Does anyone have information on the EPS roller bearing IMS Solution?

Has anyone seen or have info on the roller bearing IMS "kit" shown in the VERTEX ad on pg 39 of the 2013-2014 Excellence buyers guide? European Parts Solution (EPS) makes it. According to the ad there is an installation video at the EPS site, couldn't find it??

I saw that ad, too, and was intrigued. But the lack of tech data at their web site, etc., is troubling. Until such time or until an in-depth article appears in a reputable publication, I think the LN/Flat Six solution is the de facto standard. relinuca

Agree about LN/Flat Six. It appears that they are "pre-loading" thrust against the far end bushing. Wonder what that does to the bushing end.

They are not preloading the bearing against the far end bushing. There is a hardened plate on the inner ring mounting bolt that with the mounting flange, controls the end float in the IMS. There should be little or no thrust load on the bearing. I've looked at a lot of IMS bearings for a supplier of a "fix" for the problem. The Lack of good lubrication seems to be the major issue, but there is a heavy radial load on the bearing. A pressure lube system will help. There is a lot of discussion on Pedro's Board on the IMS issue. I would like to see some tech and test data on this roller bearing upgrade, too. Ed B Retired bearing engineer PCA DE instructor & Steward Six Porsches including a '00 Boxster S

Ed, as a retired bearing engineer, what bearings do you use on your M96's?

I knew someone would ask that! I haven't replaced it yet. The Boxster only has 35K miles on it, mostly track. I'm tending toward the roller bearing, but I'd like some technical and test data first. Recommendations for the ball bearing retrofits suggest changing them every 35-50K miles. Ed B

Ed, Have you done any kind of vibration analysis before in your line of work previously? I'm wondering whatever happened to Mark Jennings(PCA member) that was doing vibration analysis on the m96 motors. That would've been a "true" engine guardian IMO if he could've packaged that into a nice neat electronic package.

Quotes source post: 11242158

I think he's still dabbling with his research. His son is a friend of a friend and he actually analyzed my old C4S and commented it was one of the quietest engines he had ever "listened" too (and that was with 97k miles on the original IMS bearing).

Then there is the insaroims Spanish or Portugese house that has a two ball bearing solution, in case one fails. Second bearing rides inside IMS I believe... I give it an A for creativity. 2003 Carrera 4S Speed Yellow / 1955 356 Continental 1500 Rust Red

How about an electronic ear mounted on where the transmission meets the engine. Sound is transmitted to the FM radio. Tune to the channel and hear your bearing Probably a lot easier for a human to tell the diff between a good bearing and bad bearing noise, as opposed to an algorithm based on freq analysis.

Quotes source post: 11241787

Thanks, Ed. That tells me even a bearing engineer don't worried too much about the stock bearing. That says a lot.

Quotes source post: 11242261

By the time a human could hear the bearing, it's already too late. There's a lot more to it than just "hearing" it. It's been explained to me before by Mark, and I understand it, but I don't understand it well enough to cogently explain it to someone else, unfortunately.

Quotes source post: 11242364

Even with electronic hearing device to highly magnify the noise, it will be too late? Or you meant w/o any hearing devices. Try to hear with your ears in the driver seat is one thing. Putting a hearing device directly below the bearing is another...

But are you going to just sit there and listen to the bearing noise every time you drive the car? To be truly effective (and sellable), it needs to be a passive device.

Quotes source post: 11242685

Agreed. I'd rather listen to my Fister mufflers

The Guardian is a good idea taken from the Aviation Industry and applied to Cars, all Helicopters use a similar system for their Engines, Transmissions and Gearboxes, a much more critical application than our engines, it is very effective and doesn't take much of a sliver or even a bit of fuzz to close the circuit and set the light off. It works well in its original application and I'm sure it will work for this one. Waiting until you can hear the bearing start to fail is too late.

Quotes source post: 11242261

This is very flawed as the vibration signatures would be very complex and indiscernible to the human ear consisting of several complex harmonics and rhythmic vibrations that also need time analysis. This is not like what tuners do by listening for knock with a microphone/headphone over the factory sensor when tuning for example.

Quotes source post: 11242972

We know what Flat 6's guardian is about and that is not what is being talked about here.

Quotes source post: 11243024

You must have heard of the noise from a failing bearing before, right?

Quotes source post: 11243071

That's my point, you cannot hear a failing IMS bearing just by listening to it which will probably be too late and also can be easily misdiagnosed. You need measuring equipment that can detect a more complex and objective signature that can do it much sooner before the failure. I guess I'm terrible at explaining things hence the reason why I'm not a teacher. Maybe a pic can replace a thousand words as they say:

I agree it's very difficult to come up with an algorithm to detect a failing IMSB automatically with accuracy. My point was why when other bearings fail, we can tell by listening to it but IMSB we cannot? What's so special about this bearing that it does not produce any noise that our ears could tell that something is not right? I agree from the drivers seat we won't be able to hear any noise from this bearing even if it's making bad noise but if you put a stethoscope right below it, you still think a bearing with all the galled ***** won't sound differently?

Quotes source post: 11243730

I don't know if you can or not with all the other noise around it. I'm not sure how much of it would be masked. I guess my point is to try to detect it before a human ear can either hear it and/or have galled ***** by using a more complex method like an analyzer that can reference certain signatures within a database. Also everyone's ears are different and trying to describe a sound can be subjective in nature when dealing with several nuances, not to mention the differences in the testing equipment variances. If there were enough measurements of these signatures for various stages and modes of failure with consistent data built up, one could take an existing signature from a transducer and compare it against the db. Ideally it would be nice if we could know whether an IMS was on its way out or just worn/deteriorating chain guides, chain tensioner, etc based on these signatures.

Quotes source post: 11243766

Yes, completely agree if we can ID the sound signature of the failing bearing by spectrum analysis and whatnot, that's ideal. I was thinking about our "low tech" human ears which we always rely on when diagnosing other regular bearing noises.

