Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2013, 12:47 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
Joshnich, if I had your car: a single-row bearing engine with extremely low mileage plus leaks from the RMS seal) I too would have proactively changed the IMS bearing with one from LN Engineering. The situation, of course, is considerably different for the owners of cars with dual-row bearings (which is the subject of this thread).

Since my post a couple of weeks ago I have been able to confirm through the information released by Porsche in the course of the class-action suit, that my engine number and build date (a 2000 MY built in August 1999) was prior to the introduction of the single-row bearing. Yahoo! Previously I had thought that the single row bearing was introduced with the first 2.7 and 3.2 engines and that it was impossible to tell which bearing one had without removal! Consdiering an IMS bearing failure rate of well less than 1% on the dual row (versus 8-10% on the single row), oil changes every 5-7000 km (3000 - 4400 miles) and only 93,000 km (55,000 miles) on the clock of my car, I have ZERO concern about not changing out the bearing until I need to change the clutch, or unless I find any significant metal particles in the filter or on the magnetic drain plug during an oil change in the interim.

What is more, it seems that in this regard I am not alone as most owners of dual-bearing vehicles appear to be taking the same approach. Lets face it, especially when compared to early model year 2000 2.7 and 3.2's, the added reliablity of the dual-row bearing is probably the biggest difference from later 986's.

Brad

Last edited by southernstar; 04-10-2013 at 12:49 PM. Reason: sp
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 03:43 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Joshnich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Nor cal
Posts: 33
Sorry I didn't mean to post off topic!

I totally agree that if I had a two row bearing car I wouldn't give it a second thought. But would more than likely replace the IMS in the future in conjunction with a clutch job.

Interestingly, My mechanic told me that he has not seen a two row IMS failure but has experienced many on later model boxsters. His hypothesis is that in addition to the the two rows, the early cars did not have the power of the later models and hence tended to be driven in the higher rpm range facilitating greater lubrication.

Again apologize for the misspost.

joshnich
__________________
2004 550 Special Edition 6sp
Joshnich is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page