Merits of a Ceramic IMSB vs OEM Steel

So, in cycling, one of the biggest snake oil scams is ceramic bearings, which can cost hundreds of dollars. True ceramic bearings also have ceramic races and are exorbitantly expensive to make so no one actually sells those. Ceramic ***** with steel races though, are common and tend to exhibit worse reliability since the ***** are harder than the races and will dent the races eventually. So, in 996's, if you have an issue that causes the bearing to eventually go bang, why would a hybrid ceramic bearing be better than the OEM steel bearing? Hybrid bearings still need lubricant as far as I'm aware so if it's an oiling issue, they'll fail just as well. If it's a tolerance issue with the Intermediate Shaft putting unexpected stress on the bearing then just like bicycle bearings, sounds like snake oil to me.

https://imsretrofit.com/why-ceramics/ A decent explanation. But I decided that the permanent Solution made more sense.

At least that's something you don't need to worry about with your GT3!

Quotes source post: 17609464

So you�re calling Jake Raby and Charles Navarro snake oil salesman. Interesting How many IMS bearings have you replaced?

Quotes source post: 17609464

Ever notice when the outer race press fit is too tight, the bearing doesn't rotate perfectly smooth? that's a problem

Don't overthink this, just put in the "IMS Solution" and call it a day. This horse has been beaten to death,brought back to life, and beaten to death many times. So much wasted. The cost difference is $1k over other designs, just spend 10 billable hours (@$100hr) thinking/doing something else to make up the difference.

Quotes source post: 17609574

This is the correct answer. I mean, why install something that you know has a wear life different from the rest of the attached components? *Especially* if the price delta is small compared to the price of a failure?

Quotes source post: 17609464

Ryan, as a 40 year industry vet in cycling, I can *assure* you that ceramic hybrid bearings are not "snake oil". There are measurable differences in friction and wear that at a specific level of tolerances and performance (think Tour de France or FIM World Enduro Series) where the athletes gain 3-7 watts per bearing set (bottom bracket, derailleur pulleys), which in that setting, is significant. Average athletes likely won't benefit to the same extent, but there are mechanical and longevity benefits that those with the disposable cash will reap as well as "knowing they have the best". That said, the Solution differs in that it is a plain bearing that is (fresh) oil fed. No component exists in the cycling industry that compares to the Solution as the weight of a pressurized oil feed system is impracticable on bikes. However, the ceramic bearing is a terrific upgrade. When I raced Downieville and the Trans-Cascadia, I installed ceramic bearings in my BB and the effort differential was noticeable which decreased my fatigue over the longer climbs. With this said, the LN ceramic hybrid bearing replacement is the best possible IMSB unless you go with the Solution. Definitely *NOT* snake oil.

@jobyt those gains in cycling are debatable unless you're running your gear without grease and bearing seals, let alone that longevity of Ceramic Speed stuff is a joke. The benefits come from increased pulley size for the Rd, ceramic barely adds to the equation. By the way, 3 to 7 watts is a lot bigger percentage wise of a person with a 200w ftp than it is a WT rider with a 400w ftp. But I digress, your suggested additive gains sound like Fabspeed's HP gains marketing pitch book. My question wasn't about the IMS Solution. My question was more geared towards: are you really buying peace of mind by having an IMS bearing recently replaced? Meaning, if you had an engine that was destined to fail, is a Ceramic bearing going to make a meaningful difference in the longevity of that engine? They developed the IMS Solution for a reason and I doubt that was solely just because there was a service interval for the replacement bearing.

Quotes source post: 17610983

Jake doesn't install the bearings in his engines and LN also sells dry sump which seems to not do diddly squat so my statement stands....

