Vertex Auto and its Permanent IMSB Upgrade

Dear fellow 996 enthusiast, Hello. My name is Rod and I represent Vertex Auto. Vertex engineers designed and created the Drive Shaft Bearing Support Mount for 2005-2009 Cayennes and Touregs, the Alternator Updated Aluminum Fan for the 1974-1989 911s, the updated rear trailing control arm for 1974-1989 911s, and the Intermediate shaft bearing upgrade called the Eternal Fix which fits 996, 997.1, 986, and 987.1 (Boxsters and Caymans). Vertex has been in the Porsche aftermarket business since 1985 and continues to engineer, build and sell products intended to fix manufacturer design errors, improve performance and reduce the cost of ownership for the entire line of Porsches. We want to first apologize to you fellow Porsche owners, especially 996 enthusiast for not being present during many of the IMSB discussions on this board. Vertex made a conscious business decision to hold back on the internet presence until there were enough Eternal Fixes installed in 911s and Boxsters to appropriately respond with authority and in particular evidence about how well the Eternal Fix works. Even though our data and multiple experimental conditions provided our engineers with the evidence that the Eternal Fix would last the life of the engine, we needed real-world confirmation, customer experience, word of mouth, and dealer feedback to be established before we widened our internet presence. Since 2012, we have sold over 1000 Eternal Fix IMSBs that are now in low and high mileage 911s and Boxsters, in hot and cold climates, and under varied maintenance schedules, with zero reported failures. Let me repeat, ZERO reported failures. Regarding our cylindrical roller bearing design, our engineers did not reinvent the wheel or enhance the existing OEM part. Instead, they used math and physics and a tried and true approach to reengineer an established bearing design to work in the intermediate shaft bearing application, which had been used in the transmission of street and racing Porsches dating back to the 1960s. A cylindrical roller bearing design that is known to endure high stress, high RPM, all-angle demands placed on it under even more severe conditions than what would be found in the engine. The intermediate shaft roller bearing design model developed by Vertex and used by Porsche for decades is now an over-engineered permanent upgrade essential to the life of your engine. In addition to permanently fixing the design error in the intermediate shaft bearing, our upgraded IMSB provides owners with that much more needed confidence that their engines will not become part of the reported 1%, or 4%, or 8% or 10% destined to implode, or be a required maintenance inspection item when the clutch or AOS need replacing. How about that for peace of mind driving! Of course we warranty the part for 2 years or 20,000 against defect. In addition to extending the IMSB life of 911s and Boxsters, we believe the installation of the Eternal Fix will be critical to the long terms success and ultimately the increase in values of the 996. There�s another important reason for our new presence in this forum, early 996s are about to become classics in the 911 world. Since they have modern amenities such as COLD air conditioners, are more fit to be daily drivers, and have lower maintenance costs than their air/oil cooled brethren, our experience tells us that they are destined to become more popular than ever. Furthermore, since we have been selling 911 cars since 1985 and continuously watch the 911 market closely, we are predicting an upcoming surge in values. The evidence is there. For the past few months, journalists in magazines and internet sites have been calling the 996 a �steal� and �undervalued� in the 911 world and we agree. In the not too distant future the �affordable� status of the 911 will begin to diminish as more IMSBs, which was considered the Achilles heel of the 996 market value, are upgraded and become maintenance parts or with our product a permanent upgrade. Therefore, having an upgraded Eternal Fix IMSB has never been more important than now for keeping the value of your 996 up. We are available for any questions or comments related to the Eternal Fix. Just to be clear, we don�t know everything and we�re not going to hide behind attitude, bullying, or bombast. So if we don�t know, you�ll have to believe that we don�t. If you prefer to post your question in private you are welcome to PM me. We respect that. Our goal is to support and promote the 996 community.

Welcome and glad to have another vendor onboard with another option. Any links to photos or vids would also be welcomed. I know someone, cough cough, is gonna bring up the thrust load issue soon though...

Ok, I'll be the first to ask 1) There seems to be a thrust control "washer". Can you give a little bit more info of how that works and how much load it can withstand? http://www.vertexauto.com/UserData/I...rge/294103.jpg 2) Looks like the bearing is lubricated by unfiltered oil directly from the oil pump (via the IMS). A small hole is punched on the non-IMSB end of the IMS so oil can travel to the IMSB side. Any chance that this hole is blocked by any debris in the unfiltered oil? 3) Do you know what's the highest miles that have been put on the eternal bearing on a retrofitted car? Thanks!

Quotes source post: 12609443

You read my mind and I saved Schnell G some typing I'm not sure they can post a link to advertise as they are not a sponsor (yet)?

Quotes source post: 12609466

You surprised me Ahsai, Schell G must me offline. Makes sense on no links. For those trying to visualize what was said, you can read about it here: http://www.vertexauto.com/ShowItem/2...nal%20Fix.aspx

Subscribed

Quotes source post: 12609511

Inquiring mind wants to know and all the details make a difference I'm especially interested in how this design compares to the alleged new LN roller bearing that has integrated thrust control on BOTH directions axially (that's for when the IMS tends to move forward or backward depending on the momentum) and lubricated by splashed oil.

Rod, you mention that the Eternal Fix is applicable for "996, 997.1, 986, and 987.1 (Boxsters and Caymans)". And you mention that the installation does not require opening up the engine (splitting the engine case). From what I can tell about the product, looking online, the Eternal Fix does not seem compatible with 987.1 Caymans at all (M97 engines), and would only be applicable to the first year or so of production of 987.1 Boxsters and 997.1 Carreras with the M96 engine. Also your online website "Applications" chart does not list 987.1 or 997.1 models at all. Please clarify this. Thanks.

I think I have overloaded my thrust too many times and now my shaft is slightly bent.

Quotes source post: 12609443

I'm just glad of the writing style without attacks.

Fellow mechanical engineer. What was your reasoning behind choosing a cylindrical bearing over a spherical bearing?

Quotes source post: 12609606

Should we start a pool on how long that lasts? I'll take that the first arrow flies before the end of the 2nd page of posts.

Quotes source post: 12609654

I hope Ahsai's questions get answered before the stupid stuff and insults start flying in the thread.

Quotes source post: 12609710

I think we can all guess which people these are gonna come from. Another question is how important will condition of the oil and type of oil used be for this kind of setup since the original oil pump will be modified to deliver a preset amount of oil to the device? Is there any noticeable or measurable drop in oil pressure with this setup?

This is timely. I was going to cancel my RL subscription due to sheer boredom...

