***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRED***

I was reading some more IMS posts last night and it got me thinking - Why don't we have current data that statistically displays FACT ? Lets start a fresh and forget all previous stories about the issue as all it seems to do is create myth and argument. May I suggest we do some Data collection, which I will then put into a report that can be viewed on here by anybody wanting to know the truth. I can also keep it updated and add more data as and when required. For data collection, I'm thinking something really simple like: date inputted: 04/03/15 member: alex yates model: 9961 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 03/03/14 date registered: 27/10/00 mileage (at purchase): 86100 mileage (now): 94553 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Please only post data requested. Only post if you are the current owner of the car. By doing this, it would not only prove/disprove everybody's beliefs (or go some way to help in that decision making process) but also give new buyers a better idea of what they potentially could be buying into. And if statistically we prove it's not the horror story people make out, it can only add value to the 996 - thus inflate prices. Who thinks this is a good idea? If I start getting some positive comments as a goer, I'll make a start. Lets put this baby to bed! Anybody wanting to join in, either post their data in here (in a post below) or private message me if you prefer privacy. No user names will be used in any reporting back I do UPDATE: 3.5 year Review below. I'll modify this whenever I have anything to report (as well as posting in this post to keep a chronological review process: http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=102070&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=55 ).

good luck! member: 911munky model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 12/12/2014 age: First reg: 11/2000 mileage (at purchase): 80,300m (now 82,700m) bearing (orig./replacement): Original (I think) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Fingers crossed! Edit: Now almost 11 years later and over 135,000m, I’ve just had the clutch replaced and the IMSB dust shield removed. Bearing felt smooth and was the double row version.

Alex.... ALEX! You want facts? FACTS? Rumour and speculation are the currency of 911 ownership! The air-cooled bubble is in mortal danger! Good luck and hats off to you! :thumb:

:floor: Ok I'll ask the first obvious question, how does the 7th owner of a 15 year old car know if its the original IMS bearing or not :dont know:

easy - they post unknown in the bearing section. But it's irrelevant really cos what we want to prove here is - If you buy a 996 now, what are the chances of the IMS bearing going pop. If I collect data off 200 members and not one has had a failure in the last year, then it'll give us a more realistic % than 1% or 8% (that we currently quote).

Good luck :bandit:

member: chriscoates81 model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: june 2010 age: First reg: 1999 mileage (at purchase): not sure bearing (orig./replacement): Unknown failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Sold after owning for 3 years and 30,000 miles and had no bearing failure in that time.

Alex - good luck.... and I really do mean that. However, if I've had a problem and I do a google search of IMS bearing and your thread comes up, the first thing I'm going to do is complain and log my details on the thread. You then have 90% failure rate. Now I know we won't get that, however I hope you get my point. More people who have the problem will seek to reply to you.

I have a friend who has a C4S, loves the car but is not a Porsche enthusiast per se. He has never been on a web forum, would have no idea what an IMS or bore score is. He just hops into his car, and drives it. I envy him!

member: churny model: 996 anniversary engine size: 3.6 purchase date: feb 2011 age: First reg: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 67k bearing (orig./replacement): replacement (only due to bore scoring rebuild) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Upgraded Hartech bearing now fitted

Wow, we are up to 30% failure rate already on bore scoring.

25% (you've not included my car) :grin: Let's see your figures!

:sad: If we wanted to do this truly randomly, is there a way of contacting 100-200 car owners AT RANDOM via DVLA or something? Not sure of costs etc but at least it would be random!

why don't we start a debate over which is faster air or water cooled...... its a nice idea alex but its not possible to get usable data of any significance from it. There are thousands of porsche owners who don't know there is a forum and just drive their car. I would hazard a guess that any data collected from here would be skewed towards a higher failure rate as people join forums in order to glean information to help with an issue they have......

Lets just see shall we. As yet, we're on a 100% success rate :grin: ....and I know it's only a sample size of 4, but I've yet not witnessed a failure on here since I joined last March :dont know:

but this wont produce "facts" as you keep going on about Alex, all it will produce is data from those who could be bothered to input them. and if you get only people who have had dramas, your facts will be no more that speculation and rumour, as they are now. facts will never be known, because not everybody with every 996 will be reporting, so again its just speculation and to obtain facts then every fact has to be entered. if 20 people reply all who have had faults, then you are going to get a 100% fail rate, that is not a fact, its nonsensical. good idea, but massively flawed.

Er I dont know how to get the list?? Anyway 2003 3.6 tippy ,mileage at purchase feb last year 96,000 Mileage today, 107k, original ims.

Anybody who had any pride in their 996 would enter their data and the higher the sample size - the more reliable the data would be. It's up to you guys how flawed you want it to be. Here's me trying to promote the model and enhance resale value, talk about negativity. Thanks Coomo

Alex, seriously mate, I was honestly trying to be supportive but getting MORE flawed data becomes just that... More flawed data. You need to get a random sample to ensure that you have a representative spread of the issue / non-issue. If you can get that, it'd be a gold mine and fair play to you for doing so. I'd love to see it and honestly believe it's a smaller issue than people make out, as a percentage anyhow, not to the people who are affected. Happy to support the investigation but let's re-think how you get the randomness factor right. Jim

I thought porsche had done this in disclosure during the usa legal case. If anything they would have down played the stats disclosed not played them up. I can't see how you are ever going to get better than that in terms of reliable stats :cop:

I agree with that. :thumb:

Maybe all the bad ones have failed. Maybe one will never fail again,:dont know: all I'm trying to understand is - what's the situation with IMS bearing failures in today's climate cos I've never seen one yet! But I know it's reputation has crippled the model. If every member who owned a 996 responded to this post with data on their car it would represent what was happening. There must be at least 200 members with NA 996s.

I agree Alex, and im not dissing your reasoning or enthusiasm, all I was saying is you said the word FACTS while it would never be a fact, it would just be data biased on those who submitted them.

David, please can I have your data on your car. The more we join together in this, the better understanding potential new buyers and forum members who read this will have. My car hasn't gone pop and as far as I'm aware neither has yours. Lets shut the non believers up and prove what a fantastic relieble car they can be :thumbs:

date inputted: 04/03/15 member: medicus model: 996-2 Targa engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 017/03/13 date registered: 02/09/04 mileage (at purchase): 77000 mileage (now): 81000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (as far as I know) failure data (if applicable): comment: I was told it had been done, however I have no paperwork or proof of this, so im thinking it hasn't. no dramas Alex, thank you.

Flawed... How do you account for the previous 996 NA owners that were members but IMS went pop and have since left the forum due to the experience? They won't be included in the sample. People on this forum may not represent a true sample population of 996 NA owners so any results have a bias. While your motivation is good The logic is fundamentally flawed therefore the results are meaningless. I would reference the outcome from the class action in the USA.

Re: Flawed... Your missing the point totally. The original post stated - current times, not what's happened in the past. If you ask me all the failures have failed and the ones left probably won't do. All this exercise is for is to see if the issue is anything like it used to be and to give people an understanding of current climate.

Thanks David :thumb:

Alex I'll simply answer your original request as any comment I would make would be seriously statistically flawed by the fact I know absolutely nowt about statistics! As requested: date inputted: 04/03/15 member: moorhouse model: 996 40th Anniversary (effectively C2 with X51 engine wise) engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 07/02/13 date registered: 15/01/04 mileage (at purchase): 42,000 mileage (now): 49,800 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (assumed, see below) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: have full service history (OPC first 8 yrs & then Hartech last two) with no mention of replacement so assume original. Hope this helps - Cheers........

:thumb: Cheers.

OK, so you want to see what percentage of regular forum users have had IMS bearing failures, fine just not sure what that will prove :dont know: You are trying to prove the actual current incidence based on that small sample will show the actual failure rate is less than the that quoted in the USA class action. I'm sure it will. I am also sure that will not affect the supressed value of these cars based on the problem. Are you also going to include bore scoring which is (probably) more common and based on the recent comments made by Hartech on here (the accepted experts in the UK) likely to happen to all 996's at some point :dont know: Ie how can you expect just looking at one of the major issues to affect values :dont know: No doubting your motives but short of the DVLA forcing current owners to respond to a questionnaire about all known issues it will never be achievable. To me a combination of the USA class action stats as a baseline AND the likely reasons for the IMS failure as discussed on the recent (great IMHO) IMS failure thread would be more meaningful information ie a combination of an assumed baseline and likely variance to this over time given the likely root cause (combination of manufacturing tolerance and bearing seal failure, both affecting cars at different mileage ranges )

Here goes from memory: date inputted: 04/03/15 member: scottuk model: 996 Carrera 4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 2012 date registered: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 56000 mileage (now): 60000 bearing (orig./replacement): assumed original as nothing to say otherwise in my service file. comment: I'm not superstitious, but I do have my fingers crossed :?

:thumb: Thanks.

Alex, Of course it's not statistically accurate, but still an interesting survey. Well done. date inputted: 04/03/15 member: screwy model: 996.2 C4S Tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/02/14 date registered: 26/11/02 mileage (at purchase): 93000 mileage (now): 98000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement (LN) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: I had the bearing replaced when I bought the car as a preventative maintenance thing. (The original turned out to be fine BTW). If I had my time over I wouldn't bother. Like you Alex, I think most if not all IMS failures have already happened. Peter Morgan did an great article in March's GT Porsche mag, trying to bring the whole M96/M97 engine issue debate up to date. He references the experiences of multiple dealers that he has regular contact with. It's a good read. IMS failure does not feature as a major issue.

As requested: date inputted: 04/03/15 member: ARob22 model: 996 40th Anniversary engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 13/12/14 date registered: 06/01/04 mileage (at purchase): 58,990 mileage (now): 59,500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (assumed, see below) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: have 90% of service history (OPC first 7 years & Indie(s) there after) with no mention of replacement so assume original.

Thanks :thumbs: More data required members!

Here goes from memory: date inputted: 04/03/15 member: Bam model: 996 Carrera 2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: June 2014 date registered: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 115,000 mileage (now): 120,000 bearing (orig./replacement): original , full dealer and indy service history no bills for ims comment: today the car is at zentrum having the rms done, he said he would ring if it needed the ims , no phone call just a text to say car is ready . _________________ 911

date inputted: 04/03/2015 member: gilessav model: C4S Tip engine size: 3.6 purchased: Feb 22nd 2014 registered: April 2004 mileage at purchase: 66500 mileage now: 71900 bearing: original Comment: left IMS alone with RMS change on Indi recommendation. :thumb:

Good effort Alex- thanks Here goes from memory: date inputted: 04/03/15 member: declandio model: 996 Carrera Garden Variety Tiptronic engine size: 3.4 purchase date: Oct 2014 date registered: 1999 mileage (at purchase): 112,000 mileage (now): 116,000 bearing (orig./replacement): assumed original comment: I find that I never use the stereo and always have a window cracked open slightly, to help me listen out for impending implosion! I blame the Internet for this paranoia.

ims For those on here who want to read further something similar that has been done to death quite a few times on Pistonheads further reading Has your 996 or 997 engine had a major rebuild? started 2011 http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/...or+997+engine+had+a+major+rebuild?&mid=403971 There is also a 15 page one titled 996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here! started in 2007

:thumb: Thanks.

Re: ims Will be good to compare this against present data.

good luck Alex! date inputted: 04/03/2015 member: porschefan777 model: C4 Man engine size: 3.4 purchased: July 2014 registered: Sept 2000 mileage at purchase: 75000 mileage now: 80000 bearing: original Comment: Get in - turn key - drive - smile

Thanks :thumb:

good luck Alex! date inputted: 04/03/2015 member: 955matt model: targa engine size: 3.6 purchased: July 2014 registered: Sept 2003 mileage at purchase: 59876 mileage now: 65789 bearing: original Comment: speaking to more than a couple of porsche garages they say ims and bore scoring are not that common , mostly blown up on the Internet on forums ( what a surprise ) working in a landrover garage as a manager I dread the words I've been on the forums because they are full of rubbish. I'm not saying is doesn't happen just its not a common as people would make out. The more we make of this the more it will hurt our pockets Sorry just my two pence worth , I'll get my coat now Matt

Ahem..... A few passing comments have been made about the USA figures under the umbrella of 'fact'. Here's some fact%. 1) The figures quoted are for engine failure 'claims' not 'IMSB failure' rates. Anyone wanting to appreciate the difference either read some previous threads or a book and reliable data. ('Reliable data' is a clue). 2) The figures illustrate a 'claim' variance from 4% to 8% without stating how this is spread. So quoting 4% or 8# is just plain wrong. It's between 4-8%. 3) I point this out not to suggest IMSB isn't a very rare but serious event (which is where I think the debate should end). Instead it is me highlighting the lack of reliability in that data. That's good scientific method where you acknowledge the limitations in your approach. There are significant limitations in the USA data that affects its reliability. Just as there are in this poll and the one on pistonheads site. Here's an extract from the Harris Case. Feel free to read it all: The challenge with this whole issue is not just the lack of data, but the human incapability to process risk. And we have lots of reliable data on this. 1% and 7% will 'feel' the same to most as they fixate on the 'loaded chamber'. For more information on human cognition and flaws in interpreting and accepting risk read some behavioural economists like Thaler. For basics on heuristics and biases like Kahneman. For other related cognition flaws read behavioural psychologists such as Ariely). But to reiterate the problem isn't just with the problem in confirming if it's 1% or 10%. It's flaws in coping with risk itself. It's the inability to rationally deal with it. That's why you get these huge threads. And much of the confdence held by some in their views on IMSB arise less from data and more from worldview. Nothing on here will change that as it hasn't arisen because the data is unreliable (or where it has been collated reliably) but because humans are just rubbish at this stuff. But it's a nice fun exercise so good luck with it. And it's nice to see thread extolling the many wonderful virtues of the 996. For me the low price of purchase is actually one :thumb:

May be a bit early to enter my stats as only just bought the car but... date inputted: 05/03/2015 member: Mr Scruff model: C4 Man engine size: 3.4 purchased: Feb 2015 registered: 1999 mileage at purchase: 69,000 mileage now: 70,000 bearing: original - as far as I know. Nothing to say been changed Comment: Leaking RMS changed but otherwise good as gold!

Thanks :thumb: & don't be silly, wise words. All comments & thoughhts are relevant. Thanks also Mr Scruff :thumbs:

I dont worry about this.However, chatting with my Very well known and respected Indy, when I collected my car after service. I TRIED to spend some more money to have my IMS replaced.He told me not to bother.He couldnt even remember, replacing one, or rebuilding an engine due to IMS failure.That was enough for me.Im off the meds now, and drive my car with arrogant impunity!

Just a quick update from myself from the data collected as yet: 15 members who are current owners have provided data. 0 of them have had IMS issues within their ownership (0%). 2 owners have had bearings replaced as a safety measure and 1 owner has been led to believe it has (12 still believe they're on the original). The average owner has owned the car for 441 days & covered an average of 6,165 miles. The total miles all these cars had covered when purchased was 1,153,766 miles and have since covered 92,476 miles (1,246,242 miles to date). The average mileage of these cars when purchased was 76,918 and to date is 83,083. Engine size split is 3.4 - 33%, 3.6 - 67% (of which 47% standard & 20% X51 345hp). I am totally aware that this data is not a true reflection of all ownership, but it is a snapshot in time of ownership of contributing members. The more data we get off members, the more clearer the situation becomes for people (especially potential buyers who've had the heeby-jeebies scared out of them by typing porsche ims into google). From this exercise, if nothing else, it will point potential buyers in the direction of who to buy a 996 off (contributing members) :grin: Thank you to all contributing members, anybody who hasn't contributed relevant data, in the interest of process capability and 996 market value, please do so (apologies if I've made any mistakes in my reporting).

