How long does it take once an IMS starts to go?

[paintboy]

I change my oil every 2500-3000 miles. Check oil pan, plug and cut open filter to look for signs of IMS failure, bits o' water pump impeller etc. If all is clean and in the clear, is it possible that the IMS could completely fail by the next oil change? Anyone have any ideas on duration of failure?

[southernstar]

Paint boy, I doubt there is any hard and fast rule but if you are doing oil changes every 3000 miles, I can't imagine it would go from no metal particles to a complete failure in that short a period - especially since you have a dual-row IMS bearing.

Brad

[Heiko]

If there's bits of water pump impeller in your oil filter you're in bigger trouble than you thought... LOL The only plastic bits you will likely find in the oil are chain guide/tensioner material...

[Homeboy981]

Originally Posted by paintboy

I change my oil every 2500-3000 miles. Check oil pan, plug and cut open filter to look for signs of IMS failure, bits o' water pump impeller etc. If all is clean and in the clear, is it possible that the IMS could completely fail by the next oil change? Anyone have any ideas on duration of failure?

In my case, single row, there were no metal fragments in the oil. I cut my filter open every time too. No sign of the doom that loomed! Double row IMS bearings may be more durable.

There was only ONE DROP of oil (that turned out to be from a leaky RMS).....and I had a Stage 2 failure in the IMS bearing! Fortunately, the IMS bore was not effected and a new Casper IMS bearing is installed without incident (I have an extra LNE Single Row setup, if interested-PM me).

I am not trying to scare anyone or fear monger. My IMS gave virtually NO WARNING signs that it was about to croak! I certainly have no financial ties to IMS bearing makers. But you should KNOW what you are up against. Just change the darn thing when you do your clutch, and get your clutch done sooner rather than later.

My car was saved with approximately 3k miles before the engine dis-assembled itself! That is ONE oil change AWAY from having had parts to sell instead of advice to impart.

You do what is best for you. It was NOT an easy job, as some instructions indicate. I simply made myself a promise that IF ANY OIL LEAKED, I was going in! Glad I did. Even though, as it turned out, it was unrelated. Do what helps you sleep at night. A word of advice would be to seriously consider which set of IMS installation instructions you use. There are a few out there, I found Meir's instructions to be the most complete and right most of the time! There are still a few things I would add. Again, PM with ???s.

[thom4782]

There are no guarantees. An IMS can fail between oil changes. If you're concerned, install an IMS Guardian. It may give you an early enough warning.

[Perfectlap]

IMS failure is not the only issue with the bearing. Another forum member pointed out something I hadn't thought about before in that a dual row bearing has twice the amount of ferrous material which means the trade off for more integrity comes with more contamination. Many people hold off replacing the bearing to save a few hundred bucks in getting more life out of their clutch but don't consider that the bearing may be past their sell by date. Bumping up the IMS swap, even with just another factory bearing and not the ceramics, not only mitigates the contamination it also provides full utility of a new clutch which you're going to have to replace at some point anyway. A serviceable bearing like that on the 99-05 Boxsters should be replaced as a wear item even though the factory wanted us to believe otherwise.

[southernstar]

Perfectlap, you would only get more contamination from a dual-row bearing if it is failing - something it does much less often than a single-row (less than 1% versus 8-10%). Nevertheless, you and Homeboy make a strong case for replacing the single-row bearing as a prophylactic measure.

Perfectlap also makes a good point regarding the use of a replacement factory bearing, especially for the dual-row. While LN produce a ceramic dual-row bearing, which at least in theory (and I suspect in reality) is an upgrade, the Pelican parts 'upgraded' bearing for the dual-row is actually a single-row with a spacer. In otherwords, you are downgrading from dual to a single row with its much higher likelihood of failure. Rather than use it, surely it makes sense to replace with the factory original part which has proven to be quite reliable over a large number of years (the last of the dual-rows was manufactured some 12 years ago and yet less than 1% have failed).

Brad

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Rather than use it, surely it makes sense to replace with the factory original part which has proven to be quite reliable over a large number of years (the last of the dual-rows was manufactured some 12 years ago and yet less than 1% have failed).

Brad

Only problem is that you cannot get an OEM serviceable bearing by itself (remember, Porsche still says you cannot change the IMS bearings in the 2004 and earlier cars without splitting the cases), plus the only replacement part available is the OEM "final solution" non serviceable bearing, which comes in a new shaft for north of $1K.

[southernstar]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Porsche will not sell the IMS bearing alone. Having said that, if your current car has a dual-row bearing, why can't someone purchase the dual row IMS Retrofit from LN Engineering for $649.00? As opposed to the bearing from Pelican, it is a dual-row and has the advantage of ceramic bearings.

Brad

[Homeboy981]

You can purchase a dual or single row kit from Casper, for the same price of $323, I believe.

[southernstar]

Sorry Homeboy, but do you have a link for the Casper Labs IMS bearings?

Brad

[Skootnasty]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Perfectlap, you would only get more contamination from a dual-row bearing if it is failing - something it does much less often than a single-row (less than 1% versus 8-10%). Nevertheless, you and Homeboy make a strong case for replacing the single-row bearing as a prophylactic measure.