I did very little vibration analysis. There are so many sources of vibrations in an engine, (bearings, gears, chains, valves, etc), it would be very difficult to determine the correct frequency change due to impending failure. The vibration pickup would have to be mounted on the bearing to have any chance of working. Constantly changing speeds is another issue. LN Engineering did some studies. Best prevention is to change oil frequently, 3-5K miles, cut open the oil filter every oil change and look for metal particles, use as high a viscosity oil that your climate allows. I'm in NH and don't drive it in the winter. Currently use Mobil 1, 15/50. Will be changing to TOTAL. Ed

Quotes source post: 11244391

That's not prevention, that's a witch hunt!

Did some research. There are approximately 350 roller bearing IMS in engines. No reported failures. A large shop rebuilds 150 M96/97 and 996 engines a year for various reasons. Hans Mezger, "Porsche and Me" says that the 996 engine had lubrication problems. See videos at http//vimeo.com/89968767. Ed B

Who builds 150 engine a year?

Vertex Ed B

Videos here.. https://vimeo.com/tag:European+Parts+Solution

UGh ! we have been through this in great detail many times.Do a search if you are really interested. The short version is that the roller bearing alternative has inherent defects for this application- raised by experts ,not amateurs like me. The promoters/marketers failed to offer any data to refute the very reasonable objections made about their roller bearing for the IMSB. It is therefore a rather perverse choice since there are already effective solutions without the inherent problems. If DOF 'saves' the roller bearing solution, why not use DOF with a deep groove ball bearing and answer all the objections? But we'll be interested to hear the results and wish you well.

As a Aerospace Engineer I have not seen any root cause analysis done to definitely prove whether the problem is an issue with the oil seal or the inability of the original bearing to sustain the loads and temperatures inside the engine. I would also like to se the hard dat and not just a lot of conjecture by all of the enthusiasts. Im fairly convinced the failure rate stats cited by solution sellers are largely based on anecdotal evidence and number of replacements done. I performed a cars.com search on Porsche 996 vehicles for sale and came up with 6.2 % of all P 996s listed having IMS replaced. If you search just on P 996.2 that percent is a bit higher. I got the nearly the same results looking on auto trader.com. Most of the IMS upgrades were preventative so you will never know the actual failure rate of the OEM bearing. I also noticed many P 996 owners seel their vehicles shortly after performing the upgrade. What does that say about the upgrades? I am curious to know why so many owners sell their vehicles after upgrading. I spoke to one when I bought my 996 and he told me he decided he wanted a 993 instead. Did he get the upgrade to improve the resale value or did he not trust the upgrade as being better. He showed me the original bearing at it was intact and appeared to be normal. An engineer would ask what is the operational requirements of the bearing and what are the specs of the different solutions? Minimum and Maximum Temperature Maximum Internal Pressure Maximum Revs Maximum Radial Load accounting for 6 Sigma Dispersions Maximum Axial Load accounting for 6 Sigma Dispersions Worst Case Oil environment? If its a oil seal issue why does someone not offer a bearing with a seal that will not leak? We build ships that do not rust in the sea. Surely we can build a bearing that can sit in a vat of slightly acidic oil for 3 years. Why not plug up the hole in the IMS shaft so Oil does not build up in it and blow thru the oil seals? I just see a lot of conjecture out there by internet bloggers hyping the problem but Id like to see a table comparing the specs of the different solutions the operating environment requirements for the bearing. That would help owners decide whether or not the solutions are really any better than OEM and worth the investment. Solution Max Temp Max Rev Max Radial Load Max Axial Load Seal Acidity Tolerance Max Seal Pressure LNE EPS OEM

I don't have an opinion, but I can confirm that at least one indy shop in San Diego is installing the Vertex bearings in at least some cars they retrofit - I was in the other day to see if they had any customers parting cars out (trying to score some factory wheels), and I noticed they had a box full of them on the workbench...this is a very old-school shop that deals mostly with air-cooled Porsches; when I took my Boxster there 5 or 6 years ago, they had barely started working on m96-powered cars.

Quotes source post: 13556076

Excellent analysis of the validity and preponderance of the evidence. While the anecdotal/case reports of failure of the IMSBs definitely feels above the norm, people typically confuse anecdotal stories and individual case reports as being "strong" evidence -- whereas it is the weakest form of evidence. This is common in Medicine, and it accounts for the numerous gobble-dee-gook cancer remedies that somehow gain traction on the Internet. Are you planning on pursuing this?

Hello All, longtime lurker here, have a 1999 996 Cab (Ocean Blue Metallic/74k mi) and a 1999 Boxster base (Arctic White/78k mi). Recently did clutches, pressure plates, throwout bearings and RMS' on both cars, and installed the EPS Cylindrical Roller Bearing on the Boxster. Uneventful installation, however, the original dual row IMS bearing was very wobbly! I change the oil at 4k mi religiously and cut open the oil filters after each change, I never found any ferrous metal on either car, just the odd piece of black/brown plastic from the chain tensioners. Word to the wise, the dual row bearings do fail! I had a false sense of security because both cars were 99's and supposedly had the more robust dual row bearing, so I was real surprised to see the state that the Boxster's bearing was in. Wanted to do the cylindrical roller bearing on the 996 as well, however, the IMS cover had the large 22mm nut on it indicating a remanufactured engine with the larger single row bearing that cannot be extracted without splitting open the cases. So, i removed the IMS bearing's oil seal and buttoned it back up with a new seal on the IMS cover. I'm an ex-machinist from the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and had confidence that the cylindrical roller bearing would solve the IMS bearing issue once and for all. Car is running sweet, and I have peace of mind driving it. EPS has come up with a solution for the "captured" larger single row IMS bearings where they bore out the engine case to be able to extract the bearing and insert their cylindrical roller bearing, but I think they only do that in house at their Florida location. Apologies for the long post, especially for a first timer, I will never bother any of you again! P.S. Much wisdom on this board, Jake/Flat Six and JFP in particular, how lucky are we to have 2 such experts sharing their thoughts with us?