Thanks for your input Paul. Interesting to read about the American stuff. Which makes me think - did Porsche use the IMSB as a get out for bore-scoring?? What I mean is - did Porsche know bore-scoring was the big issue, but brushed it under the IMSB umbrella, knowing that they would then only have to pay out for engines that had gone pop with the IMSB and not for bore-score (which would have gost them $$$$$$ more?). :?:

That's the problem with the Harris Case data. It's not just unreliable but it has significant issues of validity as well. Examples? Well you've mentioned some plus customer service pressure (it's the same time as the Cayenne was being heavily pushed with a 'can do attitude' being strongly enforced in the global dealer networks), the IMSB cases would have proven worrying / puzzling for service teams (for all the reasons mentioned on here and other places) so panic and poor categorisation may have occurred, other issues may have been getting lumped in for 'convenience' / ease, corporate arrogance / fear of failure etc etc etc etc. And all these are stated in the documents which state the source of the data on claims. Now NONE these things could have happened and the Harris data is indeed an EXACT (though vague) measure of IMSB failure alone. But as presented that is a very big leap and those who make that claim are rightly challenged on reliability and validity. In other words as empirical data from which to generalise it is highly flawed. Then we get into the whole secondary debate about can it be generalisable for the wider world from the USA. I'm NOT wanting that debate and it's NOT the point of this thread. But in short I'd not want my GP working from such a poor evidence base as the Harris case data if he / she was prescribing treatment for me that's for sure. And let's not forget the way this whole thing works is if any one makes a claim (in this case it is a particular percentage of failure) then they have to back it up with appropriate evidence. (Sorry :soapbox: :coat: )

Don't be! Thanks for your input. :thumb: Now come on fellow members - over a 1100 views in 24 hours and only 15 people can supply me with data :dont know:

Cheers! :thumb: I'd love to add mine but it wouldn't be current :sad: (But it was 53k flawless and wonderful miles in a 2001 996.1.5 manual over 3 and a half years :cloud9: )

You have scared them off Alex :hand: On a serious note it is an interesting thought re the Bore Score being the real issue and assumed IMS failure data being skewed by that :?: I have always likened the Porsche IMS bearing issue to the BMW spinning shells failure in the S54 series ///M engines around 2001. Even more so given the recent thread which logically argued that manufacturing tolerance where a factor in early failures. In the case of the S54 real world examples existed but the situation that the 996 now finds itself in was avoided by BMW "doing the right thing", admitting a manufacturing tolerance defect and retrofitting a fix under warranty FOC to early owners ie the issue, worry, impact on values, etc..... was nipped in the bud before it started. How Porsche could effectively find a way to actually re-engineer the problem still beggers belief. It is genuinely good to hear that so many current forum owners have not been affected by this :thumb:

this is more like it Alex, WELL DONE. its not superstition or scaremongering, its real world input from real world drivers, whilst full understanding its far from exhaustive or complete, as you pointed out its relevant to us and this forum, figures might well change, but I can now (for the time being) take the "galaxy" badge of the back, and replace with a frys Turkish delight one. :thumb:

date inputted: 05/03/15 member: Lee H model: 996 2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/11/14 date registered: 27/04/02 mileage (at purchase): 73850 mileage (now): 74295 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): Comment: previous owner on here had car for 2 years and 14k miles with no issue. I've hardly used the car due to poor weather.

Thanks Lee :thumb:

Can a humble Gen. 1 Cayman S play?.....

One thing we do know for certain from the Harris Case is the number of claims. The figures are of claims paid out. Isn't this evidence of Porsche 'doing the right thing'..........? :?: (Sorry, Alex, I know that this isn't the point of this thread...... ) Jonttt - feel free to PM me your response? :thumb:

Chris - of course you can give us the details of yours if you want, as a demonstration of good ownership, but I'll not include the data in any reporting I do. If this thread takes off and I get enough data to statistically prove that the UK owners of the 996 who use this forum contradict the mindsets of peoples beliefs (ie. IMSB failure scoring high in the risk assessment stakes), then I may do a similar thread with other models and other issues eg. bore-scoring on 3.6 & 3.8 engines. This would then give the 'readers' an idea of what is actually happening in reality rather than internet hype.

Great data to collect Alex, looking forward to viewing regular updates on the trend of these data. Here's one more for the pot date inputted: 05/03/15 member: Beej160 model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 26/01/2015 date registered: 06/05/2004 mileage (at purchase): 95700 mileage (now): 96200 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data: n/a Comments: IMS was replaced in February 2011 during Hartech engine rebuild. The rebuild was primarily to fix bore scoring, I assume IMS was replaced as a preventative measure rather than failure.

Ok - 2005 (55 plate) Cayman 3.4s, all original AFAIK (nothing in the full service history), Bought in 2013 with 32000 on clock now 43000. No failures at this time.

:thumbs: Thanks.

Here's my data. date inputted: 05/03/2015 member: Shurv model: C4S man engine size: 3.6 purchased: Feb 13 registered: May 2002 mileage at purchase: 40,500 mileage now: 53,788 bearing: original Comment: IMS seal has been replaced 3 times since registration

:thumb: Thank you.

Here's my data. date inputted: 05/03/2015 member: DaleD53 model: C4S Manual Cabriolet X51 engine size: 3.6 purchased: August 2013 registered: June 2004 mileage at purchase: 15773 mileage now: 19387 bearing: Replacement/Upgrade fitted in 2001 Comment: Previous owner elected to go for a replacement clutch/RMS seal/IMS bearing (ceramic I think) during a major service in 2001 @ 12,000 miles. Not due to any problems but rather as a preventative/upgrade.

+1[/quote]

[/quote] I will start a new thread in the next week or so for bore score of the 996. I didn't want to add it to this survey to avoid confusion. This survey is specifically about IMS bearing issues. I totally understand that bore score is a major issue of these cars but believe that it would be more sensible to treat it as a separate issue. As yet I'm really impressed by owner's enthusiasm and help, as are (I hope) other members. I find these type of posts far more helpful and entertaining than members (including myself) debating some of the problems recently witnessed. Keep up the good work folk and keep watching :thumbs: :worship: :thumb:

Hi Alex, Is it easy for people to check the engine number on their cars to see if it's the original? I don't recommend posting of VIN's and Engine numbers but if there's a way they can also check if the engine has been replaced in the past I.e. before ownership. If it's not easy then I wouldn't worry, but it might also add to the data your collecting.

aint this already been compiled from the class action Id be interested if any indies could post comment on what they see on the shop floor % wise on bore scoring. Been thinking of a 996 as a 2nd porker but dont like the odds

poorleno - yes it has. But this is different. What I'm trying to achieve here is an understanding of the problem now. After many discussions and much reading, I'm of the opinion that a large % of the problem was a manufacturing issue and all the 'defects' have since 'popped' or been replaced and all the ones left will not fail in the same way as these did. Therefore the original problem stated in the data above has long gone. What we're are doing here is collating current (over the last couple of years) data to if what I believe above is true or whether IMS is still the issue it once was. Also, anybody statisticians reading this will know that you don't need a sample size of 100% to predict what is happening to 100% of the cars out there. edit: half the data in that chart isn't true (just an projection). All they've done is got production figures and either times them by 1% or by 8% for every year in every area. It's baloney. Why don't you start a post on Indy bore score comments?

Hi, You can do by actually looking on your engine block (see photo below) and checking your V5 (don't know whether that gets updated when an engine is changed), but if you spend £3 on a HPI it will also give you original engine number. Problem is though, without any documentation, it's hard to know why the engine was changed (could be any of a multiple of failure types).

Hi Alex Just out of interest, what is the trend looking like right now (if you've been compiling as you've been going along)? How many people have responded?

19 current owners (3.4 - 5, standard 3.6 - 10, X51 3.6 - 4) 2 previous owners 1 caymen owner 4 standard 3.6 have had replacements either as a preventative measure or because engine was having other work done. 1 possible replacement in a previous ownership but no documentation to back it up. 0% IMS issues within current ownership. Total mileage of all cars - 1.5 million miles Total ownership mileage - 110,323 Total ownership time - 8 years, 3 months & 5 days

Thanks Alex Encouraging signs ie 0% IMS failure! Although 4/10 standard 3.6 owners have replaced their bearings, that doesn't mean they would have failed if they weren't replaced. As I noted in my own case, the engine rebuild was to repair bore scoring. I'm sure while the engine was apart, someone suggested replacing the IMS, for preventative measure. Knowing the owner as I did briefly, he didn't have a clue what an IMS was so I can't think he made that call. Someone at Hartech must have made that call. Impossible to tell you the exact details now. I hope other members add their details so the sample size can become bigger and therefore a little more confidence (statistically) in the results can be gained. Cheers

Its an interesting theory. A call to an indy (ie hartech) and ask if their still doing the same no. of rebuilds on 986/996's they where 5 years ago would answer that and give you better data than this thread as in statistical what your asking for is pure confirmation bias

But even with their response, it's still one specialist's view (albeit one of the most well known for this sort of thing). Plenty of other specialists do engine rebuilds/IMS replacements, not just Hartech. I have no idea how much more rebuilding Hartech do compared to everyone else...

I think I recall Baz actually stating a while ago that they don't really see them now, not like they used to. He's probably of the same opinion of me that the rogue bearings (be it over tolerance or manufacturing defect) have all failed and all we're left with is the 'good' ones. Hopefully he'll be following this and will comment.

Statistically it doesn't matter. What matters is what 1 individual specialist sees now (failures) compared to what the same specialist saw over the years.

Well, put like that, yes, true.

Alex, I agree with your logic based on the recent IMS failure thread to which Hartech contributed but for completeness my recollection of Baz's theory was that there was an initial failure of bearing due to manufacturing tolerances at under c50,000 miles but then a second phase at over X miles (can't remember what he stated 120,000?) due to the bearing effectively coming to the end of its operating life (ie shorter than you would normally expect and linked to its sealed nature and not constant lubrication from the engine oil ?) The recent thread referred to convinced me of the logic that IMS bearing failure was not as random as I had been led to believe and it was likely that cars in a pretty wide range of mileage eg 50,000 - 120,000 where far less likely to suffer from failure. If this is the case then the massive benefit it that replacement could be planned with a clutch change and hence the cost and risk for the majority of owners was less than commonly thought :dont know: Maybe I am completely wrong but thats the positive I got out of the recent IMS discussion thread :wink:

Yeah same here. Whenever I'm in a position to gain access to the little fella, I'll be at least taking the cover off and inspecting it and possible just remove the outer dust seal so the bearing is not disturbed but future lubrication is possible. If it looks jiggered, I'll be fitting a replacement. Just need to work on burning my clutch out now :lol:

i would reply but i'm sure that as soon as i said i have no issues, it would go pop!!

you just said it................ :thumb:

true... there was an inevitable flaw in my logic! date inputted: 06/03/2015 member: skinny_monkey model: C4 engine size: 3.4 purchased: Jan 2015 registered: 99 mileage at purchase: 103000 mileage now: 104500 bearing: Original afaik Comment: if it breaks now, i'm blaming alex.

:thumb: Thanks.

As I mentioned in the recent IMSB thread, I have also noticed over the last 3 ish years, the trend, that not many IMSB failures are getting reported but I also mentioned that when I was at Hartech there were still a few cars in there having engine work done due to IMSB failure. It's not over yet. date inputted: 06/03/2015 member: infrasilver model: Targa engine size: 3.6 purchased: Dec 2010 registered: Dec 2001 mileage at purchase: 41,000 mileage now: 91000 and rising bearing: Original removed but was still in good order, @58k bearing 2: Hartech, no seals: Removed but still in good order, @85k bearing 3: Hartech, no seals: Currently fitted. Comment:

Thought you might be interested in this video of a bearing in situ that clearly was gone. Car had been driven over 2000 miles with misfires before we received the car. http://youtu.be/NtkkTnOrdcI As you can see, the bearing shouldn't be like this. We did try to fit an upgraded bearing on the car to see whether it was recoverable but unfortunately not. Ken

Thanks Chris :thumb:

Here's my data Alex date inputted: 06/03/15 member: westy666 model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 16/11/11 date registered:1/9/01 mileage (at purchase): 73,246 mileage (now): 79,543 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (since I owned) failure data (if applicable): comment: Previous owner had an engine replaced at 59,452. Don't know why.

:thumb: Thanks.

Here's mine for the sample: date inputted: 06/03/2015 member: mjp_c4s model: C4S engine size: 3.6 purchased: Aug 2014 registered: 04 mileage at purchase: 62000 mileage now: 65500 bearing: not known assuming it's the original Comment: there's FSH but nothing in the paperwork mentioning any major engine work. I'm assuming the previous owners would have kept any of those bills as obviously it's not a cheap fix.

So when I bring mine to you in the near future for a new clutch would you recommend a bearing change at the same time Ken

it is a difficult one - it is clearly worth doing the check in the video - after that it will really be your decision whether to replace it but we have all the correct tools etc and have done it before. Ken

....or possibly just remove the IMS cover plate, inspect for any play in the bearing and if ok, remove the the outer dust shield to allow bearing lubrication.

date inputted: 07/03/2015 member: Nytol model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: Aug 2012 date registered: 1999 mileage (at purchase): 92k mileage (now): 120k (ish) bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: It's just had a full once over at 9e due to a broken alternator bracket which was causing an electrical problem, (all sorted now), and Ken said there were no other issues with the car, so still going strong.

:thumb: Thanks.

date inputted: 07/03/15 member: tb1880 model: 996 C2 Manual Coupe engine size: 3.4 purchase date: April 2008 date registered: March 2001 mileage (at purchase): 55000 mileage (now): 72000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): none comment: I considered a preventative replacement early in my ownership but never actually went through with it.

:thumb: Thanks. Quick update date collected from 25 current 996 owners 40 years of current ownership Total life of 322 years 2 million miles covered from new & 216k miles under current ownership 0% failures & 0% IMS bearing issues. 1 known engine replacement - reason unknown. 1 engine rebuild due to bore scoring & not IMS bearing.

Thanks Alex, this makes me happy and ready for my drive home tomorrow after picking up the 911. I know my car has had the IMS replaced but believe this was a preventative as it was done at the same time as clutch. Details to follow tomorrow when I have all the paperwork.

:thumb:

good effort Alex, only relevant to us on here, but its as relevant as it can be, it does reinforce my statement that I was lambasted for where I said I did not think that the 996 suffers from catastrophic engine failure, I can only talk from my experience and those ive witnessed through my life, and I have only seen the same as any other manufacturer. at the ace café last month, there was a discussion going on between 2 owners who held the view that the majority of engine damage (to all Porsches) seemed to be from "racing" or "hard use" something that the Porsche brand is familiar with. could that also be a contribution factor in the failure of a part? or is it an absolute fact that the IMS was defective in either manufacture of assembly also what is the life expectancy of a baring? when I used to race (I use that term lightly) my Subaru at Santa pod, and time attack, the engine used to have to be overhauled almost every event, including some pulleys and bearings being replaced. I confess to not knowing anything about the action taken stateside regarding the IMS issues, but did Porsche hold its hands up? and was anything proved in law? im sure someone must know, thank you.

Its all relative. If my 996 engine explodes, I'll simply get it rebuilt and future proofed. My own man maths worked out that if these cars had a bullet proof reputation, I'd have paid £ 5 to £10k more for it when I bought it. If I had a golf with a DSG gearbox that went bang ( plenty have), I'd have to shell out £7k for a new box, so a potential £10k Hartech bill seems terrific value. I've just had an engine rebuilt on a motorbike I've been restoring/rebuilding, and the bill for that was @£5k, and it only has 2 cylinders. OK, it's a full blown race engine, but still a lot of hard earned. I'm fully expecting to have to rebuild my engine at some stage, I bought the car as a keeper, so I don't get stressed about it. When it goes bang, I'll fix it and carry on. If I want reliable, we own 2 Toyota's, but god they are boring. Long live the 996 :thumbs: :thumbs:

Yup sums up my view as well pretty much. I buy my cars to use not to polish. And if I wanted 99.9% engine reliability within an expected manufacturers lifespan then if be driving another Honda. The 996/997 series are the bargains of our generation. I'm glad they have a bad rep so I can afford to buy them :grin:

Mmm... Question: Why would the people whose cars DID explode be on this forum to input on this thread? If someone buys a Porsche, gets unlucky and it goes pop and costs more than half it's value to fix... ...will they really all rush out and buy another Porsche and be here to comment? :dont know: Or will they chalk it up as experience, move on and buy something else? :?: Imagine a 'who has been in a passenger jet crash?' data gathering thread. Although the chances are also very slim, maybe slimmer than IMS failure, the people that have crashed into the sea/ground will not be adding to the data, helpfully making the stats even lower than they are... :?

No member on here (AFAIAAO) has had an IMS bearing issue in the last 12 months. The same members are on here who were 12 months ago. What this thread is about is displaying the fact that what was once a potentially serious catastrophic engine failure for potential buyers isn't the same anymore. When I started this thread, some members were saying the complete opposite, that the only people comment would be ones who'd had failures. You really don't like the 996 do you.

don't agree with that at all, its like saying I had a car crash, and now wont go in a car again, or I had bad food poisoning from a prawn, and will never eat prawns again. bizarre. if there car went pop, they would obviously fix it (or be left with something unsalable) and then have a strong (er) rebuilt engine, and be enjoying her on here? its like a marriage...for better or worse.

:thumb: well said.

I've never viewed 911 ownership as a 'repair vs value of car' equation. Instead it's always been a TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) equation. And I do this deliberately for we are all flawed judging these things and it helps retain objectivity. For example If I said here are two cars, one is £45,000 and the other, 20 minutes away is £44,980. Would you travel to the other to save £20. I doubt it, but if it was a pen costing £40 and the other was £20, you probably would. (This has been done as an experiment and repeatedly people choose the saving for a lower cost item). But £20 is £20. What difference does the overall purchase price actually make? And the same goes for a repair. An engine rebuild at £10k is still £10k. Regardless if the car is worth £60,000 or £15,000. But we seem to 'feel' that the car being worth £60,000 makes the repair somehow 'better'. I don't get that I really don't :dont know: EDIT - Alex has already answered the rest of your question.

Simple Q - why, always so negative pretty much?