Quotes source post: 17611726

Really? The LN ceramic hybrid is the most expensive bearing (by far) at $900. Has the worst warranty (by far) at only 2 years / 24k miles. That warranty is the same as the $200 Pelican bearing. That weakest warranty (by far) is five pages long having the most exclusions (by far), including having to send your old bearing to them (wth?). It cost the most to install (by far) due to a ridiculous labor intensive "pre qualification" that none of the others require. Has the most failures but unsure of the rate relative to the number of installs but when they do fail there is always the usual vested suspects who will say something else caused failure (chain, ramp, loose lug nuts, or whatever). Regardless, they seem to be somewhat fragile all considered with weak manufacturer backing. Ceramic hybrids are such great bearings that Porsche offered a kit a few years back yet saw fit to quickly discontinue the product. Porsche is usually pretty happy to sell products with insanely high markup, so you gotta wonder, right? Ceramic against steel has it's problems in certain environments. Without any brand allegiance I'd rank any dual row over a ceramic single row. I'd rank any cylindrical over any ball bearing (I haven't found any cylindrical failures of any brand). I'd rank the "solution' as the best but, aside from being grossly over priced (all totaled), I'm not a fan of routing oil out of my engine at it's lowest point and back in again. Any errors in my reasoning? Just looking at the numbers, I self installed a cylindrical about 5k miles ago.

Quotes source post: 17611765

I believe Jake did install the ceramic bearings in his engines before developing the Solution. At this point I don�t know why anyone would install anything other than that the solution. The extra 1K is worth it. If you�re pinching pennies on a know failure point, perhaps you bought the wrong car. LN sells a dry sump that you�ve heard doesn�t work. How did it perform in your testing?

Quotes source posts: 17612203, 17612203

Maybe it's a reading comprehension issue but I'll indulge you for a minute, how many cars have you seen stating that the bearing has been replaced with an LN Ceramic bearing? What is the general perception? Most believe they're good to go right? I'm trying to help people understand what the true value of that is, along with myself. Also, lol, I bought a GT3 to solve the problem, but right, pinching pennies. You seem quite defensive. Did you miss the over 30 page oil pressure stability thread by @zbomb where several industry experts weigh in. Even Jake himself alludes to the deep sumps not solving the problem. Let me flip the question on you, how do you know they work?

Quotes source posts: 17612372, 17599065

🕺

Quotes source post: 17612372

Your saying that your experience with ceramic hybrid bearings on a bicycle make you question their use in an internal combustion engine. Hopefully I got that right. Last year I looked at a �02 996 that had an LN IMS bearing installed in �13 so I treated it like it hadn�t been replaced. If it was replaced later it would have had some value but I�d still have to replace it down the road. People who educate themselves understand the true value. Congrats on the GT3 Sorry if I come off as defensive about the deep sump. I just haven�t seen any test that prove that they don�t help. @zbomb uses one but states that it doesn�t �fix� the problem. I understand that but it�s a game of semantics. Does the deep sump help? It would be nice to see some results on the track before dissuading other 996 owners from using one. All he has to do is switch back to the original sump before his next track day. I�m willing to send him a case of DT40 to find out

Quotes source post: 17612203

Maybe the question to answer would be... Why should everybody install the LN solution?? For a lot of people out there (me included) it has exactly the same "trustability" than any other solution/replacement in the market (LN/TRS/FVD/EPS/...): the claims of their sellers I get that this forum is totally pro LN ground... but when it comes to advice somebody, I would say that the best advice is to do your due diligence ps: I have installed the Direct Oil Feed solution from TuneRS and very happy by the way...

Quotes source post: 17612664

**** No - the next sump going on the car will hopefully be Skips. Next, the LN doesn’t work (correct the problem of oil pressure instability), the stock one is highly unlikely to work (correct the problem of oil pressure instability) ((opinion)). I’m NOT into does it help - I’m into resolution (correcting the problem of oil pressure instability) Next, Next - I run XP9 which is what LN recommends and one would think would be the best scenario for their sump to work, still doesn’t. If someone says “should I buy an LN deep sump” and my response is : The LN doesn’t work (correct the problem of oil pressure instability). Not only is my response accurate, not influenced by any commercial interest AND based on my experience. It’s also backed up with a **** ton of data from my car to which I have been entirely transparent in it’s construction. BOOM mic drop.

Quotes source post: 17612684

Okay All of the data I�ve seen has been with the LN deep sump installed on your car. Please post the data with the stock sump.

Quotes source post: 17612694

No ETA - if you can’t grasp the English language well enough to understand the meaning of “work” in the context of correcting an issue - that’s on you bro.

