1999 with double row ims vs single row

[Smallblock454]

Hello @ all,

first of all have fun with your car and don't think about the things discussed here while you drive it. So just don't read.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

OK, let’s look at your comments, point by point:

I really appreciate your answers.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

The “myth”: The reason for the “myth” that the IMS bearing cannot be changed without disassembling the engine happened because Porsche notified US dealers in writing that this was the factory’s official position on the subject. US dealers had been pleading with the factory for a fix for what was rapidly becoming a major issue influencing North American sales, with many pointing to Jake Raby and LN Engineering’s then newly announced retrofit system. The factory said no, it simply would not work, and the rest as they say is history. So the “myth” is indeed a fact that many dealers here still adhere to even today.

OK, but have you ever looked at it from a legal perspective in view of Porsche? Maybe that's a good idea.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Prequalification procedures: What you are looking for is one of two conditions, the presence of quantities of ferrous particulates, or large amounts of alloy flakes. Ferrous materials are serious and probably an already dying IMS. Alloy flakes are always present in these engines, but usually is small amounts. When you start see them is large amounts, something is wrong, and installing an expensive IMS bearing that is open to oil lubrication is asking for a premature bearing failure due to debris ingestion.

Totally agree.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Replacing the IMS with a low cost off the shelf all steel bearing every time you do the clutch: This idea sounds fine until you look at expected clutch life. We have customers that are still on their factory clutch at 200K miles, and a few at or over 300K. Like the Tiptronic cars, these would have never been retrofitted using your approach. But all of them were, and the original clutch was reinstalled either because it still looked fine, or the customer insisted on it.

OK, if the clutch and DMF is never changed you definitely run into a problem. I agree with that. But i also said that there are the AT-cars where is never a clutch changed. So with the latest LN invention i'm shure we have now a solution for everyone. And that is good. Also it's good that everybody can do their own decision.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Roller bearings: We do not install them for a multitude of reasons. They do not offer any significantly higher load carrying capacity than ceramic hybrid bearings, and some of the kits installation techniques are questionable at best. They also have a very limited performance history. As my shop’s reputation is on the line with every retrofit, we go with what we know has a proven record of over 25K installs with no issues. And quite plainly, they are not that much cheaper than the ceramic hybrids, and in any case the parts costs are only a small fraction of the total installed cost to the customer.

I did say a high quality roller bearing. I didn't specify that for different reasons. If you've noted my links you would see that maybe there are several options. For different reasons i totally agree with the fact that the best product that the user is willing to purchase should be built into the car. But i also say that if you have an MT car and change it within the clutch intervals i've proposed, you can go other ways without taking too many risks.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Returning defective parts: A nice idea, but what do you do when you send one back because its run out is too high, and the replacement you get is even worse? And you can only buy an assembled shaft with an oversized IMS bearing in it from the factory, at over $1K my cost, and to fully test the shaft you have to remove the factory bearing, which kills it. Jake has the luxury of having a pile of shafts to go through and select the good ones to put on the shelf for future engine builds. I do not have that luxury, we are always under time constraints to get the car back on the road ASAP.

I understand that this is a problem - a real problem, especially for a smaller independent shop. I don't have a solution for that. But you'll never get better parts if you don't nail the manufacturer on the problem.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

CNC variations: How do you explain the issue if you can take one shaft out and put in one with little or no run out and the problem goes away? It may be the cases in some situations, but the shafts in the M96 engines decidedly have a problem all their own that is quickly solved by using a different shaft in the same cases.

That is what i named with the early engine that were replaced completely. Looks if you combine some parts that are within specs of their own and combine them they get out of tolerance and you'll get an early failure.

These days i think they didn't have the mass production testing solution for that. Today i would say it's not problem to identify such an engine in the factory. As said, no manufacturer has any interested in failing engines with a repeatable failure. That is bad for the reputation and brand.

