14 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHnew type ims bearing in development
Leading reported evidence
Replace problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
Replacing the problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end with a second plain bearing eliminates the source of the failure; the IMS Solution should theoretically be as reliable as the bearing that supports the front end of the intermediate shaft.
Leading evidence: 'Replace problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end' (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.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Replace problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end
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
Replacing the problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end with a second plain bearing eliminates the source of the failure; the IMS Solution should theoretically be as reliable as the bearing that supports the front end of the intermediate shaft.
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.
14 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: 20261026T130754Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I found this US patent publication. Apparently a further development of existing retrofits by Jake Raby.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20150159526
It deals with a sleeve bearing for the IMS instead of the known ball bearing oem and retrofits.
Especially interesting is paragraph [0021]: "... The retrofit bearing kit shown in FIGS. 1A-1B has the advantage of high reliability over stock ball bearings, and over roller-type bearings in general, and further has a soft failure mode. The retrofit bearing kit is considered to have a soft failure mode since if the bearing assembly seizes, there are no *****, rollers or cages released into engine cover 14 and the bearing assembly will cause the layshaft to stop turning, thereby stopping rotation of the camshafts that control the valves which halts the engine, or if the bearing assembly breaks, the portion of the bearing assembly within the sleeve end of the layshaft can continue to rotate.... "
I am curious about the effects of such bearing when it fails and the damage occuring in other parts of the engine.
No ***** flying around, so far so good. But what about a sudden halt of the intermediate shaft due to a failing bearing. The effect of it on the crank shaft and the chains which it connects to the IMS?
I am curious to know about the real world experiences of this new design.
Seriously? Jake announced the "IMS Solution" a long time ago. The product is sold as the IMS Solution, and the name is actually listed as part of the filing.
http://theimssolution.com/about-us/
*edit* I see you're in the Netherlands, so perhaps you haven't had as much exposure to this product as the rest of us. Anyway, you can read about the bearing on the site linked above. The Solution is an oil-fed plain bearing, so it can't fail in the way the original bearings can - and thus will not be the part that stops rotating parts from rotating.
As far as real-world results: The IMS in our cars has two bearing types. One end is a plain bearing. This is the end that never suffers a bearing failure. The other end of the intermediate shaft in the M96 is supported with a ball bearing - and you're familiar with the reputation it has developed over the years.
Replacing the problematic ball bearing at the back (transmission) end with a second plain bearing eliminates the source of the failure; the IMS Solution should theoretically be as reliable as the bearing that supports the front end of the intermediate shaft.
Seriously? I thought the ims retrofits were all ball bearings. Including the LN ones.
I see now that the priority date of the patent was in 2012 indeed. I thought it was a newer development. No need to get ballistic
Silk, there is a Thread Tools link at the top of your thread. The default action is to close the thread...just click the link and click Perform Action, and you'll be safe from any further browbeating from jerks like me.
IB4TL...
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/236x201/017c0ca78e51f21a216a7dc9914d7530_2f9915fe76a0f13dc2ef33e6cdd6476b07f2e509.jpg
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/600x482/h6rwtr_zps58510b5d_590ca34a7964eb160f91c60159c1dafa44024f64.jpg