Quotes source posts: 17612664, 17612664, 17612664

You're arguing against me yet kind of saying the same thing, that replacing the bearing doesn't mean much. HOWEVER, that's not the sentiment of the typical 996 buyer. Why is that? Because forums like ours mindlessly parrot these ideas without critically challenging them and then they become quasi truths. There are posts where the hybrid ceramic ***** chewed through the steel races, which again, begs the question, does this actually solve anything or do anything better than the OEM bearing? People are wowed by the words ceramic as if it solves all world problems. So yes, I am pulling from my direct, first hand knowledge from the cycling world in which the masses are convinced that ceramic is better and using that as a basis to question its value add in an engine to address the IMS issue. That's generally how critical thinking (or thinking in general) works, you take what you know and use that as a basis to filter new information. Have you seen any data that shows undeniably that the ceramic bearing will do better than a steel bearing or are you just wooed by all the cool properties ceramic has and therefore, believe it should be better? Not really a game of semantics if the vendor can't come up with proof that it actually works. The only data that I've seen was a graph of pressures that Chris at CTS and several others found highly unrealistic. Have you seen test that proves they work? Why do you default to assuming that a product works as advertised rather than look at it critically and want to see data to prove that your hard earned money is worth it?

Quotes source post: 17612669

I would like to answer this question, since it is technical in nature, and this is a Tecnical Forum. The LN Solution is a better design all the way around. If you look at the "worst case scenario" , which I most often do when I evaluate a design, there is no comparison. On a worst case failure of a roller bearing or ball bearing, the IMShaft can flop around violently about 1/2 inch !! ( we have all seen the pictures of this type of failure) On a worst case failure of a plain bearing IMS ( no pictures to see) , the shaft will be become a little loose and symptoms will present themselves ( noise and lower oil pressure). If you're not mechanically inclined, it would be compared to two airplane failures where one does a nose-dive straight into the ground, and the other does a belly-slide landing.. There are many more benefits of the robustness of a plain bearing over a roller/ball bearing that have been covered at length over and over.again, such a waist of effort. Since the IMS plain bearing was introduced in 2013, I would like to see someone calculate the man-hours spent just in RL forum posts debating this topic, it would be staggering and eye-opening and hasn't even been any attempt to make an improvement over the "IMS Solution"..

Quotes source post: 17612736

I didn�t buy an LN Engineering deep sump. But @zbomb did. He also has the equipment to independently test its effectiveness in reducing oil starvation. But it�s extremely amusing that he�s afraid to run his 996 on the track without the deep sump. Because obviously it doesn�t �work�.

Quotes source post: 17612854

He made it pretty clear that his definition of working was that it addressed the oil pressure stability issue, which it did not. If it makes a 10% (made up number) improvement but your engine still grenades when subjected to track conditions, does the product work as advertised? Here's the ad copy from LN's site: I think some on here with the technical knowledge would find that ad copy a little bit disingenuous.

Quotes source post: 17612905

I don�t see anything in the ad copy that suggests the deep sump addresses oil pressure �instability�. Only oil starvation. Please let me know if I missed something. How many engines has @zbomb grenaded since installing the LN Engineering deep sump? Why won�t he switch back to the original sump if the deep sump doesn�t do the job it�s made for? Wouldn�t you like to see the on track oil pressure difference between the OEM sump and LN Engineering deep sump independently tested?

@philbert996 if I have to explain that, I give up. Either way, this thread isn't about the deep sump, it's about whether a $900 bearing is providing actual real benefits over a $200 one, preferably with data. And yes, I believe that the only thing one should put in their car is an oil fed plain bearing, but many don't and believe that $900 is getting them more protection than $200, so I'd like to explore if that's true in practice or just theory.

Quotes source post: 17612954

Well my car had a ln deep sump and in 5 track days it self destructed. No bore score, good oil pressure under normal driving conditions. Also about $3k and maintenance with a ln bearing within warentee. It would have past a solution prequal Go look a the pics in my thread motor died of starvation to the #1 rod and main. 100% fact. Back on topic, and just to **** R off the bearing was 100% fine.

