No, not over 500K units. I can't find the source again, but I've read that 243K sold from 1997-2012.

TO

By mid 2009 Porsche had produced 200K. I believe 160K 986's were produced before the 987 came out in 2005. By mid 2011 they were up up to 300K.... **but** since the the Boxster and Cayman are really the same car (simply a variant like a 911 Cab and a 911 hardtop Carrera) Porsche did not separate them in reporting sales -- to further underline that this is essentially one car. Calling them Boxsters and Caymans is simply Porsche marketing spin that everyone adopts for no good reason.
So in my opinion they should be considered as one car when discussing sales, again no ever separates 911 Cab from 911 Coupe when talking sales.


From a Planet9 Post.
Production 2005/2006
Boxster: 14,383 Units
Cayman: 16,297 Units

Production 2006/2007:
Boxster: 11,727 Units
Cayman: 14,985 Units

I may be wrong on this, but I understand that they will be making a double row bearing kit for the single row engine.

Considering the serious consequences of an IMS failure this should warrant a recall. However, a recall means that Porsche should have a solution for the problem, which they don't. They have responded to the class lawsuit by offering a 'reasonable solution' that severely limits their responsibilities, which makes it possible for them to make it legally through the lawsuit but also limits their damages. Keep in mind that even when they would have a solution that this would cost at least $1,000 per recalled car, that quickly adds up to a couple of hundred million bucks.
If we would assume that they would be so nice to replace any engine that has had an IMS failure then this would still add up to a couple of tens of millions of dollars. So, if you would be the boss of Porsche, what would you do?

Note that I'm not defending Porsche, I think they are handling this in a despicable way, but that's what you get when bean counters run the show.

There is a solution. There are several actually. And at least one has been available to owners from the aftermarket since 2009 or maybe sooner, I forget.

IMHO the minute your car is out of warranty, since 2010, it's on you to address this issue. At this point all single row bearing cars have been out of warranty anywhere between 4 to 13 years. And to my knowledge there has never been a inventory shortage of LNE or Pelican IMS bearings. Probably because most haven't kept up with the most widely discussed issue of the Porsche engine.

However for the engines that failed before the aftermarket solutions were common place procedure, then Porsche should pony up rebuilt engines 100% simply for reputation, probably peanuts to them anyway. I think this gesture would have sent a very clear signal to owners and prospective owners that once the warranty runs out, an owner needs to stay informed by calling a independent mechanic, doing a Google search on the issue, etc. IMO if the aftermarket provides a solution for an out-of-warranty car issue then manufacturer's blame has to be reduced significantly.

We can all agree that, for a very long time, Porsche made a huge mistake of using a roller bearing on the IMS. As someone pointed out to me from this forum that the new 9A1 engine does NOT have IMS; they completely deleted it. This drastic design change made me to believe that they made a serious mistake of using the IMS over decades. Porsche saw the problem and was trying to remedy the bearing problem and I believe the best solution is to delete the IMS to avoid using the roller bearing.

The bottom line to the IMS issue is the pride of a company, there's no question in anybody's mind that placing an intermediate shaft b/t the crank and cams was not the best idea; it maybe a very good idea but not the best! Although Porsche had many reason to use IMS as part of their engine design but overall as a product, it's a bad design when you have catastrophic failure. Porsche should at least honor recalls on engine with 100K miles or less. No company out there with sport cars that I've seen in the last two decades have engine fail like this.

Recalls are recall, it should not factor in the level of efforts required to fix/repair/replace it. Look at the top car maker in the world, Toyota, and they have hundreds of TSB and recalls in the last few decades across Lexus, Scion, and Toyota. They address big and small things.

do you mean the nature of the failure or the quantity of catastrophic failures?
The latter is nearly impossible to determine because of non-existent complete and reliable reporting.

If anything, its all the other ways that the engine can fail that should be getting more attention since there are no low cost, premptive repairs for those like there is for the IMS bearing. Or that Porsche never stressed the importance of staying on top of the engine cooling with other preemptive repairs and maintenance, or that they recommended oil intervals that many believed were very inadequate. It's like we all spend our time talking about the least likely mode of failure (since it can be addressed).

The ballpark estimate puts Porsche's image problem in perspective to its business problem.