Quotes source post: 13556076

Both comments are true - and those of us who would actually like to quantify the issue have long since given up. Nobody who has numbers is sharing. RE: your analyses of cars for sale - it's a valiant exercise, but they're data points that may - or may not - have ANY resemblance to the overall statistics. Maybe people who have their IMS bearings electively replaced are also 70% more likely to sell their Porsche within three years. Maybe people who have never heard of the IMS bearing are 50% less likely to sell their cars. *shrug* The only semi-solid data points I'm aware of were the sales stats for M96-powered cars and the data offered by Porsche during the IMS class action. That latter point, which was vague at the time - is now years out of date; the numbers might have been representative of reality at the time, but we're now years further down the road. TL, DR: Yeah, we'd all like that info, but it doesn't exist.

Its not, and never has been a matter of lubrication. I knew that almost 15 years ago. IF it were a problem with lubrication, the dual row IMS Bearings would fail MORE often, since they require TWICE as much oil volume to stay cool and lubricated. This is NOT the case, as dual row bearings are the lesser of the evils, which was even substantiated by the statements Porsche made during the class action suit where the dual row bearings failed less than 1% of the time, and single row failed 8% of the time.

I have the Vertex Eternal solution with cylindrical bearing and direct oil feed (via the slotted hex drive shaft) installed in my car. At $450 (Amazon) for the kit, both my mechanic and I felt this was an elegant, cost-effective solution to this problem that really shouldn't exist... The original bearing that came out of the car (at 93k) was still in perfect condition. The work was done recently so I don't have long time feedback to offer just yet, but the car is running fine. Clutch, RMS, chain tensioners, AOS, water pump, t-stat also done. I also switched to a magnetic drain plug to monitor things... I'm driving the car with piece of mind, but a fair measure of restraint when it comes to RPMs for the foreseeable near future due to the extensive amount of new bits installed. So far, so good.

There is no statistically valid study that would give us the answer of what bearing to use. Quantity 1 anecdotes aplenty but all self selected and self reported which leads to bias. There must be 20 different bearing packages offered all over the world. Select one where there are instructions that everyone acknowledges work. Be mindful of any special tools that must be bought/rented/built to do the job. Ask how many the installer has done of the specific type you are contemplating. Ask the seller how many of the specific type for your car they have sold or better ask the producer of the kit. Then wish yourself luck. Your car. Your money. Your peace of mind. Your choice.

UPDATE: over 5k miles on my EPS Eternal bearing as of now and I have been revving the car to my heart's content... Car runs like a dream. Used Oil Analysis came back perfect.

Still only one example. For the thousands that Vertex claim to have installed, you'd think there would be more feedback. Thanks to Jaetee for helping. Just for reference it would be interesting to add to Jaetee's post, what condition the removed IMSB was in. and single/double row

Quotes source post: 13877445

with all due respect, 5k miles isn't exactly a glowing testimonial. I would be interested in what the results are at 70k. an old bicycle sprocket can probably go 5000 miles...

Quotes source post: 13878426

No argument from me there... I agree 100%. I just saw this thread pop up on the radar and was feeling talkative. I hope others with EPS cylinder bearings and more miles on the clock chime in. For that matter, that also means anyone who has had a rebuilt Vertex engine put in their car over the last three years feel free to let us know how your IMSB is holding up (you also have an EPS bearing in your car).

Quotes source posts: 13878008, 13878426

Since there are several known examples of retrofit bearings failing almost immediately after installation - whether due to poor installation, a bad bearing, misalignment of the stars, or because Howard Carter doomed us all by opening Tut's tomb - I think it IS useful information that all is well at the 5K mark. Is it enough information for me to rush out and act upon? No, of course not - but it's information, and as Schnell Gelb pointed out, there is a dearth of data...so anything helps.

He is right! I hope other EPS and RND or other roller bearing IMSB users will chime in with as much technical detail as possible. I would rather have such anecdotes than nothing. Nobody is claiming that a handful of experiences constitutes a valid test- come on ! So thank you to any contributors.

Adding another to the list.. I've got 500 miles on my EPS Roller Bearing with the oil feed hex mod installed. I know it's not an astonishing amount of data but it's a start and will continue to contribute as time goes on. I too snagged one up for $450 had an original 00 Dual Row IMSB (Tiptronic) 100K miles that wobbled and had evidence of wear on the sides of the bearing casing. I replaced mine while doing an engine refresh after discovering plastic parts in the oil pan (which were parts of the VarioCam Solenoid pads & a pieces left behind after the previous PO changed the spark plug tubes). During tear down I found the old Original bearing to wobble a lot, then after it's removal I saw all the metal shavings were trapped in the sealed inner section of the IMS shaft, so never got the telltale shavings in the filter. Since then car has been reassembled and running now, sounds and preforms great.

Just in time ! Yours would have eventually been one of the (rarer) 2 row IMSB failures. So it is a particularly interesting test of the roller bearing IMSB variant. Interesting if the new roller lasts more than 100,000 miles :-).

Hi Relinuca , Thank you for your interest in our product. Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm. The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN�s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing. Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case. The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Lubrication is not the problem here. To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche�s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. All three bearings failed. Our EPS Patented Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder. Hope this clarifies your doubts. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us. Thanks, EPS Team epsauto.com

They make a good case for the RND roller bearing ? http://rndengines.com/roller-bearing-ims-retrofit-kit/

Quotes source post: 14424911

I asked this in another thread that you responded too, what is your patent number? Also wondering why you are digging up old threads.

Which LN IMS is EPSAuto referring to?... Surely not the LN IMS solution.

Quotes source post: 14424911

12 times stronger? Your advertising used to say 5 times stronger before, now it's even more. How about posting manufacturer bearing specs and part numbers like we shared for years with our bearings. Just making claims doesn't make them factual without actual facts to back them up, like actual patent numbers.