Ok…..I’ve been on here for 8 years and still can’t figure how to multi-quote. I don’t get that technical but I sure read a lot. ….and after so many recent threads or endless threads about the IMS roller bearing vs ball bearing me gots some questions and comments….so I’ll put in italics the comment followed by my question. 1. "The intermediate shaft roller bearing design model developed by Vertex and used by Porsche for decades is now an over-engineered permanent upgrade essential to the life of your engine. " Where has Porsche used a roller bearing for an intermediate shaft for decades? Yes, roller bearings were used in the 4 cam until they were replaced with plain bearings due to reliability problems with rollers. This was in regards to the crankshaft, never were they used for an intermediate shaft, right? 2. "Of course we warranty the part for 2 years or 20,000 against defect." 2 year warranty - why was this reduced from 5 years? The last issue of Excellence still shows the 5 year. 3. "We want to first apologize to you fellow Porsche owners, especially 996 enthusiast for not being present during many of the IMSB discussions on this board. Vertex made a conscious business decision to hold back on the internet presence until there were enough Eternal Fixes installed in 911s and Boxsters to appropriately respond with authority and in particular evidence about how well the Eternal Fix works. Even though our data and multiple experimental conditions provided our engineers with the evidence that the Eternal Fix would last the life of the engine, we needed real-world confirmation, customer experience, word of mouth, and dealer feedback to be established before we widened our internet presence." I'm sure you are aware of the other discussion on roller bearings vs. ball bearings. A question I have in your ad it says 5 times the load capacity, where readily available and published load capacities would say it's much less than 5 times that of a ball bearing. Also, how do you address that ball bearings can carry more of their load as thrust than a roller bearing? I'd like to hear how you determined your patent pending thrust control works. You state that the design is Patent Pending, what is the filing number? I am sure that many here would like to review this application. You’re competitor at MB Motorsports has a cool similar kit. What is the difference, and why is your’s better? Who copied who? Side note did I just give Martin a compliment?

Quotes source post: 12609710

Apropos of nothing, I appreciate a poster who recognizes and observes the distinction between stupid stuff and insults :-)

Quotes source post: 12610146

Pete: To multiquote, click on the little icon in the bottom right corner of the post you want to quote, the one with one quotation mark and a plus sign on top of the sheet of paper. If you hover over it, a message stating "Multi Quote" will pop up. Click that on every post you want to quote. Then go down to the bottom of the page and hit the "Post Reply" that's right above the "Similar Threads" and Tags listing. Took me until recently to figure it out also. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Quotes source post: 12610328

Ya beat me to it KC You can also click on the double quotes for the last one you want to include and that will open up the reply window

Interesting counterpoint on cylindrical bearing use for IMSB HERE .

Quotes source post: 12610542

So this counterpoint says that cylindrical bearings were considered by LN but we're not used because they don't accommodate thrust loads as well as ball bearings. But now we hear that LN is coming out with a cylindrical bearing anyhow?? How much thrust load is there on an Intermediate shaft in the first place? In other words, does a cylindrical bearing provide enough thrust control to account for the loads it sees in the engine, or not?

Quotes source post: 12610569

I don't believe LN is coming out with a new roller bearing......on the other hand RND is offering a new roller bearing. I understand that it was developed as an alternative for SSF Auto Parts. https://www.ssfautoparts.com/

Quotes source post: 12609568

+996

Looks interesting. They provide a boring tool to get it to fit the '06-'08 engines? Which means no motor disassembly? I have a late 997.1, so this thread has my attention.

Quotes source post: 12610872

So when the engine is running, you are feeding oil into the nose of the IMS shaft through your slotted hex key (an area that is a known failure point in the first place, seems slotting a key makes it weaker, but i'm not an engineer). How fast is the oil feeding in, and how fast can it get out of the tube when the engine is running? Is this going to affect the oil level to the rest of the engine as the tube fills with oil? As the engine sits turned off, how is that oil coming back out of the tube slowly going to affect your oil level readings? How much oil does an IMS tube hold? If that tube is full of oil all the time, how does it affect the inertia of the tubes rotation? Typically when we remove IMS bearings where oil has seeped past the seal, there is a bit of oil in the tube, but not a ton as it seems there would be with this product. After watching that video....I don't see how they are keeping metal from falling inside the engine with this method....and the price of messing that procedure up would be catastrophic. http://www.imsbearingsolution.com

Quotes source post: 12610920

Uh, yeah, I'd love to know that answer as well. The video appears to be shot out of sequence but I don't see how this process will stop shavings from ending up inside the case. A few years ago I read an article in one of the british magazines wherein one of the tuners over there had figured out a method to actually collapse the larger later-style bearing and then extracted the pieces from the case. This was before I actually bought my car so I didn't think about it too much at the time and now wish I could remember the magazine and/or the tuner. Could have been Hartech but not sure anymore. In any case, same questions, seems kind of risky but maybe I'm not aware of something.

I'm gonna let this get to around, oh, 15 pages before I read through it one night with a beer or three.

Quotes source post: 12611017

Dead horse here https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...-to-watch.html

"Schell G must me offline" I work sometimes :-).

Quotes source post: 12610773

+1992

I sketched a diagram (not to scale) trying to visualize the thrust control. I don't have the actual bearing kit in my hands so the drawing is solely based on my best guess from various photos and videos. Basically the center stud, the inner sleeve, and the IMSB flange (i.e., all the green parts) form a single stationary piece that's bolted to the engine case. The bearing has no inner race. The outer race is "glued" to the IMS using red loctite (all the orange parts rotate as one piece). The rollers (blue) are in between the orange and green parts to provide radial support and the rollers "float" horizontally. When there's thrust, the orange and green parts try to move horizontally relative to each other but their positions are restrained by the center stud, the yellow washer, the outer race, and the flange with all the smooth surfaces rotating against each other in the presence of oil. They all shoulder the axial thrust load. Basically the outer race face surfaces are used as plain bearings Oil is force fed from the other side of the IMS, or alternatively it can be splashed lubed on the bearing end. So Rod, am I close? Copy of IMS-roller-bearing (1).jpg

If the above sketch by Ahsai is correct than I can see two issues: 1. The red locktite bond is not going to last long given axial thrust forces on IMS. Even thermal expansion. The shaft has to go somewhere and locktite is not going to take that load. 2. The force feed lubrication. The IMS will fill with pressurized oil but I can't see any passages to lubricate the bearing other than surface imperfections between the outer bearing race, Center stud and washer. Thoughts? =L=

Quotes source post: 12611250

1. Agreed. I am surprised a circlip is not used too but there seems to be no space for it. Also their installation steps and the photos of the kit also do not mention any circlip. 2. The washer has grooves cut on it, similar to the crankshaft thrust bearings. The oil passes through the rollers then to the flange, which has a V groove for oil to escape. So I think oil can get to all those parts with no problems. Hope Rod can clarify. Last thing I want is to spread false info.

Makes sense Dr. Ahsai. I can see the phone thread is alive and well, but what happened to the show me your *** thread? Can't find it any more.

"Dr" haha, I wish If my thinking is right, the reason it can't use a circlip is because it needs the outer race to be able to slide on the flange as a plain bearing to support thrust. The circlip will be in the way. I also wonder why a separate washer as opposed to enlarging the "base" of the stud. I figure maybe the internal profile of the IMS doesn't allow that. Also note the roller cage is recessed and is not touching the washer or the flange so only the flat faces of the outer race bear act as a plain bearing to shoulder all the thrust load. That's quite an interesting design. Fyi, installation instructions here. The photos are quite clear. http://europeanpartssolution.com/wp-...ernal.IMS_.pdf

So when this pressurized oil fills the IMS tube, what kind of pressure is that putting on the bearing as it spins and acts as an accumulator? What about the pressure on the 4 piece press fit IMS tube assembly? The 4 piece IMS tube is merely press fit together with no glue or welding. Other solutions use a plug in the IMS tube to prevent the tube from filling with oil for this reason.

