18 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHDoes this IMS Bearing Look Stock or Upgraded
Leading reported evidence
Use single and double row
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
EDIT: read on one of the threads you posted that these bearings were manufactured specifically for Porsche, so I guess I really shouldn't be using the catalog as a reference.
Leading evidence: 'Use single and double row' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use catalog as a reference' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
EDIT: read on one of the threads you posted that these bearings were manufactured specifically for Porsche, so I guess I really shouldn't be using the catalog as a reference.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I wonder why these use the single row type code for a double row???
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Use catalog as a reference
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
EDIT: read on one of the threads you posted that these bearings were manufactured specifically for Porsche, so I guess I really shouldn't be using the catalog as a reference.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
18 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T201111Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I am hoping someone can help with this. I am second if not third or so owner so I don't know the history of the car.
The car is a 2001 911 996 Carrera. The engine code 0466108369 which according to Pelican is the double row bearing with a circlip. I went to remove the circlip but it is not there. I'm thinking that maybe someone has already done an upgrade or replacement.
Interesting...there are like two or three different type codes specifically for double row ball bearings. I wonder why these use the single row type code for a double row???
I honestly see 5204 when I zoom in. I'm not 100% certain though, and it's late.
Try googling '6204 dual row bearing'. You will either only find ceramic dual row bearings (which we never got from porsche), or IMSB related articles. 5204 is a thrust/angular contact bearing.
EDIT: read on one of the threads you posted that these bearings were manufactured specifically for Porsche, so I guess I really shouldn't be using the catalog as a reference.
I don't think OP has an LN replacement, but I think it's worth mentioning the bearing in this picture on LN's site is an angular contact bearing. (Which would make it a 5204) I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but this could also be why KK's replacement did not work. (5204 is designed for more axial load, 6204 is not)
http://lnengineering.com/dual-row-im...r-my97-01.html
I had a busy day at work and it's mid night now. So this might sound crazy...
Look at this article from 2002. (Don't ask me why I'm reading articles from 2002)
http://evolution.skf.com/a-new-perfo...ball-bearings/
Notice the inner race, cage, and date.
The time frame and product description match the bearings that would've been used in the 996. I have never physically held an IMSB in my hand so I can't say this with certainty. Pretty sure the IMSB is/shouldbe an angular contact bearing. The pressed cage design in that article is identical the one in your first link. It's just not that obvious is an angular contact bearing because of the cage design.
Thanks for the responses/support!
I took another picture and it appears to be the 6204DUA17, so I will need to order the LN dual row style.
Does anyone happen to have an extract tool that they are willing to sell? I don't need the cam and engine locking pieces, I've already got those.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.