I am not an expert but could pick apart every brash claim and baseless assertion made here. " Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. Not so, LN sell several different IMSBs. Their star product does not have a rolling element at all !LN also sell a cylindrical Roller bearing IMSB but with significant enhancements over the EPS generic bearing. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Actually a pin point is about 0.025mm a huge difference. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm. Nonsense.The load is carried by the oil film not the metal !The significance is the size of the oil film area which is derived in part from the surface area of the rolling bearing element. The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing. Nonsense, the failure rate of LN products has been frequently cited on Rennlist as exceedingly low.We beat to death any report of an LN product failure. There should also be mention here of the IMS tube o-o-r/concentricity issue Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case. Then why do you have all those You Tube videos showing your "patented" oil feed via the oil pump drive? You Tube The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, Incorrect !The IMSB is not in the oil pan .It is at the bottom of the 2 crankcase halves.The oil pan is beneath that. so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Incorrect - it is 1/3 covered when the engine is off and the oil at the correct level Lubrication is not the problem here. Correct but not for the reason stated BTW , The EPS YouTube video clearly shows the IMSB is not in the bottom of the oil pan. To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. Incorrect sequence - first was a double row. .All three bearings failed. Misleading - each of the 3 types had different failure rates. Our EPS Patented False claim of Patenting. No evidencee of a Patent for this generic product Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder." There is way more to it than that - read the RND link here http://imsretrofit.com/roller-bearings/ This is sad because the EPS product may actually have some merit for those wanting a cheap product to flip an M96 with IMSB issues ? Why not just give us the specs., the Test Data, the numbers sold and we'll decide what to buy ? The bombast and hyperbole just undermines the merit of the product. EPS also published the same boilerplate of unsubstantiated or silly claims here: http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxst...ml#post9712851

Since when is the ims bearing at the bottom of the oil pan?

Quotes source post: 14425288

Good question. I have seen the "Patented" ads in magazines and now I see it being mentioned here. Someone needs to do some homework on what "Patented" actually means, and the requirements of those who manufacture, and sell "Patented" products. At minimum Patent issue numbers are required to be permanently stated on all components that those Patents apply to. Right on the flange of our IMS Solution you'll see "US Patent 8,992,089" and then when the secondary Patent was issued for that product we had to add "9,416,697" to all items in the next production runs following the Patent being issued. Secondly, a provisional Patent is NOT a Patent. It is intended to provide a 12 month period of protection for the Inventor to sell a product while preparing the Patent filing. After 12 months this Provisional Patent and its "Patent Pending" status expires, and a full Patent must be filed, with the resultant 33-40 months of Office Actions occurring. Those selling Patented products must state their US Patent numbers in any ad where they state "Patented", as well as on the protected parts, as I stated earlier. That said, our Patent searcher has not turned up ANY issued Patents for any technology at the USPTO outside of our own 3 Patents. I have not seen any US Patent numbers posted on the EPS sites, or in any ads, and I have not seen any of their parts etched with a permanent US Patent issue number. I believe that someone has a misunderstanding of what a Patent really is, and the rules and regulations pertaining to advertising protected products. So, EPS, please post the ISSUED US Patent numbers that you retained with your PATENTED product. You should be proud enough of it to have it memorized, just like I have all 3 of mine. You might consider posting that number in your signature, just like mine are. Anyone can go to Google Patents and read all about our technology, see the drawings, and all the things that the US Patent Office believed made the item novel enough to be Patent protected. We've done all the processes to attain an issued US Patent. That including all the development work, the drawings, the filings, the 25,000 dollar checks being stroked, and the years worth of waiting, and paying 350 bucks an hour to our Attorney to answer questions from the USPTO. If someone is stating that something is "Patented" then I expect them to have undergone the same hassles, expenses, and sleepless nights as I have. All to keep some copycat from stealing your idea. If you don't have an issued Patent, well, you might consider begging for forgiveness to the powers that be.

dizzz iz gone a be goooood....

Quotes source post: 14425786

After it fails?

A mod might consider adjusting the thread title. Confusion around retrofits is going to happen, but misinformation is a little irritating for those that actually put the money into their 996/986 by having the IMS Solution installed. I imagine the irritation is amplified for people like Jake that went through the trouble to develop, patent & support the product.

Quotes source post: 14426022

My guess is the response will be "crickets".

Quotes source post: 14426288

Thats been the response that was most common when similar questions have been presented in the past. There comes a time, and a place where questions must be answered. That time has come.

So my second guess is you are not going to hold your breath!

Subscribing!!! If I end up with the C4S instead of a turbo, I guess the Flat6 IMS solution should be my next investment (esp. since it's right up the road from me in north GA). Wait list and price is the only negatives though..

anyone?

Quotes source post: 14426622

When I was pondering the question of whether to do the IMS Solution or another type of IMS retrofit (My car already had a LN "classic dual row" retrofit in it - but I wasn't sure of the milage - my thought was around 30k give or take 5-10k) I couldn't get the thought of having to do it again at some point down the road out of my head. I figured the extra $1000.00 (for the Solution compared to another product) or thereabout was a reasonable up front cost to put the IMSB issue to bed. None of the alternatives (including the EPS roller bearing - despite their claims) do that, so I went with the "Solution". My gut says that EPS won't come up with any sort of data to back up their claims...

From my point of view I could care less what is patented or not. Does it work? How many are out there? None have failed? that's what I care about. Don't give a sh%� about some numbers. I'm sure inventors are proud all their work gets them that patent, absolutely! But many customers just simply don't care and just want a proven product.

Quotes source post: 14427765

A patent is not just "some numbers"... It represents an awful lot of R&D and a novel approach to solving a problem. What it says in this case is that FSI/LNE did the work and adapted a plain bearing approach, and the installation technique needed to install it in the M96 engine. I think what EPS did was take an "off the shelf" roller bearing with the proper dimensions and swap it with the original IMSB. I'm also not impressed by their use of unfiltered oil to feed the bearing. This approach clearly "works", but so did the stock bearing for some time. Time will tell whether it's really "eternal" or not - and for anyone that's installed it I hope it is - for my $ I just don't believe the hype.

I've no skin in game, but arguing about something that is in a post a couple of lines down, well, this might help...or not . https://www.europeanpartssolution.co...raded-bearing/ http://www.google.com/patents/US9004766

Quotes source post: 14427816

I completely understand that and am only speaking from my point of view, it is my opinion and I believe many shoppers think the same. many.

Quotes source post: 14425786

Since always. It's submerged in oil as the M96 engine is a wet sump engine.

This isn't going to turn into an oil thread...right?

Quotes source post: 14427999

...and I would think it is completely submerged, not 1/3 as was implied in the thread???

Quotes source post: 14427765

You don't care about numbers? Proof is part of being proven, right? How about these? I'm all for choices and unicorns and rainbows, but false advertising is illegal and no one wants the facts or the truth. We publish generally accepted ratings for all the popular bearings and let people make their own educated choice. Vertex can't even get their advertising straight. One place it's a 2 year warranty and 12 times stronger: or 5 year warranty and 5 times stronger: So which one is it? Making claims without substantiation is fraud. http://www.copypress.com/blog/false-...and-report-it/

Quotes source post: 14427754

Here are some hard numbers that are factual: A deep groove ball bearing as currently used in the IMS Retrofit can take up to 50% of the dynamic load in thrust. A traditional cylindrical roller bearing with thrust control can only take up to 10% of the dynamic load in thrust. The 6204 bearing used in the Classic Single Row LN Engineering IMS Retrofit has a dynamic load capacity of 2900# with thrust max load rating of 1450# The NJ or NU204 cylindrical bearing has a dynamic load capacity of 3750# with thrust max load rating of 375# The custom Single Row Pro (dual row angular contact) ceramic hybrid bearing has a dynamic load capacity of 4000# w/ Thrust or 2000#.

Let me be clear - I don't care for patent numbers. I have never looked for patent numbers while shopping for car parts. Never. I do care about the data to back up a product. Hence why I went with LNE components in my rebuild.

Guys, I just see that its good that different companies are offering fixes for the problems on these engines. If I want to complain about any manufacturer; its porsche itself. It did not do adequate testing or build enough safety margins into its designs when it moved to water cooling. I'm just happy there are options from aftermarket vendors.

Since I'm new to researching this. If a vehicle is taken into a Porsche dealership, what fix do they use or recommend? Is there a standard fix that Porsche uses?

Quotes source post: 14428614

It depends on the dealership. Some won't touch the IMS bearing, some will insist on changing out the entire bearing/shaft assembly, some will insist on a replacement engine, while others will use aftermarket products... in other words, there is no "standard practice" from one dealer to another. Good luck with your research. 😉

Quotes source post: 14428633

Interesting... boy, Porsche sure pulled one over on the public for almost a decade, huh.

Maybe only tangentially related but one of the other posters asked about what Porsche puts in a replacement engine, and I am also curious. When I was exploring engine M96 engine replacement options I called a nearby dealer and they told me that no complete engine was available for my VIN, but they could get me a long block (~$6000). Would a new long block have the latest (not externally serviceable) bearing design in it? (I have the LN IMS Retrofit, FWIW, but like others am just happy we have options)

I believe if you have a short block or long block from Porsche now, it will have the non-serviceable ims. My 02 had a new short block from dealership installed in Aug 2016 and it has the non-serviceable IMS (the one they used in 2006-2008 997).

Quotes source post: 14428769

^^This is correct^^. I believe that while there have been reported failures of this IMS bearing, the #'s are very low...

Quotes source post: 14428664

Maybe my view is wrong, but anytime you deviate from the long tested Mezger design you enter into a world of relatively frequent rebuilds & high uncertainty over durability (ex. Cayenne, Panamera, m96, m97, 991 GT3s, etc).

Agreed - unless you pay for an M96 with all the issues addressed. And that takes you close to Mezger pricing

Quotes source post: 14427999

Considering I've had my sump plate off several times over the past few months, I really beg to differ, unless we have very different definitions of what an oil pan is and what "bottom" is. The sump plate is on the bottom of the oil pan. The IMS bearing is not there. Hence the IMS is not at the bottom of the oil pan. Submerged in oil it may be, but that is not the bottom of the oil pan.

Quad - you re correct.The IMS tube and bearing are in the crankcase halves.Albeit near the lower end.The sump plate is beneath that. But you know that because when you removed your sump plate many times(like me) you saw no IMS :-) A picture(s) is worth... And at least one photo is from LN to prove your point. http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticl...rsche-M96.aspx

Quotes source post: 14427992

I agree. I don't really give a flip whether it's patented or not. That means NOTHING about product quality and comparison to other products. Frankly, the fact that ANY vendor selling one of these products comes in this thread to bash another vendor and spout off about their "superior" product makes me ill. I don't care if your name is Jake Ruby or whatever. Unless you can do a randomized double blind clinically controlled trial to compare products, no manufacturer can claim to be superior. All this evidence is anecdotal.

Anecdotal ? agreed, so we just choose the best anecdotal info available to us. What better alternative selection criteria do we have ? Pragmatism is useful here? We all understand the basis of the LN claims.They have been explained many,many times here. The Patent process - It is not a product garuantee.But it may indicate a degree of diligence and skin-in-the-game that is absent from a merely generic offering that falsely claims a Patent. We need alternative products for the M96. But not ones promoted with false claims and silly pseudo-engineering commentary.The EPS product may be fine and if so - the cheaper EBay alternative is just as good - for way less !

Quotes source post: 14428893

FYI that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. Jake Raby builds engines.

Quotes source post: 14428952

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/909/991/48c.jpg

I was off base with my last two posts in this thread. In my defense, the reason why I made those posts was because in other scenarios where the same questions were asked, the US Patent filing numbers were never provided. The components that I have on my desk right now also do not have any mention of these Patents on their boxes, or on the parts themselves. I also now understand why these never showed up in formal Patent searches, as the claims are broad spectrum, and not specifically novel to that of this particular application. At any rate, no matter what the reason, I was off base, and I remain corrected.

