just a bearing.
and for every 100 bearings changed probably 3 needed it(excluding broken ones).
These garages are no better than scaremongering robbers, claiming their products have never failed,
and banging on, ohh! if you don't change it, it will fail, BULL!
I've had 996+997's and absolutely hammer them to the redline and beyond,
never a failure.
Sorry Charles, copied two of your quotes below.
1 "There have been zero failures of the Single Row Pro or Classic Dual Row Retrofit kits"
2 "Any part supplier that says they don't have failures is straight up lying"
A paradox:-(
Not that I want to get in the middle of this debate...but I think you have to look at what Charles has said (I am not an attorney either)...He has stated that they recommend regular maintenance and replacement every 4 years. But what he also said that of the two types he lists there have been no reported failures. He is not stating that they wont fail, just that they know of no failures. Those are two different things. :-)
His quote below, maybe from a different quote you read.
'There have been zero failures of the Single Row Pro or Classic Dual Row Retrofit kits. Likewise, the IMS Solution also has a flawless record.'
Russ, we all know your opinion and position on changing your IMS bearing. Yes, I should have stated that there have been zero REPORTED failures of the Single Row Pro, Classic Dual Row, or any of the IMS Solution kits. However the success of any procedure regardless of whose technology you use depends on the condition of the engine to start with. Not every engine should have the IMS bearing changed. I'll reiterate what I've stated a thousand times before - it's important that pre-qualification procedures are followed. Waiting to change your IMS bearing until it starts to fail or has been failed as you imply in your posts is a bad idea.
There are many who wait until they see debris and then sell their car to some poor unsuspecting soul who has a live grenade on their hands.
You read correctly. The ims bearing is a maintenance item that needs to be serviced, like a timing belt. If you run any bearing, factory or aftermarket long enough, it will fail. Everything mechanical will eventually fail. Not to be a debbie-downer, but just the facts.
Russ, how is this a paradox? You are not adding anything constructive to this conversation by being a horses a**. There have been many threads on this topic prior to your joining Rennlist. The search feature is your friend. I've been honest about failures and there have been members with failures that have posted on Rennlist previously.
You say your product never fails, yet you also say, anyone who says their product never fails is a liar.
A
paradox
is a statement that contradicts itself and still seems true somehow.
Please re-read my past posts. I have taken ownership of product failures in the past. I was answering another members direct question.
It is because of people like you that I took an extended hiatus from the forums.
Charles - you provide
invaluable
technical knowledge and information and I appreciate it. As do so many others on here. If you have to step away from this one...do so, but please stay with us as we really do appreciate everything you provide, and your company provides. Proud owner of many LN Engineering products!
It's just the way you word thing implying the original IMSB will fail when it's chance of failure below
8% of cars fail at an average of say 85,000 miles remember some never fail in the life of a car even 250k or more ;
so you take 100 cars do 85,000 miles in each so you cover 8,500,000 miles divided by your 8% or 8 failures = 1,062,000 miles traveled
( I am not nor have I implied that 1 bearing would or could do this, what I am pointing out is on average (as I have stated many times) A 996 single row bearing will go every aprox million miles travelled)
This is not taking into account the 1% for the upgraded bearing which has a failure rate of 1 in 8,000,000 miles travelled.
Anyway I'll agree to mention it to you no more, if you agree when I give someone advice on IMSB you don't reply to me.
As you have an agenda, but to me it's a bit of number crunching unbiased advice to someone who asked,
Your data is flawed as is your logic.
This isn't a made up problem and your opinion is no consolation for those who have suffered a failure or multiple failures.
I fully understand the plight of the victims of imsb failure, however someone asked a question on whether to change one I gave the best factual unbiased advice with a breakdown of the likelihood of it happening. I appreciate you see more than your fair share of failures as it's the business your in, but the fact you see more failures gives you a bias opinion.
you say my data if flawed, let"s see your data to the contrary.
