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.