Maybe we should start a thread titled... "who has a EPS Eternal IMSB installed in there 996" The purpose of this thread would be to start collecting info. so we can track real world info. which is what many in this thread seem to think is suspect. Can't evaluate the data if our don't have the data. EPS claims over 5000 sold so maybe we can get a good number of people to provide data. Can ask questions such as: ...of course the standard stuff, year, C2/C4, etc. ...mileage when installed ...professionally installed or self installed ...if professionally, where ...oil used (careful with this one) ... etc., etc. I have the EPS Eternal install and would be happy to start the thread. Some help letting me know what info to ask for would be appreciated. Good idea or not? Let me know.

Quotes source post: 14428952

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

I think 5000 sold to date and not 1 failure is pretty huge deal. but how can we belive it? I think you're on the right track to gather EPS clients with this bearing to get some data behind it.

Quotes source post: 14428987

Agreed . 5000 installations yet so few ppl here have one.Hmmmm.Why? Speak up EPS ppl. Otherwise the claim of 5000 Installations sounds like just more hyperbole. We need the facts. And any RND roller bearing failures? And to be fair to all, please mention if the failure was non-product related.Lots of sloppy Installs at the low end of the IMSB market? BTW, anyone got a copy of the EPS Pre-Qualification and Installation Instructions? I ask because if they are good, that will skew the data - as it does for LN. That is a good thing- for the pedantic ! And what extraction/insertion tool do they sell ? Raby's design? Edit - I found these Instructions: https://www.europeanpartssolution.co...-instructions/

Quotes source post: 14428150

So the million dollar question becomes.... How much dynamic thrust load capacity is necessary to do the job? My guess is that if you exceed a roller bearings thrust load capacity while it's in the M96 doing it's thing, there will be other much more severe issues involved that dramaticaly minimize the importance of the engine in the grand scheme of things.

A few observations of the technical data and questions on this topic,( I have no preference, data , or speculation on which is the better or more durable of these options.) regarding the EPS and RND cylindrical bearings RND uses the Koyo NUP204E bearing EPS uses the NJ204 bearing The Koyo NUP204E has thrust control in " both directions" as its original design which has been around for a long time. I like it because it's simple and can be a direct replacement for the single row bearing as is. The EPS NJ204 has thrust control in only "one direction" hence the need for the "patented" thrust control/ The magic number for thrust rating is I assume less than 580# (hence the RND NUP204E rated at 580#) The rating for the EPS NJ204 of 375# is useless because it doesn't use this mechanism for thrust, it uses a thrustwasher/flange for thrust. Is the thrust now higher than 375# ? or 580#? who knows, it could be since it has a larger surface, but would depend on the metal properties. These "modified" thrust numbers have not been published, even in the patent. Both of these bearings have considerable LESS thrust control than ANY deep groove BALL bearing(ie; the favorite LN Ceramic Hybrid) but have WAY more dynamic or static load than ANY deep groove BALL bearing. The RND Koyo NUP204E has the highest radial load rating due to more rollers but that will mean it needs more lubrication and cooling due to higher friction. I actually think they are both good options !!

Interesting analysis.Thank you for the insights. "I actually think they are both good options !!" Just for clarity -which both ? The RND Koyo NUP204E & the LN Ceramic hybrid? I've had that bearing on my Amazon Prime list since September 20, 2016 !They list it as : *** NUP204E-TVP2

Quotes source post: 14429172

The RND Koyo NUP204 E and the EPS NJ204 with "modified" thrust control. I am assuming the "modified " thrust control puts its capabilities at or near 580# of the NUP204E. But BOTH are way higher in the radial load capabilities than the Classic Single Row LN Ceramic Hybrid.

Quotes source post: 14429145

RND indeed uses a Koyo NJ204E bearing. It's the best one we could spec out if money was no expense for SSF Auto Parts. Thanks for posting this. Here are some specs from Koyo: The Koyo (Japan) bearing book lists the 6204 at 2890 Lbs dynamic load and a standard NJ204 roller bearing at 3750 Lbs; a 30% increase. The NJ204E is an "extra capacity" roller bearing designed to handle a higher load, and it is listed at 5800 Lbs dynamic load rating, a 100% increase. I believe as long as Vertex hasn't changed their supplier since we purchased and tested their kit back in 2013, they supply a URB bearing made in Romania.

Well after a lazy day at work and having some time to do some googelage....some pics appeared that seem interesting. Don't know the back story but here yuh go for your viewing pleasure.

Quotes source post: 14429225

Your welcome ! Just a bit of typo correction. The Koyo NJ204E and NJ204 referenced above^^ should read Koyo NUP204E and NUP204 I know that's what you meant, but you may want to correct it just to keep confusion down. To clarify..RND is KOYO NUP204E and EPS is NJ204

Quotes source post: 14429363

That looks like a fresh installation !!. It still has assembly lube on the end of the flange !!

Sure does. Notice the wear marks on the roller bearing and inside the housing...looks like it machined it's own clearances! Nicht gut!

Quotes source post: 14429557

My failure analysis says it looks like a classic production/manufacturing stack-up issue. Looks like the axial clearance was not sufficient, hence the discoloration of the flange and roller bearings plus the signs of the outer race spinning in the IMS tube/housing. For instance if the axial running clearance was spec'd at .008-.012 and 4 dimensions determine the total axial length, ie flange thickness, snout length, race width, thrust washer thickness, each dimension tolerances at +- .003(bearings and races are usually dead nuts on .0005) if you had flange +.003, snout +.003, thrust washer +.003, you could end up with a width that was +.009..and a axial clearance of .0000!!! I think they should do like FSI does on their IMS Solution, check EACH assembly for radial clearance before boxing !! or that would leave it to the installer to pre-assemble it to check axial clearance before installation.

Ok....so I see there is a patent. What exactly does it cover? The entire assembly or just a part of it?

And by the way where is EPS with some answers?