Brad

I am not attampting to start an argument. That being said, any orig. dual row bearings that are still installed in an engine is failing. The outer seal on the bearing has been sitting in oil for at least 13 years. That rubber seal has become hard and pulled away from the sealing surface. This has allowed grease to be displaced with dirty, inadequate oil. This has resulted in *SOME* degree of metal wear. The amount of wear...... who knows with out taking every one that is left out of the engine and measuring every ball. It is very true that two rows of balls does equal a stronger bearing in respect to breakage. However, do not fool yourself, those seals are compromised and the balls inside are losing metal in larger quantities than the serviceable single row replacements.

Skoot

[pothole]

Low values have nothing to do with the bearings failing. It's that they built loads of them. Now they're getting old but they haven't reached classic status.

Imagine a scenario where the bearing problem didn't exist and you assumed values of early 986s were higher. Well, you'd have to push prices up for all newer Boxsters, too. Because if you push up the value of an early 986, it becomes worth the same as a late 986. So adjust that up, too. Then it overlaps with 987s. Etc etc.

If you look at used values, the late 987s with 9A1 and no IMS are also depreciating and there's a pretty consistent slide in values as go down through the older models. There's no massive, massive drop in value when you go from an early 987.2 to a late 987.1. Yes, there's a gap, but it's just a normal gap given the 987.2 is the newer model.

There's just no space in the value hierarchy for early 986s to be worth significantly more than they are.

People tend to forget these are mass market cars. They built loads of them, so supply is strong. And most people who own them are not enthusiasts who spend the time to learn about this stuff.

Moreover, once you get to proper classic status, these sorts of issues completely fade away. People don't value 60s Ferraris on the basis of reliability.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by pothole

Low values have nothing to do with the bearings failing. It's that they built loads of them. Now they're getting old but they haven't reached classic status.

Imagine a scenario where the bearing problem didn't exist and you assumed values of early 986s were higher. Well, you'd have to push prices up for all newer Boxsters, too. Because if you push up the value of an early 986, it becomes worth the same as a late 986. So adjust that up, too. Then it overlaps with 987s. Etc etc.

If you look at used values, the late 987s with 9A1 and no IMS are also depreciating and there's a pretty consistent slide in values as go down through the older models. There's no massive, massive drop in value when you go from an early 987.2 to a late 987.1. Yes, there's a gap, but it's just a normal gap given the 987.2 is the newer model.

There's just no space in the value hierarchy for early 986s to be worth significantly more than they are.

People tend to forget these are mass market cars. They built loads of them, so supply is strong. And most people who own them are not enthusiasts who spend the time to learn about this stuff.

Moreover, once you get to proper classic status, these sorts of issues completely fade away. People don't value 60s Ferraris on the basis of reliability.

Exactly. Someone else gets my drift.

[shadrach74]

Originally Posted by Skootnasty

I am not attampting to start an argument. That being said, any orig. dual row bearings that are still installed in an engine is failing. The outer seal on the bearing has been sitting in oil for at least 13 years. That rubber seal has become hard and pulled away from the sealing surface. This has allowed grease to be displaced with dirty, inadequate oil. This has resulted in *SOME* degree of metal wear. The amount of wear...... who knows with out taking every one that is left out of the engine and measuring every ball. It is very true that two rows of balls does equal a stronger bearing in respect to breakage. However, do not fool yourself, those seals are compromised and the balls inside are losing metal in larger quantities than the serviceable single row replacements.

Skoot

My single row bearing was removed @51K and 11 years. Rubber was not hard and bearing had no visible signs of wear or play. It was as tight as the LN piece that replaced it. Do you think I'm in the minority? I'm more inclined to think that Homeboy's car is in the minority.

[BDBoxster]

While we're talking about the IMS issue, I have a question that I hope somebody can answer. In the late production 2005 through 2008 987's, Porsche installed a bearing that is not accessible without a total engine teardown. This bearing is supposed to be larger than all the other bearings that they have used in the past. What does this mean? Is is a single or dual row? Is it sealed? What does "larger" mean?

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by BDBoxster

While we're talking about the IMS issue, I have a question that I hope somebody can answer. In the late production 2005 through 2008 987's, Porsche installed a bearing that is not accessible without a total engine teardown. This bearing is supposed to be larger than all the other bearings that they have used in the past. What does this mean? Is is a single or dual row? Is it sealed? What does "larger" mean?

It is sealed, a dual row, and slightly larger in outside diameter so it will not fit through the opening in the rear of the cases. And, yes, it still fails.

[Steve Tinker]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

It is sealed, a dual row, and slightly larger in outside diameter so it will not fit through the opening in the rear of the cases. And, yes, it still fails.

Well there's something I didn't know - I was under the impression that Porsche fitted a larger SINGLE row bearing after 2005, right up to the 2009 upgrade ....

[BDBoxster]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

It is sealed, a dual row, and slightly larger in outside diameter so it will not fit through the opening in the rear of the cases. And, yes, it still fails.

Thanks for the info. Just to stretch the issue....how many failures have you dealt with or her about with this last bearing design? I'm just wondering, in your professional opinion, if you think it is as prevalent as past designs or in a very small category (ie:<1%)?? Thx!

[stephen wilson]

From what I've read, the larger bearing should have failure rate similar to the double row bearings. Though that information may be worth exactly what you paid for it!