22 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHMid Year IMS Change?
Leading reported evidence
Check bearing size *before* grabbing the puller
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
On the other hand, maybe it will convince others to take two seconds to check the bearing size *before* grabbing the puller.
Leading evidence: 'Check bearing size *before* grabbing the puller' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check bearing size *before* grabbing the puller' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I'd say this is a lesson in where to take your car for service as any Porsche Indie would recognize the large bolt, or, even better, would have checked the engine number from the start.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
( or the LN PRO versions) and can be reinstalled using a sleeve to keep the retaining ring collapsed until installed/seated.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I'd say this is a lesson in where to take your car for service as any Porsche Indie would recognize the large bolt, or, even better, would have checked the engine number from the start.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
22 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T072535Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
You Tube
"
This week Jonny learns something new. A 2003 Porsche 911 is in the shop for an upgraded IMS bearing. Jonny is baffled when he figures out that the old IMS bearing is larger than normal and won't extract from the block. A quick call to our buddy Dana, a Porsche expert, yields no immediate answer. Dana makes a call to another Porsche expert and the mystery is solved. Porsche made a mid year design change in 2003...effectively making the IMS bearing non-removable without doing a complete engine tear down."
So to me it seems like this car had an engine replacement with the non removable bearing?
Wow! That's not good. I'm no expert but I did read a couple of posts here on RL once and I'm not sure I'd be happy reusing an extracted bearing like that. A lot of axial force is needed to break the retaining ring. Also, how would you re-insert with a new retaining ring. The old one is likely still in the IMS groove, or parts of it. I'd say this is a lesson in where to take your car for service as any Porsche Indie would recognize the large bolt, or, even better, would have checked the engine number from the start. Would be good to hear a RL expert's opinion.
This one did not have the integrated retaining ring, it has the regular snap ring.
The integrated retaining ring is on the dual row IMSB . ( or the LN PRO versions) and can be reinstalled using a sleeve to keep the retaining ring collapsed until installed/seated.
They are also incorrect about when the "big bearing" was introduced, it was late 2005, not mid 2003. This car had an engine with a 2006 up built replacement.
I agree it should not have been stressed like that, that bearing is now compromised....
More internet misinformation via YouTube� Be careful what you watch, and more so what you believe! There�s lots of bs & snakeoil out there. Do your diligence�
That bearing is screwed, and so is the reputation of �Johnny�/German Autowerks when the IMSB that they damaged and left in the car fails�(in fact it�s already failed) because �I never saw one like that before�� I almost feel bad for him�
Me too.
However, it think it's extremely unfortunate that even after screwing the pooch he did only cursory "research" on the issue and concluded that 2003 had a mid-year production change to the larger bearing. This adds to the tsunami of incorrect info out there on the bearing.
On the other hand, maybe it will convince others to take two seconds to check the bearing size *before* grabbing the puller.
I just made Jake Raby aware of this video. Truly unfortunate. Jonny just compromised the original 6305 bearing when he tried to extract it. That bearing is very robust and should have been left alone. We've tried our best to educate people about IMS bearings with our videos on Rennvision and PCA, but these cases still happen if people (even skilled mechanics) don't do their homework.
You Tube
Right. The internet is akin to an information cocktail party with millions of strangers. Same level of reliability to what we hear at a cocktail party with strangers.
Most of these so called self prescribed experts on YouTube are just regurgitating information they gather when combing the internet or other YouTube videos, not directly experienced. Sometimes it's good well established advice and many times it's bad advice. How would a novice know the difference?
What gets me is when these young YouTubers parrot the work and findings of Jake Raby, but almost never give him credit. They attempt to own the information as their own.
Any M96 blocks made by Porsche since 2006 will have the 997.1 style IMS bearing. It is not removable, but has the higher load rating in return. This car definitely has a replacement engine. No 996 left the factory with this bearing.