Quotes source post: 17612999

Nah You called Charles Navarro a snake oil salesman and used the deep sump as an example. So this is about the deep sump.

Philbert�. Dude, trying to get this through to you has been an epic adventure. 1. The LN deep sump does not resolve oil pressure instability for me. 2. I don�t believe it likely the factory sump will resolve oil pressure instability either. I am not going to allocate the resources to test something I don�t believe will work and could possibly make the car worse. This to me is not a question of does a part improve a bad situation to, slightly less bad - it�s about something that does, or does not work to fix oil pressure instability. 3. If you are interested in testing - in the event I pull the LN part off my car, you can get it in the woods behind my house where I will have thrown it as even though I could likely recoup some $$$ for the $900 plus of it I spent on the part� I won�t. Because it doesn�t work and I won�t sell something that I have proven to not accomplish what it�s advertised to on my car.

I am all out of popcorn, given the state of the 996 forum the last few days - ****'s wild!

Quotes source post: 17612843

For me the "best solution" is the one that works better (not the one that fails in best fashion) and reduce the probability of a failure. To compare that, can only be demonstrated with data (other solutions have also their patents) that we don't have... further than the seller claims. You mention that the LN solution works better in case of a failure... but we dont know if will fail sooner than others either, or if it has a rate of failure higher or lower than others. Your claim of "best design all around" is also very questionable (and as you say, we will never end this discussion). We, that have not participated in the design of the engine, tend to apply engineering approach to "parts" of that design, without considering the "whole". How the change of the bearing design, or even the change of the lubrication system with a new type of filter, affects to the whole design of the engine can't be analysed in a forum like this (nor even in a shop in GA) or at least, not as is done in a OEM R&D center. We have seen how "small changes" like the engine mounts, for a "best engineered" individual part can make worst than better... But again, Im not saying that one is better than other, just, don't like those "big trues" without real data to support them. In my case, I personally prefer a less intrusive solution, more similar to the original design (that by the way, has also not know failed)

Quotes source post: 17614560

Fair enough, Sounds like you have done your due diligence and have made up your mind. Everyone has the right to have their own opinion. Personally I think the "oil fed - plain bearing" is in a "league of it's own". (price not withstanding). The others can be debated until the cows come home as they have been for years and years. I would still like to see someone calculate the man-hours spent/wasted on Rennlist debating this topic. If someone with the wherewithal to develop a space-age polymer bushing/bearing that could stand the load, not be effected by vibration, heat, harmonics , harsh chemicals, and not need lubrication, now THAT would be interesting...

Porschetech3, you call an "Oil fed - plain bearing" in a "league of it's own"? A plain bearing needs oil pressure to function...and this engine does have oil pressure instabilities. Not to mention it redirects oil to places where it's not supposed to go from places where it needs to go. Same goes for any oil feed IMSB. I think I'm the only one who have worked with bearings professionally on this forum? Anyway, I spent too much time looking in to this and the conclusion is: The original bearing type is the best. It is the ONLY bearing type which have been demonstrated to outlast the engine itself(north of 500.000km and it was still pristine). The main issue with the original was that Porsche bought from a supplier with so-so quality, that's it. Zbomb, your car runs an oil feed IMSB which messes with the oiling system. Your data and conclusions can only be applied for similar setups. Just for clarification.

Nick_L : I'm not sure how much time you spent on this.. Yes a plain bearing uses oil pressure/volume to function. There are 23 or so plain bearings in the m96. I would suspect that you don't know the CC's per bearing of oil flow/volume/pressure of the oil-fed plain bearing? The oil pump delivers oil in gallons per minute...I suspect you don't know the gallons per minute of the oil pump? The oil pressure is also used to control the vario-cam or lift function and pump up 24 lifters. That's a total of about 50 "designed leak points"...... adding 1 more for IMSB is of little consequence. The oil pump on this generation is "overbuilt " on purpose to account for a factory range of tolerances and for normal wear over time. The effect of adding 1 more plain bearing would be less than 1/50th of the total oil flow. This is much much less than even a normal wear of 0.0001 per bearing.