Maybe you're right, who'd be on here posting if they didn't own a Porsche anymore? :?:

:floor:

OmG, does he not even own a porsche....... :floor:

First off let me reiterate I think 996 are great value for money so long as you buy eye wide open. Second I had already been convinced on the other recent IMS failure theory thread that this may not be as common now as it once was and Alex's thread does not disprove that even if it does not prove it :thumb: BUT the elephant in the room is bore scoring. To continue to state that 996 do not suffer from catastrophic engine failure is just plain wrong :nooo: Do you just ignore the recent thread from a buyer who car was suffering from unrepairable engine score but they managed to get a refund from the dealer :frustrated: I am very conscious medicus wants to portray me as a bully, as someone who takes any opportunity to have a go at the 996 but that is not the case. As per the IMS issue I am quite happy to have an open mind but I truly believe it is plain wrong to state / mislead potential owners into thinking there is no risk of bore score writing off an engine. Hartech themselves state in their view every 996 will suffer from bore score at some point :roll: Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that includes me :wink: Alex, sorry for taking off piste but it I can't just let such stupid comments go unbalanced :dont know:

Once this thread runs it's course I'm going to do something similar with bore-score, which I'm guessing will have a lot more meat on the bone as more members have endured that, so I'll include costs as well as other stuff on that.

Good man :thumb:

Great work Alex on this thread. :thumb: and just to say I am always wary of advice given from someone with a horse in the race.

Just a newb's opinions As a prospective buyer, I have found this REALLY interesting. having over-read about IMS I found it was becoming a, if not THE, major consideration in cars to consider, and while it's really nice to know that it has been changed, it should only be one of many considerations. This poll may be statistically flawed but represents real-life owner experience and as such is quite comforting (we all know about lies, damn lies and statistice ) If you visit any owners forum, they will all have horror stories - My friend's Astra just needed a major engine rebuild after the water pump failed, taking the cambelt with it....and this was after the cambelt was replaced by a main dealer (who didn't advise changing the water pump at the same time despite it being a known issue) Anyway, thank you Alex for bringing the idea to the forum and collating the info, and thank you everyone who has contributed. I now feel considerably happier regarding IMS and can now dedicate my time to panicking about Bore Scoring :roll: (really interested to read that one) but you know what... I'm still going to buy one Oh, one other thing - can this info be kept out of the popular public domain until AFTER I buy.... don't want the prices going up before

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your comments.

jonttt, what is it with you and your constant negativity. read the OP title, its about IMS data.......... not.... "BUT the elephant in the room is bore scoring. To continue to state that 996 do not suffer from catastrophic engine failure is just plain wrong" if you dont have anything positive to say about the 996, then dont say say it. or stay on the 993 section. Please, it ruins it for the rest of us.

My data Member- Robertb Date logged- March 15 Car registered- April 03 Mileage- 99875 IMS- original as far as I know Engine- Original I remember many moons ago everyone hated 964s because of their leaky engines and dodgy flywheels.

Purchase date and purchase milegae please robert.

non turbo 996 owners member: leacarrera4 model: 996 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 13/10/10 Age: first reg 01/03/1999 mileage at purchase: 50128 mileage now: 64347 ims bearing: original as far as I know Failure data: n/a comments: Car hasn't missed a beat in 4 1/2 years of ownership just drive it and enjoy it , im not overly concerned about what could go wrong Lea

My data IMS Total failure !! date inputted: 7/3/2015 member: a7smw model: 996 c4s engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 11/04/2006 date registered: 01 04 2004 mileage (at purchase): 7000 mileage (now): 32328 bearing (orig./replacement): original now has 997.2 bearing & shaft failure data (if applicable): 29/05/2013 28479miles comment: Original IMS bearing had total failure. Full engine rebuild with all 6 cylinders replaced with hartech ones due to bearing fragments scoring them and future proof and solve common bore score issues caused by heat. 997.2 ims shaft with bigger bearing was fitted with full engine rebuild. Also lower temp thermostat fitted. Car is also parked up 4 month of the year in a heated garage. Maintained at specified intervals. £11000 bill everything replaced oil pumps ect etc everything ! This happened at 5mph when it failed completely if i was traveling at speed the engine WOULD of been a total loss. catastrophic engine failure !

Re: Just a newb's opinions Now that is a perspective buyer going out in eyes wide open, you will enjoy the experience all the more for it :thumb:

Boy you really do talk a load of crap :roll: Tell you what, I'll stop correcting your lies when you stop telling them, deal :dont know: Ps it's a long time since I called someone a liar and I don't take it lightly but your constant statements that 996 don't suffer engine failure is a blatant lie, no other way I can put it :nooo: Argue it's overplayed, overstated and that I can accept, state it does not happen is just stupid and irresponsible at best. With that I'll bow out of this thread as its spoiling Alex's great work, that includes your statements devaluing it too :bye:

Anyone who had a good Porsche experience and would come back for more? Maybe someone who would take 1/3 of the money they sold their 993 for and consider buying a 996 to at least have a Porsche to play with? You know, if you can't answer a question you can just say. All I asked was why peoples who's cars (and budgets) were destroyed by IMS failure would still be here on an owners thread, contributing to the data and adding real value. It's a fair question, and 'nah nah you don't have a Porsche' does not answer it. :grin: The whole sticking your tongue out and making antler shapes with your hands is not a good look for you on your informative thread.

Maybe you should be asking a7smw who just posted his failure above.

1st failure reported by a current owner Interesting read of the data provided. The car had only covered 7,000 miles in it's 1st 2 years of previous ownership (would be nice to see the service detail over that period). Then spent the next 7 years only covering just over 3,000 miles per year, of which only did it over an 8 month period per year (4 months of the year parked up in a heated garage), before going pop at 28,500 miles in May (was this recently after it had been stood still for 4 months?). Would also be good to see the service record for that period. Also, when the car was parked up for 4 months in the garage, was it turned over within that period (eg. started once a week and left running for 5 minutes) or just left there until being run again for 8 months? Would be nice to see some of that detail.

As a prospective first time buyer it's a very interesting debate. Many people could well be put off buying a 996 with all the engine failure doom and gloom included me. I've read countless threads on this site, the amount of info is quite something but quite a lot of it has a negitive theme . You really do start to question if its a wise purchase. I've come to the conclusion that if I really want a 911 "and I do" I will look for the best I can with the budget I have get an inspection and a bore scope check and Lady Luck will have to take care of the rest. Great thread .

Oops sorry Alex, Purchase Jan 15 Initial mileage 97,300 So early days admittedly... Is historic data of interest from a car owned previously? (obviously I can't account for it since...)

service history before going pop as follows:- 29/03/06 minor 6945 inc new rms seal replaced 03/04/08 major 17348 08/04/10 minor 23539 02/04/12 major 26683 29/05/13 pop 28479 engine rebuild 28/03/14 minor 30339 full porsche service history up until it went pop. started every 2 weeks and left till reached operating temp. Car always warmed up properly before driven or hard acceleration. Only back on the road after winter storage for 1 month before failure covering about 400mile in that time. With the low millage covered at 02/04/12 from the previous service wouldn't you have thought the porsche technician would have seen excessive metal parts in the oil filter if he had of checked it ??

i never said it did not happen, i said i (read i, as in me...no one else...my opinion) do not think that the 996 suffers any more than any other car, i dont think its prevalent, and this thread supports that, i can only speak from my personal experience. also it is bullying to call someone a liar. just because there views (no matter how different from yours they may be) differ. and "THEY" (as in all of them) dont suffer catastrophic engine failure (only some did)

:thumb: Thanks for the data guys. Interesting read on the service information off a7smw - service history before going pop as follows:- 29/03/06 minor 6945 inc new rms seal replaced 03/04/08 major 17348 08/04/10 minor 23539 02/04/12 major 26683 29/05/13 pop 28479 engine rebuild 28/03/14 minor 30339 My observations * 1st service 2 years after the car was registered including fixing oil leak. * 2 year service intervals instead of the recommended yearly frequency. * IMS bearing failed 1,796 miles after previous service (14 months earlier) and winter storage (4 months), 1 month (400 mile) into summer running. * 'wouldn't you have thought the porsche technician would have seen excessive metal parts in the oil filter if he had of checked it' - Is it protocol for Porsche Technicians to check any residue or debris in the removed filter - I doubt it, but don't know :dont know: * Occurrence was 2 years ago and not a current occurrence, although excellent data for what we're doing here. * Out of all the data we have (apart from one that had it's bearing replaced with a ceramic one) it's by far the lowest mileage with all the others being over 50k miles (& moorhouse at 49,800). This incident would suggest what people have stated in the past: Failure mostly occurs under 50k miles. Garage queens are at the highest risk of failure. Cars not serviced within the recommended frequency are at higher risk. Apologies if I've got something wrong or missed something.

Alex, I thought 2004 spec models had a 2 years service interval.

996 yearly 997 bi-yearly

They do, but it was only the Porsche New Car Salesmen c 2004 that ever thought it was good idea. :nooo:

Porsche website state 996 C4S should be every 12 months.

Have a read here Alex. ==> http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=90103&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=interval What was thought 'a good idea' in 2004 has changed since. :wink:

wow, its every 3 months for me with oil/filter change, 6 months for plugs and transmission fluid/filter. never used an OPC in my car history (any car) local mechanic or indy for the difficult/specialised stuff. keep up the sterling work alex, its a breath of fresh air.

:thumb: Cheers Terry. If you go on their website now though and select 996 C4S it does come up with yearly - naughty boys :nooo:

maintenance stated every two years for my car in service book and by porsche !! Since the failure i decided it will have oil and filter change in-between for peace of mind and using millers oil specified by hartech.

I'm a bit old fashioned I suppose, and would prefer an annual service also. Years ago it was a 3 month or 6 month service which was mostly because the lubricating properties of the mineral oils broke down sooner. Now with synthetic oil, the properties are sustained much longer and after 2 years, is still stable enough to do the job. However, 2 years worth of contaminants rushing around the engine internals doesn't sound right to me. Hope this doesn't start a debate about oils and detract from Alex's thread, there is a 'which is the best oil for a turbo' thread if people wish to discuss.

date inputted:  03/08/15 member:  Jamie B model: 911 Carrera 4 S engine size:3.6 purchase date: 13/04/14 date registered: 2002 mileage (at purchase): 82000 mileage (now): 88000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: replacement Gearbox fitted at 80000 . Crankseal also check at 80000

For data collection, I'm thinking something really simple like: date inputted: 08/03/15 member: Osh model: 996 C4S Cab Manual engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 02/03/15 date registered: 27/10/00 mileage (at purchase): 59200 mileage (now): 59950 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: to my knowledge this car has the original bearing and zero failure... Thanks Alex - STAR!! Osh

750 miles in 6 days :thumb:

FYI - I did 800 miles in one day last Nov...... :roll:

Walk in the park.... I did 840 in 12 hours last September, enjoyed every minute.

For data collection, I'm thinking something really simple like: date inputted: 08/03/15 member: a Spartan model: 996 C4S Coupe Tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 10/01/15 date registered: 15/03/2004 mileage (at purchase): 57000 mileage (now): 57500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: to my knowledge this car has the original bearing and zero failure... Well done Alex for doing this Osh

Thing is, there is no mechanical difference between a 2002 911 and a 2004 911. How can the service interval suddenly have been moved out to 2 yrs? Presumably because oil technology had moved on, so service intervals like that were thought to be OK. Personally, in the scheme of things, an oil/filter change at least annually is a cost well worth paying no matter what the oil might be capable of.

1100 mile to St Tropez in one do. Done Geneva too 858 miles in one go. worst bit is Lancashire to Kent! Point I was getting at was 750 in the 1st 6 days of ownership - obviously loves the car.

Hmmm. Off topic now, but all this talk of miles has got me thinking again- Sorely tempted to do a trip this summer, just for the hell of it- drive to the Alps with the road bike in bits in the back. Ride up Alpe D Huez, Col D'Izoard then drive across to Ventoux and ride that. Needless to say would also have some spirited drives up the mountains too...

Osh - date registered: 27/10/00????????? This is the same day my C4 was registered, although the C4S didn't come out till 2002? Thanks all for the data!

Re: ***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRE What happens to cars that were repaired and sold on but neither the previous owner can post the repair nor the current one know it happened?

Re: ***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRE They're still on the road owned by people on here oblivious to it, but what current owners aren't oblivious to is the fact they haven't encountered any IMS bearing issues within their ownership. This data collection is all about what's currently happening with 996s (ie. over the past year or so) and not what has previously gone on. So in a nutshell - is the issue of IMS bearing failure now to the extent that it was 10 years ago?

How is your method (or the sample size and sample period) any where near comparable to Porsche's own stats over hundred of thousand of vehicles and over 15 years? I am not sure how you will usefully quantify the inherent margin of error (confidence interval) with such a small sample over such as small time span. If you collect data on 200 CARS the best guess is 9 failures (if equally split dual vs single row bearing). But that's lifetime. So one year equates to roughly 1/20th. Which means you should find either zero or one failure per year (as you can't find no integer values). But as you can see, plus/minus one failure doubles of halves your estimate, so any hope of sensibly comparing to known stats is pointless. Frankly, even 200 responses does not allow you to characteriser all the degrees of freedom in the system (AKA there are too many variables for the sample size).

Re: ***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRE Good luck!

Are Porsche's statistics publicly available? If yes, was the data broken down into engines replaced due to IMS failure vs other issues? How many perfectly good M96 engines were replaced due to insignificant RMS leaks because dealers got paid?

date inputted: 09/03/2015 member: lethallegend72 model: 9961 C2 Coupe Manual engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 10/04/13 date registered: 20/03/98 mileage (at purchase): 48000 mileage (now): 50598 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: No evidence of a bearing change in the history. It still has the original clutch which is a bit heavy.. Do I change the bearing or not when i replace the clutch???

To be sung to Smokey Robinson's "Being with you"... I don't care what they think about bore scores And I don't care what they say I don't care about what they think if I'm leaking I'm gonna fix you to stay I don't care if they start to avoid me I don't care what they do I don't care about anything else But being with you, being with you... I LOVE my C4S uh:

I would definitely get it checked whilst the gearbox is off and you have access. If OK I would remove the outer dust shield off the bearing to allow lubrication. If not OK, then replace (although this means pulling the bearing out and pressing a new one in, whether that's an engine out job or not is up to you).

Input-9/3/2015 Member -snoball Modell -996.2 c4s Engine size -3.6 Purchase date -5/1/2013 Reg date -5/7/2004 Purchase mileage -51,500 Current mileage -57,600 Bearing - original

+1 That's the main point for me and agree completely. We do not know. Anything else is pure conjecture and should be treated as such. And dismissed as such.

I agree paul, this is what ive been thinking/saying all along, its just conjecture and speculation, sure there have been IMS failures (that's a given) and other faults like bore scoring, but a "chocolate engine" I don't think so as Alex's figures show up just on these few examples, there is a couple of million miles of trouble free motoring. on my Jaguar XFR I go through front discs (they warp) every 10k miles, and so do most of the diesel XF's because of poorly manufactured carriers, but we don't say they have chocolate brakes, and the discs are £750 2 or 3 sets a year, that's more money than a 996 IMS rebuild over the cars life. my old BMW 535d (2009) had (if you listened to the forum) swirl flap problems, that was not if but when.........cost of £3k to fix, I never knew anybody who suffered? did they have chocolate cylinder heads? yum yum.

That's the thing David. There are problems with the engines, but IMS isn't the mass hysteria scare it is on these threads. Bore score maybe more problematic but again we're working with insufficient data sets. But both are A) addressable and B) rectifiable. And in terms of overall costs not that big a deal. And the vast majority of owners maintenance budgets will be spent on discs, rads, suspension parts and other consumables. Though not robust scientifically I think that's the point of Alex thread: that as a snapshot the state of play isn't as bad as it is made out on here. Hey ho...!

Exactly!! You'v got it in one. I decided against buying a 996 back in early 2013 because of stuff I read on the internet. Then 12 months later my friend and I came to the conclusion it was all smoke and mirrors so I took the plunge. 12 month after that (now), I just wanted to paint a picture of the present situation with regards to 996 ownership or potential ownership for someone in the shoes I wore 12 months back. I'm no way saying it doesn't exist, but just that it doesn't exist to the level of previous years or internet hype. I've witnessed more members selling their 993s than members having 996 IMS bearing issues and statistically, that's just wrong :grin:

Here's the thing Lloyd, (Er....that was you and GT4 in that van......right.....? :wink: ) I've witnessed more posts from 993 owners about IMSB issues than I have actual issues...... :chin:

So how does the (possible) impression that 993's rot their arse off and require lots of other corrosion surgery appear based on forum posts here? True picture? What of the cars where owners have not the finances or the wherewithal to be bothered? What of owners who blissfully run there cars and have no genuine knowledge of our hand wringing? Alex is trying to get a snapshot of how real the issue is not solve the mystery of the universe - I do not believe anybody thinks this will make any of the history go away (nor should it) rather it will add some honesty/balance to what people read when they Google stuff prior to buying a car.