Quotes source post: 14429698

I read it, it covers the "patented thrust control". The fact that they use a NJ204 that only has thrust control in "one direction". The "patented thrust control" allows thrust control in "both directions" similar to the NUP204E and NUP204 used by RND and MBMortorsports except the they (NUP204E and NUP204) use the inner race and the "patented thrust control" of the NJ204 uses the outer race. To clarify NUP204E RND and NUP204 MBM uses the inner race for 2 direction thrust control NJ204 EPS uses inner race for 1 direction thrust control, BUT with "patented thrust control" uses the outer race for 2 direction control To clarify further The standard NUP and NJ cylindrical bearings use the ends of the rollers for thrust control as designed at the bearing factory.The EPS NJ with "patented thrust control" uses the ends of the outer race to control the thrust with there own thrust washer/flange.

Quotes source post: 14429669

No back story with the photo, so it's all a guess, right? Do you think that perhaps that could also have been the result of a bad install? If this was indeed a fresh install, then I would want to know why they felt the need to go back into the engine again so soon? Could something else have failed and dirtied the oil and caused some of that wear to perpetuate? While the bearing looks like ****, it does still look like it was letting things turn. Botched install? As someone with a relatively immediate decision to make, it would be good get the scoop on these photos. Where were they discovered?

Quotes source post: 14429800

I don't think it was a botched install, I think it was a machining error in the flange that resulted in insufficient axial clearance. When the center bolt/nut was torqued, it squeezed the outer race up to the flange with 0 clearance or maybe .00001 clearance. It could get no oil either from forced lubrication or splash, then the bearing outer race heated up turning blue along with the flange and friction caused the outer race to spin in the tube, probably made a squealing or screeching noise. as it was trying to lock up.

EPS claim they have had no failures in 5000 installations. Pity their name is clearly visible in the photo . We need more IMSB products .But not the false claims. Nothing wrong with a roller IMSB. To their credit EPS did heed earlier complaints about the Thrust deficiency. But is it really necessary to now insist they limit their product claims to those that are honest? If they don't , a reasonable Rennlister would be skeptical about all their product claims. For example ,their discredited Rear Main Bearing Support. Pity ,they have some useful sounding ideas: https://www.europeanpartssolution.com/

Quotes source post: 14430348

Yep, looks like a "failure" to me.

Quotes source post: 14425288

Our patent number is listed on our website here. Porsche IMS Bearing Kit The number is: U.S. Patent 9004766B1 Here is a link to the Patent details Also, the reason we are digging up old threads is that we, like most on the forum, want to provide consumers with as many facts as possible. We will be responding to ALL of your questions shortly. Thanks to all that have commented on this thread.

Quotes source post: 14425803

Please note that our patent(s) are NOT provisional. As you can see from our previous reply, we have provided a link to both our site, where our patent is listed, and a link to the actual patent. I, like you, have spent countless hours working on our patents, so I'm very aware of the difference. Obviously, we are very proud of them but listing them all in our signature might be a bit much. For your reference, here is a list of all of our current patents. Our next production run of IMS Bearings will have the patent number listed. Thank you again for all your suggestings.

Quotes source post: 14428119

First of all, please understand that we have zero interest in falsely advertising our products. The two ads you are showing are from different times. When we first developed the IMS Bearing we were using a 11mm cylindrical bearing. Our current IMS Bearing uses a 15mm cylindrical bearing. The roller bearing only has a surface contact area of approximately 1mm. As we conducted further research and continued to develop our product we were able to increase both our warranty and our claims. We apologize if these seemed to you like false advertisement, but if you notice we only increased our warranty and our claims, not decreased. This was just a result of never receiving one single claim of failure and the evolution of the product. We are making a great effort to ensure that all of our distributors and retailers worldwide have our latest product information. Again, we appreciated your comments and the opportunity to clarify.

Kudos to EPS .They did respond & well.

YMMV, but I live in Miami and have gone into Vertex on several occasions to purchase various maintenance items. They have been priced fairly, professional and have been satisfied with my experiences. In my opinion, anytime you can have a supplier/manufacturer on a forum answering questions about their products is a huge plus to expanding our collective knowledge and making decisions when servicing our cars.