I see a lot of people talking about forces but I don't think anyone has measured these forces to determine how robust one of these need to be afaik. What we know at this point is that Vertex IMS has been in use since 2012 and still going strong. Maybe they can chime in on how many of these have been in circulation, under what types of environments/circumstances, and what types of testing was carried out. I foresee a big initial hump to get over but after that it should be rewarding and hopefully they can set the cruise control.

Quotes source post: 12611487

My guess is the pressure is quite low as the hole they punch is 1-2mm in diameter.

Quotes source post: 12611740

They mentioned 1,000 units in the first post.

Quotes source post: 12611843

Wow, you're actually able to read every word in those long paragraphs. Kudos. Still interested to see how many are still in "circulation". They mentioned 1,000 sold but wondering how many of those 1k are still around(no failure rates mentioned). I can see this kind of product having more faulty installation possibilities and now can understand why Jake has improved on and developed his "faultless" tool to remove one more equation to bad publicity of a product although it may not actually have been the product to begin with. One aspect I'm interested in is if they've tested this without any oil flow to the bearing and for how long. This will matter for track junkies that may encounter loss of oil pressure in certain racing conditions at near redline for example. I would like to know if they've dissected one of these bearings on a high mileage used car and see if there were any wear patterns or markings anywhere on the bearings and associated parts as well.

Since I deal with studies and statistics all the time, here's my take on this: According to the only statistics with a large enough sampling to be considered halfway reliable, the class-action-suit stats, even the OEM small single-row IMSB left untouched has only an 8% failure rate. That's the original, low-load-capacity sealed steel bearing where the seal gets breached, filled with dirty oil turning the grease into grinding paste. Only an 8% failure rate. 92% of cars with the weakest most ill-conceived IMSB fitment do not fail. All a "solution" needs to do is reduce the probability of failure by a measely 8%.

Quotes source post: 12612022

The underlying assumption you're making - in error - is that a fixed percentage of bearings will fail. Since it is now (commonly) considered a wear item, the number of original single-row bearings that fail will increase over time. Your 8%, or 10%, or whatever number - if it was EVER accurate, was accurate only for a moment in time. Every M96 - assuming it's not in a museum - will eventually experience a failure. Since the single-row bearings are a known weak point in the engines so equipped, more single-row bearings will fail over time. Even some single-row retrofit bearings - though the cause is often attributed to improper installation or installation into a poor candidate, have failed. Claiming that there is a known - and fixed - percentage of bearings that will fail is a fallacy that continues to be tossed around here. This reasoning is as sound as assuming that if, as of today, 42% of 996's have had to have windshield wiper blades replaced, we know with absolutely certainty that 58% of 996's will have perfect windshield wiper blades...forever.

To my understanding the statistic of 8% which was cited in the class action was actually 8% of the bearings failed within 100,000 miles. Without knowing the median value the statement is meaningless, a median value of 10,000 miles is vastly different from a median value of 90,000 miles. If the median value was 10,000 miles it would mean that here would be very little chance of the bearing failing after 100,000 miles. Without knowing that median value, we are essentially clueless.

Quotes source post: 12612175

Yup. The numbers in the settlement info were a simplified estimate of a number at a point in time with no supporting data. If the total number of failures was a known, static number, there would have been no need for the years-in-service limitations. So we're pretty much left holding puds and guessing, and the aftermarket supplier data (which consists of "my bearing is better than yours, and my d**k's bigger, too) doesn't really help us out much.

Guys, let's not veer off track too much from the original topic regardless if it's the RL way. I'm hoping Rod can chime in soon with more answers to our questions.

Quotes source post: 12612469

..

Quotes source post: 12612022

Well not quite. A true solution needs to prevent failure 100% of the time. Reducing the 8% failure rate by only 8% would reduce the overall failure by 1% or so. The 8% failure needs to be reduced by 100% to be a success. But, I think I understand your point that all the IMSB solutions out there are addressing a part that is not likely to fail, statistically. But Schnell has the correct perspective that the 8% or 10%, etc. number shouldn't be used in the way that it often is. All components in any engine built will theoretically fail at some point, and there is really no benefit to over-engineering any specific part of an engine for longevity past an engine's useful life. However, this marginal engineering sometimes leaves too little room for error and leads to specific parts to become known as weak points of the engine. Porsche engines have had a variety of weaknesses over the years, and aftermarket solutions have been a source of business for decades. It's only when a part is under-engineered (or poorly made) that the part gains everyone's attention, and it's no wonder that there are several entrepreneurs out there that are trying to capitalize on the repair/replacement market. Who's solution is better, who's is best, who's is "good enough"? It makes for interesting conversation, and the engineer in me likes to understand each product's particular means and methods. It would be nice if Vertex would respond to their own thread though....