I think you underestimate how meticulous I have been in this. The IMS solution (if clearances etc have been properly designed) will increase the oil discharge in to the head void space by 7-8%. I don't think that is insignificant. If you think its 1/50 I have to remind you about the difference in bearing sizes and pressure at the respective bearings.

And the debate rages on....

Imagine my anxiousness when I first started contemplating a Porsche in my gOLDen years and quickly ran into the IMS story as I barely began researching. ​​​​​​Fast forward a few months and I started to realize what was happening to me. I was choosing a side of "the debate" instead of having a Porsche. I grabbed one. It's been everything I thought it might be and so much more. And yea, it has one of those bearings in it. No doubt about that. But it's somewhere back behind me behaving itself so far.

7-8% increase in discharge ? Care to explain what scientific method you used to come up with this? Show your meticulous calculations ?

Quotes source post: 17617091

I'm 12 years in at 147K miles...drive it and enjoy. Life is but a moment...and this debate is a waste of time.

Quotes source post: 17617128

Do it yourself, prove me wrong.

I think we're getting off topic, all I was trying to do was validate (or invalidate) if replacing with a ceramic bearing makes sense and possibly save folks money. Despite this debate having been hashed over and over, it seems to me that the internet consensus, at least on BAT, is misinformed, which is why I brought it up again. I don't think it makes sense replacing the bearing with a ceramic one but I was hoping someone could provide data explaining why I was wrong.

Quotes source post: 17617232

Nope !! lol ..I already knew you wouldn't back up your "opinion" with hard data that could be scrutinized.. Yes I am saying your 7-8% increase in discharged flow is WAY OFF.. i apologize to the OP for being off topic, but, I didn't bring up the "plain bearing" , I'm just trying the keep things Technically correct.

Quotes source post: 17617363

So it�s a hypothesis based on conjecture that you want other people to disprove. Sounds reasonable

Quotes source post: 17617041

Are you saying the IMS Solution discharges its oil into the heads?

Quotes source post: 17617429

As opposed to blind belief based on marketing material?

Quotes source post: 17617429

To further elaborate, I do not expect regular members to have data unless data exists and was previously published and I just had missed it. However, if a product performs as advertised and is as widely distributed as the LN bearing is, then I'd think that if the product ACTUALLY performs better than the OEM bearing, then Charles would have data/stats to demonstrate that, he would've seen this thread and quickly brought this discussion to an end by providing the data I'm requesting. I am fairly certain they have numbers, they just aren't willing to share that and I think that speaks volumes in and of itself. Edited to add: Something as simple as "From our stats, our bearings failure rate is 0.0X% when the service interval is followed" That's not unreasonable to think they know that, at the minimum, right?

Quotes source posts: 17612843, 17612203

Quick comment - you are grouping ball bearings with cylindrical. I have been pretty diligent and had not found a single cylindrical failure but we've all seen many ball failures, including ceramic. Mr. Navaro has stated his RND cylindrical bearing has had no failures (IIRC). As I type this, until someone shows otherwise, the Solution and Cylindrical bearings both have the same record of zero failures. I like that airplane failure analogy, at least we get to pull over. Weak comment in the same realm of posters who state "just buy the solution" ad-nauseum. I self installed a $600 bearing but labor cost would have been ~$1000. The Solution "pre-qualification" plus bearing cost plus install runs ~$3500, right? Almost $2k difference. That's a lot of pennies but I look for value and look at the data leading me to keep those many pennies in my pocket.

Value... not a word thrown around often in this side of town. I commend you good Sir.

RyanH: read post #502 here: https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...-first-34.html But you can also see from the discussion before/after my post that people are more keen on discussing me than the technical part.... Porschetech3, 1/50 is 2% and I say 7-8%...not that big of a difference, but my number is closer to reality than yours.

Quotes source post: 17618002

Probably make sense to go with the cheapest option if you�re going to sell the car in less than 6 years. Not much value if you plan on keeping it because it will need to be replaced, again. It�s a decision that I struggled with after buying the 996. In the end I decided no longer having to worry about the IMS bearing was worth the extra money. You state that you �look for value and look at the data�. What data are you referring to?