If you look at the new engine type designs you'll see that they've named the problems and completely redesigned the engines.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

IMS Solution costs: One Solution cost about as much as two ceramic hybrids, just for the parts. And with the exception of a small amount of additional labor to notch the bell housing to accept the oil line, the costs to do the Solution are exactly the same as the hybrid bearings. But the Solution is also a permanent life of the engine retrofit. So if an owner expects to keep the car for a bit, or sell it 60K miles down the road they would actually be ahead of the game when the first retrofit would have come up for subsequent replacement, and history has already shown that the Solution being permanent holds its value at resale while the hybrid is discounted for mileage since install. And to put an incorrect idea away, once and for all, you can install the Solution using the original tool kit, but will need the supplemental tool kit to install the IMS shaft plug behind the bearing on a Solution install. Most shops have the supplemental kit as it contains additional parts needed to do the later designed bearing, like the Single Row Pro. And many shops went to the Faultless tool as soon as it became available, simply because it makes any extraction or installation a quicker turn around, plus it eliminates any chance of a cocked single row installation, and is an absolute requirement for the Single Row Pro bearing. Using the Faultless tool, you shorten the time and reduce issues, which is every shops dream.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't say anything against the solution. What i say is that everybody can do his own decisions. From an indie shop perspective i would recommend the same. And concerning the faultless tool: it did take too long before it came on the market.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Sales of Solution installs also speak volumes; the demand for them has exceeded the supply nearly all of this year. Early this year, the wait time from order to delivery was exceeding 90 days. And we have more inquiries for the Solution than any other style retrofit bearing.

Thumbsup for LN. Always good to hear that the demand for a product is high.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Ball bearings are more tolerant to run out than solid bearings: Jake’s experience is just the opposite. People seem to forget that, being an innovator, he relishes testing things to destruction to learn more. He has taken shafts with considerable run out that had factory steel bearings showing the telltale signs of shaft wobble and put a Solution in them and put them back in the engine. Then he ran the Hell out them and pulled them out for examination. While the solid bearing showed some polishing on the run out side, it was otherwise fine. If you have ever had the chance to hold an IMS Solution in your hand, and in particular the dual row version, the total contact area of continuously oiled surface is utterly immense when compared with the available contact patch of any type of ball or roller bearing. And because the solid bearing surface is both lubricated and cooled by twin oil ports and an annular oil channel, the Solution is a happy camper in situations that would be fatal to other types of bearings.

I said maybe. And maybe i had a different view/intention when writing that. My perspective was not the total lifetime. My perspective was the ability to accept more tolerances at all. Also keep in mind that i wrote before about cost reduction and financial controllers. And also why the engineers might have designed it that way. Again, i have no problem with the solution. I appreciate if they have succes and if the owners have as much options as possible. Only thing i say is that everybody should do / can do his own decisions.

Regards, Markus

Peace and happiness

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Smallblock454

Hello @ all,

first of all have fun with your car and don't think about the things discussed here while you drive it. So just don't read.


I really appreciate your answers.


OK, but have you ever looked at it from a legal perspective in view of Porsche? Maybe that's a good idea.


Totally agree.


OK, if the clutch and DMF is never changed you definitely run into a problem. I agree with that. But i also said that there are the AT-cars where is never a clutch changed. So with the latest LN invention i'm shure we have now a solution for everyone. And that is good. Also it's good that everybody can do their own decision.


I did say a high quality roller bearing. I didn't specify that for different reasons. If you've noted my links you would see that maybe there are several options. For different reasons i totally agree with the fact that the best product that the user is willing to purchase should be built into the car. But i also say that if you have an MT car and change it within the clutch intervals i've proposed, you can go other ways without taking too many risks.


I understand that this is a problem - a real problem, especially for a smaller independent shop. I don't have a solution for that. But you'll never get better parts if you don't nail the manufacturer on the problem.


That is what i named with the early engine that were replaced completely. Looks if you combine some parts that are within specs of their own and combine them they get out of tolerance and you'll get an early failure.

These days i think they didn't have the mass production testing solution for that. Today i would say it's not problem to identify such an engine in the factory. As said, no manufacturer has any interested in failing engines with a repeatable failure. That is bad for the reputation and brand.

If you look at the new engine type designs you'll see that they've named the problems and completely redesigned the engines.


Please don't get me wrong. I don't say anything against the solution. What i say is that everybody can do his own decisions. From an indie shop perspective i would recommend the same. And concerning the faultless tool: it did take too long before it came on the market.


Thumbsup for LN. Always good to hear that the demand for a product is high.


I said maybe. And maybe i had a different view/intention when writing that. My perspective was not the total lifetime. My perspective was the ability to accept more tolerances at all. Also keep in mind that i wrote before about cost reduction and financial controllers. And also why the engineers might have designed it that way. Again, i have no problem with the solution. I appreciate if they have succes and if the owners have as much options as possible. Only thing i say is that everybody should do / can do his own decisions.