Hello everyone, thank you for your questions and comments. I was expecting to see just a few comments and questions, but apparently the IMSB has a bit of a controversial history. There are a series of very technical questions that I will address but will not do so at a technical level like I do in the academic research world. The responses are intended to address questions but not develop a treatise in engineering, mathematics and physics. Sorry, but this forum is for the Porsche 996 enthusiast and I want to respect that. Additionally, I want to make it clear that we are providing the 996 community with a service, specifically information about our product and are not defending it. Some information is proprietary and required many hours of research and development to fully understand and create the product, but its success speaks for itself. Data tells us that the use of spherical ball bearings in the IMS is not an appropriate application. Porsche used three variations of ball bearings and all have had catastrophic failures. Indicating that this design was not the correct choice initially and through two subsequent reengineering attempts. In our engine rebuild program we used upgraded Porsche IMS bearings along with aftermarket ball bearing types with forced lubrication and there continued to be failures in those. One can conclude that ball bearings of any configuration in the IMS will fail. Please check out this video for further explanation https://vimeo.com/87596816 . The initial research on the axial and radial movements and tolerances was developed from the cylindrical roller bearing specifications used on Porsche transmissions. The goal was not to make an improvement to the original roller bearing IMS design but to correct it, and our experimentation and R&D to achieve that objective moved us away from the spherical ball bearings Porsche was using to the cylindrical roller bearings. No magic or creativity was needed to develop our product’s specifications, just science. Axial and radial forces are greater in racing transmissions than they would be for the intermediate shaft bearing application, but we found that the radial loads were the critical ones of concern. And this was discovered by inspecting and measuring the varying degrees of damage in pre-blown bearings. This was how we identified the etiology of the damaged bearings, the pressures exerted on the bearings, and the type of movement that was happening between the races. This allowed us to understand radial, axial and thrust tolerances and further develop the specifications of the cylindrical bearings. In the end, science lead us to choosing the cylindrical bearing. By the way, if there are any questions regarding the veracity of using cylindrical roller bearings in the IMS application, our patent is on the thrust control set up and the number is 9004766. Regarding our highest mileage since IMSB installation, as you know most 996s are not typically daily drivers but we monitor a number of 996s and 986s with about 60,000+ miles since the install of their Eternal Fix. Those are our very first installations, but the product specifications remain the same. There are probably higher mileage cars out there, but we do not have access to that information because they are not local, or the IMSB was sold to other shops for installation, or we have not been maintaining other higher mileage Porsches with our IMSB. If these were Toyotas, the scale would be much greater and the higher mileages would be easily attained. I can tell you however, that our local IMSBs are inspected on a regular basis in our customer’s cars to obtain QI data and feedback. Regarding the comparison of the ball bearing designs, 12 cylindrical rollers cover more surface area than a single or double row of 8 spherical ball bearings. In the 996 application, the measured load surface area for an 8 mm ball bearings is only 2mm while the measured load surface area for a 15mm cylindrical bearing is a theoretical 15mm. Double the row of ball bearings and you get two rows of 2mm surface area. As mentioned earlier, the science guided us to cylindrical bearings for this application. We experimented with spherical ball bearings initially, but the data did not reveal the outcomes we were hoping for. Regarding oil pressure after the Eternal Fix upgrade, since a new orifice has been introduced internally there is a change of � PSI down. This is not detrimental, and as a reference in oil pressure 10PSI per 1000rpms is acceptable in this application. Our data shows the � PSI change is continuous and stable at cold start, hot start, idle, 1000 RPMs, 2500 RPMs, 5000 RPMs. Above 5500 RPMs we found the oil pressure to equal the Pre-IMSB upgrade status. Regarding oil, this is probably the most important subject discussed with our customers and dealers. Clean oil and 996s are synonymous with engine longevity and critical to keeping the IMSB intact. We recommend Porsche approved oils and filters with changes occurring every 4500-5000 miles or 6 months whichever comes first. That recommendation changes with climate and if your vehicle is near South Florida then we recommend sticking to the 4500-5000 miles or six months whichever comes first model. Regarding the question about oil fragments getting stuck, if you are changing oil and filter as recommended above with fresh Porsche approved oil, then debris will not develop. However, if debris as large as the 2mm opening has invaded your crankcase, then there may be other problems to worry about. Regarding the question about the first generation 987 and 997, the Eternal Fix does fit those cars. More complicated to install than the pre 987 and 997s as a hole is bored through the IMS area using pressurized air in the crankcase which effectively prevents metal fragments from entering the crankcase. Even though the process looks ugly, it’s actually very precise and accurate. For a visual explanation please see the Vimeo video at: https://vimeo.com/118923581 . I hope I was able to answer the majority of questions.

Rod, thanks for answering some of the questions. I wish you had more info on the thrust control as that seems to be the most mysterious and contentious topic. I think you are over worried about being too technical. I'm sure there are a handful of engineers, mechanical or otherwise on this thread who can understand and comment on the math, physics, etc. Based on my understanding, I see some potential issues: 1) Since the oil supply is not filtered, it's easy to pick up some debris (e.g., worn pad material) from the bottom of the sump via the oil pick up tube, which feeds the oil pump directly. The debris may block that small (1-3mm) hole rendering the oil supply ineffective 2) The bearing is basically glued to the intermediate shaft by red loctite and no circlip is used to fix it in place 3) Using the outer race bearing surface as a plain bearing. This is quite creative but also unconventional. Not sure if the outer race design has accounted for that.

Rod thanks for the info....you state "spherical" and "ball bearing" in the same sentence. A spherical roller bearing is much different from a single (or double) row, deep groove, ball bearing, which is what the description is of the IMSB. I'm sure you know this, but want to point this out to others. Single row, deep groove ball bearing: Double row, deep groove ball bearing: Roller Bearing: Spherical Roller Bearing, Double Row:

Quotes source post: 12612956

Just thinking out loud, but I would think that's a snuggish fit anyway so the Loctite is just there to be safe. If its' going to move it will in the bearing, or it should, unless it's a really loose fit. IMO thinking out loud.

Are you guys actually using an IMS Single Row Bearing for your IMS boring tool?

Quotes source post: 12612570

My original question stated why you used a cylindrical bearing over a spherical bearing. I have never heard of a "spherical roller bearing" be called anything but a spherical bearing. So I should restate my question for the sake of semantics. Why did you use a roller bearing over a spherical roller bearing. The other end of the shaft is held in place with a journal bearing. Inherently, you will get a little "play" because that's the nature of a journal bearing. (Clearance needed for fluid film) Intuitively, this just seems like the perfect application for a spherical (roller) bearing since it's self aligning. I'm a systems analyst for a company that designs and manufactures bearing propulsion systems for the Navy's submarines. While the application is different and I'm not as knowledgeable with the M96, I've studied tribology extensively. In my opinion, you need to give us a better answer than "you got your answers from science." Otherwise, you're going to come off as another company attempting to profit off fear mongering. Any CAD jockey can throw together an assembly, and you need to prove you have an understanding of tribology before you expect anyone to bet a replacement motor on your product. Sorry if this came off as bitchy.

Hey Rod, Thanks for the extended explanation and additional information. Do you think you could add in some carriage returns in your posts and break it into a few paragraphs? It would make it so much easier to read. Thanks

Quotes source post: 12613031

Heh. I was wondering the same thing watching the video the first time around...

Hey Rod, thanks for the explanation. I'd like to make myself appear to be an expert and on your level. May I ask a question that is 99% BS? glad there are options

Quotes source post: 12612536

Ugh I stated it in a really dumb way. Of course what I meant was, any "solution" only needs to address an 8% failure rate, not a 25% or 50%.

Quotes source post: 12613006

But why go through all the trouble of thrust control if at the end the bearing itself is glued to the IMS and can be dislodged by thrust? I know what you're after but it still feels not very robust without a circlip.

Quotes source post: 12612570

Except that Porsche used sealed bearings in all cases, and it is that design, not the fact they used ballbearings, which starts the chain of events leading to failure by allowing some oil to penetrate inside the bearing where it becomes trapped, acidifies and eats away at the bearing. From there, the length of time to ultimate failure is then governed by the load capacity. The greater the load capacity, the more the bearing can become compromised without failing completely. However based on the statistics from hundreds of installers and thousands of installations of the LN ceramic bearing which depend entirely on splash/immersion lubrication, there are only a handful of reported failures. Some failed almost immediately, or within a few thousand miles, leading to a logical suspicion they were either improperly installed, or placed in engines where there was already significant debris present, and/or other parts having suffered some degree of collateral damage. I am not saying the cylindrical bearing is no good, it may very well be just as good as the ceramic, but I can't see any unbiased evidence that the ballbearing itself is inadequate. I can see an argument that the plain bearing (The Solution) offers at least a theoretical advantage over either ballbearings or cylindrical bearings, as it has fewer moving parts.