And I wished him luck on that. And the factory don't give you a new engine for a weeping RMS. The stats might be subject to all sorts for biases pushing and pulling them, but one wasn't Porsche AG throwing free engines away. This wasn't some recall, those engine swaps were made no doubt reluctantly and effectively (before the class action lawsuit forced publication) in secrecy - they were strictly commercial in confidence. Baz has suggested the overall IMS failure rate is circa 2%, and he's probably right. But this is not in bald contradiction to the Porsche figures, it aligns with them (certainly in the margin or error) FROM PORSCHE STATS The earlier dual row bearings appear to have a failure rate of upto 1% (less than 1% average), the later single row appear to have a failure rate of upto 8% maximum (average circa 6%) 90,000 vehicles shipped with dual row IMS 60,000 vehicles shipped with single row IMS That gives an overall average (at this level of resolution) of circa 4% from Porsches figures. For me, this has never been about the absolute number of failures, but the relative failures and generally in response to a question from a prospective owner which would be the better bet. The proportional difference in reported failures between dual and single row bearing blocks and the easily understandable mechanical reasons for that difference (as backed up by Baz) in the bearing row count makes it a no brainer to support the dual row as the better IMSB bet and coincidently, the bore scoring stakes too. And the fact a 993 owner may on the face of it have the most to say about IMSB is a complete red herring, not least the fact I wrote most of my IMSB posts (and certainly read most of the information about them) when I was a 996 owner. But even if I owned a Peugeot, that in itself that doesn't discount the information. I am not making up the stats or the physical principles of the cause, the understanding of its mechanical evolution or the mitigation/upgrade solutions, I am just sharing them. But there are none so blind as those that don't want to see. We can debate the mechanics of the engines and the politics or engineering at Porsche that lead to this situation, but to debate my right to post or the validity of my posts by virtue of what I currently own is childish and ignorant.

I don't think the said posts were directed at you, but more at other members who've been recently posting in the 996 section and also posting in the 993 section about 996 issues. Go and have brew! :wink:

Just a quick update to get us back on track :thumb: date collected from 33 current 996 owners 59 years of current ownership Total life of 424 years 2.5 million miles covered from new & 270k miles under current ownership 3% failures (1 member) 1 known engine replacement - reason unknown. 1 engine rebuild due to bore scoring & not IMS bearing. 1 ISMB failure at 28,479 miles in May 2013 at 9 years old - garaged for 4 months of the year and oil change every 2 years. Average mileage of cars 82,379 miles and average ownership is 1 year 285 days. Thank you to everybody for their involvement in this :thumbs:

Great thread Alex and useful reading as a snapshot of the current and contributing ownership, keep it going as for having to pick through the bun throwing along the way :hand: there should be a forum sticky called 'your momma's so fat that...' where people can vent their spleens, in a comedy sense of course, or indeed leave it for PM's. Must admit I can't help chuckling to myself when reading these spats a bit like watching an episode of Eastenders, but ultimately hard to see much credibility in public one-up-manship but perhaps that's just me :cop:

+1 & thank you! :thumb:

MORE DATA REQUIRED CURRENT 996 OWNERS and less bun throwing!

Just leaving the house to carry on with real life but if I get time when I get to London I will. :thumb:

date inputted: 10/03/15 member: thesmithsUK model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 11/12/14 date registered: 22/04/04 mileage (at purchase): 73662 mileage (now): 75889 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): June 2013 comment: IMS replaced, plus gasket set and seal set including bolts, oil pump, drive chain, cam shaft chain, chain rails, small end bearing, main bearings, con rod bearings, etc.

Thanks thesmithsUK :thumb: Is it for definite that the work on the engine was down to the IMS bearing failing or may it have been something else?

I have removed from this thread a number of posts that seemed to veer away from what the OP was trying to achieve. Apologies to any who may feel slighted in some way, or who are precious about their words being removed from the thread, but give the OP some decency and allow him to continue what he has set out to do. I'm sure those that have a genuine interest in this thread, whether contributing or simply following, would not want it locked. It's a shame that other recent threads have had to be pulled, don't let it happen to this one.

:bow: :clap: :agree: :goodjob:

date inputted: 11/03/15 member: hamblemark model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 17/05/14 date registered: 10/03 mileage (at purchase): 61500 mileage (now): 63200 bearing (orig./replacement): original (I think) failure data (if applicable): comment: no evidence in service history (6 dealer/2 Indy) Great thread - reinforces my decision to bite the bullet & make the leap. As a number of posters have noted, plenty of other motors have the potential to cost £££. Few though have the same potential for :lol: per miles!

See here for more data.

I think one of the issues has been touched on earlier in that one needs to be confident that the person looking down the horoscope needs to a) know what they are looking for and b) know what they are looking at. I would not be hugely confident in the opinion of an OPC unless I knew they had history in this area. What is an area of 'polishing' to an expert may be diagnosed as terminal scoring by a lesser experienced person. There would have to be reason to get the inspection done for me - paranoia is not one of them.

UPDATE - Just been having a look at the data so far and noticed something interesting. Total number of cars collated as yet is 35 cars and two of these had known failures. The interesting thing though is the data on the failures. I just did a quick scatter plot of the data with the date registered and current mileage. What stands out is the date registered and the failure date - both registered within 3 weeks of each other, both failed within a month of each other (june failure was inputted as 15th but not definite) and both 3.6 C4S models. Unfortunately the owner of one of the cars hasn't given me the mileage at failure but this would be interesting.

date inputted: 16/3/2015 member: Winny911 model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 5/12/2012 date registered: 3/12/2003 mileage (at purchase): 91K mileage (now): 96k bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A Comment: bought from original owner with full history

Thanks Winny911 :thumbs:

Here are my comments, which I think tends to confirm your conclusions to date:- date inputted: 16/03/15 member: richard747 model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: March 2012 date registered: May 2004 mileage (at purchase): 18K mileage (now): 26K bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): IMS failure after 1600 miles of ownership leading to a complete engine rebuild. Circa £13,000 of work to make good. Luckily it was carried out under warranty (but only after issuing proceedings against the dealer and winning the case). Comment: The car had a part service history at purchase. I suspect it spent long periods laid-up with infrequent oil changes. It's now maintained regularly and runs like new.

I suspect you mean Boroscope, unless you are suggesting Russell Grant is the man to tell you what the stars hold for your 996

Thanks Richard, do you know the date it failed at?

Sorry - It failed in September 2012

Of the 3 failures listed - All were 996.2 3.6 C4S registered between 1st April - 15th May 2004 (6 week period).

Thank you :wink:

Spooky! You have the data for my car Alex which was registered 6/5/2014. To remind you, mine had an engine rebuild due to bore-scoring but the IMS bearing was replaced preventatively. Not a failure AFAIK.

Yes I know. Must be fantastic knowing it's had the Hartech treatment with a car that could be in a potentially dangerous area of registration. ps. think you mean 04 not 14 :wink:

It was the deciding factor in buying the car!! Sorry yes, 2004! c:

Of the 3 failures listed: All were 996.2 3.6 C4S registered between 1st April - 15th May 2004 (6 week period) & All failed between September 2012 and June 2013 (9 month period, over 8 years later). :?:

Clearly a relatively small sample, but maybe it was a dodgy bunch of IMS bearings supplied at that time... It'll be interesting to see how this develops as more data comes in.

.....or Henrick off jig grinding was covering for Ralph off IMS assembly whilst he went on holiday :dont know:

date inputted: 18/03/15 member: paul987 model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 18/03/15 date registered:  08/12/01 mileage (at purchase): 86,000 mileage (now):  86,100 bearing (orig./replacement): unknown failure data (if applicable): 19/12/07 47333 comment: new engine from porsche Due to intermediate shaft bearing snapping Cost £5823.39 for engine £2911.70 payable by then owner, subtotal 4482.62, 5267.08 with vat

Cheers Paul :thumb:

996 details model 996 c4 engine 3.4 purchase date 10/2013 date registered 16/04/99 mileage at purchase 37000 mileage now 42000 bearing original engine/car matching no,s :thumb:

thats super low milage for a 99 car :thumb:

date inputted: 18/03/15 member: Matt-A model: 996 C2 X51 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 08/03/15 date registered:  31/07/02 mileage (at purchase): 73,200 mileage (now):  73,500 bearing (orig./replacement): replaced at 49,000 (preventative) failure data (if applicable):NA comment:

member: graham.hassall model: 996.2 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 05/08/2012 age: First reg: 07/2004 mileage (at purchase): 103,300m (now 112,700m) bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment:

From the Porsche club here in Western Cape, about 25 cars. Average mileage 80k miles. All bar two on original IMS. The two that changed wandered onto 911 forums and got spooked. Made preventative changes at clutch time. And are now worried all the time about the reliability of after market IMS components!

Haha, love it. Happiness is bliss, the problem is that paranoia is infectious and soon you'll all be worrying about it! Enjoy the sunshine.

Good idea! date inputted: 20/03/15 member: segart model: 996.2 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 08/01/15 date registered: 13/02/03 mileage (at purchase): 43600 mileage (now): 43900 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: IMS shown as 'inspected' when clutch changed at 33,000 miles

Just a quick update and a note from myself. Update: data collected from 42 current 996 owners 70 years of current ownership Total life of 530 years 3.15 million miles covered from new & 302k miles under current ownership. Average mileage of cars 82,749 miles and average current ownership is 1 year 238 days. 9.5% failures (4 member's cars) occurred between Dec 2007 - Jun 2013. 3 occurred within 9 months of each other (early 2013), over 8 years after they were all registered (mid 2004) within a 6 week period. 1 failed late 2007, 6 years after registered. All failures were 996.2 C4S 3.6L cars. Note from me: A member on the forum has recently had a catastrophic engine failure due to bank 2 timing chain snapping (presumed as yet). This is a very rare occurrence (so I'm led to believe). The car in question recently (9 months ago) had the IMS bearing changed as a precautionary measure. Although I'm not aware of the method used to change the bearing, I'm led to believe that strain is put on the timing chains and plastic runners if the bearing is replaced with the shaft in situ with the engine and can chip pieces off the groove in the plastic chain guide runners as well. Because you're not able to see it is unknown what maybe wrong inside the engine when you do this. This method is not recommend by experts in the field. Therefore, anybody considering having their bearing replaced whilst the shaft is in the engine must take this in to consideration when the job is done. Edit: I'm not stating that the reason for the timing chain snapping was due to this member having the bearing replaced, but that this advice was given by an expert in the field when commenting on the thread about the chain snapping. Once again, thank you to everybody for their involvement in this! :thumbs:

Good update Alex. I'm refusing to get paranoid despite having a mid-2004 registered C4S....will continue to just drive it :drive:

Thanks for that Alex. Just out of interest, and with an old invoice for a new clutch at 33k miles fitted which states 'IMS bearing inspected'; what can an inspection of the bearing reveal, and would such an inspection be of any practical value in determining a future failure?

Whilst the gearbox and clutch are removed. this is an ideal opportunity to inspect & replace if necessary the rear main seal and IMS seal as they're prone to leaking. To replace the IMS seal, the IMS cover plate, which also supports the back end of the shaft needs to be removed. Whilst this is removed, the bearing is exposed and can be checked for any play and also, if wanted, the outer seal of the bearing removed to allow oil to lubricate the bearing. This can be done without bearing removal. If inspected, there is no play, then one can only assume it's ok. If there is any play, then replacement is needed. Here's the IMS cover plate (at the bottom under the crank) and here's the bearing with the seal being removed

Jumping the gun a little Alex, mine was on its original IMSB when my chain snapped and I know of another M96 on its original when it snapped, the Turbo can also snap chains without having an IMSB. Maybe should of held off that one until we know?

I'm not jumping the gun as I haven't stated the chain snapping is due to the IMS bearing being changed. All I've said is a direct quote on the risks of changing the IMS bearing in situ, by an expert in the field, who made this statement after reading about the car in question. I've now put an edit note on my comment to state this.

Guys sorry to upset the balance, with less than 50k on the clock my 2003 C2 3.6 suffered catastrophic engine failure following the IMS bearing failure, resulting in a complete engine rebuild. date inputted: 24/03/15 member: LuckyStrike model: 996 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 05/05/14 date registered: 31/07/03 mileage (at purchase): 47,700 mileage (now): 53,00 bearing (orig./replacement): Failure, complete engine rebuild failure data (if applicable): July 2014 comment: Bearing failed at around 50,000 miles, with catastrophic results leading to a major engine rebuild and repair bill far in excess of the original purchase price. The car had a full service history and was well looked after. The bearing went with no warning! I now have the car back with new clutch and milltek exhaust as part of the rebuild, with that kind of investment I'm now in for the long term. Interestingly the bores on two of the cylinders were beginning to score (although this could have been caused by the disintegrating bearing), I had all the linings replaced as part of the rebuild, seemed sensible at the time. Thankfully there are some good guys out there to help out with poor engineering issues.

Don't be sorry. All the data collected paint a true picture of what is fact with current members, rather than smoke n mirrors, scaremongering & denial. :thumbs: Just another note: Was your services on a 2 year frequency or 1? and What were the highest mileages between services?

Thanks Alex cheers Rick

I'm intrigued who did the rebuild if it was far in excess of the cost of the car in the first place? Surely the car was worth about £18k when purchased.

1st post................erm? call me cynical. not even a hello in the greetings section, straight on to here with a IMS melt down?

Maybe..........cynical username to boot?

Include or not include in the data collection, that is the question? :?:

he might be genuine Alex, its your thread, its your call, it just seemed odd to me given the join date, and the fail date?, but im just being an old cynic.

Let's see if he makes another comment. I did ask him for service info.

Not going to make a huge difference - could be cited as 'isolated notification'?.

Include... if he can show you a scanned copy of the work that he said was done.

:floor:

as mentioned the car must have cost circa £15 upwards given the milage etc, and he said the repair was much more than the purchase price?? so a full engine rebuild with every option would not be over £15k surely?

996Noggin's cousin?

:floor:

Even make cheshire911's eyes water.

If it's OPC - all good (albeit 'weepy' good). Bring on the Fezza!

I'm fairly cynical myself and have noticed the high proportion of IMS threads started by 'newbies' popping in and then vanishing over the last couple of years. Not too mention the strange and gaping dichotomy between the amount of repairs reported by some specialists on one side and the real life experiences of the multitude of 996 owners I have met across three continents and many years of ownership So having done a bit of statistical analysis myself I've concluded that the cars most at risk are the ones owned by either a) first time posters on Porsche forums or B) non members of Porsche owners clubs out there. So the advice is, get to know other Porsche owners and get onto forums but try to log up a few dozen posts quickly to get through the danger zone.

thats not being cynical, thats conspiracy theorist LOL. :thumb:

I should've added in 'conspiracy theory inclination' as another category of low risk!

I generally agree with your comments here. Those with experience would steer clear of cars with anything less than an impeccable history. I was a newcomer to the marque and asked the opinion of members before buying. It was universally negative but I went ahead anyway after being offered a 'cast iron" warranty by the dealer. Of course he walked away when he had to live up to all the promises. I had all the paperwork I needed to chase him through the courts; after which he suddenly became very compliant and the situation was resolved to my satisfaction. So I agree, join the club/forums and discuss the cars with people who live with them day-in day-out and know what to look for. I do now wonder what 'added value" the average dealer gives to the buying process. I'm in the minority in sucessfully pursuing a rogue trader Regarding the cost of a rebuild; mine came in at £13K for a comprehensive rebuild. Approx. £1000 of that were delivery costs as the engine had to be shipped to the UK for specialist repair (I live offshore). Almost everything was replaced so I can't see others needing to pay more than £12K. A new engine was quoted at £18K by the dealer at the time.

wow what an unfriendly suspicious bunch you are. Not sure I really wanna be part of your clique with that kind of attitude. I certainly wasn't aware of the requirement for a number of postings before completing the survey - must have missed that! By not being an active member of the forum does that exclude my car's failure from your survey, it's not going to be particularly useful if that's the case? If it helps you then yes the car was serviced annually - although that doesn't seem to be one of the survey questions?? The two services before the failure were at 48,243 (major service) july 2013 and minor service April 2014 - a month I brought it, both by the same independent specialist. IMS bearing failure at 51708 miles, 3 months later. The issues with theses engines is fairly well documented, I chose the C2 3.6 with low millage on the basis it was less likely (statistically) to fail, so perhaps not so Lucky. I'm only just getting over the pain and frustration and now starting to enjoy the car. 1st post................erm? call me cynical. not even a hello in the greetings section, straight on to here with a IMS melt down?[/quote]

I've included your data in the collection Don't let the :wtf: :welcome: put you off. It's common practice on here for people to speak their minds (well me anyway). You got to admit though, it did look a tad suspicious. We've recently had someone trolling on here, so I think it puts folk on edge with regards to suspicions. :thumb: :useless: Lets see some snaps of the motor in question! (For our pleasure, not to prove anything).

[/quote] Lucky - i'm a (fairly) Newbie on here, too. Have to say that your impression is wrong m8; everyone on here has been amazingly helpful to me m8 and i'd high;y recommend this place.... You are more than welcome friend. Pull up a chair and settle in and enjoy Osh

Don't be too offended over the level of cynicism Lucky Strike. Welcome

You can't blame LuckyStrike for his "first impressions" of this forum, I'd probably feel the same after my first post was regarded with such cynicism. Being a relative newbie myself, I can only echo Osh's words and say everyone who's ever replied to my posts have been nothing but helpful and I'm so very grateful for such a resource being in place to make my buying decision so much easier. It's always great hearing from new owners, sadly your story is not the one we like to hear happening to our cars but we WANT to hear it all the same because it only adds to the knowledgebase this resource collects for future buyers and current owners alike. Welcome and I hope you have many happier years motoring ahead of you!