Regards, Markus

Peace and happiness

Well, from a legal perspective, I think Porsche at least somewhat lost that argument when they got hit with the class action judgement. While I realize that large corporations often move in geologic time, accepting that there was an aftermarket fix and adopting it could have saved them time, money, and image; but they chose to hold their ground, which in the end did not work out so well.

The reason the Faultless Tool was delayed to market was because they wanted to patent it first. They learned a bitter lesson from the first tool kit; if you don't protect your intellectual property and development costs, anybody can get into the game with cheap and often poorly made knock offs, some of which actually fell apart on first use and were subsequently sent back to LN for replacement. Only problem was they were not LN units. So in response, every new development undergoes patent protection first (if possible) before they appear in public. The result is often a delay of a year or more before you can get one, but the chances of a bogus knock off are significantly reduced. To give you an idea of how pervasive this problem is, LN has actually encountered fake LN IMS Retrofit kits being sold. And God only knows what kind of bearing is in them, but guess who would get the blame if one of them fails.

We work with a very good dealer on parts, but they, like every other dealer, are hamstrung by Porsche's parts system. They have mechanisms to report problem, but rarely if ever hear anything more once the report is filed. It is not always easy for the tail to shake the dog.

[Smallblock454]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Well, from a legal perspective, I think Porsche at least somewhat lost that argument when they got hit with the class action judgement. While I realize that large corporations often move in geologic time, accepting that there was an aftermarket fix and adopting it could have saved them time, money, and image; but they chose to hold their ground, which in the end did not work out so well.

In the end they want to sell new cars. And they are successful in doing that.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

The reason the Faultless Tool was delayed to market was because they wanted to patent it first. They learned a bitter lesson from the first tool kit; if you don't protect your intellectual property and development costs, anybody can get into the game with cheap and often poorly made knock offs, some of which actually fell apart on first use and were subsequently sent back to LN for replacement. Only problem was they were not LN units. So in response, every new development undergoes patent protection first (if possible) before they appear in public. The result is often a delay of a year or more before you can get one, but the chances of a bogus knock off are significantly reduced. To give you an idea of how pervasive this problem is, LN has actually encountered fake LN IMS Retrofit kits being sold. And God only knows what kind of bearing is in them, but guess who would get the blame if one of them fails.

Totally can understand that. Plagiarization can be a big problem for everyone who is running a successful business.

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

We work with a very good dealer on parts, but they, like every other dealer, are hamstrung by Porsche's parts system. They have mechanisms to report problem, but rarely if ever hear anything more once the report is filed. It is not always easy for the tail to shake the dog.

I know, Porsche is very special in some ways. Over here in Germany you have to renew your workshop license every year if you want to be delivered with Porsche parts. And to do that you have to send them current pictures from your workshop (besides other things).

@ all:

This is some info from FAG Kugelfischer for those who are interested in any kind of bearings: http://www.schaeffler.com/remotemedien/media/_shared_media/08_media_library/01_publications/schaeffler_2/manualmountingoperation/downloads_7/wl_80100_3_de_en.pdf

Regards, Markus

[Gelbster]

Page 70 in that link looks familiar to students of the IMSB story.
Amazing resource - the technology involved is awesome. Makes you cringe when you compare the tools shown in the FAG link to a guy on You Tube using a pilot bearing extractor to remove an IMSB !Many of us are stuck in the" adjustable wrench will do" era of mechanics and this link shows how woefully behind we are.

[mikefocke]

Imagine the cost of training dealer mechanics to replace an IMS and the cost of doing it for even every dual row car. The settlement was cheap. The lawyers got rich. Tis ever thus. Said as one waiting to cash a $15 check I just got from some class action settlement. OTOH, the pressure of the lawsuits helps put pressure on the corporations.

[Smallblock454]

Originally Posted by Gelbster

Page 70 in that link looks familiar to students of the IMSB story.
Amazing resource - the technology involved is awesome. Makes you cringe when you compare the tools shown in the FAG link to a guy on You Tube using a pilot bearing extractor to remove an IMSB !Many of us are stuck in the" adjustable wrench will do" era of mechanics and this link shows how woefully behind we are.

Hello Gelbster,

the tools and technology shown in this document are old school. Think the brochure itself is from the 70/80ties. Today you use digital measurement tools. Shurely the bearings description is updated in 2013.

For example for a pro extractor:
In todays world you would use induction to heat the IMS tube with induction within milliseconds to a temperature where you don't harm the integritiy of the metal and than pull the bearing by a clamp mechanism on the outer race so you don't run into problems to jam up the bearing in the tube. The process itself cculd be completely automated by a micro controller. Also you could make shure that the tool works extreme precisely concerning geometrical precision.

Regards, Markus

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Smallblock454

Hello Gelbster,

the tools and technology shown in this document are old school. Think the brochure itself is from the 70/80ties. Today you use digital measurement tools. Shurely the bearings description is updated in 2013.

For example for a pro extractor:
In todays world you would use induction to heat the IMS tube with induction within milliseconds to a temperature where you don't harm the integritiy of the metal and than pull the bearing by a clamp mechanism on the outer race so you don't run into problems to jam up the bearing in the tube. The process itself cculd be completely automated by a micro controller. Also you could make shure that the tool works extreme precisely concerning geometrical precision.

Regards, Markus

Markus, while dreaming about a nuclear powered, laser guided, and computer controlled IMS bearing extractor, you forgot to take into account the practical reality of street level economics: When something becomes overly complicated or expensive, there will be fewer of them in use, and the price for the service will escalate accordingly.

Shops that do IMS retrofits have to watch their bottom line every moment. When the Faultless Tool became available, a lot of shops took a "wait and see" attitude towards spending even more for tooling to do a job that is actually decreasing in volume (no more vehicles are being built with the IMS shaft, many [25K+] have already been retrofitted, many of the total number are no longer on the road; and of the remaining population, many will never be retrofitted.). So if spending another $1K for better tooling is already under review, you can assume anything costing more than that would simply be a solution without raison d'etre.

[Smallblock454]

Hello JFP in PA,

nuclear power? Dream of 1950.
Laser guided? Dream of 1980.
Computer controlled? Dream of 1970.



Complexity and price. Bearing mounting machines with induction are on the market since around 2000. Induction cooking fields in kitchens today have a market share around 50% in Europe. So no rocket science.

I agree that complexity doesn't always mean better. But if you think about SENT - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENT J2716: SENT - Single Edge Nibble Transmission for Automotive Applications - SAE International to replace car bus systems like CAN bus systems or other things than some tools people use are like a fireplace instead of a Smartphone to make light.

Regards, Markus

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Smallblock454

Hello JFP in PA,

nuclear power? Dream of 1950.
Laser guided? Dream of 1980.
Computer controlled? Dream of 1970.



Complexity and price. Bearing mounting machines with induction are on the market since around 2000. Induction cooking fields in kitchens today have a market share around 50% in Europe. So no rocket science.

I agree that complexity doesn't always mean better. But if you think about SENT - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENT J2716: SENT - Single Edge Nibble Transmission for Automotive Applications - SAE International to replace car bus systems like CAN bus systems or other things than some tools people use are like a fireplace instead of a Smartphone to make light.

Regards, Markus

While induction heating may have many positives going for it in many applications such as kitchen cooking, but its adoption rate here is dismally slow with less than 4% of all cookware sold in North America as of 2012 according to The National Association of Home Builders data. Primary reason for low adoption was higher costs to purchase induction hardware when compared to gas and other electric cooktops. So 'newer" and "better" do not always translate into higher sales and usage.

As for SENT, with vehicle manufacturers typically running 5-10 years behind almost any technology development curve, it will be a long time, if ever, before we see it used in vehicles. Manufacturers here only grudgingly adopt new technology, regardless of its benefits. It took literally decades before they stopped putting carburetors on engines and started using fuel injection, and even then only went to throttle body injection rather than port or DFI. Why? Cost. Even now, the only reason fuel injection has grown is because of federally mandated fuel economy rules, not because it is better technology.

Just because you develop a better mouse trap does not mean the world will flock to your door, particularly when then is another cheaper way to dispose of the rodent.

[mikefocke]

And in a densely populated market where the service locations are limited, investment in tooling may make sense. But come into the US with its widely dispersed population, low frequency of M96 engined cars and many mechanics competing on price for the same job and you have a reluctance to invest beyond a certain amount.

I read all the time of people trying to do the IMS with home built tools. Or buying a kit on the basis of price.

Maybe for an engine rebuilder but how many engines does even the top tier engine rebuilder have to do a year to amortize the cost of complex tools such as you envision? Most are employing mechanics who bring their own tools!

[Gelbster]

Well done Markus , you have driven JFP to start talking about cooking in an IMS thread.That is a first !