Rod at Vertex seems to be engineering challenged? "Data tells us that the use of spherical ball bearings .." There are ball bearings with non-spherical ***** ? "the spherical ball bearings Porsche was using.." What? Instead of what ? This just gibberish. I just unsubscribed because if the developers of the part can't even use the correct terminology but claim all kinds of research the BS meter pegs.

This thread is getting better by the second!

Quotes source post: 12613753

Whew...and here I was, thinking I was a moron for not being able to envision a non-spherical ball bearing. Thanks, SG, I'm feeling less moronic now. P.S. Why has JR not yet chimed in here? Long overdue MIA. Maybe he's just swamped returning calls to all the people that didn't buy any of his products or services.

Quotes source post: 12613609

How would a clip make it more robust? It's not like it would hold it super tight (you'd still have to get it off somehow), it wouldn't prevent it spinning like a tighter fit along with the locktight, and you wouldn't want much pressure (I wouldn't think?) on a clip anyway - it's just there to keep it in place. Again I don't totally understand the situation, but it doesn't seem like the bearing is going to fall out or move around all that much.

Quotes source post: 12613997

Or he is busy taking calls about this product vs his. Speaking of, I should write LN and ask to see if I could my old bearing back or have a decent dual row back. Don't have the money to plate it now, but that sounds like something super fun to have around.

Food for thought....transmissions use ball bearings for thrust control. Look at the pics below for example. Rod......in what type of situation are they not used for thrust control?

Quotes source post: 12614297

There was a guy on eBay selling used bearings awhile back. Maybe check to see if he is still around. I think it's fun, but my wife and co-workers that have to listen to it spinning incessantly all day long seem to have a different view Showed it to the guys at the shop that pulled it this morning when I had to pick the BMW up. I got the distinct impression that at least some of the laughing was AT rather than WITH...

Quotes source post: 12614654

Well, if all the fears on here are true then it will fall apart sometime in the near future and you will have to replace it with a LN, or the option we're talking about here - but in your case I'm thinking the solution or this permanent upgrade is a little overkill.

Quotes source post: 12614654

I admit I don't really get burning several hundred bucks for the plating, but I bought a 911 on a whim and thus don't have much room to disparage the kettle. I can understand why some of the mechanics might not "get it" - probably takes a day or two to earn what it cost to gold-plate a junk bearing on a whim. If you start lighting your Swisher Sweets with rolled-up 50's, you'll be banished to the 993 forum.

I recently picked up 1999 C2 996 with 155K miles on it. It runs well but with all the information about the ims failing I decided to replace it and do a lot of work on it as well. So I did an engine out service on the car. It does have a double row bearing it. Previous owner replaced ims at 110K miles with oem. As you can see from the pictures the old bearing was in great condition. I decided to go with the vertex bearing. So I will let you guys know how it holds up and if my engine goes south, well 155K is already a lot already, then I will do I rebuild. If I can get another 20K on the engine then I will be happy. I plan to rebuild the engine anyways. From what I see in terms of the thrust... the washer and the outer race is taken all the grunt of the thrust so from what I can gather the cylinder bearing has very little thrust forces on it. Disclosoure: I am no expert on bearings.... I did do the hole in the ims shaft and also change the hex driver with the one provided in the kit.

One last try. Yes, Rod's technical content is gibberish but one more try because he has some clever Mechanics in his support team despite the vague engineering claims . I have great respect for mechanics solutions to engineering problems. Raby on that subject in Helos would be an interesting off-topic conversation. IMHO this is not a mechanics problem. It is engineering -with lots of instrumented testing and dyno+road required. I used to work with an OEM and we did all this and still failed in the 'field' sometimes. But the part that failed 'field' use was always way better than the hack-ups we initially tried as initial experiments.The difference was all that tedious engineering data collection of prototypes. The difficult question always was: "Is it better than the current Industry benchmark ?"The Solution ,in this case ? But wait ,there is more. Raby & Martin need some competition so let's encourage Rod. So Rod ,please address the thrust/misalignment concerns, describe the testing. The Marketing waffle just harms his product - which is a pity. What really worries me is that the Vertex bearing may in fact outlive clutch changes ! It could be that all the objections to the roller bearing while theoretically legitimate are not the limiting factor(s). These limiting factors are the fundamental disagreement that is unresolved(no consensus-yet). Is it LOAD, Lubrication, seal failure+contamination,metallic debris or some other combination/sequence ?? As an engineer I need to know "Why". As a mechanic "how" but as an owner just "what works?". Better to forget the engineering with this Vertex product and settle for 'what works' ?

I occasionally get IBS while driving my 996...

Welcome to the 996 forum of Rennlist, Rod.

Quotes source post: 12615005

That was the gist of my point. If there was a 25-50-75% failure rate of the OEM bearing then it would be easier to suss out the relative efficacy of the various aftermaket upgrades. But the fact only 8% of the weakest, worst-designed bearing application fail implies that a fairly small improvement in specs is all it takes to bring the failure rate close to or at zero. If none of Flat6's The Solution have failed, none of Vertex's bearings have failed, and none of LN's dual-row and single-row-pro have failed, then the only way to prove which one is better would be to subject them to conditions or loads beyond what they will ever see in service, and what's really the point of that other than a urination contest between competitors? Only a dozen or so original LN's (which have sold probably ten times the number of Vertex's) have failed and most of those can be attributed to pilot error in installation or failure to properly assess the condition of the engine. In fact in the early days I recall (I think it was Hartech) "solving" the IMS failure problem by replacing the OEM bearing with a new identical but unsealed one (or if the original bearing was in perfect shape, pull the seal off) and a stronger stud. I think Pelican was selling a similar unit at one time. I would be curious if any of those have failed.

