987 earlier small ims bearing or later larger bearing? - Page 1 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Hi Everyone, a while ago I was lucky enough to drive a 987 boxster and I really loved it - what a great car. In fact I loved it so much I decided to buy one. So of course I came online to see what to look for and disaster - I read all the horror stories concerning ims bearings and engine failure. Inspite of this I still want a boxster but I'd like to run one with the safest and most reliable engine. From what I've read the 987 after 2006 seems to have a bigger and stronger ims bearing which is reputed to be more reliable. Trouble is if there is a problem with it the engine needs to come apart for repair. Of course there's the earlier model 987 up to 2006 with the smaller bearing. Apparently this has the advantage of being able to be replaced with the engine in situ. So my question is: would it be better to buy an earlier car with the easier to change bearing and immediately update it for a stronger after market item or should I buy the later car with the stronger but more difficult to change bearing and just hope for the best? I know the Gen 11 cars eliminate the bearing problem but unfortunately they're out of my price range. Many thanks for any help, Dave

I posted this a while ago, but here it is again:

The heading, illustrations, and engine numbers were extracted from the Porsche POSES System in the engine assembly/rebuild section of the workshop manual. The text at the bottom is mine, to give context. Edited by Richard Hamilton on Wednesday 13th February 21:46

anonymous said: [redacted] Here is the full document for the M96.26 3.2 S engine. I'll leave it to you to make your own assumption. http://www.richard-hamilton.co.uk/misc/porsche/987...

I suppose I am assuming that there was a change of bearing during the MY2005 engine period. The engine numbers quoted in the document prior to, and post, cover change are both 62.5 (5 being MY2005). It also says that the new cover can only be fitted along with a new intermediate shaft, so I assumed that it would be unlikely that there were two different covers and shafts with the same bearing. There are similar documents for the 987 M96.25, and 997 M96.05 (3.6L) engines. I think it is generally accepted that these engines also had intermediate shaft changes during MY2005.

I can't see how a small bearing could be fitted with the later cover. The "bolt" that goes in the centre of the bearing, which requires a larger hole in the cover, wouldn't fit the centre of the small bearing.

So lets ignore the fact that LN sells a bearing replacement kit and its merits except that they have experience with tens of thousands of kit sales. Why would they say that the only way to tell for sure in crossover years is to pull the transmission and look? What motive would they have in leading you to look before you buy? Especially since, once you buy, they don't offer exchanges or refunds if you assumed and it turns out you got the wrong one. They say every table which promises to show when the crossover was made has been proven wrong. And they say this because they have heard the sad tales from those who thought the tables told the absolute certain truth.

mikefocke said: So lets ignore the fact that LN sells a bearing replacement kit and its merits except that they have experience with tens of thousands of kit sales. Why would they say that the only way to tell for sure in crossover years is to pull the transmission and look? What motive would they have in leading you to look before you buy? Especially since, once you buy, they don't offer exchanges or refunds if you assumed and it turns out you got the wrong one. They say every table which promises to show when the crossover was made has been proven wrong. And they say this because they have heard the sad tales from those who thought the tables told the absolute certain truth. "Pull the transmission and look". Look at what? The bearing cover. So the Porsche workshop manual states the crossover engine numbers for the bearing cover. Of course, Porsche could be wrong. Edited by Richard Hamilton on Friday 15th February 23:25

I have a 3.2 05 Boxster 987S. Had IMS and RMS seals replaced last week. The tech said it had the larger IMS fitted so did not offer a replacement for piece of mind. Edited by wardpaa on Sunday 24th March 10:02

wardpaa said: I have a 3.2 05 Boxster 987S. Had IMS and RMS seals replaced last week. The tech said it had the larger IMS fitted so did not offer a replacement for piece of mind. Edited by wardpaa on Sunday 24th March 10:02 Would you mind posting your engine number? Or at least confirming if it's higher than the cut off that Richard posted above on 12th February? I think I will be looking at 3.2 Boxsters as a fun car this year and would be useful to know.

The bearing cover and seal changed as a result of leaks and the engine number in the Porsche issued document speaks to that cut-over. Under warranty, some engines were updated with the newer cover and seal. It says nothing about the type of IMS bearing inside the cover.

Ok, thanks, I get it now. So it's still a lottery. Pays your money and takes your chance.

mikefocke said: The bearing cover and seal changed as a result of leaks and the engine number in the Porsche issued document speaks to that cut-over. Under warranty, some engines were updated with the newer cover and seal. It says nothing about the type of IMS bearing inside the cover. The difference in bearing cover is also to do with the hole size in the centre (and different nut size) for the two different types of bearing support post on the other side.

The chance of IMS bearing failure is so small its not worth worrying about. Bore score, however, is another kettle of fish.

anonymous said: [redacted] The bearing cover is the support for the post upon which the bearing is mounted, so yes, it is load bearing. The later cover has a larger hole for the larger post for the larger bearing. You couldn't use a later cover on an early hearing.

Registered here specifically to post my findings as a point of reference. I had the clutch replaced in my 2005 Boxster S, Engine number 62504388, and inquired about IMS replacement as well. According to the mechanic, it did indeed have the larger IMS bearing as indicated in the document above and he therefore recommended that there was no need to replace it. Not posting this to infer that the engine numbers posted here and in the document are absolutes, but, I have found no documentation in the extensive service records that the IMS was ever upgraded on this car by the prior owner. Simply an FYI.

Richard Hamilton said: I posted this a while ago, but here it is again: