I always recommend a "Competent ,honest Indie". Ask here for other recommendations in your area.
But if you are talking about engine rebuilds, that is a different story. Even really good Indies may be marginal at rebuilding the M96.

Replacing an IMSB is a different standard than M96 rebuilding. But don't think that is easy ,please. As evidence, read the 17 single spaced pages of "Instructions" for the LN bearing. It reads like a translation of a Prussian Army Manual. It is full of imperatives . 17 pages would cover an entire engine rebuild for a 'regular' engine ! All those pages for one small bearing !

I've seen one report but not multiple ones. ???

The failure rate for the 2nd generation single row bearings that was admitted to by Porsche was as of several years ago. I'd presume the percentage of failures would increase with time so it would be higher today?

And to be fair , some of us did learn something in this Thread:
JFP's posts 26,27,28 contain info that few of us were familiar with.

Im going to do some searching and talk to my mechanic. Good luck all.

We have had two in the shop ourselves, plus what we have heard from other shops, in addition what has been talked about on the web. Unfortunately, reports or threads about this online tend to be attacked by those with direct interest in the product, usually ending the conversation quickly rather than exploring it further.

There was some discussion on this point a while back, but I cannot pinpoint the exact thread now. From a numerical standpoint, there were more single row engines (2001-2005) produced than dual rows (1997-2000), and the single rows were (from from Porshce's original litigation data) much more prone to failure than the dual rows, so it is a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, once the litigation was settled, there has not been detailed additional hard data released, only occasional "snippets". With the legal action over, and all of the potential cars long out of warranty, the final numbers will probably never be known.

We are all beside the point here. The gentlemen asked a question that was very simple to ask and a simple answer would have sufficed. The question was "Has anyone tried this, looks like a very robust solution:"IMS Bearing Upgrade Kit | EPS those that did could have answered with there opinion and the others could have just shut up not bash him. Anyways to the bashers all these threads that start with a legit question all end up with no valuable answer or a dead end. There I spoke my piece and now leave it alone.

I wish everyone the best of luck. In the future, I will try a search.

Thanks for your help. I think Im going to go with the LN IMS Solution.

I just sold my 2002 S with 39k miles and bought a 2005 S

And for the record, Im sorry I got mad. I just asked a question. I am new to this forum and to Boxster S cars this year and I know you guys have been doing this for a while. I have been a vette, mercedes guy.

I have an 02s i am selling on Monday and I bought a 05 987s. Im looking to do the ims on it, it has 26k orig miles.http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1480300601.jpg
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1480300627.jpg
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1480300652.jpg

Very nice looking car. Best of luck with it.

Thanks.
 

Thanks. I wish you luck with your car too!

Yeah, same here. I can be a bit blunt, but we are all in the same boat. Sorry about that. My point in my first post was that debates over the IMS options get ugly quick and I (and most here) prefer to keep things light and avoid confrontation...which I failed at miserably in this thread, haha :)

That's a beautiful 987 and don't feel like you aren't welcome here. The 986 and 987 are still very similar and there are plenty of guys here with the 987, so plenty of help and discussion to be had.

FWIW, I think the roller bearing is superior to any single row ball bearing, ceramic hybrid or not. However, if I replaced my double row bearing, I'd probably favor a double row ceramic hybrid ball bearing over roller.
Single - roller bearing.
Double - ceramic hybrid ball bearing.

Thank you
 

Thank you. Im looking at either the ceramic or if larger, sealed bearing, DOF and oil filter adapter. Im having my mechanic look at car and go from there. I dont know if mine is serviceable or is the larger single row. Thank you.

keeping things light
 

Mr. Wave. You like to keep things light? Do you moderate the forum? This turned into a pretty informative thread after all, in spite of the name calling (jerk face?)

PW.
Nice post!

I've had my car over 8 years.. I've sold three other Boxsters along the way. Even with my so-so abilities, I find that my DYI knowledge of the Box is above my new owners....
It appears I have become a personal mechanic to the cars I've sold as I've sold all cars to long time friends. Can't seem to break free but I realize that, perhaps, it is my way of paying for all the good, free advice I've received on this and other forums.

Well, in the spirit of FWIW, there is no reason to replace a single row bearing with another single row bearing. LN Engineering offers a ceramic double row retrofit as well as the plain bearing Solution for single row cars. Moreover, there is no objective evidence that pressurized oil feeds extend the IMSB operating lifetimes

IMS Bearing
 

Hi All , great discussion subject
Bought my mid 2001 Boxster a year ago, a 2.7L with 167K km.
DIY Preventative maintenance ?
Removed the IMS bearing, it was NSK DOUBLE row ballrace still in very good condition, both seals were in place, no grease, bearing full of engine oil, also about 100ml (1/2 cup) inside the IMS hollow shaft.
Re-assembled with new NSK bearing SEALS REMOVED, new RMS and clutch
Using Penrite Full syn oil 15w50 SN/CF ACEA A3/B4 high zinc.
Past 170K km runs like a Rolex so far so good.
Regards Brian