Everyone, thank you for your comments. In response to the question about the retaining circlip and loctite. The forces necessary to move the IMS bearing from the IMS shaft are huge. A specially designed extraction tool is required to remove the bearing from its cavity, because the IMS is embedded by pressure in the cavity it resides. The forces that embed or hold the bearing in the IMS gear are so large that it will not move even without its retaining clip or without loctite. As you know, Porsche made three attempts at correcting the IMSB design flaw and all had subsequent failures. OEM revisions continued using the sealed ball bearing design. It was a frustrating and expensive process understanding the origins of the IMSB failure. After installing Porsche-upgraded and aftermarket IMSBs in our customers’ cars and in our rebuild program, failures persisted. The efforts made to determine the root causes of the IMS ball bearing failures have been a daunting task. This is because when failures occur the damage is so severe that any evidence for its failure has been destroyed. It was during a service in one of our customer’s vehicles that we were fortunate to have captured a bearing failure in its first stages. This opportunity gave us a better understanding of the existing wear and causes of bearing failure. Please go to vimeo.com/87596816 to see actual bearing damage. The video provides further insight into the ball bearing IMS failure. With the combined loads exerted on the bearings we expected greater surface area wear. You will note the limited surface contact area the ***** ride in. The area the bearing rides in is practically a pinpoint and the images highlight the very limited surface area contact the ball bearings are required to work. Having such a small area of load bearing will eventually cause the surface to shatter and ultimately catastrophic bearing failure. Changing the ball bearing IMS with another ball bearing IMS will yield the same results, e.g. failure! In order to fix the problem one must make a paradigm shift. Others have knowingly developed a different approach to solving the IMSB problem but those efforts have been commercially impractical. The fact that others have developed journal bearings alerts us that they have conceded to the impracticality of ball bearings in the IMSB application. From the facts gathered about the IMS ball bearing having a very limited load bearing area we can conclude this to be the cause of the failures. Knowing this, one must change to the type of bearing that provides a large surface area of contact to distribute its load. To solve this problem the bearing of choice with the highest load bearing capacity and largest surface area is the cylindrical roller bearing. Thrust control is for the purpose of keeping the chains /shaft aligned and has no influence over the failure of the IMS. Cylindrical roller bearings lack thrust control. Since cylindrical roller bearings have thrust control they can be applied to solve the IMS problem. To further explain the IMS bearing problem where there is no room for failure, two objectives need to be satisfied. The first is the bearing must have thrust control and second and most important the bearing must have a large surface area of contact to distribute the load. A cylindrical roller bearing with thrust control satisfies these criteria and in 2013 a US patent was awarded to Mesa, et. al. for the cylindrical roller bearing with thrust control. We have concluded that within the IMSB application ball bearings properly lubricated fail, different size ball bearings fail, different numbers of rows fail, closed cage ball bearings fail, and ceramic hardened open cage ball bearings fail. Knowing this we directed our efforts in a different direction to identify the problem. It is not lubrication, it is not the size, it is not the numbers of rows, and it is not the hardness of the ball. The common denominator is the ball bearing. We exhausted our attempts to improve in all areas of the ball bearing and all have failed. Leading us to conclude that this type of bearing and its application is not only the problem but a dead end.

The engineers in the house are going to freak out due to the lack of proper terminology in your posts and video...like cracking and spalling in lieu of "pieces of the chrome [sic] are flaking off." Has there been any finite element analysis or other solid-model analysis of the aftermarket bearings? I have to assume that Porsche performed extensive FEA as they were trying to cook up their "final" solution of the larger non-removable bearing; it would be interesting (and reassuring) to see some plots from FEA for the various retrofit solutions if they're available. The IMS would not be a complicated finite element model. If the forces applied to the shaft are known, adding the necessary degrees of freedom to the model and then testing the various bearing solutions would be nearly trivial and much more reliable than some of the "science" I've seen (i.e. "we used the biggest bearing that would fit"). Anyway, a guy can dream. I'm not suggesting that Vertex should be the one doing more sophisticated analyses on the IMS - but given how cheap FEA modeling has gotten in the past 20 years, and how costly it is to be wrong, it seems like at least one of the aftermarket suppliers would have gone this route...

Oh, damn. Was I supposed to use one of my alter egos to post to this thread?

I have to agree that the guy in the video is acting like he doesn't know what wear is on a bearing and really doesn't know what he is talking about and is surprised to see the small contact patch of the ball. Do people think the whole ball is in contact? I would say that the person in the video is not very impressive. I know considerably more about bearings.....but I should as I have been involved with electric motor repair for over 20 years now.

More sloppy generalizations that undermine a potentially useful product . Example :"Since cylindrical roller bearings have thrust control they can be applied to solve the IMS problem" Wrong. Standard cylindrical roller bearings are not intended for applications with substantial Thrust. A special version of a cylindrical roller bearing is required to augment thrust capability. The adaptation usually is a thrust washer(s). This technically sloppy narrative makes scholars of this subject suspicious of the claims. Just compare this Vertex waffle with what RND write about their roller bearing IMSB.

I don't even need a scholarly dissertation to be convinced - but the sum total of the research I've seen consists of people picking the biggest/largest load capacity bearing, assuming it'll be sufficient, and writing lots of marketing prose explaining why this solution is better than that solution. I've seen test harnesses and test rigs (Pedro loves the mockups), but in the 5 or 6 years my cars have made me a participant in the IMSB drama, I have yet to see evidence of FEA or other "real" engineering tools - digital or analog - being used to solve this problem. Sometimes it's quicker (and more effective) to do the R&D on the PC instead of in the workshop...

lets see some credentials posted. Engineers at say Alladin Temp-rite would defer if asked a serious question about these things. Its very specific. Unless an engineer was doing the testing, they don't know. Thats what being an engineer is Why are so many of you so intent on aggressively challenging people who are only trying to help (because there is $$$ involved! and therefore they have a major financial incentive to do this right, plus they are largely car guys, just like you.) in other words, keep being an ego driven ***, and they won't consider posting (as his first post alluded to)

Felixs post and research on the topic was the best I've seen, and I've been reading these pages forever (just like you )

I’m sorry but who’s making sloppy generalization? Rod said early on that his posts were going to be targeted to the general reader and he mentioned that some of his content was proprietary. The intermediate shaft is one of the most controversial topics and this is the closest things any of us have seen that’s not smoke and mirrors and the guy is treated like sh#%. WTF. I don’t know about you guys, but unless he’s lying about the zero failures I think a reality check is in order.

Quotes source post: 12621160

amen. somewhat ridiculous

Quotes source post: 12621147

There are currently how many IMSB retrofit options? Six or seven? With the exception of Raby's plain bearing design, all the rest, including Porsche's final option, are permutations of single-row ball bearings, dual-row ball bearings, a staggered dual-row ball bearing, two or three flavors of roller bearings, PLUS no oil feed vs. unfiltered oil feed vs. filtered oil feed coming off the filter vs. filtered oil feed coming off the block. I don't think it's dickish to ask the folks selling "solutions" to this problem to hike up the skirts and show us the math. People have absolutely NO problem about demanding dyno sheets to "prove" the efficacy of power adders - but when it comes to the bearing conversation, we don't get to see any supporting evidence. It's all opinion and marketing. Since picking wrong and retrofitting a healthy engine with the wrong product has the potential of costing thousands of dollars, why do you think it's uncool/argumentative/overzealousness to ask for some evidence of engineering/science behind the product offerings? The various personal attacks and inter-vendor squabbling is stupid and vain - but I don't think that asking for some decent evidence of analysis is stupid OR vain. There are currently what, 4 or more vendors, all saying "Our design is best!" with nothing to back it up except pseudo-science and some Wizard-of-Oz don't-look-behind-the-curtain mysticism. That's stupid and frustrating.

Quotes source post: 12621176

how would you suggest those claims are addressed? by having them explain the math? Nothing works that way. Products could be tested independently, but I doubt consumer reports has much interest. "engineers" or not, no one can look at the design and somehow anecdotally see the flaws. Personally, I'd go with Raby as they have done tons of R&D. To challenge someone elses research is the definition of "dickish"

I think if we really want to measure the legitimacy of what Vertex claims then we need to look at their credentials. Anything less than degrees from Harvey Mudd or MIT along with a minimum of 5 publications in first tier high impact peered reviewed journal is sh@% And forget it, if there's not a subsequent Ph.D. then everything is suspect. Because we know that anyone making claims who doesn't have a Ph.D is a poser.

Quotes source post: 12621185

Seriously? LOTS of stuff works that way. In the real engineering world, suppliers don't claim that a part is ideal because they thought REAL hard about it and even made a bench-top mock-up. When you buy a new turbo, for example, Borg-Warner provides detailed specifications, performance information, turbo maps, and all of the other data you need to ensure you have the right part for the right application. They don't just cruise out to the warehouse, eyeball a turbine, see if it'll fit in the housing, and chuck it into a box for UPS. I'm not suggesting that the IMSB retrofit suppliers are anything less than professional about how they design their solutions, but it's not unreasonable to ask to see the proof. You don't need to be a master Porsche mechanic to understand the issue, and you don't need to be an aerospace engineer to understand the solution. When I next retrofit my M96 - since I went with a dual-row retrofit that is still considered a wear item at this time - I would prefer to choose the product that has some engineering to back up the claim that it's the best solution for the problem. I chose the dual-row ceramic bearing from LN because it was _the_ product I had to choose from. Now that there is a variety of products, wouldn't you prefer to be able to see the data behind a vendor's claim that their product is the BEST product?

My objection is the pseudo engineering claims. To repeat for the speed readers,my complaint is this may be an effective solution but the verbage used to promote it is harming it's chances. Previously I said this may be an effective solution and only 'field' results will confirm it. There is nothing wrong with Vertex saying"we think this will work well and so far it has" but don't claim (non-existent) engineering properties for the product (Thrust Capacity). If Vertex say "we don't think thrust,heat,misalignment are problems with a roller IMSB" that is fine. But don't claim that some marginal characteristic of the product guarantees success. Or do a Pedro "trust me, I'm a nice guy,this is my solution" that is cool too. Please note Vertex have never directly addressed the technical objections. And their technical claims are merely (incorrect or exaggerated) assertions. It may be a satisfactory product but they need to distinguish between fact,claim and assertion. Then we can discuss their credibility...

Let's put it this way, if a salesman called on me with the information Vertex posted above along with the video.....I wouldn't be buying.

Exactly my point Paul. The salesman's pitch is the issue. The product may be great but if the pitch is phoney ...

*deleted* Moving on.

you guys kill me. dont buy the product if youre not interested, but asking a company to explain engineering principles is ludicrous. A turbo company providing maps, etc is technical info, not design & patents. Porsche uses X, we use Y, someone else uses Z. Heres why we think ours is better. Asking them to explain why when the entire subject is controversially to say the least... hmm But be nice to these guys. I appreciate them comin on here and at least participating. Most companies wouldnt

Am I the only one seeing this or able to read between the lines, it looks like Vertex is the sole company that found the cure for the IMSB problem that Porsche was never able to do. From Rod's language I understand what they found and what the implications are. And just because you don't like the language used or they refuse to provide math and schematics, we're supposed to discount the importance of permanently fixed bearing?

Quotes source post: 12621284

You must have been on the committee that approved Volkswagen's emissions numbers.

Quotes source post: 12621284

Well put.

Finally someone gets it. If your going to buy a 996, this is the absolute first thing you must do. I mean the minute you get it home. Not after a drive around the block, going out to dinner, showing off to friends, and so on. This is the absolute first thing you should do. At least for inspection purposes to determine the engines state. You sir, are what the 996 crowd needs more of.

Quotes source post: 12621400

I'm sure you're saying this to wind up a few in here, but come'on bruh! I humbly disagree.

Quotes source post: 12621338

No, they are not the only company claiming they found the cure. Flat 6 innovations have the IMS Solution (plain bearing lubed by filtered oil siphoned from the oil filter) long before Vertex's roller bearing.

Quotes source post: 12621400

You're a f**ktard. You, sir, are what the 996 crowd needs none of.

Quotes source post: 12621453

Don't let it get to you. He's just f*cking around.

From what I read the Vertex product is not a maintenance item.

Quotes source post: 12621481

Neither is the IMS Solution.

Neither is the Porsche non-serviceable version of the bearing. (rolling my eyes for effect, but you can't see that)

Quotes source post: 12612570

I represent a vast minority of 997 crowd in this thread, and let me assure you I would NEVER, EVER, EVER under any circumstances consider that as an Ethernal Solution or Fix to my engine. It's more like asking for problems. Likely serious problems. Thanks for sharing anyway. =L=

Quotes source post: 12621400

I did an engine -out inspection as soon as i bought the car, and still blew the motor. It"s part of the crap shoot of life. Poop happens. Most 996 owners are blissfully aware of any M96 concerns, and just drive their cars around, not realizing the sense of fear and imminent doom they should be feeling. What fools.

you girls sound like a bunch of girls

Quotes source post: 12621400

:r olleyes: :r olleyes: :rol leyes: :rolle yes: :rolleye s: :r olleyes: :rol leyes:

Quotes source post: 12622094

Gotta agree. I would never do that to my engine.

Quotes source post: 12623439

+1. I definitely would not go reaming out the IMSB portal in the engine casing. The most I might do with an engine that has the large single-row IMSB would be to perhaps remove the seal at the time of a clutch job.

Quotes source post: 12621264

Damn I thought the bearing was the issue instead of how edumicated you sound. I haven't been here for probably a month or more until last night and now that I'm caught up again I'm good for a while. Same sharks in the water over this issue as always, and gawd forbid you don't know all the buzz words and secret hand shakes to get in the club. The man says 1000 installs and they have gone as much as 60k miles. That's not enough data to call it permanent in my book, but it's a number that allows a purchaser some basis to consider it further. Here's another stat: not a single post in any form anywhere about how their EPS/Vertex roller choked. Me I didn't buy the bearing because of the crap video or proper use of terminology. I bought it because I'm an engineer with the ability to decide what is good enough for my use. It's better than the factory bearing and cheaper than the (unavailable) LN dual row plain bearing. All it has to be is better than the factory crap bearing. By the way, 8% failure is not acceptable - it's hideous and the courts apparently agreed. If 8% of the products that I design for my employer failed I would be unable to find work anywhere in the country. It's easier to understand that viewpoint when you're one of the 8% bag holders. As for calling for use of FEA and digital analysis? You have to know what all the loads are first, and no one here does. The minute you start plugging in assumptions (happens at my employer all the time) your determinations are immediately suspect. What is wrong with a vendor building and breaking stuff until it doesn't break any more? Early pioneers in aviation managed to succeed without an internet connection or laptop. You'd think that was impossible. So rollers can't handle as much thrust as they can radially. How much is enough? Again, no one here has published values to say what those loads are. The one vendor who might (probably has) instrumented well enough to have some idea doesn't publish that proprietary information either, nor would I expect him to. So the roller is rated at 325 lbs thrust. There are no helical cut gears ramming the shaft back and forth with acceleration/deceleration so the loads it will see are (most likely) just the inertia of the shaft assembly from acceleration/deceleration. Let's do some horse math and say the shaft weighs 10 lbs (it's maybe 3, but lets assume it's full of oil and carrying the weight of all the timing chains. 325 lbs/10lbs = 32.5 Gs of acceleration. If any of you are experiencing performance like that I want the number of your engine builder and brake supplier. Again, no one has stated how much thrust it needs to take. Someone chummed the water by pointing out that a conventional roller bearing can't handle thrust as well as a ball bearing and it has become grounds for going after rollers ever since. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the highest axial load EVER placed on the intermediate shaft assembly is when the bearing is installed with the shaft in the engine. The EPS roller isn't "glued in with loctite" as if you slip it in covered in goo and tap it lightly with a mallet to seat it. I had to freeze my bearing and put my shaft in the oven and I still wished that I had a press. I'll happily report my failure if it ever happens.

"the ( unavailable ) LN dual row plain bearing" Plain?There are no rows in a plain bearing. If you mean the double row(not staggered) deep-groove ball-bearing ? That part number has been published here and elsewhere many times.The #s given are for Timken/***/Nachi etc - not the proprietary LN version. For the later 'big bearing' engine, man up and split the case.Some useful upgrades you can do 'while you are in there'.

glad i do not own a 996 lol!

No a plain bearing, the commonly accepted engineering description of the bearing Jake utilized for his "solution" and which is found in virtually 100% of main and rod bearings going back 100 years. When I was in the market for a bearing, it was not available for those of us with dual row cars. He has since indicated that he developed it and that it may come to market after all which is great as it allows users a choice. Now that I return to read rennlist I see that LN sells a roller through RND or however it's set up. I'm assuming there's another thread asking Charles to defend his choice of thrust management with charts and data. I don't understand the contempt for vendors here.

I have been searching for hours on this and am in the middle of an eps/vertex dual row ims replacement and can't find an answer. I have a 2001 996 with 75k and after the install, it seems that the bearing sticks out beyond the shaft about an 1/8". Does anybody know if that is normal or did I let the loctite set by taking too long, ha. I used dry ice to shrink fit the bearing and got the install started with my old ims cover plate, then switched to the installation tool. It won't seem to move any further. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Jon, That seems incorrect. But you are asking the wrong audience for tech advice on Vertex.Very few here have any experience with it compared to the conventional LN ball bearing or plain bearing IMSB. Suggest you call Vertex and ask them. Unfortunately Vertex do not participate in these Forum technical discussions. IMHO a major mistake in their Marketing policy. If I had to guess ,I would say you will need to extract the new bearing, clean everything up, re-read the Vertex Instructions, compare them to the RND Instructions(??) and try to figure out where you went wrong. Did you loosen the nearby case bolts - for example? Unlike Vertex , I think RND use a snap ring.

I don't have personal experience with this bearing install but the picture in the installation instructions looks to me like it shows the bearing race overhanging the end of the IMS shaft. Also, it doesn't re-use the snap ring which may be because the bearing covers the snap ring groove. Sounds to me like you have it all the way in. Does it look like this?

Quotes source post: 13307963

It took me a long time to figure it out, but yes that is exactly what it looks like. I ended up extracting it then measuring it just to be safe. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you guys. I do appreciate the responses though!! Thanks again

Quotes source post: 13315717

If you extracted the bearing then might as well get a new one. The forces of pulling can easily put dimples in the races and the bearing will easily fail because of this. Think of it as a wheel bearing that you would press into a hub on car. There is only one proper way to install it and removal always destroys it......always.

Quotes source post: 13315741

Out of curiosity, because I am far from an engineer, would that mean that I damaged it putting it in, also? I thought a lot about it and used a combination of heat on the outside and dry ice one the inside to break the loctite. I would think this would be a problem both ways. If so I need to let the company know that their standard installation practice of pressing it in with a bead of loctite red would require a replacement if immediate extraction due to installation worries weakens the part. The instructions weren't very good, though the bearing itself seems like a very well engineered part. Thanks for the input. I was hesitant to use the company based on the lack of information I could get on the outside. Everything seemed to be based on what "they" say. Biased to say the least. Ha

Deleted. Wrong again. Drats!

Jon, If you explain this issue to Vertex, they may man up and give you a new bearing? Yes, it may have been your mistake but the Instructions were not clear and they offered no advice or guidance here.A simple dimensioned sketch was all you needed or even a close-up photo.Others who use their product may/shoud need those dimensions anyway - so you re actually helping them. If not, others will give you the generic part number for the roller bearing.It is nothing special . By comparison the RND roller bearing is a very unusual part.

Quotes source post: 13316507

So you do recommend replacing it? My apologies to lmo000.

You want to take a chance on a $20 bearing buried deep inside a $5k++ engine? If it fails ,it isn't like replacing an alternator bearing. If yours is damaged and it destroys the engine in a few thousand miles... I don't have that kind of luck but perhaps you do.

The LN instructions say to discard the bearing if it has to be removed. I think this is a little extreme as I think it depends on the fit, how it was removed, etc. Sounds like you did everything you could to allow the bearing to survive removal. Having said that, if it were me and Vertex would sell you another bearing - even if it were $150 - I would probably not risk it. It is just too much of a PIA to go back in and replace it again even if no damage occurs. My opinion.

Quotes source post: 13316728

Me? Heck no. I just didn't understand the issue and was asking for clarification.

Quotes source post: 13316852

Not extreme at all.. When extracting the load is placed on the inner race completely, yet the outer race holds the bearing into the housing bore. Extracting the bearing will place small dents in the face of the inner and outer raceways due to this.

Quotes source post: 13317546

Op has roller bearing, so the denting isn�t as much of a problem as in ball bearing. Roller to outer race contact is on large flat surfaces. If the extraction was performed with reasonable force , I see no reason not to use the bearing.

Quotes source post: 13317980

I'm aware of this. I was responding to the comment made by rockhouse66 concerning the LN product reference.

Quotes source post: 13316132

You are asking questions that are alarming. I suggest you find someone that knows how to install and handle bearings before this turns really ugly.

After re-reading this whole thread I find one thing that went wrong, IMHO, is that Vertex early on said since this an "enthusiast forum" the conversation will be dumbed down(my words-not his). I feel that offended many. There are people on here that are much more than just "enthusiasts" and some have/had jobs/educations/experiences that qualify them to dig into the depths of technical information. I am NOT one of those people but I do know talking down to potential customers is not good business.

The bearing should be fine but you will need to check the thrust washer that sits behind the bearing and is part of the central assembly, this will have taken all the force on extraction as you will have pulled out the bearing by attaching to the central stud which this is part of and drawing it out, the rear thrust control is like a large thick washer with oil control grooves in it and may have been damaged, check the outer race edges of the bearing also as these run against other surfaces to control the thrust when the bearing is rotating in the shaft, the bearing does stick out by a small amount for this reason , I do agree with other advise though , double check with EPS , I'm sure they will tell you and don't risk your rebuild if you think something is not right , the cost of a replacement bearing is better than a replacement engine , just be careful