Just wanted to thank everyone that has commented on this thread and to Reenlist for providing this great platform. In an effort to not be redundant we are going to answer all of the questions and comments that have been made together in this one post. I first want to clarify that the LN bearing that we were referring to in our initial thread was specifically to ball bearing solutions. In retrospect, although the initial question was based on an LN & EPS comparison, I should have said ALL ball bearing solutions and not just LN. Our intent is not to bash any competitor but to bring forth product knowledge to the community. However, contrary to Schnell Gelb’s comment, the EPS IMS cylindrical bearing solution DOES use a completely different technology than ALL other cylindrical or ball bearing solutions. I’ll explain the difference further in our posting. Schnell Gelb, you mention that the L& N Roller Bearing has significant enhancements over the EPS generic bearing. Can you please elaborate on these significant enhancements? Schnell Gelb also asked why we make an oil feed if lubrication is not the problem? As noted on our website, we developed this product due to some misleading information on the internet which made some installers feel that it was important to implement this modification. We do not think it is a requirement, but definitely an improvement. Quadcammer you asked about the location of the IMS Bearing. To clarify, the IMS Bearing is about 2.0 inches above the sump plate base line. The IMS is below the oil level meaning it is submerged in oil. That is the reason why on the original bearing the grease gets washed out. The overwhelming presence of oil penetrates the bearing seals and washes the grease out of the bearing. Again, the oil or lubrication is not the problem but rather the lack of bearing support is what causes the IMS to fail. All that is needed is a bearing that can properly support the the load over time to avoid the IMS failure! AWD GUY was wondering about the legitimacy of our claim of 5000 units sold. I don’t think we really have a way to prove this, but here are some numbers and facts to consider. We have been selling our IMS Bearing since 2013. During that time, at Vertex alone, we have rebuilt just around 800 engines. All with the EPS IMS Bearing and recently with our Rear Main Seal #8 Bearing. In addition to our retail sales via our websites, we have multiple retail outlets and are distributed by Worldpac in the US. Most importantly, we have a very strong presence in Europe via distribution from Design911 in the UK and Rose Passion in France. Sneaky Pete presented some pictures of a supposed “failed IMS”. Pete, thank you for sharing and taking the time to locate these. Can you please let us know where you found those images? Was there any other information with it? If there really was an issue with our part why would the customer not do a warranty claim with us? I would be very interested in tracking down the source of these images and have the full story come to light. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did I would really like to know and learn what we can do to prevent whatever went wrong. Believe me, I would still be very proud of a 1/5000 failure rate. Rolex11 suggested he start a new thread asking EPS IMS Bearing users to come forward with data. I definitely don’t see any harm in this. We are all here to learn and ultimately serve the community as best we can. You definitely have our blessing. Dporto said "So the patent is for a washer ("Thrust control device")? WTF ?" Definitely not! Our patent invention is based on an innovative way to use cylindrical bearings with thrust control. This allows separating the axile load from the radial load. Below I will explain the significance of this “thrust control”. This patent is not just for IMS Bearing and can be applied to various other applications beyond Porsche. Schnell Gelb also claims that somehow our patented claim is false and that our product is generic. By now I think you have all seen the patent and our bearing is FAR from generic. I’ll explain the significance of the patent and the details of the bearing next. Porschetech 3 mentioned that we use an NJ204 bearing. We, in fact, did use to use that bearing but we no longer do. We only used the NJ204 bearing for about the first thousand units or so. Now we use a German made cylindrical bearing that has been customized for us at a nonstandard measurement of 15mm. The reason why we switched to this bearing was in an effort to use all the real estate available to spread the load over the largest possible area. Additionally, due to our patented thrust control, the roller is a free wheeling roller, meaning there is no contact on the sides of the roller. Unlike ANY other cylindrical bearing solution, our axis load (thrust control) is not applied to the rollers, instead, it is applied to the entire perimeter of the outer race. The main advantage of this technology is that the rollers are not loaded from the side. Cylindrical roller bearings are not intended for carrying large axial loads When they are used for thrust control the roller becomes compromised due to the limited surface contact area on the sides of the rollers. The results of using a cylindrical bearing for thrust control will be similar to all other ball bearing solutions. In our system, we separate the radial Load and the axial load, the roller bearings do not carry the axis load (thus control) on the side, thus leaving the roller free to carry only one load, the radial load, which is the main load. The axial load is carried exclusively on the entire perimeter of the outer race. Wildbilly32 - Boy these are some loud crickets! Lastly, we would just like to say that EPS was born from the desire to provide the Porsche community with innovations that correct problems and bring forth: improved reliability, cost reduction, ease of installation and ultimately increase the lifespan of the vehicle. We are open to any comments anyone may have that will help us improve the products we offer. Just like many of you, we have come here to listen, learn and share. We look forward to your continued feedback.

I hear nothing but sadness, desperation and someone who found a way to keep the discussion at the top of the page by dragging an old dead thread out of the darkness. If that means you think you hear loud crickets I feel sorry for you, but whatever. I have nothing against your product. I know nothing about your product nor do I want to know more. I am simply commenting on how your tactics appear to me...period.

Quotes source post: 14450152

😂🙄 I have no dog in this fight except I gotta give them credit for trying to explain.

Quotes source post: 14450152

Understood! You are definitely entitled to your opinion. Based on your previous comments I thought you would be glad we responded. Hence the winking smiley face emoji. I was just trying to make light of it, but I apologize if it rubbed you the wrong way. To clarify, are our responses sad and desperate because they are late, or is it the responses themselves? Do you suggest we never respond? Or, don't you think it's best for the community to hear from all parties, even if it's a few months late? I do really wish we would have jumped on here to respond sooner, but we can only change the present. Also, there are many negative things said on this thread about EPS. I don't really see how "implementing tactics to keep this post at the top of the page" will be beneficial to us.

Quotes source post: 14450328

I think the original bump on this thread is what was considered desperate. You bumped many threads on Rennlist, some over a year old and did a copy and paste plug for your product. I think the product is a well priced alternative on the market, but this type of "advertising" doesn't sit well in a technical forum. Jake and Charles will start a thread only when they have something new, use their knowledge to help others, and never ever bump old threads for advertising. Maybe try this and you will get more credibility.

EPS used the same Rennlist Plug and Paste job on other Porsche Enthusiast sites.Not impressive.

Quotes source post: 14450432

Thank you for explaining! I truly was not aware that by us responding we would "bump" any other threads. Not our intentional at all! I now see and understand how we could have handled it differently. I was simply just trying to respond to ALL of the postings that had questions for us. There were several postings that had the same questions so we answered them the same way. I hope that in the future EPS can contribute valuable technical information and be a more involved member of this forum.

Quotes source post: 14450454

Schnell Gelb - As I mentioned in the posting above, I was simply just trying to respond to ALL of the postings that had questions for us. There were several postings on various forums that had similar questions, so we answered them similarly. Again, I apologize to all of those who felt this was inappropriate. Hopefully, we can get back to what this thread was intended to do and answer any technical questions the community may have pertaining to any IMSB on the market. Have I answered all your original questions? Do you have any more questions or disagreements with the last statements I made about the EPS bearing and patent? Also, can you provide some technical data to back up your claim that the "L&N Roller Bearing has significant enhancements over the EPS generic bearing"? As Jake said, "There comes a time, and a place where questions must be answered. That time has come."

I linked all the tech info about the RND (who is L& N??) in a previous Post.It is all up on their site.Surely you know the coorrect name for the biggest name in the IMSB biz ? It is LN Engineering. Note there were serious objections here on Rennlist to EPS products. They did not respond .Then months later we learned they addressed some issues raised by Forum members. Then much later we hear there was no technical reasons for things like the Whack a hole in the back of your oil pump product.Then we are told they have had no failures despite a Rennlister demonstrating one.Then they did it because of the Internet ! Not impressed.

Quotes source post: 14450093

I found the pics from a simple search. I have a feeling you know about the failure. I have no details.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif