18 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHLN IMS Leak! Help!
Leading reported evidence
Replace ims 3 months ago
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.
Leading evidence: 'Replace ims 3 months ago' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check seal' (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.
Suggestion
If you don't know how to check the seal for leaks, trust a mechanic that does.
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
Does this mean I need to replace the entire IMS again or just the flange seal.
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.
18 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: 20261026T161109Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I replaced my IMS 3 months ago with LN IMS. Well, the flange has leaked. Does this mean I need to replace the entire IMS again or just the flange seal.
Couple weeks ago I noted oil leak and checked it was from the junction of engine and transmission bell housing. Took it in and they took off the tranny and I feared it was RMS (also only 3 months old) but it seems the leak is from the bottom of the flange.
The IMS is the classic single row retrofit from LN Engineering. It was changed as an upgrade when I did my clutch and RMS. It was not a repair and my car did not have any sings or symptoms of failure. The shop is not a qualified shop by LN but all they work on is Porsches - old & new. So far, my instructions to the shop have been to replace both the RMS and the IMS flange and seal even though apparently the RMS is not the culprit; I don't want to take a chance just in case the mechanic happens to be wrong. I mean the biggest piece of the job is off loading the tranny and that's already done. As far a the IMSB itself, I think it should be OK. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
Stop, and contact LN and ask for guidance. Don't assume it's only the flange seal. Get a 100% confirmation. If the rear main seal is fine, don't touch it. You can end up with a leaking one. If you don't know how to check the seal for leaks, trust a mechanic that does.
If the LN flange is leaking it could be due to a defective seal. Or it could be due to less than meticulous installation, in which case I would be concerned about how the rest of the installation procedure was carried out and the possible ramifications that would have on the longevity of the bearing. How many miles on it since the retrofit?
The problem is that I took the car to the shop that did the work originally but the mechanic that used to be there whom I trusted more is no longer there. This new guy, I don't know or trust. So if he is telling me that it's the flange I don't know if it is truly the flange or if it is a way to cover themselves from having to cover all costs under shop warranty because the LN IMSB is an "aftermarket" part hence shop warranty becomes muddy. I looked at the RMS and honestly I could see some oil in the gap, that's why I'm having trust issues. I feel like they're blowing smoke up my ***.
Take a few good, well lit, clear pictures and post it. We can't diagnose something that we can't see. Again, contact the vendor you bought the bearing kit and send them pictures too. Don't act like a victim, do something.
ASk to see the LN tool they used to install/refit. If they can't produce it-you may have the reason for a leak.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LN-PORSCHE-9..._Tools&vxp=mtr
It is very easy for fools to just buy the correct size Timken bearing for much less than$10 and 'skip' all the rest of the expense -including the LN tool kit.Of course there is a reason for the tool kit.........................
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-6204ZZ-620...item19e603cd99
I'm sure I have an LNE IMSB in there because I supplied that part myself; didn't want to take chances. Also, they do have the tool kit; I saw it when I was going to have them change it 3 months ago.
Honestly, it's a trust issue; my old mechanic is no longer there so I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. But it's OK. I'll call LN Engineering on Monday and we'll go from there.
Tank you everyone for your help.
Also here is a pic:
Not super clear but I'll take some more shots on Monday. My iPhone camera is f-d up.
That's a crappy picture but from what I can see, the leak is from the rear main seal. IPhone cameras suck, use something else on Monday....anything but an iPhone....maybe a Barbie camera.
I had mine apart today, and the RMS and IMS have been in there for 5 years. The RMS was bone dry, so I didn't touch it. The IMS has wept just a bit of oil out of the bottom the whole time it's been in there. The bottom of the bellhousing gets dirty and oily, but never so much that it drips.
Yours definitely looks much worse, so something is amiss there.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