I just put the EPS roller bearing in a month ago. After researching this issue to death I ended up deciding to put this particular bearing in based on the following:

1) Roller bearing has a higher radial of load capacity than a ball bearing. I read estimates that the failure rate of single row ball bearings is as high as 10% before 100k miles but that the double row bearings had failure rates closer to 1-2%. The dual row bearing has more balls to distribute the radio load. This results in lower cyclic contact stresses in the balls and the races. In fatigue failure, even small decreases in stresses can dramatically increase the average time to failure of a part. A roller bearing distributes its load along the line of contact rather than a point. This design feature means that roller bearings will see much lower cyclic stress levels than a ball bearing of the same form factor. I chose a roller bearing over dual row ball bearing because I believe the cyclic stress level will be lower in the roller bearing than in a dual row bearing.
2) In reviewing pictures of the of the Boxster‘s engine’s internals, and the support configuration for the intermediate shaft, I did not see any sources of significant thrust load on the shaft. Given the lack of thrust loading, I concluded that the EPS bearings thrust washers would probably be sufficient to manage a inertial thrust loads.
3) I called EPS and spoke with them, and although they have not sold as many Bearings as The alternative suppliers on the market, they have not had a single reported failure. On the other hand I have read about failures on ball bearing retrofits (and The manufacture simply blamed installation rather than Entertaining the possibility that they supplied a defective product..)
4) cost. The EPS bearing was cheaper than a ceramic ball bearing retrofit, and the manufacturer claims it will last the life of the engine. Contrast that to the ceramic ball bearing that costs more and should be replaced every 40k miles. If I had all the money in the world to throw at this problem I would buy the Journal bearing retrofit kit, but for me it was just crazy to drop $1.7k on a 10% chance my $6k engine would blow up.
4) the speed of the ims shaft is compatible with the rated speed of a roller bearing of this size.

Finally, if I had a dual row bearing already in my car from the factory... I probably would have just left it alone... 2% failure rate isn’t high enough to justify the expense and hassle of replacing the bearing.

Please excuse typos. I wrote this on my phone and dictated some of it to Siri... she doesn’t hear me well sometimes.

Not looking to debate what solution is best, just throwing out the reason I made the choice I did in case it helps others with this decision.

Thanks for sharing your thoughtful analysis.
Having chosen the roller bearing option, why EPS and not RND ?
Roller Bearing IMS Retrofit Kit – RND Engines

An update to my EPS IMS bearing.

Installed about 2 years ago. A little over 24,000 miles on it so far. Original 2 row bearing was in a state of failure when removed (lots of metal in filter and IM shaft, bearings still in retainers but substantially worn). I try to change the oil every 5K, replace filter every 2.5 to inspect. Have dropped sump twice since bearing install to inspect, no debris found yet.

Engine sounds and runs great at 111,000 miles. I hope it continues to do so!

The price point is much more reasonable with the EPS, and the roller bearing just makes sense. I think the oil fed option could be good, but from the general consensus, bang for the buck, a bit over kill. EPS does have an oil fed option, for not much more. When it comes time, the non-fed roller is the option I will take in my 02s.

Actually did compare those two bearings. Although the thrust loads on the roller bearing should be very low. The EPS bearing seemed to me to have a better way of controlling those thrust loads. On the EPS bearing the thrust loads are transferred between the outside of the External race and the retaining washer faces on either side of the bearing. This ensures the ends of the rollers will not be the primary wearing surface. In the RND bearing appears to be an off the shelf rollerbearing that is simply axial retained by rigidly connecting its internal race to the cover/flange. Thrust loads would be between the roller ends and the internal edges of the bearing race... effectively loading the off the shelf bearing in a way that it is not designed to be. .... while this may be technically acceptable if the thrust loads are low enough, I just didn’t want to risk it. EPS seemed like a better thought out design.

Gelbster I know your question was directed at Wogin and his detailed post but I will add that when I was considering replacement of my IMS I searched the interwebs and I read everything I could find and came to my own personal preference for the roller bearing option. I was leaning toward the EPS version but the oiling system modifications kept me from pulling the trigger. It just didn't compute to punch a hole. It just nagged at me. So when RND came out with theirs and no oiling system requirements I pretty much knew that was the way I was going to go.

I really was in no hurry to replace my dual row IMSB and it ultimately came out in excellent condition. The replacement was accelerated after my Indy said the IMS was toast and I needed an engine replacement. Turned out it was a variocam puking green O-ring bits and the plastic variocam pads were worn. It was time for a new clutch and DM flywheel anyway :)

Dave
2001S

Remember rule #1 with any Boxster or 911 from 1997 to 2004. If anything is wrong with your car, I mean anything, it is the fault of a failing IMS bearing. Period.

Having followed these IMS threads for years, I've come to the view is that there is no unambiguous answer as to which IMSB is the best replacement option.

Given the consequences of an IMSB failure, my criteria is what impacts do the IMSB replacement candidates have on minimizing potential engine damage either during the stages of failure or everyday operations.