Imagine if Porsche paid up to fully compensate all those who suffered IMS failures and retrofitted all other Boxsters. The payout would be huge. At $10,000 a replacement and $1500 per retrofit. Porsche would have to shell out over $300 million. That about one-third of 2011 net profit available for distribution to shareholders.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1379970293.gif

Isn't $300mil is like chump change for Porsche?

According to their annual report for 2011, they had 1.5 billion in net profit

1.5 billion in profit with IIRC a bit less than half reinvested in the company and a bit more than half paid to shareholders. So it's not chump change as far as shareholders are concerned.

Does anyone have any real data on this IMS issue? How prevalent is the issue? I am looking to buy a S but frankly this issue has put me off somewhat.

Depends on the year of the car. Look 3 post up from your post, that's a chart from Porsche. I wouldn't buy one again. Nothing like knowing every time I start the motor I could have complete engine destruction with no warning.

There is a $2000 aftermarket solution to this problem. IF you think a 12 year old car won't need some mechanical work, then you aren't realistic.

IF you can't afford the $2K, then you shouldn't be buying this car in the first place.

IF you let this minor issue put you off from buying a Porsche, then you are making a mistake.



/

If you are referring to the IMS, then I would say that this fear is real but can be put to rest in just one day at any reputable Porsche mecahnic's shop to do the LNE or Pelican retrofit or look into the DOF option. And if you want an early warning, the aftermarket has that covered to with the LNE's Guardian that goes on your dash. Worrying about is unecessary because this is one failure that you can actually do something about.

Ideally, these car is for hardcore enthusiast that do the repair themselves or for those that have deep pocket to have a shop work on it. If I were to buy another boxster/cayman (first or second gen), I would need to invest in a car lift before I commit. I would at least inspect the IMSB every other years to ensure that it's working properly.

Working on these car w/o a car lift, mid-engine or rear-engine (911), requires a lot of patience because everything is so compacted and the location of the engine makes it a challege to work on.

I agree but I would NOT recommend people to use the LNE or Pelican retrofit. Those are just as good (or bad) as the OEM. Pelican nor LNE makes no guaranteed of performance, according to their websites; who would, right? Remember OEM IMSB have been reported with >100K miles by many.

I believe the DOF could be a very good solution.

Anyone want to buy my car? 2003 S with 105k miles on it and Triptronic trans.

arguable. In the 3-4 years since the aftermarket options have become available, and across the various Porsche forums, I can't recall a single person who did the upgrade and came back to report an engine failure. Not a single one. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any other product that you can buy for a Porsche today that never had a person post a complaint after the job was done. Neither Pelican nor LNE.

Point is to take the orginal one out at some point, sooner if its the single bearing unit. And with most things in Porsche world, if you have to replace a known weak spot, replace it with something better and in the case of the LNE unit it is in fact a much better spec'd unit over stock. Even if the bearing is not the root cause of the issue its still a critical engine component that should show signs of development, not unlike your coolant cap. And if you go with the LNE Solution, you remove ball bearings from the equation entirely which pretty much means you never have to service the bearing or need to worry about oil feed issues ever again. Sure its expensive but welcome to Porsche world where parts are expensive on the following days: M-F, Saturday and Sundays.

I must say that I am in complete agreement with Perfectlap on this. Lets look at this in context: The problems themselves happened in only 8 % of cars with single-row bearings and less than 1% in cars with double-row bearings. Keep in mind that this is regardless of mileage, age and maintenance schedules - and that it seems clear that cars with frequent oil changes are much less likely to have a failure. If despite what are pretty good odds at avoiding failure on all cars (and exceptionally good on dual-row bearing IMS cars with frequent oil changes) you are still worried, then pay for an upgrade and/or or the LN 'solution, or DOF. Considering the relatively low cost at present for 986's and early 987's, for many it will be relatively cheap, but worthwhile insurance to take into consideration when you buy the car. At least this is a problem that is predictable (and most mechanical problems on cars cannot be predicted with any certainly as no stats are available from the manufacturer); it is also a problem for which there are fixes available.

Brad

There are certain things that maintenance effort is acceptable, but regarding something that's an important component of the engine rotating assembly should not be acceptable. Look at the industry, who expect to directly maintain their rotating assembly? NOBODY!