First , many people do not know, but Porsche chose to use a ceramic bearing for their replacement IMS kit released in 2017, which uses a sealed single row 6204 ceramic hybrid bearing, with 52100 steel races and sintered silicon nitride *****. This comes a full decade after LN Engineering publicly released its first IMS Retrofit kit, using the same bearing Porsche utilizes. Second , prior to the introduction ofa ceramic replacement IMS bearing, LN Engineering had great success with sintered silicon nitride engine components, specifically ceramic lifters (camshaft followers) made of the same material for Porsche and VW engines. These were a direct response to the industry wide camshaft and lifter failures being experienced as a result of lower quality camshafts and lifters coupled by the reduction of ZDDP in engine oils -the results were disastrous. Ceramic lifters eliminated cam and lifter wear and stopped all failures, regardless of what oil was used. That is why LN Engineering chose ceramics when it came time to find a solution to the IMS problem. Lastly , there is over a decade of proven performance to back up the fact that dual row ceramic bearings work, with zero failures reported have have been verified or validated for any LN Engineering IMS Retrofit with dual row bearings including the patented Single Row Pro, which allows a dual row bearing to be fitted in place of a factory single row bearing. For what it is worth, a failed classic single row looks like it has two rows of *****, which it doesn't. And for the record, we haven't made or sold any classic single row IMS Retrofits since 2014 (when the IMS Solution and Single Row Pro were introduced) and every single one out there is past its stated service interval we recommended for this kit. The IMS Solution which uses an oil fed plain bearing took years of R&D before it was introduced as a permanent solution to the IMS problem. The IMS Retrofit was always intended as a maintenance item with stated service intervals.

Quotes source post: 17618291

Nick: You must get a commission for every time someone reads post #502 in that thread! Either that or you are just being lazy. You drop this in any time someone challenges your statements.

Quotes source post: 17618291

Yea right ...(eye-roll)

Quotes source post: 17619165

Don't challenge Nick. He is all knowing. Years of arduous wrenching and 996 platform problem tackling leaves him an expert next to none. Shame on you.

Quotes source post: 17619646

I know, I should be tied to the "whipping post"...

Quotes source post: 17619818

You Tube

Don't know if ceramic or Oem steel is better. But I do know this... I had the LN Retro installed early on when LN first rolled it out. Can't remember the date but it was over 10-12+ years ago when Charles and I were volunteering for tech inspections at the Chicago PCA region DE events. He told me about it, which made a boatload of sense. I ordered one, had my shop put it in, and it is still working flawlessly. To put this into perspective, I was an avid DE guy from 2004-2018. It has flawlessly functioned during many track days and around town. In fact, just got my oil test back and everything is in the green, which means among other things, the IMS Retro isn't falling apart, nor do I have any bore scoring. Here is the point, I can't tell you if ceramic or metal is better, but the IMS Retro has worked extremely well for me. More importantly, I worry that as new owners read these threads, they think it's ok not to replace the IMS or other parts that fail. Can't emphasize enough that every 996 owner needs to do a couple of things to make sure nothing grenades in their engine. (1) the first is an IMS Retro or solution. (2) the second is to replace your weak aos with the UAOS. (3) if you haven't recently, replace your water pump. (4) same for replacing your fuel injectors, ignition coils and spark plugs.(5) change your oil often. At least 2x a year if you aren't tracking the car, if you are tracking it, change it after every DE event, and make sure you change it before the first DE event of the year. There are many other things to do that we can discuss in prep for DE, but I wanted to keep it simple. Hope this adds some clarity. ​​​​​​

Quotes source post: 17619901

Sometimes I FEEL, .............SOMETIMES .....I feel...like I been TIED., to the WHIPPING POST...TIED to the WHIPPING POST....GOOD Lord I feel like I'm DIE..iinngg...........(we all are gonna die one day)... Love this song !! But Sally will still be here after I'm gone....IMSB and all.....

I replaced my IMSB with a LN Dual Row Retrofit for my 99 during a recent DIY clutch and DMF job. I figured the OEM would be fine, which it was. Ultimately I decided to replace with LN for a few reasons; 1. If I choose to sell the car in the next five years it will pay for itself with resell value 2. Piece of mind 3. Replacing during a clutch job should line up very well in the future. 4. It�s pretty friggin easy to replace when using the pro tool kit (discovered only after the install) I agree the LN IMSB Solution is the way to go. But I didn�t want to fork out the extra cash, didn�t feel comfortable cutting the case, and felt very confident with the retrofit as a serviceable wear item. So far so good. Bring on winter #3!

Quotes source post: 17620518

Valid points. Yeah, I gotta agree with Porshetech3, it's a conversation that has been had many, many times over the years. LN brought it out first. Competitors move in and have to differentiate. Happy to see more competition in all forms for our 996, which leads to more solutions that are available. But at this stage all I know is that the LN retrofit has worked well for me on and off the track. Yep, I will be replacing it soon because it wasn't designed as a permanent solution. But it has held up well over a 10-12 year+ history. And the oil testing shows that it's not deteriorating as of yet. In the process of getting my car prepared for the next round of DE going forward, so whether I go to the permanent "Solution" or another "Retro" kit is still up in the air. Quite frankly I am so happy with the durability of the "Retro" kit, and do to DE servicing, it's just as easy dropping another "Retro" in at a future time since the car is always having something being enhanced or serviced. Learned a long time ago that when something works, there is no need to recreate the wheel. But if it doesn't work, you better find a new wheel. In this case, it's been proven on my car to work.

@GC996 - always appreciate your input as you're one of the few folks on here that drives his car a lot, does track time and is close to manic with your maintenance, which clearly shows that these engines can last but it takes work. I don't know the details around the differences between gen1 vs gen2 retrofit but having it in and going strong for double the suggested service time is downright impressive. I'd be curious to learn more what the current service period is based on. With such often oil changes it goes to show that you can keep them going well beyond the service period. Perhaps the current service interval is based on an average owner that will still probably run the same oil for a year?

Quotes source post: 17620604

Plpete, Charles can probably comment better on it than me. But I think it's approx 7 years. Correct me anyone if I am wrong. I have done no tracking of the car over the past 3 years due to schedule conflicts. What that means is that I tracked the car for the 7 years and a few more on the Retro kit and then the last couple of years just drove it around town. As mentioned, oil test came back with everything in the green. This is not to say that you shouldn't ever replace the Retro kit. You should. It's just to say that it has proven to be very durable for my car. Keep in the back of your mind that most folks never track their cars, let along run their car around town about 6000 rpm for extended periods of time.

Regarding the oil changes and servicing in general, I believe that the biggest problem we have with the 996 is that a large number of previous owners have underserved their cars in many ways. We are now looking at New owners which happen to be 3,4,5th in line and without realizing it, they have inherited an under-serviced mess. This is why service records are so important. ​​​​​​there is a lot we can talk about that I have learned since 2002 about owning the 996 gen 2. But the biggest lesson is to change your oil soon and often. I calculated the other day that since 2002, I have changed my oil on average between 500-600 miles. I have 57k on my 996, and calculate over 70 oil changes thru 2017/18. No bore scoring, no oil problems. If you change your oil every 15k and your car has 90k miles, that means you have had 6 oil changes in nearly 20 years. This in my humble opinion is a big part of the problem with durability. But, I am not a mechanical engineer, just a die-hard 996 fan.

On last point of clarification is that the Retro is a contained component with its own lubrication, where the Solution is not contained but infact is lubricated by the engine oil. Hence it being a permanent solution as long as you have good clean oil. Hence why the Retro has a stated life and you will need to replace it. Lubrication will eventually fail.

To the OP: As you can see there is an army of armchair mechanics, engineers and bearing experts here. Porsche them self was first to identify this problem, figure out was was wrong and find a solution to the problem. Take your car, and questions , over to a Porsche Center and speak to them. They will guide you the right way.

Quotes source post: 17620868

Nick, Never claimed to be an engineer nor an academic. However, unlike many, I actually drive my car at speed on the track and do use the parts we talk about. However, there is always a better mousetrap compliments of innovation. Which is what the debate seems to be. So all I can do is give you real world experience on the products I have used versus theory. Your call how you want to use it.

