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