Data date inputted: 27/03/15 member: str12 model: 996 C4S Tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 31/03/12 date registered: 08/04 mileage (at purchase): 55000 mileage (now): 91400 bearing (orig./replacement): original (I think) failure data (if applicable): comment: no evidence in service history

ims data 996 c4s 2003 purchase miles 14,400 now 17,300 know first owner well, car is original in every way ( other than low temp stat)

date inputted: 28/03/15 member: wibbaboo model: 996 C2 Cab engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 05/02/15 date registered: 31/01/03 mileage (at purchase): 104100 mileage (now): 105366 bearing (orig./replacement): replaced with new engine @ 90776 miles failure data (if applicable):NA comment: Engine failed and replaced by OPC 250811 not IMS related

date inputted: 28/03/15 member: Harv model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 20/09/14 date registered: 24/04/2002 mileage (at purchase): 112000 mileage (now): 112000 bearing (orig./replacement): replaced with new bearing at 112000 miles failure data (if applicable):NA comment: Bearing replaced for peace of mind and showed minimal play. Dust shields removed

Harv, is that right - you've done 0 miles in it?

Alex, If you don't drive it the ims bearing can't fail Seriously I drove it about 30 miles from auctioneers to home (running on 3.5 cylinders) and have been doing to work shown in my thread since. :thumb:

Wow - now a sticky!

IMS failure 996 date inputted: 07/04/15 member: Mark Ferguson model: 996 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: May 2005 date registered: 53 plate mileage (at purchase): 36,000 mileage (now): 139,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Engine replaced :-( failure data (if applicable): Intermediate Drive Shaft bearing failed at 69,000 miles comment: Miserable day....... However, Porsche Guildford did me a deal on a new engine (better cost than a complete rebuild). I am now 70,000 into my new engine (I drive it pretty much every day, and love my car). I had a new clutch at 95,000 and hopefully the bearing in this engine will last until I need the engine out for something; and at that point I'll get the bearing replaced. If I could get another 100k miles out of this car I'd be a very happy bunny! ...and right now £2k per year-ish on maintenance (+tyres, servicing etc) ...then its a beautiful car that costs me way less than a new one! Any thoughts welcome..........

date inputted: 07/03/15 member: Tim Cooper model: C2 cab 996 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 08/04/12 date registered: August 2003 mileage (at purchase): 45000 mileage (now): 85000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable):All good at the moment comment: OPC history when i got it and since then it's been on Millers CFS 10W-50 for a bit more film strength and ZDDP. Lovely little car!

Re: IMS failure 996 Hi Mark & :welcome: What date did your engine fail at and did you know the exact registration date? If you pm me your reg plate I can look it up (or post on here if you want).

Re: ***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRE date inputted: 07/04/15 model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 10/13 date registered: 09/01 mileage (at purchase): 64000 mileage (now): 71000 bearing (orig./replacement): Parr replacement - preventative - original found to be in perfect condition failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Bearing replaced for peace of mind and improve residual value of car :thumb:

1st time poster stats don't count :grin:

This post has now been included in the Quarterly news letter emailed out to all registered members so I suspect we'll get an influx of data coming in now :thumbs: Thank you to everybody involved.

Exactly why I filled it in. Good job :thumb:

date input: 07 April 2015 member: Blytha model: 996 C4S Convertible Tiptronic engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 26/06/2010 date registered: 04/03/2005 mileage (at purchase): 40,100 (Accurate) mileage (now): 48,245 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A # Owners: 3 (Porsche Reading/Private/Private) comment:

Brilliant Post Alex, Paul told me about this the other day. As im a newbie this is good to see - but heres my little porkie: date inputted: 07/04/15 member: Andy Lang model: 996.1 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 14/02/15 date registered: December 98 mileage (at purchase): 90400 mileage (now): 91700 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Full dealer service history

date inputted: 07/04/15 member: Nick Gibson model: 996.1 Carrera 4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: c. June 2011 date registered: 1999 (T) mileage (at purchase): c. 85,000 mileage (now): c. 101,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Dealer then local specialist service history

date inputted: 07/04/15 member: Andrew Dickens model: 996.1 Carrera 2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: c. Dec 2014 date registered: 2001 mileage (at purchase): c. 115,000 mileage (now): c. 117,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Dealer then local specialist service history date inputted: 07/04/15 member: Andrew Dickens model: 996.2 Carrera 4S cab engine size: 3.6 purchase date: c. Feb 2015 date registered: 2004 mileage (at purchase): c. 62,000 mileage (now): c. 63,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): planning a precautionary change to LN Engineering IMS bearing myself this month comment: Dealer then self date inputted: 07/04/15 member: Andrew Dickens model: 996.1 Carrera 2 cab engine size: 3.4 purchase date: c. Aug 2005 date registered: 2001 mileage (at purchase): c. 35,000 mileage (now): c. unknown, sold bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Dealer

Date imputed 7:4:2015 Member : k9cbw Model : 996.2 C4s Cabriolet Engine size : 3.6 Purchase date: April 2014 Registration : 2004 Mileage at purchase : 50,000m Current mileage : 55,000m Bearing Original

Can members pleasure ensure that any data inputted is accurate (to the day rather than month or year, etc.) Date like this will not be included: 996 c4s 2003 purchase miles 14,400 now 17,300 Thank you to everybody who's contributed. :thumbs: Current count is 56 cars. I'll post some info later.

date inputted: 08/04/15 member: JD Torino model: 996.2 Targa engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 19/09/14 date registered: 13/04/02 mileage (at purchase): 51000 mileage (now): 55850 bearing (orig./replacement): IMS replaced October 2014 failure data (if applicable): comment: Replaced IMS with modified kit from Northway alongside with new RMS which needed doing. Mix of Porsche and Specilalist history

date inputted: 08/04/15 member: jinjaninja model: 996.2 C4S Coupe engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 08/03/15 date registered: 29/04/02 mileage (at purchase): 101500 mileage (now): 102275 bearing (orig./replacement): Engine replaced at 60k - reason unknown failure data (if applicable): comment: Replacement engine now at 42,275. Going for a health check at GT One in a fortnight.

date inputted: 8/4/15 member: Beef40 model: 996.2 C4S Coupe engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 15/6/14 date registered: October 2002 mileage (at purchase): 63,851 mileage (now): 66,500 bearing (orig. / replacement): replaced twice in the space of a few months by the previous owner at Parr (original replacement LNS? failed very quickly and engine was leaking oil?) failure date: assuming it actually failed, the original was replaced Q4 2012 comment: n/a

date inputted: 8/4/15 member: drabux model: 996.1 c4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 15/5/14 date registered: Jan 2001 mileage (at purchase): 93,443 mileage (now): 97,323 bearing (orig. / replacement): replaced by me at 95k as a preventative measure. Bought from Pelican parts. Single row bearing used to replace double row. Old bearing was in perfect condition. failure date: n/a comment: n/a

date inputted: 8/4/15 member: chrisu model: 996.2 C4S Coupe engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 08/6/10 date registered: 07/05/2004 mileage (at purchase): 52,768 mileage (now): 67,071 bearing (orig. / replacement): original as far as i know. nothing in service record failure date:n/a

Quick update here if anybody's interested: http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?p=1066699#1066699

IMS data date inputted: 8/4/15 member: cottie model: 996 C4S Coupe engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 23/02/15 date registered: 01/03/2005 mileage (at purchase): 31,000 mileage (now): 32,000 bearing (orig. / replacement): original and fully documented porsche history failure date:n/a

date inputted: 9/4/15 member: 996lee model: 996.1 c4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 20/5/14 date registered: Jan 2001 mileage (at purchase): 56,500 mileage (now): 65,250 bearing (orig. / replacement): orig as far as im aware (sure it would of said in comprehensive history) failure date: n/a comment: going strong!!!

date inputted: 10/04/15 member: Big Steve Raider model: 9962 C4S Cabriolet engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 20/12/14 date registered: 23/10/03 mileage (at purchase): 88274 mileage (now): 89765 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): Replaced with Ceramic Single Row Bearing as preventative Measure when purchased. comment: Took it to Revolution Porsche for Ceramic Dual Row bearing to be fitted and the guys found that the Dual Row bearing would not fit securely (was loose) so finished up fitting a Single Row Bearing instead. The first time they'd see this happen and when spoke to IMS in the USA, they said it is known, but un-common.

date inputted: 11/04/15 member: DrMEMS model: 996.2 C2 Targa engine size: 3.6 L purchase date: 25/09/2010 date registered: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 39094 mileage (now): 86817 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement: LNE single-row ceramic bearing, then steel roller bearing failure data (if applicable): Preemptively replaced original IMS bearing with LNE ceramic bearing 8/02/2013 at 54 kmi. The magnetic drain plug was clean (just microscopic fuzz) at each oil change until oil change on 31/01/2015 at 86 kmi, when there were lots of metal flakes up to about 0.8 mm long. I cut open the oil filter and saw the same thing. The car ran fine and made no unusual noises. After getting conflicting advice from several mechanics, I stopped driving the car, had the motor removed, and sent it to MB Motorsports in Illinois for a rebuild. They disassembled it and found that the IMSB was wobbly (see video at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwcdH6NKwiwmZmRmZUlnUGJURkk/edit ). Metal from the IMS bearing had gotten to the crankshaft and damaged its bearings. Apparently I caught it a while before complete engine failure, which would have cost more for the rebuilt as my core would have been almost worthless. On the bright side, the rebuild shop had an X51 engine for not much more, so I'm getting that one. I called LN Engineering and they didn't have anything helpful to say. They did not record my name or any other information, so they are not taking statistics on this.

IMS research date inputted: 12/4/15 member: B16DSS model: 996.2 Targa engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 30/7/11 date registered: May 2002 mileage (at purchase): 63,860 mileage (now): 75,850 bearing (orig. / replacement): original failure date: n/a comment:fingers crossed all ok still going strong.

date inputted: 12/4/15 member: jm24 model: 996.2 c4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 29/03/15 date registered: March 2004 mileage (at purchase): 39,200 mileage (now): 39,500 bearing (orig. / replacement): original failure date: n/a comment: worried now! Looking at the data my spec and reg date is worryingly close to those the group that did fail.. Have just had a JMG reset service and PPI (at significant cost) with a view to joining their maintenance plan. However may be reporting more on this via a separate thread and still trying to work out whether a replacement/ 'upgrade' is worthwhile..

date inputted: 13/4/15 member: mattveg model: 996.2 c2 auto engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 02/4/15 date registered: 9/2001 mileage (at purchase): 83,400 mileage (now): 83,500 bearing (orig. / replacement): original failure date: n/a comment: fingers crossed

date input: 13/04/15 member: tikkathree model: 996 Carrera 2 Cabrio engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/10/13 date registered: 03/05/02 mileage (at purchase): 53000 mileage (now): 73000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

Carrera 3.4 1999 6 speed manual Purchased 6 weeks ago 97200 at purchase 98100 at present Full service history no report of any failure. I just drive it with no worry. Is there a hierarchy of ownership where the 996 is deemed a lesser car? Seems a shame if there is. Look after the car and enjoy it.

Please can you be more specific on your data entry, otherwise I can't include it. Follow the process done by previous comments.

Yep, but everyone's got to start somewhere. :wink:

ims data Hi Alex, better late than never :- date inputted: 17/04/15 member: LLH911 model: 996.1 C2 Cab engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 10/07/2013 date registered: 01/08/1998 mileage (at purchase): 34,370 mileage (now): 38,034 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (as far as I know) failure data (if applicable): n/a comment: javascript:emoticon(':thumb:')

Data if its not too late..! date inputted: 19/04/15 member: 9962uk model: 9961 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 20/10/14 date registered: 09/99 mileage (at purchase): 87000 mileage (now): 88000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: no probs so far...

Quotes source post: 1066699

Alex Have you any summary data incidences on manual vs tip transmission?

Quotes source post: 1066699

None.

Quotes source post: 1066699

I would think that would only be prevalent in the bore scoring issue.

Quotes source post: 1066699

Is the theory that Tips would be worse for bore scoring?

Quotes source post: 1066699

Not a cold hard fact but that's what Hartech seems to think is the trend due to low speed high torque pull offs.

Quotes source post: 1066699

Yes - I had read that somewhere The summary stats we have are heavily influenced (statistically) by the fact the ownership reported is so heavily biased towards C4S ownership (17%) when I last looked - does anyone know if the C$S represented 17% of Porsche production? Or is it that C4S owners are more likely to post here than C2 or C4 owners?

It's probably only a coincidence but 16.5% of all 996 Carreras produced were C4S but obviously there wasn't a 3.4. 34% of 3.6 litre Carreras were C4S.

I do think that it is just coincidence but how much heavier is it over the Carrera and how many more were tip on the C4S :?:

Looking at the "Who owned what poll" there are 516 3.6 (non-turbo/GTx) cars logged of which 197 (38%) were C4S (46% if you include the C4S cab) so that 38% correlates with the 34% above ..... ish. Of those reported 516 3.6 engined cars we have 6 reported IMS failures = ~1.2% Or in the C4S only population = ~2.5% Suddenly I feel happier ;-) (There is no intention to poke holes in Alex's stats BTW - I'm just an interested nearly C4S owner) Just proves the old adage - there are lies, damn lies and statistics :?:

Only a count of 70 cars donated data. 6 failures (and 1 LN failure). 31 C4S of which 4 were failures. 4/31x100=12.9%

100%in agreement :floor:

Possibly wrong thread for this but interesting discussion emerging about misalignment in crank cases etc, probably already been mentioned by one of the specialists on here at some point. http://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...ramic-ims-bearing-failure-at-30k-miles-5.html

Yeah, Chris posted it, more shadow chasing and snake oil sales.

date inputted: 25/04/15 member: systemmeister model: 996 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 25/11/13 date registered: **16/10/98** mileage (at purchase): 86959 mileage (now): 87655 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: bearing pulled today - all seemingly good condition replaced with EPS Roller Bearing

date inputted: 26/04/15 member: saffa model: 996 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 25/02/15 date registered: mileage (at purchase): 78300 mileage (now): 80200 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Doves house found no metal in filter Due for rms seal and clutch.

Sorry Saffa, I can't use your data unless it's complete. Please enter date registered.

Appologies, see below. date inputted: 26/04/15 member: saffa model: 996 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 25/02/15 date registered:24/06/2003 mileage (at purchase): 78300 mileage (now): 80200 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Doves house found no metal in filter Due for rms seal and clutch.

:thumb: Saffa

I would be interested to see how many 2004 vehicles are having issues, this is any vehicles with the 2 year service interval? Considering some people say it is better to buy a 2003 then 2004 996 because of the service intervals?

See graph here for failed car registered dates:

IMS Data Alex, date inputted: 08/06/15 member: David Patterson model: 996:2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 11/11/10 date registered: 27/09/02 mileage (at purchase): 29729 mileage (now): 49235 bearing (orig./replacement): LN Upgrade failure data (if applicable): Hadn't failed. Slight oil leak. comment: Noticed an oil leak between engine and gearbox. Talked to OPC and because I have OCD decided to change the bearing, oil seals, clutch etc etc. Total cost of replacement £1,650. Have the oroginal bearing as an expensive paperweight on my desk in work! It was slightly worn but serviceable.

Just noticed this so contributing. Love a bit of data analysis! date inputted: 08/06/2015 member: poppopbangbang model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 06/04/2013 date registered: 01/05/1999 mileage (at purchase): 97300 mileage (now): 223977 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (twin roller early type) failure data (if applicable): NA comment: Standard Porsche service intervals from new. 0w/40 Mobil 1 used from new.

Cheers members :thumb:

I do wonder whether the prevalence of the C4s is to do with the fact that >2002 went with the single row ball bearing design, which all c4s had. Early 3.4 996s had the double row and, in the opinion of some, are more durable. So the issue is pre 2002 or post 2002 rather than some thing specific to the c4s. Just a suggestion...

Single-row bearing, 16k mile/2 year service intervals, minimal use, manufacturing tolerances, assembly issues, poor ownership care, non recommended oil, etc. A+B+C+D+E+F+G= H Bomb! They went to a single row bearing around 2000.

date inputted: 19/06/15 member: P17BOG model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 21/05/15 date registered: 01/01/98 mileage (at purchase): 96546 mileage (now): 96690 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: new owner for last 4 weeks, no noticeable issues as yet

date inputted: 25/06/15 member: 4b4 model: 996.2 C4S Cabrio engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 07/06/15 date registered: 20/01/05 mileage (at purchase): 82,283 mileage (now): 82,680 bearing (orig./replacement): N/K failure data (if applicable): N/K comment:

:thumb: thanks.

date inputted: 25/06/15 member: ScoobyDoo555 model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 10/09/14 date registered: 26 May 2000 mileage (at purchase): 84000 mileage (now): 102000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): NO failure comment: Replaced out of caution whilst engine being rebuilt due to bore score. ADDITIONAL - Hartech reported NO issue or play with the original bearing . It was perfect. Replaced out of caution anyway.

