View Single Post
Old 04-23-2014, 10:04 AM   #14
Jake Raby
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
The issue with the OEM dual row IMSB is they take too long to progress through Stage 3 of the failure process. The stronger bearing is made stronger by having more components to share the loads, the issues is there's 2X the amount of wear components to shed material, contaminate the oil system and create massive collateral damages from foreign object debris. Since the dual row bearing will hold together longer the debris circulates longer.

Dual row IMSB failures are much more damaging to the remainder of the internally lubricated components. This damage is the most expensive to remedy, by far.

I pulled this dual row IMS bearing yesterday from a 9K mile 2000 Boxster.. Thats right, 9K miles and the low mileage and time spent sitting around has already compromised the seal. He is lucky that he decided to retrofit this one.

Can't wait to cut it apart!
Attached Images
 
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote