Autoweek Words on IMS

[rp17]

Originally Posted by Verhag

If your Boxster has already had the LN retro fit completed, can you still benefit from adding the DOF as described by Pedro? Or is that "belt and suspenders" approach that is not necessary? Do ceramic ball bearings as in the LN bearing benefit from this direct oil injection?

LN bearings require that it be at least inspected after 50k miles if i'm not mistaken. So I would say yes belt and suspenders. But something to consider at your next clutch change. This is good news for anyone driving 05 1/2 thru 08 Boxster /Carrera.

There are thousands of cars running ceramic. DOF sounds good to me. And there is also the solution. There are options out there.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by rp17

LN bearings require that it be at least inspected after 50k miles if i'm not mistaken.

Not the case for their double row bearings. And since the single row bearing is/has being phased out by LNE in favor of their no bearing unit, the single row unit is not a going forward issue for new installs.

My guess is that you might want to do the DOF modification if you have an LNE single row bearing. Seems to me that it would extend the life beyond 50K miles. But LNE or Flat6 should probably be consulted first.

At the end of the day the whole IMS debacle seems to be one of simple oil starvation, the DOF attacks the root cause cause of this miscalcualtion by Porsche rather than fortifying the bearing itself to better withstand the oil starvation. Or do the no bearing upgrade. You have many options, anyone staying up at night over this simply needs to do any of these clever fixes and quit worrying.

[kashmir]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

Not the case for their double row bearings. And since the single row bearing is/has being phased out by LNE in favor of their no bearing unit, the single row unit is not a going forward issue for new installs.

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

[nieuwhzn]

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.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by nieuwhzn

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..

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.

[Trey T]

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.

Originally Posted by nieuwhzn

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.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Trey T

No company out there with sport cars that I've seen in the last two decades have engine fail like this.

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).

[thom4782]

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.