I doubt you'll reply but I hope you do, if you have data to the contrary when someone asks again I can say here you are I got this from Charles he knows what hes talking about, if it's fact based I'll back yiou all the way.
best wishes Russell
There are lies, damn lies...and statistics. Here's a point of bias for you - Charles, Jake and LN Engineering know more about this problem than anyone, and have developed, marketed and installed solutions with recommended service life based on their knowledge - 4 years or 50K miles. The OP has already had a single row retrofit, so any debate about original bearing life is moot. What is relevant is the 4 year/50K service recommendation for a retrofitted single row bearing. The OP I think checked out of this thread...but if he is still checking in - For your peace of mind, schedule to have the bearing replaced and spring for the Solution...then drive it like you stole it! It will be worth it if you plan on keeping the car.
I know it's crazy changing a part that can last say 15-20 years (average age of my porsche's 16 years all without exception had original IMSB) to one that has to be changed every 4 years whether you use the car or not.
Ps I have never doubted the ability of any mechanic on this site
Don't feed the trolls. Lol. There are many of us that are damn glad to see you posting again. I actually have a OneNote page called CHARLES where I copy and paste out the technical information from your posts for easy reference later. Don't let the jackasses ruin it for the rest of us. No response is required to trolls because stupidity is usually obvious to everyone except the stupid.
Thanks, I was hoping that point wasn't lost from the thread after all this haha. I do plan to go with the solution but based on anecdotal evidence and Charles' experience with no knowledge of a single row retrofit failing I think I might take my chances for a while longer until I need another clutch in maybe 2 years time. Hope I don't look back on this with regret.
I dare say there are some stupid people on this site,
I however have an IQ of 138, that puts me in the top 2% intelligence of any country and in the top 1% of most countries, Also my partner and I also own outright the larges business of it's kind in the country.
IQ doesn't measure stupid. You have however proven that you have one of the largest egos on the site which explains your attempts to sound "so smart" at Charles's expense. But don't worry, you aren't the first person to focus on boosting your ego instead of the good of the community and you won't be the last. You guys are a dime a dozen and luckily most of you don't stick around for very long.
Isn't it odd how know one has disproved my formula for working out IMSB failure rate.
And yes 100% serious, I have no need to lie.
No hidden agenda and nothing to prove.
+996 Thank you, Charles.
Please know that your efforts are not wasted and even though we are not chiming in on every thread, we are reading, and appreciate you.
138, huh?
Don't really have an ego problem, but you obviously do as you refer to people as stupid.
I have to say, I've never found the need to criticise any one on this site or any other site.
Maybe you should look at yourself for a while and see how you are perceived ;-)
Then take some time to try and disprove my very simple IMSB failure equation, good Luck:-)
If you can't disprove it leave a sarky comment please
Actually sounds like a good plan. I don't think you need to worry...just make a plan and implement. Change oil and filter at 3K mileage and you will be fine. If you already haven't done it, get the LN spin-on oil filter adapter and magnetic drain plug. The full flow disposal filter with no bypass and magnetic drain plug have saved engines. Not a bad idea to get a UOA as a baseline at next oil change. But I really think you have nothing to worry about.
You are using two numbers for your math. One is from a fixed point in time, which is not today, yet you are applying it to today. The second is a number you pulled out of your ***, 85k miles. You are then applying basic 6th grade math (see link below) to it, strutting around like a Banty rooster, and declaring yourself a genius. The whole thing is quite sad actually.
If you simply stated that with a reported failure rate of 8% you don't think it's worth changing out the IMSB, I don't think anyone would have had an issue. If you posted true MTBF figures for the IMSB in this application, I don't think anyone would have had an issue.
But when you start attacking one of the few subject matter experts we have on this board with your logical fallacies and lack of any social skills whatsoever, then I take issue.
And congrats again on your impressive math skills.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ab-...cs-probability
85k miles was around the average miles of cars checked at the time of the lawsuit not from my ***.
and all I've done is answer someones questions and as I stated several times a very simple equation,
you say 6th grade maybe lower, thats why I have trouble that people like yourself cant understand it.
I put it in the simplest terms yet you cant grasp it,
you criticise it, but come up with nothing better,
and if you cant come up with something better,
please leave sarky comment.
Sarky as in an abbreviation for sarcastic not snarky
as bill embarrassingly tried to point out
What are talking about? What concept is everyone failing to grasp. That an 8% chance of failure isn't very much? Duh. You've more than proven your ability to grasp the obvious.
