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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2013, 01:53 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nh
Posts: 21
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?

Rlwalker799 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 02:10 PM   #2
Track rat
 
Topless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cucamonga CA
Posts: 3,662
Garage
Most likely you have the single row bearing with estimated failure rate of 8-10%. Might want to consider a clutch/IMS replacement.
__________________
2009 Cayman 2.9L PDK (with a few tweaks)
PCA-GPX Chief Driving Instructor
Topless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 02:29 PM   #3
Registered User
 
kjc2050's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 852
Garage
What's your engine number?

You likely have the single row, as Topless pointed out.
__________________
2000 Boxster S, 6 speed, Sport Package, Litronics, LED tail lights, LNE IMS-B, OBC, Skybreaker wind deflector, Arctic Silver/Graphite Grey
kjc2050 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 02:45 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 443
huh?

I thought the vin sequences specified in the settlement document effectively delineated the more failure-prone single-row bearings. Did I misunderstand?
BrokenLinkage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 02:50 PM   #5
Registered User
 
kjc2050's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 852
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokenLinkage View Post
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
__________________
2000 Boxster S, 6 speed, Sport Package, Litronics, LED tail lights, LNE IMS-B, OBC, Skybreaker wind deflector, Arctic Silver/Graphite Grey
kjc2050 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 04:45 PM   #6
Registered User
 
ccjazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Posts: 206
Garage
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.
__________________
'01 Boxster S (purchased new) triple black, litronics, cruise, heated seats,18's.
ccjazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 06:04 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nh
Posts: 21
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?
Rlwalker799 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 06:27 PM   #8
Registered User
 
kjc2050's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 852
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rlwalker799 View Post
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.
__________________
2000 Boxster S, 6 speed, Sport Package, Litronics, LED tail lights, LNE IMS-B, OBC, Skybreaker wind deflector, Arctic Silver/Graphite Grey
kjc2050 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 07:51 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 691
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.



/
__________________
SOLD - 2002 Boxster S - PSM, Litronics, De-ambered, Bird Bike Rack, Hardtop, RMS leak...
fatmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 08:21 PM   #10
Registered User
 
oc-boxster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: anaheim california
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmike View Post
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
oc-boxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 04:11 AM   #11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by oc-boxster View Post
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?



/
__________________
SOLD - 2002 Boxster S - PSM, Litronics, De-ambered, Bird Bike Rack, Hardtop, RMS leak...
fatmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 04:53 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 177
Garage
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).
Meat Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 09:12 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Chuck W.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Agoura Hills (LA) So.Cal.
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by oc-boxster View Post
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
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?
__________________
1995 Porsche C4 Cab

2016 BMW M2, 6 Speed LBB - ED 7/2016
1997 993 Cab - Sold; 1997 993 Turbo - Sold
2001 Boxster S - Original Owner - 30K Miles -SOLD
Chuck W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 09:17 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 1,261
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.
__________________
2001 Boxster, 5 spd, Seal Grey
clickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 09:52 AM   #15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
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
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 01:04 PM   #16
Registered User
 
Chuck W.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Agoura Hills (LA) So.Cal.
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar View Post
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.
__________________
1995 Porsche C4 Cab

2016 BMW M2, 6 Speed LBB - ED 7/2016
1997 993 Cab - Sold; 1997 993 Turbo - Sold
2001 Boxster S - Original Owner - 30K Miles -SOLD
Chuck W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 01:16 PM   #17
Registered User
 
woodsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Land of naught
Posts: 1,302
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.
__________________
Death is certain, life is not.

Last edited by woodsman; 06-03-2013 at 01:30 PM.
woodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 12:00 PM   #18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
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

Last edited by southernstar; 06-04-2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason: clarification
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 12:06 PM   #19
Registered User
 
woodsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Land of naught
Posts: 1,302
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?
__________________
Death is certain, life is not.
woodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 01:21 PM   #20
Registered User
 
oc-boxster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: anaheim california
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck W. View Post
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?
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.

oc-boxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page