It's 2013 - any updates on IMS issues or cost of engines?

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by linklaw

I got an email back in December from Flat 6 (Jake Raby's Company) that said they developed a new, permanent fix for the IMS bearing. They apparently eliminate the roller bearing and replace it with a conventional, oil fed bearing. I didn't see any info on pricing or on whether the replacement can be made without engine disassembly. They call it the Ultimate Solution, I think.

To my knowledge, this new system will at least initially only be available as a install at Jake’s shop in GA, and not as a “field retrofit”.

[Perfectlap]

another advantage of doing the IMS, and sooner than later, you'll stand a better chance of being able to re-use the flywheel. That added like $700 to the cost of my clutch/IMS/RMS swap bringing it close to $3K. Pricey.

As for putting it off because used m96 engines may be getting cheaper. I wonder about that. Older Boxsters and Carreras are coming down in price to the point where many will be using them for daily driving after the cars spent nearly the first decade of their existing as garage queens. I tend to think that will shake out the bad apples at an accelerated rate. Which in turn could increase the demand for engines. However, this might be mitigated by the number of cars that are totaled (frontal impacts where the engine is immediately sold) as a consequence of more Boxster/Carrera miles being driven.

Either way you are replacing a question with another question when you replace a grenaded engine. And you are doing so at a premium over simply swapping the IMS. I don't have a reason to believe that a well maintained m96 engine will not last well past your needs.

[The Radium King]

great thread on pelican about an oil-fed ims:

Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Pelican Parts Technical BBS

started about a year ago. now Raby has one in development. parallel evolution?

from what i can see, feelyx taps the block and runs a line internal to the bellhousing. the raby solution uses an external oil line (from a sandwich plate on the filter?) that passes through the bellhousing. both use an exposed bearing and a modified cover plate with an oil fitting.

one of the things that feelyx's design does that i'm uncertain the raby one does is move the bearing further inboard in an effort to reduce radial torque on the bearing (presumably one of the causes of failure, along with insufficient/failed lubrication).

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by The Radium King

great thread on pelican about an oil-fed ims:

Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Pelican Parts Technical BBS

started about a year ago. now Raby has one in development. parallel evolution?

from what i can see, feelyx taps the block and runs a line internal to the bellhousing. the raby solution uses an external oil line (from a sandwich plate on the filter?) that passes through the bellhousing. both use an exposed bearing and a modified cover plate with an oil fitting.

one of the things that feelyx's design does that i'm uncertain the raby one does is move the bearing further inboard in an effort to reduce radial torque on the bearing (presumably one of the causes of failure, along with insufficient/failed lubrication).

Perhaps Feelyx is familiar with the term prior art. Posting your R&D online is certainly one way to establish a record.

The entire concept is fascinating. Am I to understand that this solution, if oil starvation is a/the prime failed IMS culprit, basically works/addresses any m96 bearing? If that is indeed the case it really makes you wonder why the guys in Germany didn't do this from the start or at least afterwards when they were debating moving from single row vs. dual.

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The entire concept is fascinating. Am I to understand that this solution, if oil starvation is a/the prime failed IMS culprit, basically works/addresses any m96 bearing? If that is indeed the case it really makes you wonder why the guys in Germany didn't do this from the start or at least afterwards when they were debating moving from single row vs. dual.

The "Guys in Germany DID DO THIS! They just didn't do it with the M96 engine.

The only reason thats logical as to why the factory did not follow the previous designs of the Metzger aircooled engine or any other engine that uses a "layshaft" is because of cost. The M96 engine has a crankcase that is cast with 1/3 the amount of internal oil passages that were found in the aircooled engines. Because of this there are no pressurized oil passages in the region of the IMS and adding them would have been extremely expensive, requiring major redesign of the crankcase. All of this increases production costs and we already know that the accountants were in charge of engineering.

The use of a "permanently lubricated" bearing allowed the engine to be built with less internal passages within the crankcase, meaning a crankcase that was simpler to cast and machine. This means it was cheaper to build.

All previous Porsche engines that utilize a plain bearing with a pressure fed design have historically never experienced any sort of "IMS Failure". All we did was make a retrofit thats possible with the engine installed into the car and assembled and used the same type design as the engines that date back to 1955.

Here is a picture of a 547 4 cam Carrera engine from the 1950s that utilizes a layshaft to carry out the same job as the "IMS" in your M96 engine. Note the method of bearing support that is utilized. The IMS Solution design goes one step further and also sets the "end play" of the entire shaft with one easy to install, pre-set arrangement that bolts right in.


This retrofit only takes one hour longer to complete than a standard IMSB retrofit using the current LN bearing. That extra hour is just to install the oil filter adaptor and the external oil feed hose.

We'll open the IMS Solution web page next week and have some videos posted of how it works to help you better understand it.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

Posting your R&D online is certainly one way to establish a record.

More likely, the courts would see it as sharing it with the world rather than attempting to prevent replication

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The entire concept is fascinating. Am I to understand that this solution, if oil starvation is a/the prime failed IMS culprit, basically works/addresses any m96 bearing? If that is indeed the case it really makes you wonder why the guys in Germany didn't do this from the start or at least afterwards when they were debating moving from single row vs. dual.

They did, but just in the $50K+ engines, not the $20K ones..........