29 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHAny way to determine whether IMS has been changed
Leading reported evidence
Check serial number
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I checked the serial number on the label at the LNE website and it claims to be a double row bearing.
Leading evidence: 'Check serial number' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check /' (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.
Replace ; however, he does not have any factual evidence
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
The current owner claims that the previous owner had replaced the IMS, when the clutch was replaced; however, he does not have any factual evidence.
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
The current owner claims that the previous owner had replaced the IMS, when the clutch was replaced; however, he does not have any factual evidence.
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
You used some cheap knockoff that didn't come with a sticker and your motor decided to teach you a lesson!
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.
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
And second - you can have multiple cars with the same last six, so even if you get a positive hit you have to check closely to make sure that it's the same year as the car you're asking about and that the mileage/date is consistent with the car you're asking about.
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.
29 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: 20261026T122219Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hello!
I am about to purchase a 2001 996 c4. The current owner claims that the previous owner had replaced the IMS, when the clutch was replaced; however, he does not have any factual evidence.
Is there any way by which one could determine whether the IMS has indeed been replaced?
Cheers,
The Car-nut
My understanding is that if it was replaced with a LN bearing there might be a sticker affixed somewhere - like near the bellhousing area and/or in the door jam?
That's only if it was replaced with an LN bearing AND the sticker was put on the car (my Indy didn't and I still haven't gotten around to it myself).
I guess you could try calling LN with the VIN and see if they can look it up to see if they had a warranty registration for it. I don't know if they'd do that or not though. Even that's not definitive in all cases though (I wanted to keep our original so LN knows nothing about our car).
Proving it is the seller's job though. If they can't prove it, then they can't legitimately negotiate on it's existence.
Edit: Even if it has the sticker, I still wouldn't trust it without contacting LN or accompanying paperwork. It's easy to make such stickers much cheaper than actually replacing the bearing (haven't heard any stories of that happening, I'm just that jaded).
Don't get so caught up on the IMS. A certain portion of the time, owners end up changing the IMS as a reactionary measure after it's too late and the engine starts to shed metal. I see so many peeps treat this as a security blanket, only to encounter issues down the road.
Some, like myself, would rather buy a virgin car. That way I know what I'm working with and no hidden variables. You can also just factor that into the overall price if you're inclined to change it out.
If you're looking at a ' 01 and are concerned about the IMS, you should also be concerned about cylinder head issues as '01 tend to have the most issues according to some sources.
I wouldn't count on it. In fact I wouldn't count on CarFax for anything as I've seen far too many cases where information is missing or wrong. Most of that stuff is optionally reported and even the state mandated stuff (registrations, mileage, title status, etc..) can be wrong too.
I look at it as a decent tool to see how many owner's it's had and where it has spent it's life, but beyond that I don't see much value in it.
+996
From comparing over a couple dozen reports side by side, you're better off going with Experian's Autocheck service these days. Not 100% fool proof but better in that it reports more data.
Your post does not state that the owner specified it was an LNE replacement. Maybe you could ask about it? There are many alternative bearings that will not have the LNE sticker. Are there receipts, photos, etc?
Same here, but I have the invoice from the shop. Aside from that the only way to know for sure would be to drop the transmission and look at the flange/nut, as it differs visibly from the original.
Folks
Thanks very much for the feedback.
I will try calling LNE.
As for the carfax - I , personally, had an accident with my Beemer 11 years ago. The damage to my car was $17,400! In fact, the car was towed to the dealer, and went through the insurance, but no mention of it in the Carfax!
Cheers,
The Car-nut
If you not sure you can pull the oil filter and check for metal particles - metal would indicate something is going on and figure it's a bad ISB. IF no metal figure and the engine is sound deduct $2000 to replace the ISB! If there is metal and runs good I'd walk or deduct $10000 for possible engine rebuild!!!!!
I was about to mention the same thing.
BUT. Someone may be wondering the same thing so I'll chime in.
One way to check and one way was SO close to being obvious. By now a lot of cars (including mine) has the LN Final Solution. This version has a spin on oil filter with the oil feed line. As we all are aware the OE arrangement is a cartridge filter in a plastic canister and no oil feed line.
So if there is no badge/sticker someplace in the motor compartment or paperwork (which I find doubtful if this job was performed...But who knows. Nothing surprises me.) All one has to do is look under the car and if the spin on is there with an oil feed line the job was done (with an LN FS). This could be for some other IMS kit but I'm not sure of the brand.
If you see an OE canister with cosmoline all over it. probably not.
True -
if
the Solution was installed. This does not answer the original question if a Retrofit is installed.
My car has a label on the engine cover and the previous owner provided a receipt that leads me to believe the retrofit was installed. I checked the serial number on the label at the LNE website and it claims to be a double row bearing. Other than that, I have no way of knowing for sure without actually separating the engine and transmission and checking.
http://imsretrofit.com/ims-check/
You can put the last six of the VIN in here to see if anything comes up. However, there are some
caveats
. First - it only works if the owner or installer notified LN Engineering and gave them the serial number. And second - you can have multiple cars with the same last six, so even if you get a positive hit you have to check closely to make sure that it's the same year as the car you're asking about and that the mileage/date is consistent with the car you're asking about.
I definitely second, your comment. IF the solution was installed.
In reality, the original comment is really only good for a "quick" glance to see if anything was performed. Either looking at a car one may be interested in prior to owner/dealer contact OR substantiating a claim of work performed. Next step is verification of VIN registration and paperwork.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