Whack you reg in here and select porsche, it'll tell you registered date: https://www.vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/

Done

:thumb:

[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.]

date inputted: 18/07/15 member: SteveU1959 model: 9962 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 13/07/15 date registered: 01/09/03 mileage (at purchase): 47000 mileage (now): 47000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

Re: ***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRE date inputted: 18/07/2015 member: csubtil model: 996.2 C4S Cab engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 10/11/2012 date registered: 12/02/2004 mileage (at purchase): 68.000 mileage (now): 78.000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: don't plan to upgrade the bearing as in my opinion, a "botched" IMSB replacement has a higher % risk than the original IMSB

date inputted: 18/07/2015 member: jerzybondov model: 996.2 40th Anniversary engine size: 3.6 X51 purchase date: 26/05/2015 date registered: 02/03/2004 mileage (at purchase): 87,000 mileage (now): 87,800 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: don't plan to upgrade the bearing on the principle that if it was going to go pop it would have done already. Some further discussion here on IMS bearing failure. http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/572305-996-40th-anniversary-edition-registry-and-faq.html Elsewhere (I think on this forum?) I've read some technical chat too about extra cooling with X51 reducing probability of cylinder 6 bore score and better lubrication reducing chance of IMS. But would need a big sample to verify.

IMS data date inputted: 01/07/15 member: tonemalone model: 996.2 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 20/05/15 date registered: 29/10/2003 mileage (at purchase): 55,313 mileage (now): 56,678 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: I had the car checked over at purchase and it passed with flying colours, apart from needing new exhaust mounts. So all good so far.

IMS Data date inputted: 11/08/15 member: SilverCat model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 07/08/15 date registered: 01/01/1999 mileage (at purchase): 154,600 mileage (now): 154,600 bearing (orig./replacement): Unknown failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Car thoroughly checked by Porsche tech last week - no sign of any nasties yet.

date inputted: 11/08/15 member: cg1308 model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 23/07/2015 date registered: 01/03/2004 mileage (at purchase): 58000 mileage (now): 59500 bearing (orig./replacement): Unclear. Possibly replaced in 2009 at 31k miles failure data (if applicable): comment: Service history has a bill for warranty part payment as goodwill towards RMOS replacement with inspection and work to the IMS mentioned. I was sold the car as having had the IMS replaced but what I can see looks as if they inspected the seals and changed some external gubbins around the IMS but not the part itself. Total of about £600 for the work (but at Porsche dealer so assume massive internal warranty work discount). Who knows? I have written to the owner at the time so hopefully I will get to the bottom of it.

Porsche won't change an IMS bearing, only the full IMS assembly. Probably just had a new seal fitted on the cover plate.

Hmmm. So if I was sold the car specifically being told that the IMS has been replaced, and it hasn't. What should I do? I don't want to reject the car, it's perfect! but I did prefer that peace of mind and it did swing me from another car I was also looking at.

What does it actually state on the invoice? IMS bearing replaced or IMS seal replaced? The IMS is the 'Intermediate Shaft'. If they replaced that, I'm guessing the bill would've been around £5,000 not £500. These engines are prone to the IMS seal leaking as well as the rear main seal (RMS) and would cost in the region of £500 to have them both replaced. Mine have been done twice. IMS bearing is a completely different thing. See this photo of leaking RMS & IMS seal

date inputted: 01/09/2015 member: jmorgan93 model: 996.2 C2 X51 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 06/06/15 date registered: 14/03/03 mileage (at purchase): 58200 mileage (now): 62200 bearing (orig./replacement): Origianl failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: IMS plate and bolts changed at 37k with Clutch. Edit made: I flicked through the cars history today and it was the IMS plate and bolts changed along with the RMS, Clutch and other jobs at once. Bearing therefore is still the original as far as i know.

Ins Bearing Failure 996 C2 3.4 2000 W Bought at 51k 2012,now at 68k Original bearing & seal

I'll stick my details on here for you. date inputted: 07/09/15 member: CarreraMonkey model: 996.2 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 03/09/13 date registered: 30/07/03 mileage (at purchase): 86300 mileage (now): 114,500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

latest IMS pole Hi, Commend the time you have taken. I looked at the turedelta site and the info there (limited) points to the matter having peaked. Hope I am not tempting fate!?! date inputted: 16/09/15 member: glenwells model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 29/06/15 date registered: 01/02/04 mileage (at purchase): 61,000 mileage (now): 63,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): My 2pennyworth. The failures were/are more to do with tolerance variance at production (saving money). The failures in some cases caused by initially fractional movement of the bearing housing leading to increased stress and wear on the bearings themselves. This then causes the increase in freeplay that then goes on to destroy the seal (leak of grease) then allows further accelerated deteriorstion of the bearing and the bearing race proper. It is not likely to be simply failure of the seals as bearings can survive with very small amounts of lubrication. That is why there are differing mileages for IMS bearing collapse because they start at different degrees of tolerance, some will be fine some a mircon out of some much worse etc. That is also why Porsche were at first wipping away defective engines and replacing them. What 'premium' company would admit to poor quality components? That would also explain why they reamined silent for so long. They did not know what the longer term outcome would look like in numbers of failures. It would not have taken long for someone to extrapolate likely failure rates and the then ever decreasing numbers of failures as time went on. That theory would also explain why not all IMS bearings have failed. Those that had an acceptabel tolerance in regards to quality and 'fit' have stood the test of endurance as they were expected to. All read the stories of bearings being 'upgraded' only to be told it was 'like new and seals intact'. That may also explain why the instances of failure are tailing off. The cars are out of production for 10 years but still using a theoretical bell shaped graph it would show a peak of failure 'those that were going to fail' and then reduce as those that were ok reaming and others are repalced as precautions. To cut a boring theory short. There are a number of factors at play. Quality of the parts. Maybe how you drive the car as low revs high gear combinations would increase the stress on the relevant parts and if they were not as they should be increase the wear/damage. On the upside. IF any of this theorisation were true then the higher numbers of failures that have been seen will not be repeated and although no guarrantees in life, other than death and taxes, those that remain are less likely to fail because they were ok in the first place. A caveat to that would be very late models that have very very low mileages whose less than perfect IMS has not had enough run time yet. A double caveat is that Porsche may at some point between 2001 and 2005 realised the issue and changed production or supplier. That may explain the other theory that there were higher instances of failure in 2001 and 2002 cars - again all theory - I do not work for Porsche. If I did I would be sneaking into the secrets room to find out the truth lol. Regards GW

Re: Ins Bearing Failure Hi 486ROB , I can't use your data unless you give me more accurate details of the entries below: date inputted: member: model: engine size: purchase date: date registered: mileage (at purchase): mileage (now): bearing (orig./replacement): failure data (if applicable): comment: Thanks to all other members who've recently inputted data. Now have data from 86 996s. :thumbs:

Alex, just wanted to say, this is a great thread, thanks for taking the time to keep it all up to date. date inputted: 21 September 2015 member: jaykay127 model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 26 August 2015 mileage (at purchase): 89600 mileage (now): 90500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Car has full service history and at no point have the IMS nor the RMS been changed.

jaykay127 Forgot to put date registered

Sorry Date registered 4th July 2002

:thumb:

So... any makings of a trend and a theory from your data yet Alex? Edit to add, sorry just read your post on the previous page!

[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.]

Interesting work Alex - well one - but in terms of assessing the chance of any owner experiencing a failure - it would have been even better if you knew how many owners each car had because that then reduces the chances of experiencing a failure by the number of owners as well. Overall I agree it is a relatively small failure problem and by no means compares with bore scoring (for example). Baz

Cheers Baz :thumb:

Here you go - top job Alex! date inputted: 09 Oct 2015 member: tempers model: 996 C4 Cabrio engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 30 Sept 2009 date registered 19 Mar 1999 mileage (at purchase): 33000 mileage (now): 49000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Car has full service history

Baz, are you suggesting bore score is more likely? Whilst not uncommon the general view I have picked up from this forum and the popular Porsche magazines is that it's a pretty small % of 996s that would suffer from this

Bore score on the 996.2 and the 997.1 is collosal compared to ims bearing issues. ALL of them will suffer from it at some point.

date inputted: 19/11/15 member: paulc2 model: 996.2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/12/06 date registered: 01/05/04 mileage (at purchase): 26000 mileage (now): 53000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:I'll try to stop worrying!

date inputted: 03/02/16 member: maddy2904 model: 996.2 C4 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 16/01/16 date registered: 02/09/02 mileage (at purchase): 45161 mileage (now): 45439 bearing (orig./replacement): Origianl failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: RMS seal replaced by OPC on 26/0106

:thumbs:

date inputted: 05/02/16 member: stasis model: 996.1.C2 tip engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 1/05/2008 date registered: 06/01/98 mileage (at purchase): 71000 mileage (now): 96,000 bearing (orig./replacement): replaced in 2003, at 90k, had not failed, preventative only failure data (if applicable):none good data alex, very interesting analysis, everyone should reply, takes 2 minutes.

Not sure your mileage is correct Stasis. IMS replaced in 2003 at 90k miles? Car purchased in 2008 with 71k miles? Rick

Thank you kind sir! :thumbs:

Hello there... details as requested date inputted: 23/02/2016 member: cobrars model: 996.1 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 02/03/2013 date registered: 15/03/1999 mileage (at purchase): 85324 mileage (now): 90354 bearing (orig./replacement): Original !!! - (edited 06-08-16) Thought was replacement. failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Full Hartech Rebuild at 65,000 after Porsche Dealer forgot to put oil in after a service, took for test drive and seized the engine.... :thumbs:

:thumbs:

Which dealer was that? I'd love to book my next service with them, assuming they paid for the rebuild!

Ha, it's not that simple i'm afraid. I'm not 100% on which dealer it was so don't want to name on a public forum without checking. basically, Porsche dealer seized engine, believe it or not, rang customer and said car was knackerd and was nothing to do with them. After an 18 month legal battle, the dealer was ordered to reimburse customer..... By the end of it all the customer had a pocket full of cash, a car with no engine and a box of stripped down engine bits..... (engine was stripped for court case to prove engine had seized due to lack of oil) :judge: Then it was off to Hartech...... :thumb:

That is frickin' APPALLING. The sheer gall of the dealer to lie about it to that extent... You wonder whether it was just the 17 year old trainee tech who forgot to put the oil in and lied about it - everyone else believed him. Surely not though... This has to go right up to the management?!

Review added to 1st post on page 1, or see last page here: http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=102070

oops you are right should be ims at 2013, corrected below date inputted: 05/02/16 member: stasis model: 996.1.C2 tip engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 1/05/2008 date registered: 06/01/98 mileage (at purchase): 71000 mileage (now): 96,000 bearing (orig./replacement): replaced in 2013 at 90k, had not failed, preventative only failure data (if applicable):none

date inputted: 08/03/16 member: Paul Stevens64 model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 15/06/2015 date registered: 15/09/2002 mileage (at purchase): 57,000 mileage (now):60,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original. Checked in August when clutch replaced. failure data (if applicable):none

What did you replace it with because I was under the impression you couldn't get the original 1998 type dual row bearings any more?

date inputted: 08/03/16 member: Jamie© model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 13/11/2015 date registered: 07/10/2002 mileage (at purchase): 74,000 mileage (now):77,000 bearing (orig./replacement): unknown failure data (if applicable):none

FWIW I think some of the comments are disingenuous . Firstly, there are 1000's of Porsche owners/drivers who know nothing about any technical aspect of their car and never will - they drive it, end of. The poll alex started was an attempt to put an enthusiast perspective on the numbers and frequency - nothing more, nothing less. The quoting of 'class action disclosure' is useless at best since it's only referring to what Porsche in the USA fixed and we know what OPC's do when stuff is apparently broken - they swap it. Some of you guys are painful - seriously.

I'll give it a go Alex: Date input: 15/03/16 Member: petero Model: 996.2 C4 Engine: 3.6 Purchase Date: 05/03/2016 Date Registered: 18/03/2003 Mileage (at purchase): 130,800 Mileage (now): 131,000 Bearing (orig/replacement): N/A - Engine rebuilt on new Porsche short engine @ 125k due to piston/head/bore damage on one cylinder. Failure Data: None Comment: IMS bearing was fine on original engine and now has later type IMS which came with new block.

Your registration date is incorrect my friend. When was it registered? :thumbs:

My bad! 2003 - wishful thinking on my part I guess!

Corrected it now :thumb:

:thumb:

Info for your survey Alex. Date input: 03/04/16 Member: Steve Gom Model: 996.1 C2 Engine: 3.4 Purchase Date: 03/05/2015 Date Registered: 27/11/1997 Mileage (at purchase): 91,500 Mileage (now): 95,400 Bearing (orig/replacement): Replacement Failure Data: None Comment: IMS bearing replaced by Jaz in Nov 2007 at 62,800 miles.

Just seen this thread: date inputted: 05/04/16 member: Les model: 9962 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 04/05/13 date registered: 10/09/02 mileage (at purchase): 71000 mileage (now): 79000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): Valve seat dropped destroyed engine comment: Cold engine reversing out of garage. Total failure. As soon as my bore score issues are felt with I'll update again.

Here's my info Alex... date inputted: 05/04/16 member: joewhite2417 model: 9962 C4 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: June 2015 date registered: Sept 2001 mileage (at purchase): 78000 mileage (now): 81000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): IMS failed 27/2/16 comment: Failure occured at low speed pulling away from lights. Dramatic power loss evident but no noise initially. Bag of spanners on restart.

Thank you.

Here's my info. Didn't want to post earlier as if might tempt fate and I'm superstitious like that date inputted: 21/04/16 member: Ursaminor1 model: 996.2 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 29/09/14 date registered: 23/01/04 mileage (at purchase): 106000 mileage (now): 111000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original - to my knowledge failure data (if applicable): comment: Last service Indy said all ok clean and no concerns. Cut open oil filter and no particles found.

Hi here is my info.. date inputted: 61/04/16 member: thekman model: 996 C4S Cab engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 25/09/15 date registered: 01/09/2004 mileage (at purchase): 38577 mileage (now): 40183 bearing (orig./replacement): Original until now failure data (if applicable): comment: Currently the engine is out owing to power steering failure. Had IMS and RMS checked, both showing some signs of oil so having both replaced as a precaution.

date inputted: 23/05/2016 member: G3BML model: 996.2 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 17/09/2015 date registered: 02/01/2003 mileage (at purchase): 50400 mileage (now): 54300 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Carried out two oil changes since owning the car, inspected oil filter. No signs of metal in filter.

:thumbs:

Date input: 26/05/16 Member: Surfrider Model: 996 C4S Engine: 3.6 Purchase Date: 28/09/2007 Date Registered: 01/04/2002 Mileage (at purchase): 24,197 Mileage (now): 102,108 Bearing (orig/replacement): Replaced at 39,328 as preventative maint. with clutch change. Failure Data: None Comment:

Ragpicker 986 Boxster S 3.2 M96 Registered 2000 Mileage at purchase 132500 Bearing - original in replacement engine. Engine replaced Feb 2002 due to IMS failure at 25k miles

Purchase 04/2016 Built 2001/2002 996 c4s manual 115,000m good service history with RMS change last year Original IMS said to be fine original engine, no rebuild touch wood...still pulling like a train!

Purchased March 2016 Built 2000 994 C4 80k miles Original engine no rebuild

Members - your data will not be used if all data required is not given, as stated in the 1st post. Please can you update with the correct data.

Updated sorry :sad: date inputted: 08/07/16 member: stevepen model: 9961 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 26/04/16 date registered: 01/03/00 mileage (at purchase): 77200 mileage (now): 80290 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): None

Date input: 09/07/16 Member: C4pperS Model: 996 C4S Engine: 3.6 Purchase Date: 28/03/2016 Date Registered: 01/04/2004 Mileage (at purchase): 79,600 Mileage (now): 81,300 Bearing (orig/replacement): As far as I'm aware original Failure Data: None Comment: Still going strong :thumbs:

:thumbs:

Date input: 06/08/16 Member: Gurmot Model: 996 C2 tip Engine: 3.6 Purchase Date: 31/07/2016 Date Registered: 05/07/2002 Mileage (at purchase): 67,500 Mileage (now): 68,000 Bearing (orig/replacement): As far as I'm aware original Failure Data: None Comment: having an inspection at a local specialist in a couple weeks. They have already recommended replacing the IMS at a cost of £1300 plus vat. Very interested in this thread as I am inclined to get it done but still not sure.

Save your money. If you do decide you want to change a perfectly good bearing for an unknown one, the best replacement would be a standard off the shelf bearing for around £30 and to have the job done, budget around a few hours labour. Whoever quoted you £1300 + VAT is ripping you off with an inferior product, unless of course they're talking about removing the engine, stripping it and replacing the IMS assembly with the later 997.2 design shaft, in which case would be a bargain.

They told me they would need to remove the engine but I didn't check on the extent of the work. I will ask before I do anything, and this thread has been enormously useful in helping me understand the issue and weigh up the probabilities of failure. The cost of failure is still unclear but if it could be £10k plus I may have the IMS sorted for peace of mind. I will chew it over.

Gawd - how on earth can they diagnose the need for a (very overpriced) IMS bearing without inspecting the car? (Welcome - nice to see you here BTW).

They probably read Total911

:floor:

To be fair, I turned up without an appointment and one of the owners came and sat with me for 10 minutes to discuss my needs. I really wanted to book in for an inspection but I asked about IMS and then he gave me the info above. I told him I would discuss IMS with them again after the inspection. I asked about simply inspecting the IMS bearing and removing the seal and he said something about a weakness or problem with the IMS shaft which would only be addressed by an upgrade (all new to me). I can only assume the work he was discussing was much more than simply replacing the bearing but I will report back when I know more.

