Single row. Vs. double row bearings
 

Just started looking at the IMS issue and class settlement info. My 2001 s, made in Finland is not in the vin sequence listed in the settlement doc. Do I have single row or double Which has a better track record?

Most likely you have the single row bearing with estimated failure rate of 8-10%. Might want to consider a clutch/IMS replacement.

What's your engine number?

You likely have the single row, as Topless pointed out.

huh?
 

I thought the vin sequences specified in the settlement document effectively delineated the more failure-prone single-row bearings. Did I misunderstand?

No, you didn't misunderstand. I've used the engine number ranges shown in this Pelican technical article: IMS Replacement & Upgrade

I recently did a bit of research on my 01' S, also from Finland. I was at the dealer for a new version coolant cap and had them print out the "warranty data sheet" for me.

Turns out it has a production date of March/01 and engine M96/21, engine# 671 08159. Based on Pelican's technical article as kcj2050 linked (thanks kjc), theoretically I may have a double row bearing in my 01'.

So if you can determine your engine number it might narrow it down for you. You'll still only know for sure once the transmission/ clutch are removed so you can see what's in there.

I don't have my engine #. In looking at my post I see my last question was ambiguous
Restating the question, which is purported to be more reliable single or double row?

Double row.

My 2002S was made in Finland as well, and it is also not in the published VIN range. I assume that means it has a dual row.



/

My 2002 S built in January 01 has a single row so I changed it-good thing too, it was in stage 3 failure with a bad leak-no signs or noise at all-replaced about 3 months ago, I'm convinced by the state of the bearing it would have failed for sure by now

Good to know, and glad you caught it.

Did you check the VIN range that was published? Was it in the range?



/

Single row- 8-10% failure rate. Double row- Less than 1%

If I had a single row bearing car, I would give serious consideration to a clutch IMS bearing replacement. I have a double row bearing car and I'm going to wait till I need a new clutch before I worry about the IMSB. At a 1% failure rate, I'm not overly concerned (hopefully the stats are correct).

Something is wrong here. I have a 2001 S I special ordered in early 2001. It has a build date of 3/01. How can you have a 2002 S built three months earlier than my 2001?

Based on the info from those that work on these engines on a regular basis, even with the class action info and engine S/N info etc, for 2000 - 2001 you won't know for sure which bearing you have until the tranny is out and you see the outside cover of the IMS.

Chuck, perhaps he is referring to the engine build date. My 2000 2.7 has a serial number indicating that the engine was actually built in 1998, although assembly of the car was not until mid 1999.

Brad

Ahhhhhhhh.... I learn something everyday. Thanks.

I'm confused- do we go by the VIN or the engine VIN?
By the way, my 2001S was special ordered and built in GERMANY- and HAD a single row that seemed to be in excellent condition at 75000mi.

No, you are not confused, IT is confusing. I believe that the settlement in the class-action suit lists vehicle VIN's and, of course, Porsche will know what original engine number matches the body. If your car is a 2001 with a single-row bearing, its VIN should be listed in the range of the ones included in the setllement.

Porsche's parts catalogue lists a cutoff date for the dual-row bearing based upon the engine's serial number: essentially, the final 5 sequential digits of 11237 for the 3.2 and 12851 for the 2.7. This is, of course, assuming that the engine was not replaced or rebuilt after the introduction of the single-row bearing, in which case it would have the 'updated' single-row, even if it was originally manufactured with the dual-row. A Porsche remanufactured engine will have the letters 'AT' in the serial number; however, some engines have been rebuilt by dealers (or elsewhere) and while the original serial number will be on the engine, the IMS shaft and bearing could have been replaced.

The engine serial numbers are, as indicated, the cut-off date for the dual-row and accordingly, all engines manufactured after those numbers should have the single-row IMS bearing. Ones prior to that may have either, although it is my understanding the the single-row bearing was a mid 2000 model-year update on the 2.7 and 3.2 made late in the 1999 calendar year.

Ultimately, this means that as far as 2.7's and 3.2's, you will only be safe to conclude that it was manufactured with a dual-row bearing if the engine was manufactured in 1998 (represented by the letter 'Y' in the engine serial number, just prior to the final 5 sequential digits). An engine with a 'Z' preceding these digits, will have been built in 1999: if early that year (i.e., prior to the introduction of the new bearing in late 1999) it will have the dual-row bearing. After that, it could have either (the same for engines built in 2000, which have a number '0' prior to the final 5 sequential digits, or 2001, which will have the number '1' at that location). Again, any engine serial numbers afther the ones listed above, which again is the cut-off point for the dual-row, will have single-row bearings.

If your engine was built in 1999, as the serial number denotes only the year and not the date of manufacture, you cannot be absolutely certain whether it was built before, or after the introduction of the single-row bearing. If your 2000 was assembled in 1999, however, it will be far more likely to have the dual-row bearing, as there appears to have been some significant lead-time between the assembly of the engines and the installation in car bodies. As I have indicated in another post, the engine in my 2.7 was manufactured in 1998, but the assembly date for my car was in August 1999. If your car's assembly date was in late 1999 and your engine serial number shows that it was built in 1999 (remember, the letter Z), I believe it is safe to assume that it will have a dual-row bearing as engines manufactured in late 1999 were likely not installed in bodies until the year 2000. Clear as mud?

Lets put it this way, if your 2.7 or 3.2 was sold and initially registered as a 1999 in a country where the model year is based upon the date of manufacture (as I understand it, in the UK and most of Europe), then you should have the dual-row bearing. Support for this proposition can be found in Porsche's indication that the single-row bearing was not introduced until the 2000 model year. Hence, the same should be true for 2000 model year 2.7's and 3.2's sold in North America, if the manufacturing date of the car was in 1999.

Brad

wow!!! okay but didn't the settlement state that cars over 10 yrs weren't covered? And, are cars from lands other than USA, covered?

My memory may be off as to the month of build but I do know the original owner bought, and was driving the car at the beginning of November 01.

Woodsman, to my knowlege it only covers cars in the United States (or at least, ones sold there). I seem to recall that it included serial numbers for 986 model years from 2001 up, as well as early 987's. Coverage is on a sliding scale and, while you may be correct that there is zero coverage for cars that are 10 years old, the numbers are still there for cars in the 2001, 2002 and 2003 model years.

In any case, since you are in Canada (where there was no similar class-action suit) and since your IMS did not fail, you are not entitled to any compensation.

Brad

DANG IT ALL! I want some Porsche credits put on account!:p

Actually, unless you have had a documented IMS failure, regardless of where you live, you won't be getting anything.................

So if i have a 97' which bearing would i have?
I've read this thread and no one mentions the 97-99 models..

They are double rows..........

THanks JFP,
I can sleep a little better now!

I just went over the terms of the settlement of the class-action suit again

( see IMS Class Action Suit 2001-2005 owners win. Update Mar 12 - Rennlist Discussion Forums )

and made a couple of observations:

1. The settlement applies to Porsche Boxsters that were built between May 4, 2001 and Feb. 21, 2005, within the listed range of serial numbers. I suspect that the excluded serial numbers during that time period are for cars that were built for markets other than the USA, as that is the only country to which the settlement applies.

2. Regardless of the date of manufacture within that range, Porsche will compensate purchasers on a sliding scale if a failure of the IMS occurred within 10years of the commencement of the warranty (typically the date of sale) and 130,000 miles. It is not the date of the claim that must be within 10 years (or the mileage at the time of the claim), but rather the date and mileage at the time of failure.

Hence, although the 2001 and 2002 vehicles (and a number of 2003's) would already be more than 10 years old since the in-service date, nevertheless they are covered (and will continue to be covered until some future cut-off date for claims) for monies that were expended due to failure of the bearings that occurred within 10 years of the original sale.

What is interesting, therefore, is that 2000 and 2001 Boxsters built before May 4, 2001, are not included in the settlement. If they had suffered an IMS failure within 10 years of sale, then why are they not covered just like other Boxsters that were produced more than 10 years ago? What is the magic in a manufacturing date of May 4, 2001? Lets face it, the warranty period for a car is predicated on the date it was put in service/sold and not the manufacturing date. Consequently, a car that was produced in early 2001 will often have been sold, or put in service AFTER a car which was manufactured later in the year - dealerships carry an inventory.

It srikes me that Porsche is saying (and presumably had the records to prove to the plaintiffs), that no Boxsters assembled after that date had a dual-row RMS bearing and consequently, they are entitled to be a part of the settlement.

Did the plaintiff's simply rely upon Porsche's engine serial numbers for the end of the dual-row bearing? Perhaps. However, we do know that the single-row bearing was not introduced at the same time as the introduction of the 2.7 and 3.2 engines - it was a mid-2000 'upgrade'. Since in Europe, model years are unimportant (they rely on date of manufacture for the year of the car), then can we not assume that mid-2000 refers to the date of manufacture of the engine, rather than the model year of the car?

We also know that there is a gap between the date of manufacture of an engine and the date of manufacture of the car. For example, my 2.7 engine was built in 1998 (denoted by the letter Y prior to the final 5 sequential numbers in the engine's serial number) and yet the car was not manufactured until August of 1999 (as a North American 2000 model year). If I am correct and the single-row bearing was not first introduced in engines built until some point during the 2000 calendar year, rather than the 2000 model year, then we can explain the fact that some 2000 and 2001 Boxsters seem to have the single-row bearing and some do not:

1. If the engine was built in 1998, it will by definition have a double-row bearing (again, a Y preceding the last 5 sequential digits in the engine serial number) as the single-row bearing was not introduced until the year 2000.
2. If the engine was built in claendar year 1999, it will also have a double-row bearing (denoted by a Z preceding the final 5 sequential digits). This will include 2000 MY cars assembled early in calendar year 2000, until the dual-row bearings ran out. It may also include cars assembled for release as early North American MY 2001's (just as my engine, although built in 1998, was installed in a 2000 model year car that was assembled in August 1999.)
3. If the engine was manufactured in calendar year 2000 after the introduction of the single-row bearing (and presumably, after they had run out of all remaining dual-row IMS bearings), it will have a single row IMS bearing. This would include late 2000 MY's, as well as the remaining early to mid 2001 MY's. The serial number for engines built in 2000 (which interestingly, is also when Porsche changed from letters to numbers to signify the year), have the number 0 prior to the final 5 sequential numbers in the engine serial number.

This would not only explain why some MY 2000's (the late ones) may have the single-row bearing, but also why some 2001's (the early ones) may have the dual-row bearing. It would also explain why the settlement applies only to 2001's manufactured after May 4, 2001, as perhaps Porsche's records show that the last of the dual-row bearing engines was installed in a car on that date.

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing if anyone has had a dual-row bearing in an engine that was built in either 1998 or 1999.

Brad

My S is a 00 and motor was built in 1998.
It's a early S #113, though probably a lot of 2000's with 98 motors. It is a dual, ims replaced.

The single row 8-10% and double row <1% values represent a snapshot in time from years aboe. It is not clear how these percentages will change as car accumulate more mile and years.

As such, you can only guess at the probabilities of failure and whether they will become closer to one another as time goes one.

Bottom line: make your best guess as to the relative risks and decide if you're 1) willing to incur the expense of replacing the bearing at the next clutch change or 2) live the the consequence of a failed engine.

Once you decide, the just live with accept your decision and stop worrying.

As a few said, you'll only know if you have a single or dual row when you remove tranny.