Look, it's simple in my eyes. Bearings are a wear item and the IMSB is relatively easy to replace. If you like your car, then replace it while you are in there for something else with a brand new single row from Pelican. At $180 they are a no brainer. If you love your car, go for the LN Pro. If you wish you could marry it, opt for the Solution. I have one of each and all of them are serving their respective purposes.
Now if you will excuse me, I have a 996TT to corner balance and align for my first track day of the season Saturday.
You also have to subtract out all of the early failures which there is credible evidence was caused by the IMS itself being out of tolerance which we can assume is no longer an issue as they should have all failed at this point. That gets us down to the % of bearings that failed due to wear. There has also been evidence that oil change interval, type of oil, and foreign debris are all contributing factors. So if you are the original owner or have service records showing good maintenance for the life of the vehicle your risk would be even less. But that also means that if a car was improperly cared for, the chance would be much greater of failure than the statistical average which included the well cared for vehicles. Now you are sharp enough to see where I'm going so I'll stop here to see if I'm missing something.
Best I can figure. And if you have a solid service history for the life of the car it sounds like it would be even less of a chance of failing than the stats you have presented. Which is pretty crazy.
FFS can we just change the title of the 996 forum to "Russ does maff"? Would you be happy with that?
Russ, we get it that you think that you are smarter than the sum of the rest of this forum's members (which is not endearing in the least BTW) as well as your singular opinion on IMSB servicing.
If you won't go away will you at least stop with all the inane horse**** and simply use the site as a resource? We know how you feel on the subject... you've plastered it on every IMSB thread here.
If you haven't already, just start a thread for your opinion. State it and be done please.
Your repeated carbon copy arguments sidetrack other people's threads, makes it difficult for anyone else to express their opinions or experiences and creates a lot of NOISE.
Sincerely ALL OF US.
l certainly am not sidetracking threads, I was one of the first to reply to op regarding imsbf, with a easy to follow calculation, then people like you chip in with nothing to add, and assuming 10,000+ people agree with you.... Take a look at what you wrote!
does it help the op.
So I see now, only people who are too scared to deviate from the ill informed crowd are supposed to comment on here!!!
I know there's a lot of garages on here touting there stuff, but I'm sorry I didn't realise most of you are sheep!
It's a pity that this site is for people with something in common, yet you just think you can bully people into believing what you believe,
with out discussing, or proving anything and a lot of you just copy what other people say because you don't have a mind of your own,
If you think you can bully me into agreeing with you, you are very much mistaken,
Ps. anyone who replies to this will get a reply, as if you didn't know that.
It has nothing to do with you having a different opinion. I bet there are many that would respect you for that. It�s that fact that your crap in every IMS thread with the same drivel over and over and over. We get it.
Update a few years later. Never did get around to changing the bearing, car is at 117k, the retrofit bearing just under 40k. My indy told me "don't worry about it, just drive it". Have been doing blackstone analysis every 3k with no issues. Not sure what I'll do, I almost took it in for another retrofit in late 2020 but other things came up. Maybe just continue to drive it til it needs another clutch, which could be years at this rate. Any thoughts?
What did you end up doing?
Charles - has this changed? Have you received any reports of single row retrofits failing?
We do still see single row retrofits fail from time to time, but as referenced to above, we still recommend anyone with a single row retrofit to change the bearing out as they are all well out of the advertised service interval for time, even if not for mileage.
That said we still can't answer why some retrofit bearings look great after been in service for a long time (sent back to us with their warranty registration) and some fail prematurely. Again as cited previously, it may have to do with the oil used, oil level observed, manufacturing tolerances for the shafts (we see shafts with upwards of .015" of runout even without a failure which can't be good for the bearing), contamination in the oil, vibration induced from worn tensioners that is transmitted into the bearing, poor maintenance, moisture in the engine, or improper installation, or some combination. We'll probably never know. With any mechanical system, unfortunately there is no way to make it 100% fail proof. That's why we provide service intervals that are conservative and also offer the IMS Solution as a permanent fix.