How do people get tyres fitted as that's a good price? The wheels are unmarked and I don't want some chimp scuffing them because I don't want the hassle of repair.

date inputted: 16/10/16 member: PandA996 model: 996 C2 Targa engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 30/07/04 date registered: 29/11/02 mileage (at purchase): 5,000 mileage (now): 39,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

date input: 24/11/2016 member: maldren model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 23/6/2016 date registered: 01/08/03 mileage (at purchase): 86,400 mileage (now): 90,100 bearing (orig./replacement): Replaced at service 84,030 failure data (if applicable): None

Since starting this thread back in March 2015 (nearly 2 years ago) there's not been one reported 996 ims bearing failure as far as I'm aware. On the other hand we have witnessed (correct me if I'm wrong) around 4 failures in 997s within that time period. Not good for the 997.

Date input: 03/05/17 Member: JS1500 Model: 996.1 C4 Engine size: 3.4 Purchase date: 17/02/17 Date registered: 04/08/00 Mileage (at purchase): 103,000 Mileage (now): 104,100 Bearing (orig./replacement): Believed original Failure data (if applicable): None

Date input: 04/05/17 Member: Peterg1955 Model: 996.2 C2 Manual Engine size: 3.6 Purchase date: 22/04/17 Date registered: 03/07/02 Mileage (at purchase): 53,770 Mileage (now): 54,235 Bearing (orig./replacement): Believed original Failure data (if applicable): None

Date input: 04/05/17 Member: Delanor Model: 996.1 C2 manual Engine size: 3.4 Purchase date: 14/06/15 Date registered: 01/08/98 Mileage (at purchase): 86,146 Mileage (now): 91,474 Bearing (orig./replacement): Believed original Failure data (if applicable): None Comment: Dual mass flywheel & clutch replaced at 86,146, IMS inspected & RMS replaced.

Date input: 21/06/2017 Member: bparry911 Model: 996.1 C4 manual Engine size: 3.4 Purchase date: 08/05/2017 Date registered: January 1999 Mileage (at purchase): 53,471 Mileage (now): 54,150 Bearing (orig./replacement): Believed original Failure data (if applicable): None

date inputted : 12/12/17 member: Brucky74 model : 996.2 Targa Tip engine size : 3.6 purchase date: 02/02/17 date registered : 10/01/03 mileage (at purchase): 60000 mileage (now): 64000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: One owner car, confirmed original bearing

Thank you.

date inputted: 12/12/17 member: willy model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 03/12/12 date registered: mid 1998 mileage (at purchase): 112000 mileage (now): 138000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original - dual row failure data (if applicable): comment: Recent clutch\flywheel replacement with IMS inspection.

:thumbs:

date inputted: 12/12/17 member: Apl911 model: 996.2 c2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 11/2017 date registered: 01/04 mileage (at purchase): 67000 mileage (now): 67500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: idle is a bit wobbly. I plan to replace when I do the clutch.

date inputted: 12/12/17 member: Asterix_the_gaul model: 996.1 c2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 11/2017 date registered: 01/99 mileage (at purchase): 93000 mileage (now): 93500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original Dual row failure data (if applicable): comment: regular annual oil changes regardless of mileage in last 10 years of history, will continue this..

date inputted: 25/1/18 member: Jpitshanger model: 996.2 c2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 10/2016 date registered: 2002 mileage (at purchase): 74000 mileage (now): 77000 bearing (orig./replacement): EPS replacement failure data (if applicable): Had not failed. Smooth but slight play comment: Clutch and RMS were being done so bearing inspected. Replacement not necessary but decided to do it anyway as gearbox was dropped.

date inputted: 05/02/18 member: SpennyUK71 model: 996.2 C4 Tiptronic engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 03/02/18 date registered: 02/03/2002 mileage (at purchase): 40,000 mileage (now): 40,250 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: As a new 996 owner, I am scared to death that this little tinker is going to destroy my engine!! I have a small RMS leak and I am considering having this and the IMS replaced. However, this will cost me the best part of £1,800!!! Now I don't know what to do. PS, hello from a newbie!

The safest option with what you currently have is when you have the RMS replaced, have your ims coverplate removed and check the bearing for any play. When you realise there's nothing wrong with it, ping off the outer bearing seal. By doing this, the bearing will then be forever lubricated by the engine oil and dramatically reduce any issue you may have. It shouldn't cost much more than what you'll be paying to have the RMS replaced. There is no guarantee with ANY aftermarket replacement and engine builders like Hartech have regularly seen failed 'upgrades'. Save your money and follow the above advice. :thumb: Oh, and welcome to the forum - you're in a safe place here :thumbs:

date inputted: 03/04/2018 member: fot0 (tony) model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 01/10/15 date registered: 28/10/98 mileage (at purchase): 94800 mileage (now): 99800 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Recent engine drop (myself) to repair cracked head B1. New IMS housing prior to purchase, decided to leave as is. RMS shows minimal weep nothing to concern me. Fitted magnetic sump plug as precautionary measure - see my blog on pcgb forum

date inputted: 17/04/2018 member: EGTE model: 996.2 c2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 17/4/2015 (3 years today) date registered: 04/02 mileage (at purchase): 74000 mileage (now): 84000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): None comment: Much happier engine on Millers 10W-50 than anything thinner.

date inputted: 17/04/2018 member: Kingb4 model: 996.2 c2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 20/2/2018 date registered: 03/02 mileage (at purchase): 80000 mileage (now): 80600 bearing (orig./replacement): Unknown failure data (if applicable): None comment: I have all past receipts and there isnt a record of the IMS being changed (they did the IMS seal in 2016)

IMS Survey Date input 07/05/18 Member Jockmog Model Carrera 2 Engine size 3.4 Purchase date 04/05/18 Date registered 01/07/2001 Mileage at purchase 74420 Mileage now 74570 Bearing Believed original Failure Dat N/A Comment This is really good work! I have only just purchased the car and I am thinking about a IMS and clutch change.

date inputted: 14/05/18 member: dombo model: 996.2 C2 Cab silver/black engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 06/05/17 date registered: March 2003 mileage (at purchase): 69000 mileage (now): 73000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Last service Sept 2017 oil filter cut open and inspected for bits by specialist 9e. None showing. This will be checked every 12 months when serviced by 9e.

date inputted: 10/06/2018 member: eabeukes model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 11//17 date registered: 17/03/1998 mileage (at purchase): 135000 mileage (now): 137500 bearing (orig./replacement): replacement failure data (if applicable): Possible replacement 85k, 121k. Replaced 130k, unit faulty and replaced again at 137k comment: Rebuilt engine at 137k due to cam timing. Internals still excellent condition.

date inputted: 18/6/18 member: Cybot7 model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 03/02/18 date registered: 02/01/2001 mileage (at purchase):29400 mileage (now): 30510 bearing (orig./replacement): Original. No mention of any major work in FSH failure data (if applicable):N/A comment: So far so good.

date inputted: 18/6/18 member: rdodger model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 03/05/18 date registered: 01/05/2004 mileage (at purchase):68,214 mileage (now): 68,746 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable):N/A comment: Seal removed at 68,214

date inputted: 22/6/18 member: stotty model: 996 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 01/04/08 date registered: 01/01/00 mileage (at purchase):57,000 mileage (now): 169,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable):N/A comment: Bearing checked when RMS replaced Feb '18. Seal has gone, but bearing well lubricated and showing no outward signs of failure. Discussed option with Indy and decided to leave well alone.

Date inputted 23/6/2018 Member Nytol Model C2 Engine 3.4 Date purchased Summer 2012 Year 1999 Mileage at purchase 92k Current mileage 125k Bearing original No failure

date inputted: 30/06/2018 member: moodytunes model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 10/2016 date registered: 14/01/2000 mileage (at purchase): 83,693 mileage (now): 89,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: No issues to date

date inputted: 2/7/18 member: sbhassall model: 9961 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 24/6/18 date registered: 1/6/2001 mileage (at purchase): 109300 mileage (now): 109485 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: RMS and clutch changed at 94,000 miles by Cath Burrows,IMS not changed

IMS failure 1998 C4 Hi l was reading the update on IMS failures and thought I should share my experience in November last year.. I had bought the car a year earlier and had gone thro a mixed experience with specialists including one listening to the bearing with a stethoscope and it seemed fine. In November I took it to the same specialist and asked them to cut open the oil filter when they changed the oil. Shiny bits of metal in the filter and I posted on here at the time . I got three specialists to respond the one above said go and run it for 1000 miles and check again , one said don't run the car again until the bearing is changed the last said drive it to us , about 130 miles , but no more. I used the last one and when they took the engine out the bearing was so degenerated they reckoned it would have failed in 10 miles. The sump had bits of broken bearing in it. So at 70000 they bearing failed. The car had had very limited use for 4 years before I bought it at 62000 miles and while the low mileage was attractive the downside may well have been the effect of this on the bearing. So these cars do still fail from this potentially defective component.

...mine collapsed at 69k miles...no warning... dwarf and bearing debris found throughout the engine when stripped down...

...no dwarfs were found in the engine...swarf was though

Can you post your full details up then: date inputted: member: model: engine size: purchase date: date registered: mileage (at purchase): mileage (now): bearing (orig./replacement): failure data (if applicable): comment:

date inputted: 20/11/18 member: 996 Simon model: 9961 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: June 2014 date registered: March 1998 mileage (at purchase): 80,000 mileage (now): 108529 bearing (orig./replacement): Original (nothing in the service history) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment:

:thumbs: I'll try and get my spreadsheet updated over the weekend. Well over 100 cars now.

date inputted: 1 Dec 2018 member: Griffter model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3400 purchase date: Oct 2015 date registered: April 2001 mileage (at purchase): 42000 mileage (now): 48000 bearing (orig./replacement): original as far as I know failure data (if applicable): comment: squeaky clean underneath

Just updated the data collection this morning. Now have data from over 130 cars. Results here: http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=102070&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=55

date inputted: 2/12/18 member:SaintsPaul model:996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 17/11/18 date registered: 8/3/00 mileage (at purchase):76,000 mileage (now): 85,550 bearing (orig./replacement) riginal failure data (if applicable): comment: A bit late to the party but thought I should add my data. Gearbox rebuilt in the summer so had bearing checked. Original bearing in great condition and I had the dust shield removed on the bearing. _________________

Sorry wrong purchase date. Should be 12 not 18

date inputted: 05/12/18 member: GRIBBO model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: JULY 2013 date registered: Feb 04 mileage (at purchase): 23,000 mileage (now): 36,500 bearing replaced with EPS oil fed at Autofarm Aug 2018 failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Needed to replace corroded brake lines, while the engine and box were out decided to change clutch, RMS and upgrade the IMS bearing. The original bearing is in perfect condition.

:thumbs:

Date inputted: 5/12/2018 Member: burty Model: 996 2001 C4 Engine size : 3.4 Purchase date: Nov 2018 Date registered: 11/10/2001 Mileage at purchase: 61000 Mileage now: 62000 IMS: Unknown Comment: Last owner had the car for 15years, all MOT's and service history with lots of bills. No mention of the bearing being done so guessing it likely hasn't been done. EDIT bearing changed this week 12/9/19 It was original and still good at 65000 miles.

IMS member: coopertrooper2001 model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: August 2013 age: First reg: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 37000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Replaced at 50k whilst doing clutch. No sign of any issue but Indie suggesting replacing as had the weakest type. LN installed. Now at 81k no issues.

date inputted: 11/12/18 member: edh model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 15/10/16 date registered: 27/10/98 mileage (at purchase): 56000 mileage (now): 62000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

date inputted: 12/12/18 member: Teffers model: 996 C4S engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 27/9/17 date registered: 10/12/2004 (from memory) mileage (at purchase): 47k mileage (now): 53k bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

date inputted: 13/12/2018 member: SDJC model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/04/2013 date registered: 03/2004 mileage (at purchase): 22400 mileage (now): 43800 bearing (orig./replacement): Original

date inputted: 13/12/18 member: X51 996 model: 996.2 C2 Manual engine size: 3.6 (X51 Power Kit) purchase date: November 2016 date registered: 14/03/03 mileage (at purchase): 64k mileage (now): 65k bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: IMS Cover/Seal was replaced some years back during a clutch change - bearing is original.

The more we make of virtualpalomarwest sizegenetics review this the more it will hurt our pockets

How so? The data collected shows that bearing failure is very rare and nothing to worry about.

...nothing to worry about :floor:

Rather than clutter up this excellent data thread it might be better to have this debate elsewhere on another thread. Rick

:yeah:

Just for info .. our garage has done 5 or 6 bearing replacements that im aware of in 4 years .... not that many is it ! 5 had no real wear and was done at owner request .. as far as im concerned if people are too scared to drive the car for fear of these packing up then its worth doing ... not something i advise .. i just say have it looked at when doing a clutch . Only one had a serious amount of play in it and was caught just in time .. but due to small parts of metal in the oil the supplying company wont put a warrenty on it .. they insist on haveing the old bearing back to inspect before covering it . Reguardless though .. the owner on that 1 car was lucky . Boxsters seem to be the problem atm though .. one dead one at work and 2 others this year. Had a Cayman earlier this year with a snapped timing chain .. that was actually due to carbon build up in the bores .. never seen anything like that before. No details of the above cars but just in case its of any use then i posted it

date inputted: 13/01/2019 member: mavg model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 11/2018 date registered: 11/1999 mileage (at purchase): 78000 mileage (now): 80250 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

date inputted: 15/01/2019 member: Wh1t3Kn1ght model: 9961 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 13/10/2018 date registered: 15/12/2000 mileage (at purchase): 65029 mileage (now): 65391 bearing (orig./replacement): unknown failure data (if applicable): n/a comment:

IMS data - new owner date inputted: 15/05/2019 member: James03C4S model: 996 C4S 2003 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 13/05/2019 date registered: late 2003 I believe mileage (at purchase): 54400 mileage (now): 54700 bearing (orig./replacement): unknown but reliably informed that it's original as history of car has been traced back through George McMillan. failure data (if applicable): n/a comment: The car required a new RMS when I bought it so had the clutch and IMS inspected at the time. The bearing was found to be in perfect condition.

date inputted: 14/02/2020 (updated). member: DarthFaker model: 996.1 Carrera 4, Manual. engine: 3.4L M96.02 purchase date: 02/03/2019 date registered: 01/09/1999 mileage (at purchase): 74k mileage (now): 82k bearing (orig./replacement): Original Dual Row failure data (if applicable): IMS worn @ 80k (Oct 2019) comment: IMS bearing replaced. Engine flush used and oil changed, replaced with roller type bearing. Filter checked after 2000 miles and clear of debris.

Date imputed 13/6/2019 Member brucey1 Model 996 .1 c2 Engine 3.4 Jan 2001 Mileage at purchase 79000 Mileage now 82000 Original bearing New clutch fitted at 63000 by portiacraft , I take it the bearing was inspected at the time

tappets done in 2017. In process of slowly replaceing all consumables. Oil change 6 monthly, magnetic sump plug & nillers oil analysis due at next service

Re: ***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRE Here's my data for my car. date inputted: 16/09/19 member: Hughb model: 996 Carrera 2 manual engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 04/07/19 date registered: 01/07/03 mileage (at purchase): 85868 mileage (now): 86112 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: clutch change at 48000, but no record on invoice of any inspection of ims bearing

Here's data my for my car. date inputted: 18/10/19 member: AK996 model: 996 Carrera c4s tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 11/10/19 date registered: 01/01/03 mileage (at purchase): 71000 mileage (now): 71200 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: Original IMS , no mention of ims in paperwork/history.

Here's data for my car Date Inputted: 30.10.19 Member: PhilipR Model: 996 Tip, Cab Engine Size: 3.2 Purchase Date: August 2019 Date Registered: 2001 Mileage [at purchase]: 54,300 Mileage [predent]: 55779 Bearing: Original Comment: Original IMS

Updated my original post.

Please feed back when they tell you what it is. I'd be surprised if it was your IMS bearing.

DELETE THIS POST PLEASE

Possibly so, the IMS bearing may be goosed, but it may not be the cause of the problem. Could have had a jammed valve or something that then put too much strain on the chains and bearing causing them to also fail.

Confirmed as IMS by specialist.

Why?

2yr update: date inputted: 21/12/19 member: willy model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 03/12/12 date registered: mid 1998 mileage (at purchase): 112000 mileage (now): 149000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original - dual row failure data (if applicable): comment: Clutch\flywheel replacement with IMS inspection @138000.

date inputted: 31.12.19 member: Dave.P model: 996 Carrera 4 manual engine size: 3.6 purchase date: October 2017 date registered: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 63000ish mileage (now): 65500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original ( presumed) failure data (if applicable): comment: clutch change and gearbox rebuild at 55k ish invoice showing new ims seal, so presumably checked then but not replaced

date inputted: 01/2020 member: jnj model: 996.2 C4 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 03/10/2018 date registered: 03/2002 mileage (at purchase): 124000 km mileage (now): 140000 km bearing (orig./replacement): Factory rebuilt short block at 85000km, reason unknown failure data (if applicable): comment: Now has bore scoring and engine under rebuilt.