I have a lot of first hand experience with this on many levels from Professional experience to Personal experience and everything in-between plus 10 years on this forum. I remember back in 2006 I had a Porsche customer with a beautiful 2004 Targa, that was on his third complete Factory engine in 10k miles. He had had two IMSB failures within 10k miles of his new vehicle purchase. He was quite upset and wondering if there was to be a forth ,even though he had not spent a dime on the repairs, and Porsche had spent $60k on the replacement of two engines on his 2004 Targa. Also I personally own 3 cars with m96 engines, two of the three has had IMSB failures. One if them I bought as a roller with a IMSB failure and re-built the engine. The other (1999 dual row 70k miles) I found while I was doing a Second gear Syncro repair, and the" while you're in there" included a new clutch and IMSB, the Dual ROW IMSB was in the first stage of failure. Some people here would say that "2 out of 3 ain't bad", (not me) but I'm not a " bearing Engineer" .... The 996 is a great car,,, but definitely not perfect...

Quotes source post: 17620868

Now that's funny. Most experiences I've heard about with Porsche dealers and IMSB these days are crickets...

There's NO DOUBT Porsche was first to discover the problem. Afterall, they were replacing engines under warranty. That wouldn't go unnoticed. As for their solution....... That's now the source for IMS being a household name amongst Porsche owners and even folks who have never owned a Porsche. Porsche did finally find the best solution they could to get as much distance from the blackeye possible. 987.2 /997.2

Quotes source post: 17621128

Good points. I love all Porsche's and respect the he'll out of the company. But every car Porsche or any other manufacturer has ever built has issues here and there that need to be addressed. The advantage to Porsche ownership is that we have such a huge universe of owners, racers, and therefore aftermarket suppliers that provide solutions. In many cases, those solutions come to the market quicker than what Porsche can deliver, and in many cases, they are better, Perfect example is the LN Retro and Solution for the IMS. LN rolled it out while Porsche was asleep at the wheel. Another good example is from Porschetech3, who developed the UAOS to replace the frail Oem AOS. And it's frail. Note to all, replace it with the UAOS. Very shortly, Porschetech3 will be rolling out the UIDS after a number of rounds of tests, which may provide a more innovative solution towards addressing oil starvation and oil stability at high G's on the track with a revolutionary deep sump. This is something Porsche never addressed. Ever... You can even have a customized dry sump built for you by CTS that will allow you to race your 996 for 24 hours if you really want to. There is no need to belly ache about the 996. Every issue can be addressed or is in the process of being addressed with existing or new product solutions. All you gotta do is keep asking questions and find people that have actually used the parts in real life to get their feedback. If you haven't already, tune into Zbombs "Oil Pressure Stability" thread, which is identifying ways to measure the effects of product solutions on oil starvation and stability. Personally, it has been the most enlightening thread on RL IMHO. I am very optimistic on the new solutions that are in the works. Bottom line: replace your IMS if you haven't already.

GC996 I hope my comment didn't come across as anti-Porshe, because it isn't meant to be. I have a barn full of toys that I have accumulated over the decades and I have never been more smitten by a "machine" than I have been with a 15 year old Porsche. And honestly, I don't know where I've been for 63 years because it snuck up on me. But like you mentioned, all manufacturers have some uh-ohs that catch them off guard. And they certainly wouldn't have made those errs if they knew what was coming. My car actually has the unservicable bearing so I just drive it and address everything that IS serviceable. It's not stealing my joy in the least. And yes, the Porsche community is another aspect of Porsche ownership that I underestimated. It's a powerful force!

Quotes source post: 17621632

Not at all. You are good people! Too much coffee today plus LeMans and I get fired up about our cars! 😁

Quotes source post: 17620518

Kinda had your same thought process and ended up with a EPS because that's what my indy uses. In my case, the important fact that my car received the newest version of the Porsche engine wasn't known until after the fact and I opted just to have the replacement unit installed(they had to cut the case). Looking back, I don't regret my decision and at the end of day and the car has roughly 53k miles. Now I can sell my car on BaT for a million dollars because I replaced the IMS!