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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-02-2014, 02:06 AM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: england
Posts: 1
IMS Eternal fix for Boxster, any good?

Hi there, new poster here.
Anyone got any experience, good or otherwise, with the IMS Eternal fix (roller bearing type) by EPS for a 2000 MY Boxster S?
If so, is it to be reccomended, where's the best place to get it done in the UK, and how much roughly am I looking at, all up including fitting and VAT?
My car is a 2000 Boxster S with just 15k miles, immaculate condition etc but was 'professionally stored' for five years when previous owner went to the states for a while. I'm a bit paranoid it's ripe for trouble.
I'm aware of the LN Engineering ceramic ball bearing solution but wanted specific advice on the Eternal Fix roller bearing solution if poss.
Any advice most welcome

cycleclips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:18 AM   #2
Rennzenn
 
j.fro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,356
Garage
This isn't the answer you are looking for, but it may be food for thought. I recently did the IMS in my car and looked at both the LN bearing and the Eternal Fix. Through EBay, the cost for each was about the same. To my untrained eye, theEF looks more robust, and I wanted to give it a try, but the sensible side of my brain said, " if you ever want to sell the car, the LN will likely produce a better return". I went with the LN.
__________________
Rennzenn
Jfro@rennzenn.com
j.fro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 08:14 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 37
This earlier posting by Kirk on another thread makes some good points
__________________
2002 Boxster 2.7 Tiptronic S, Lapis blue, right-hand drive.
Obertelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 08:44 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,696
Why go with an new solution when the existing and proven solution does the trick?

In other words what are you getting in return for going down the less traveled road?

A lower out of pocket expense? Enough to justify facing unknown unknowns?

A better guarantee?

Is a "permanent" solution cost effective for the lenghth of time you intend to own the car?

decisions, decisions.
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:26 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The City
Posts: 1,084
Garage
I wonder how well that bearing oiler solution works. it is pretty nifty.
Lobo1186 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:32 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectlap View Post
Why go with an new solution when the existing and proven solution does the trick?
Sorry, but with the very best will in the world, the LN products are not proven. The only evidence available is anecdotal.

The single-row LN upgrade bearing is known to fail. We can argue about the reasons why (errors made when fitting, some will say).

But there are simply no independent figures regarding the reliability on the LN bearing.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 06:25 PM   #7
Boxster S Bassist
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Moraga, CA
Posts: 96
Recently had the LN dual row ceramic bearing installed in my 2000 S. Caught the failed IMSB just in time! Thankfully being an early 2000 it had a dual row stock bearing. They do now make a dual row ceramic bearing that can be installed on single row bearing engines. I agree that the external lubrication mod seems like a good solution but I guess unproven so far.
John Bergen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 08:14 PM   #8
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
The single-row LN upgrade bearing is known to fail
The LN single row IMSB Retrofit is the most widely utilized IMS Retrofit component ever offered by anyone, anywhere. It was the first unit ever brought to market and has the highest application rate.

Because of this and the fact that it actually gets installed (other technologies won't see failures because no one is widely applying them and distributors will not carry them because they do not meet their requirements) and sold in multiple thousands of units there will be some failures.

To date worldwide less than 20 units have failed with 10 of those being conclusively determined to have occurred with engines that should have never been retrofitted as the OE bearing was failing, or had already failed, or something else in the engine was failing and generated wear debris that took out the IMSR bearing. Of the remaining 10 about half of those clearly had incorrect installation, with two of them failing after the same installer carried out the job (using an impact wrench to tighten the center stud) and both lasted less than 500 miles. The remaining 5 are still to be determined. Just last week a dealership tried to "save an engine" after an IMSB began to fail. They refused to listen and they fitted a retrofit bearing and it began to fail as collateral damage from the old bearing failing. We sent them another bearing and it was installed to address the issue and then the engine tossed a rod out the top of the block.

That engine should have been disassembled, ultrasonically cleaned and reassembled. This is happening on a weekly basis these days and shops do not employ the things that we direct here:
Bearing already failing?
They say "we aren't getting paid for that", and I respond "So, you are just going to let the engine go, knowing that wear metal is suspended in the oil, taking everything else out, risking the reputation of our products and your own reputation too?"

This is the last person and attitude that you should work with for an IMSR procedure. We can lead humans to knowledge, but we can't make them think.

We developed the Single Row Pro product to fit a 90% stronger, custom, dual row ceramic bearing into a single row housing bore.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 09:01 PM   #9
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post
Sorry, but with the very best will in the world, the LN products are not proven. The only evidence available is anecdotal.
In the ideal world, a statistically valid, independent study would prove or disprove the reliability of the LN IMS products. Such a study, however, does not exist. Thus, people must look to other standards of proof for guidance just like juries do in US courts. To that end, the overwhelming weight of anecdotal evidence proves beyond a doubt in my mind that the LN products are reliable.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 04:37 AM   #10
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
The LN single row IMSB Retrofit is the most widely utilized IMS Retrofit component ever offered by anyone, anywhere. It was the first unit ever brought to market and has the highest application rate.

Because of this and the fact that it actually gets installed (other technologies won't see failures because no one is widely applying them and distributors will not carry them because they do not meet their requirements) and sold in multiple thousands of units there will be some failures.

To date worldwide less than 20 units have failed with 10 of those being conclusively determined to have occurred with engines that should have never been retrofitted as the OE bearing was failing, or had already failed, or something else in the engine was failing and generated wear debris that took out the IMSR bearing. Of the remaining 10 about half of those clearly had incorrect installation, with two of them failing after the same installer carried out the job (using an impact wrench to tighten the center stud) and both lasted less than 500 miles. The remaining 5 are still to be determined. Just last week a dealership tried to "save an engine" after an IMSB began to fail. They refused to listen and they fitted a retrofit bearing and it began to fail as collateral damage from the old bearing failing. We sent them another bearing and it was installed to address the issue and then the engine tossed a rod out the top of the block.

That engine should have been disassembled, ultrasonically cleaned and reassembled. This is happening on a weekly basis these days and shops do not employ the things that we direct here:
Bearing already failing?
They say "we aren't getting paid for that", and I respond "So, you are just going to let the engine go, knowing that wear metal is suspended in the oil, taking everything else out, risking the reputation of our products and your own reputation too?"

This is the last person and attitude that you should work with for an IMSR procedure. We can lead humans to knowledge, but we can't make them think.

We developed the Single Row Pro product to fit a 90% stronger, custom, dual row ceramic bearing into a single row housing bore.

Jake, you're not an independent source on the subject. It's that simple.

Moreover, the fact you claim information you can't possibly have really only makes things worse. There's no way for you or anyone else to be sure exactly how many have failed. There are lots of very obvious reasons why a failure may never be reported back to you, posted on the web in any format etc.

I make no comment on the products other than pointing out the simple fact that they're not proven in any substantial sense of the word. Assurances from people who sell products aren't even close to good enough. Independent data is required to define a product as proven.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 06:34 AM   #11
Registered User
 
kk2002s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: S. New Jersey
Posts: 1,210
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post
Jake, you're not an independent source on the subject. It's that simple.
Fair enough but I don't necessarily agree that it's that simple.
One could say " Jake has seen more M96/97 motors in various conditions, good to bad, then most. Has possibly abused and detailed what can lead to the failures of these motors more than most.
Like all information out there, you have to filter it and keep it in perspective. It doesn't mean it is not valuable and has insight

Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post
Moreover, the fact you claim information you can't possibly have really only makes things worse. There's no way for you or anyone else to be sure exactly how many have failed.
So No information is better?
If someone does have limited data and it shows trends, isn't that useful?
This whole IMSB failure percentage thing falls into "..who really knows.."
All anyone can agree on is that this area of the motor fails at a surprisingly high rate

Jake keep the info coming. I'll put on my big boy pants and decide what I'm going to do with it
__________________
2002 S - old school third pedal
Seal Grey
kk2002s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 07:08 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by kk2002s View Post
Fair enough but I don't necessarily agree that it's that simple.
One could say " Jake has seen more M96/97 motors in various conditions, good to bad, then most. Has possibly abused and detailed what can lead to the failures of these motors more than most.
Like all information out there, you have to filter it and keep it in perspective. It doesn't mean it is not valuable and has insight



So No information is better?
If someone does have limited data and it shows trends, isn't that useful?
This whole IMSB failure percentage thing falls into "..who really knows.."
All anyone can agree on is that this area of the motor fails at a surprisingly high rate

Jake keep the info coming. I'll put on my big boy pants and decide what I'm going to do with it

Sorry, but where did I question Jake's expertise? I did nothing of the sort. I am merely pointing out that when it comes to judging the reliability of a product, the vendor is not an adequate source of data for overwhelmingly obvious reasons.

Re the limited data, that's fine. The problem arises when things are misrepresented. If Jake had qualified his IMS failure numbers, then one would be inclined to take them seriously. However he did not. He presents them as conclusive, comprehensive facts when in reality there is no way for him to know exactly how many have failed and in turn no way to know the circumstances associated with any failures he may be unaware of.

I don't think there's any doubting his expertise on these matters. But that doesn't mean everything he says on a forum makes sense or amounts to good information / advice. I'm afraid his heavy handed self-promotional instincts undermine his message, in my view.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 07:26 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: It's a kind of magic.....
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post
Sorry, but where did I question Jake's expertise? I did nothing of the sort. I am merely pointing out that when it comes to judging the reliability of a product, the vendor is not an adequate source of data for overwhelmingly obvious reasons.

Re the limited data, that's fine. The problem arises when things are misrepresented. If Jake had qualified his IMS failure numbers, then one would be inclined to take them seriously. However he did not. He presents them as conclusive, comprehensive facts when in reality there is no way for him to know exactly how many have failed and in turn no way to know the circumstances associated with any failures he may be unaware of.

I don't think there's any doubting his expertise on these matters. But that doesn't mean everything he says on a forum makes sense or amounts to good information / advice. I'm afraid his heavy handed self-promotional instincts undermine his message, in my view.
Jake is, in fact, not the vendor of the retrofit IMS bearings, nor is he the manufacturer of them. In fact, he does not even sell any parts or tooling. His facility was used (in conjunction with LN Engineering) to develop and test both the components and replacement methodology for doing the retrofits.
__________________
Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.” - Albert Einstein
JFP in PA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 07:50 AM   #14
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,085
This debate on whether LN's reliability is statistically proven by independent data has little value in the real world.

Porsche's numbers for single row IMS bearings show their failure rate is at least 8%. If owners want to bet their car is not one of the 8% or greater by not replacing their IMS bearings at the time of clutch replacement, so be it.

I'm not willing to place that bet especially given the complete lack of hue and cry on the forums about failures from the thousands M96 owners who have installed LN bearings.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 08:56 AM   #15
Registered User
 
BYprodriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: O.C. CA
Posts: 3,286
Garage
[QUOTE=pothole;389318]Sorry,
But that doesn't mean everything he says on a forum makes sense or amounts to good information / advice.

Sounds like a confession to me!
__________________
2000 S Speed Yellow LN 3.6L cylinders & pistons, triple row IMSB upgrade, R&R connecting rods, billet tensioner paddle&,oilpump driveshaft.Heads rebuilt by F6I with new valves & springs.Cayman airbox & MAF housing, 996 intake plenum & 75mm T/B. Fabspeedsport converters &Dansk muffler
BYprodriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 08:57 AM   #16
recycledsixtie
 
recycledsixtie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton Canada
Posts: 824
Garage
If a maker of an Ims replacement cannot provide reliability of their product in terms of failure percentage or if they cannot provide a warranty/guarantee of their product why would I want to replace the existing one in my 2001 Box? With the Ims Guardian installed then the extra $$$ cannot be justified in this fast depreciating car.

If a producer of ims replacements cannot provide stats of failure rate then why would I bother?

I will save my $$$ towards a 2009 Cayman or newer.
G.
recycledsixtie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 10:08 AM   #17
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post

I make no comment on the products other than pointing out the simple fact that they're not proven in any substantial sense of the word. Assurances from people who sell products aren't even close to good enough. Independent data is required to define a product as proven.
But in the absence of independent data, which will always be flawed in of itself because of the pitfalls of misdiagnosing engine failure as IMS failure --- when in reality it was something else -- then all we have to go on is anecdote, like many maintenance decisions we make. In fact, there are so few examples of maintenance decisions that are based on independent data, that I'm unsure what one could actually decide without weighing anecdote. Everything form engine oil choice, to tires, to rotor make, etc.

As part of this culture of anecdote, we have a situation where thousands of units have been sold and installed. Yet since this alternative was introduced the only instances of failure that I've read anyone posting about are from one of the developers. I can log onto Amazon right now, pull up anyone of the washing machines sold on the Sears floor room and I will find dozens of negative reviews for each and every one. Yet in all of these Porsche forums I can not remember a single person who has done the LN swap, and later reported that it failed and took down their engine. Haven't seen in any of the various magazines or blogs that cover German cars. Which seems unsurprising to me because the IMS failure in the first 100K miles is not a common event, and someone who has exercised the prudence of refreshing the bearing is more likely than not to be in an even smaller pool of failure. In other words it may not be that the LN bearing itself wards off IMS failure, but that the LN bearing has proven more than adequate for the practice of prevention. It may be likely (IMHO) that the act of removing a serviceable bearing, at a regular interval, is what will save your engine, not so much that aftermarket IMS A or IMS B will cure the root of the cause of the failure.

So maybe what I should have said is that The OP is considering taking part in this practice of intervaling the IMSB, and to date LN has not been disproven as a good option for this practice, while seeing much more use than the alternative he's now inquiring about.
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW

Last edited by Perfectlap; 03-03-2014 at 10:26 AM.
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 10:41 AM   #18
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFP in PA View Post
Jake is, in fact, not the vendor of the retrofit IMS bearings, nor is he the manufacturer of them. In fact, he does not even sell any parts or tooling. His facility was used (in conjunction with LN Engineering) to develop and test both the components and replacement methodology for doing the retrofits.
+1
I am the idea man and do all my work on the front end of things. If we didn't choose to install the products, I'd never see them again after they get into the marketplace. You guys see things years after I do :-)

__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist

Last edited by Jake Raby; 03-03-2014 at 04:45 PM.
Jake Raby 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 09:37 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