Ims upgrade replacement Hi guys if any one lives in the south i can recommend JMG porsche They did a fantastic job on my 996 c4s and very Reasonably priced there near Bournemouth starf are very knowledgable. Job was fantastic.

Look Car Check

So far so good date inputted: 28/03/2020 member: Rad Dougall model: 996.2 C4S Cab engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/04/18 date registered: 01/05/2004 mileage (at purchase): 72000 mileage (now): 93500 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: considering swapping it out myself next time I'm under it doing the old exhaust and reverse gear position sensor as I do drive it hard sometimes.

date inputted: 27/4/20 member: Brian Goldman model: 996 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 11/2000 date registered: 11/2000 mileage (at purchase):0 mileage (now): 60,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): none comment: original owner, had IMS checked by Porsche when clutch was replaced at 50k, and they said it was in excellent condition and recommended not to replace (they could have easily taken my Money to replace - given the hype)

IMS Name Robert Boyer Model 996 C2 Year 2001 Engine 3.4 X51 Purchase date July 2002 Date Registered in UK August 2002 Mileage at Purchase 11,000 Mileage now 33,339 IMS - Original Failure Never an issue

date inputted: 25/11/20 member: corneg1 (Graham) model: 996 C4 cab engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 02/2020 date registered: 03/2003 mileage (at purchase):102000 mileage (now): 104000 bearing (orig./replacement): replacement ceramic failure data (if applicable): none comment: was replaced as a precaution while new clutch was fitted at 102000miles. Report was the original look fine.

date inputted: 25/11/20 member: Aria model: 996 Carrera 2 manual engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 09/20 date registered: 08/01 mileage (at purchase): 81k mileage (now): 82k bearing (orig./replacement): LN replacement 78k in 12/18 failure data (if applicable): comment: old brg seemed fine when it came out.

date inputted: 19/01/21 member: martutd model: 996 C4 tiptronic engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 01/08/09 date registered: 01/05/00 mileage (at purchase): 42000 mileage (now): 51000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

Date Inputted: 07/ 02/ 21 Member: Gordy748 Model: 996 C2 Cab Engine Size: 3.6 Purchase Date: April 2020 Date Registered: 2003 Mileage [at purchase]: 63,000 Mileage [present]:65,000 Bearing: Original Comment: Car recently had clutch replaced, IMS bearing checked and found to be in good condition

Date Inputted: 17/ 02/ 21 Member: L1OFF Model: 996.2 C2 Engine Size: 3.6 Purchase Date: Feb 2021 Date Registered: 2002 Mileage [at purchase]: 90,400 Mileage [present]:90,650 Bearing: Replacement EPS Ceramic Comment: Previous Owner had clutch replaced, IMS bearing replaced, original checked and found to be in good condition at 89143 miles.

My input for what it's worth date inputted: 06/03/2021 member: cottie model: 996.2 tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 05/01/2021 date registered: 15/04/2002 mileage (at purchase): 76200 mileage (now): 76600 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): none known comment: engine is original, 19 services and no bore scoring

date inputted: 01/06/2021 member: HarriB model: 996.1 C2 Manual Coupe engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 01/03/2020 date registered: 16/04/1999 mileage (at purchase): 61000 mileage (now): 72000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): none known comment: still on the original clutch, no engine issues & doesn't burn oil

date inputted: 26/06/21 member: CTH model: 996.1 C2 manual cab engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 21/08/12 date registered: 01/09/99 mileage (at purchase): 37000 miles mileage(now): 45411 miles bearing (orig/replacement): replacement failure data (if applicable): n/a comment: clutch & flywheel replaced at 45248 miles, so made sense to replace IMS at same time, been worrying about IMS failing for last 5 yrs! LN Engineering, Dual row IMS Retrofit at Revolution Porsche near Leeds. Original IMS appeared like new, sent off to Illinois to validate registration & warranty.

date inputted: 25/10/21 member: Bluebird911 model: 996.1 C4 Tip cab engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 15/08/2007 date registered: 11/04/2000 mileage (at purchase): 43000ish miles mileage(now): 98479 miles bearing (orig/replacement): replacement failure data (if applicable): Replaced as a precaution comment: Engine and gearbox needed to be removed, so looked at the bearing. Looked ok in situ, but decided to remove and replace with an EPS Ceramic Bearing Kit. Now that it is out, there is a little bit of noise coming from it when spun, but probably still serviceable. It's a dual row bearing.

IMS data Date Inputted: 11/Nov/2021 Member: PaulSC4 Model: 996.1 C4 Coupe Engine Size: 3.4 Purchase Date: November 2016 Date Registered: 2001 Mileage [at purchase]: 76000 Mileage [present]:98000 Bearing: Replacement Comment: Replaced due to engine out for clutch; original IMS bearing checked and found to be in good condition

Date Inputted: 17/Jun/2022 Member: X911 Model: 996.2 C4S Engine Size: 3.6 Purchase Date: November 2021 Date Registered: 2003 Mileage [at purchase]: 63500 Mileage [present]:66000 Bearing: EPS Cylindrical Oil Fed Replacement Comment: Replaced due to gearbox out for clutch and to investigate IMS bearing for signs of wear due to metal shavings in oil filter; original IMS bearing checked and found to have slight play therefore replaced

date inputted: 23 Nov 2022 member: pawshie model: 996 C2 Tiptronic engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 12/11/22 date registered: 01/05/03 mileage (at purchase): 129k mileage (now): 129k bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: no mention of IMS in service history.

Date of input.1st November 2023. Member. Mark Vine. Model. Carrera 4 S. Engine 3.6 Purchased. May 2023. Date registered. 2003 Mileage 82000 Mileage now. 87000 Bearing.(original / replacement) original. Failure date. N /A Comment : just stripped the engine down to rebuild it, to find it is the original bearing.

Date Inputted: 16/11/2023 Member: Y10RGO Model: 996.2 C2 Engine Size: 3.6 Purchase Date: June 2023 Date Registered: Feb 2003 Mileage [at purchase]: 135,600 Mileage [present]: 136,450 Bearing: Original Comment: No issues currently. Last checked at 120k miles.

date inputted: 30 Nov 2022 member: Stupidget model: 996 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 2021 date registered: 2001 mileage (at purchase): 85k mileage (now): 92k bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment: I had a new clutch fitted in 2021 along with the IMS Direct Oil Feed Mod. No issues reported.

Quotes source post: 813608

date inputted: 07/12/2023 member: desyrascal82 model: 996.1 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 29/11/2023 date registered: 14/06/99 mileage (at purchase): 110,645 mileage (now): 111,487 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): comment:

date inputted: 02/01/2024 member: Splendidmcawesome model: 996.1 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 10/08/2022 date registered: 01/02/1998 mileage (at purchase): 93,000 mileage (now): 101,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment:

date inputted: 14/1/24 member: corneg1 (Graham) model: 996 .2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 03/2022 date registered: 10/2001 mileage (at purchase): 94000 mileage (now): 99600 bearing (orig./replacement): replacement failure data (if applicable): none comment: was replaced as a precaution when new clutch was fitted at 89000 miles.

date inputted: 24/01/2024 member: Black-Adder model: 996 .2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 16/05/2013 date registered: 03/2004 mileage (at purchase): 64,000 mileage (now): 101,900 bearing (orig./replacement): original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: no issues

date inputted: 01/02/2024 member: Kersidan model: C4S 996 .2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 01/03/2021 date registered: 10/2003 mileage (at purchase): 57,000 mileage (now): 62659 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement (EPS) failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Replaced at time of purchase along with clutch and RMS (precautionary).

date inputted: 10/02/2024 member:Thunderace model: 996-1 cabrio engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 27/05/2020 date registered: 14/12/2000 mileage (at purchase): 73000 mileage (now): 99000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replaced failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: IMS was perfect when removed so replaced due to scaremongering

Date inputted 3/4/24 Member NailedOn Model 996 C2 Purchased May 2022 Date registered September 1998 Mileage at purchase 77,000 Mileage now 88,000 IMS bearing and shaft replaced in 2023 at 85,000 miles Comment. IMS bearing replaced as precaution. Inspection revealed bearing crumbling and also poor condition of shaft , so both replaced with Porsche components.

date inputted: 18/04/2024 member:iamdusky model: 996-2 c4s engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 18/03/2024 date registered: March 2003 mileage (at purchase): 85000 mileage (now): 86000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: IMS is original

date inputted: 2/05/2024 member:RobPC model: 996-2 c4s engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 6/10/2023 date registered: 2002 mileage (at purchase): 75,000 mileage (now): 76,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: Bearing replaced at the last service alongside RMS and clutch. Bearing showed no signs of imminent failure. Replaced as a precaution while the clutch was out.

date inputted: 21/7/2024 member:Andy2003 model: 996-2 c4 cab tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 3/3/2015 date registered: 2003 mileage (at purchase): 53K mileage (now): 149k bearing (orig./replacement): original failure data (if applicable): replaced at 93k as precaution. No sign of wear (I still have it)

member: Skoosh1970 model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 10/11/2023 First reg: 12/1999 mileage (at purchase): 106000 current mileage : 112000 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: New gearbox and clutch 2005, IMS checked ok. Checked again prior to purchase and still in excellent condition.

Imput data 19/11/2024 Member: JTBKK Model: 996.2 Carrera 4 Cabriolet Engine size: 3.6 Purchase date: 10/10/2020 First reg: 11/2002 Mileage (at purchase): 33700 Current mileage : 58000 Bearing (orig./replacement): Original Failure date N/A

Imput data 19/11/2024 Member: Marty* Model: 996.1 Engine size: 3.4 Purchase date: 2018 First reg: 1/2000 Mileage (at purchase): 95000 km’s (Melbourne) Current mileage : ? Bearing (orig./replacement): Original Failure date N/A After buying my 996 I used it for a couple of months then decided to send it in to get the ims done. My mechanic found the bearing letting go with the bearings loose. He flushed out the engine multiple times installed the replacement bearing. He did say he was slightly concerned that it could have caused damage but luckily he caught it at the right time and the car never missed a beat once I got it back. I put on another 30000 miles and the car went to a new owner last year

Imput data 08/02/25 Member: NICK38 Model: 996.1 Carrera 2 Engine size: 3.4 Purchase date: 18/01/25 First reg: 09/2000 Mileage (at purchase): 95600 Current mileage : 95675 Bearing (orig./replacement): Original (full history and no mention of it) Failure date N/A

date inputted: 05/04/25 member: CigarMike model: 996.1 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 15/04/25 date registered: 15/04/25 mileage (at purchase): 36,837 mileage (now): 37,101 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement (LN Retro Kit) failure data (if applicable): No failure comment: With only 36,837 miles on a 24 year old engine, I decided that the piece of mind was worth the cost of replacement. Also had a new clutch installed.

date inputted: 06/05/25 member: sunnyspells model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 01/04/25 date registered: 15/11/99 mileage (at purchase): 71650 mileage (now): 71810 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement (LN) failure data (if applicable): Not failed comment: Previous owner changed it at 64341 and put a new clutch, RMS and low temp thermostat. Unless its 'The IMS Solution' it probably needs to be changed again soon?!!

date inputted: 07/05/25 member: jagd model: 996.2 c4 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 15/04/24 date registered: 25/01/22 mileage (at purchase): 81,200 mileage (now): 83,500 bearing (orig./replacement): original and replacement with the EPS failure data (if applicable): No failure, just a tiny leak comment: I replace the original due to replacement of clutch and RMS, it was the wrong decision, after 1000 miles, the new IMS EPS was leaking badly and the car run out of oil. I needed an engine rebuild. It was done in a specialist

If someone like me has an issue, Googles "IMS bearing," and stumbles upon your thread, they'll probably chime in with their own complaint and add their details to the thread. Suddenly, you're looking at a 90% failure rate.

Quotes source post: 813608

date inputted: 01/01/2026 member: Martyn Munro model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 21/11/2025 date registered: 20/12/2001 mileage (at purchase): 68405 mileage (now): 68927 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable):N/A comment: notes from last specialist service commented that there was an oil leak, he torqued it back up and felt that having serviced the car for years there was no evidence of damage visible at oil change and that replacement without need had greater risk.

date inputted: 07/01/2026 memberPhilBass911 model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: August 2025 age: First reg: 1999 mileage (at purchase): 12,333 bearing (orig./replacement): Replacement on replacement Porsche engine. Engine replaced at 40K. IMS replaced on this engine at 75K so 35K on the new engine. failure data (if applicable): N/A comment: | have no indication of the reason the original engine was replaced. It is mentioned in the service book but there is no further documentation.

Quotes source post: 813608

date inputted: 01/03/2026 Member: Damocles03 model: 996.2 C4 cab tip engine size: 3.6 purchase date: Oct 2024 age: First reg: 2002 mileage (at purchase): 81,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replaced original IMS bearing 25 Feb 2026 with Eternal Solutions IMS bearing. No symptoms, just preventative maintenance while engine was out for other work. failure data (if applicable): no failure or symptoms of failure. comment: original bearing was in pristine condition, running smoothly with no sign of deterioration whatsoever. I’ve kept it as a momento.

Hi I can input 2 cars date inputted: 19/03/2026 member: oliviervleminckx model: 996.1 C2 Coupe engine size: 3.4 purchase date: August 2022 age: First reg: 01/10/1998 mileage (at purchase): 215.705km (now at 238.400km) bearing (orig./replacement): replaced IMS by previous owner with a DOF example, was replaced together with clutch and RMS at around 200.000km. failure data (if applicable): N/A date inputted: 19/03/2026 member: oliviervleminckx model: 996.1 C2 Cab engine size: 3.4 purchase date: October 2025 age: First reg: 21/07/1999 mileage (at purchase): 154.884km (now at 155.035km) bearing (orig./replacement): original IMS (will be replaced when the clutch needs doing). failure data (if applicable): N/A

I’ve recently replaced my IMS at 105k miles date inputted: 29/03/2026 member: drrally model: 996.1 C2 Coupe (tiptronic) engine size: 3.4 purchase date: May 2025 age: First reg: 31/12/1999 mileage (at purchase): 101k bearing (orig./replacement): 105k miles, original bearing replaced after 4k miles driving with LN Engineering one failure data (if applicable): no failure, original bearing that came out after 105k in perfect condition Here is a link to the pictures from my build thread with pictures of the IMS and replacement LN Engineering one on page 2- Thread 'Deans 1999 996.1 Carrera 2 Aero' 22 Feb 2026 I’d looked at a few 911s before this one. Even a couple of Boxsters. Every time I got close, I couldn’t quite justify the splurge. Which is odd, because I’ve had some interesting stuff over the years including a proper Impreza rally car and a couple of serious BMW track builds. I also daily a sorted Panamera. So this wasn’t about speed. It was about finally owning a 911. First image I ever took of the car on collection Awaiting the ferry from Shetland to Aberdeen Then this Arctic Silver 1999 Carrera 2 Aero popped up in Shetland. Tiptronic... drrally 996 aero 996 c2 Replies: 42 Forum: Porsche 911 996 (1997-2005)

date inputted: 11/03/26 member: Lee Stevens model: 996.2 C2 engine size: 3.6 purchase date: 30/01/26 date registered: 28/05/2003 mileage (at purchase): 118,500 mileage (now): 120,000 bearing (orig./replacement): Replaced failure data (if applicable): Replaced at point of purchase at my cost by Eporsch, purely for when I come to sell it. Believe they use an ‘external’ solution.

date inputted: 13/04/2026 member: gixerJohn model: 996.1 C4 tip engine size: 3.4 purchase date: may 2013 date registered: 1999 mileage (at purchase): 79k mileage (now): 97k bearing (orig./replacement): replacement failure data (if applicable): none comment: Upgraded Hartech bearing 2014, no bore scoring

Date Inputted: 15/05/2026 Member: thomas6mason model: 996.1 C2 Manual Engine size: 3.4 Purchase date: April 2026 Date Registered: March 1998 Mileage at purchase: 110k Mileage currently: 111k Bearing: Original (Dual Row) Failure date: Not applicable

date inputted: 25/09/2026 member: zriha model: 996.1 C4 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 15/07/2026 date registered: 01/09/2000. mileage (at purchase): 91000 mileage (now): 92335 bearing (orig./replacement): Original failure data (if applicable): No comment: RMS was changed at 83.000 miles, IMS flange was removed and inspected.

Forgot to do mine after my rebuild: date inputted: 07/10/24 member: Alex model: 9961 C4 engine size: 3.7 purchase date: 03/03/14 date registered: 27/10/00 mileage (at purchase): 86100 mileage (now): 170,761 bearing (orig./replacement): Large 997 replacement failure data (if applicable): comment: Engine was rebuilt in 2024 at 170k. Original bearing replaced with the larger 997 bearing. Original bearing showed very minimal signs of wear and was in excellent condition for 170k miles / 5793 operating hours.

Me too: date inputted: 28/09/26 member: nathan274 model: 996.1 C2 engine size: 3.4 purchase date: 18/04/26 date registered: ??/01/99 mileage (at purchase): 126400 mileage (now): 127300 bearing (orig./replacement): Standard Dual Row (NSK BD20-17 A DDUA17 NX01) failure data (if applicable): No failure comment: Replaced bearing with a new standard spec dual row during a full engine rebuild. Bearing had previously been replaced in 2015 with an LN engineering upgrade.