If one's goal is to preserve the engine for a long as possible, then price SHOULD NOT be a major factor when deciding. If on the other hand, one wants to keep the engine running for 5 years or less, then any of the options will probably do and price should play a strong role.

And if you're torn between options, then pick the IMSB option that damages the engine the least when it fails regardless of price. Otherwise, you'll still wonder if you made the right decision

As a shop owner, I can only reiterate you point, but the reality is that as these cars age, they become cheaper, which seems to lead to second or third owners that care more about cost than perhaps they should, which quite often leads to problems. As the result, we long ago adopted a simple position on repairs: If you want us to fix something, we are only going to do procedure's and use components that we have confidence in; if cost is your only decision factor, take the car somewhere else. We simply do not need your business badly enough to cut corners or sacrifice quality. Come back's and problems resulting from cutting corners are a shop's worst nightmare, and the least economic outcome for owners.

Generally, I would agree with you. However, roller bearings are NOT expensive generally. So really, when looking at the options, some are ridiculously over priced IMO. There are some specialized bearings, but it would seem that for the most part, the bearing supplied in a good portion of the kits are not particularly special. So, the cost then must be justified in the other components and "R&D". Like some life saving medications, there seems to be a bit of a soaking going on with some of these components. In the EPS case, given the part warranty (one of the best ones) and ZERO failure rate, plus the cost, it seems to make pretty good sense. It would be interesting, after all of this IMS discussion, to see who used what, when etc. and then cross referenced the secondary failures, if any, in the given replacement systems. Probably never happen.

Yes, one must consider the value of hybrid rolling element friction characteristics in the application. Rollers although higher in capacity can be more prone to skidding if there is lubrication problems especially when thrust is present. When I was last into this I couldn't get a cylindrical roller made in a ceramic....so I used ceramic ball rolling elements to great effect in aggressive lubrication environments.

I also put a dual ceramic ball rolling element bearing in my M96 to cover all the bases, based on my experience and unknowns at that time

It seems LN just released, or is about to release a roller bearing. It is under the R&D section, but not sure if it is avail yet. Has a 2 yr warranty.

...and will probably cost $2000. :rolleyes:

Actually $799.

Features

Cost

They have a 2-year warranty on their roller bearing. Not exactly confidence inspiring. If they can't trust it beyond 2 years, then why should we?

I don't mind replacing these bearings every few years. I think it's good insurance. However, paying $800 for a roller bearing is absurd.

One of the interesting things is, they state it doesn't require any secondary oil feed. Makes one wonder, if the "solution" is an oil fed hybrid ball, then what should the roller be considered? Simply another "option"? My guess is the EPS system is making a dent.

I really believe that the market for these systems is limited at some point. Eventually, most 996/986 M96 era motors will either have died and been rebuilt, thus having the latest and greatest installed, or simply the issue would have been taken care of. Part of the high pricing is maximizing the limited time avail to profit.

The IMS ball bearing is immersed in oil at rest, serviced by mist when spinning. You should not oil feed such a bearing.

"The Solution" is a flat bearing which is why it requires oil feed.

The RMS bearing was actually tested first but not refined and productized until distributors asked for it.

Profit is one of the motivators for product developers. It is not a dirty word. It took years of testing, lots of engines destroyed and lots of money spent before the first dollar of revenue was ever received for a product that Porsche said couldn't be done.

I have no issue with profit, simply making a statement. There is a finite amount of engines out there, and the pricing reflects that. All of the IMS iterations are expensive. Is it good value for money? Yes and maybe. If you happen to be the 1 in 10 for sure, if not... maybe not. I personally think that a bearing is a bearing, they fail. Some last longer than others. It is wise to think of these in particular as a maintenance item, just like a water pump, alternator, brakes etc. at the time of replacement, picking the best for ones budget is probably the wisest choice.

+ 1

I am with Mike on this one, as the Solution requires a film of oil to provide lubrication, but keep in mind that the beauty of the IMS Solution does not have any moving parts.. The IMS shaft is supported by a metal bearing, similar to the bearings on your crank mains or your con rod bearings.

BTW, you should see how much does a special bearing for an aerospace application like a gas turbine engine or gearbox bearing costs.. :rolleyes:

RND Roller IMS Bearing
There may be a misunderstanding here. RND has sold a Roller IMSB for quite a while now. This is not a new product.See Post 20 above. If someone thinks it is new/different, tell us what is different about the "new" and old RND Roller bearing kit ?

I think you are right. Somewhere on the site, there was a mention of a new product coming out, and I assumed RND was Research and Design. So, yeah that could be (probably is) the case.

I also did not realize the “solution” was a plain bearing. Thus NEEDING the oil feed. Interesting they recommend their 2 quart deep sump if the car is a track/race car, even though there is plenty of debate whether this is the best solution for the potential oil pressure loss under high g cornering. There is a great discussion of this on the race page. So much marketing hype with all of this, it is truly difficult to sift through the BS (not at all suggesting LN is BS) and wind up with the best overall solution.

There’s a patent holder wanting to be paid too. It’s not just the part.