IMS solution,or Pedro's DOF
 

who was first and who is correct,

Yes... but than again, no... or maybe, maybe...
Here we go again?

We need a popcorn emoji/smiley

Boy Oh Boy!

Right on!

But seriously, as a Boxster owner who has been wrestling with the IMS question since I bought my first Boxster I would suggest looking at other products... why should I be the only one who changes his mind weekly after reading a different article or thread? Personally I am leaning towards the FVD but considered the EPS roller bearing kit, if I do anything. Since both my cars should be dual row bearings I will likely not touch the green one which has less than 90K miles and a good clutch. The blue Boxster with 115K miles and a clutch that feels a bit tired is a candidate for a disassembly and inspection.

The original poster does not mention the year of his Boxster... if I had a 2001 or later I would definitely perhaps maybe change the IMSB right away.

Let the games begin

My bet is on Mobil-1 0-40

Actually it a decent question as they are different solutions.
I think they are both oil feed but I believe Pedro's still uses a bearing while the IMS solution is a non-bearing, same as the front (For a Boxster) of the IMS

I also believe the IMS Solution is touted as the 'Final solution'

I think LN refers to the IMS Solution as a Permanent Solution. Final Solution has a bad historical reference. What I find interesting is that RND is another Charles Navarro company and they offer the RND RS Cylindrical Roller IMS bearing retrofit, which is what the use in their RND rebuilt M96 and M97 engines. The IMS Solution has a journal bearing, just like the bearings used on the crankshaft and rod big ends in the rest of the engine, along with the front bearing in the IMS. Why Porsche ever thought using a grease filled sealed bearing (lubricated for life, ha ha) was a good idea, along with a 15,000 mile oil change interval by the way, will always be a mystery to me.

For my rebuild after a ceramic IMSB failure, I went with the IMS Solution. For me it is the final solution, because if the engine fails again I will be done with this car!

The two products are based on different technical premise's: The IMS Solution is based upon the long proven bearing design used in the air cooled turbo engines, the DOF is based upon the questionable premise that "it is not the bearing, it is the lack of lubrication". The reason this is questionable is that if it really was the lack of lubrication, the dual row bearing with twice the bearing surface contact area should fail more frequently than the single row, "due to a lack of lubrication", which is exactly counter to reality.....

It’s actually the opposite, since the bearing wear is twice as fast in the single row because of the double load compared to the dual row. So the single row starts pitting much sooner. DOF would make sense if the failure was the result of lack of lubrication. But that’s not the case in a bearing that’s swimming in oil all the time.

Twice baked potato gets my vote. ;)

The theory on the DOF is the lack of lubrication causes heat build up, leading to galling and failure. As the dual row has twice the contact area, the heat build up in the bearing should be both faster and to a higher temp, which should be leading to its failure sooner than the single row. But that is not what happens in the real world, were single rows fail at a rate near ten times that of dual rows.

I don`t think the contact area really matters here. The axial force on each ball is double in a single-row bearing as compared to a dual-row. The contact surface from the bearing ball`s point of view is identical in both single-row and dual-row. Heat dissipation is similar too, as it`s like putting two bearings next to each other. What is different, is the load. If the bearing was running completely dry, the dual row would still last longer.

Vehemently disagree, PW... rice pilaf pairs much better

:matchup:

That's BS and you know it. You have no data to back that up.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Perfectly done french fries are better than twice baked potatoes or rice pilaf! How is this even a question? :cheers:

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong!

French fries are just rebranded twice baked potatoes.

The gall you both have is nothing short of astounding. To challenge not only my expertise but also 5 decades of empirical evidence with rice pilaf. Sheesh...

Look you guys..... having lived in- Belgium and France for just short of 4 years, I don't mind teaching y'all a thing or two about French fries.
Let me know.... I'll school ya up.

In the meantime:
Most important thing to know is that they get dipped THREE times, in different temperatures. And horse grease is the real secret.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

LN/Flat6 actually began experimenting with roller bearings before their single/dual row bearings were brought to market. They only developed the roller bearing product when distributors said they wanted a different price point distributed via a different channel.

There must be a dozen kits now available from many sources and price points. The good news is how few failures get posted to the forums though that may be for fear of getting flamed by that producers fanboys.

So My car has 80 K paid 9k for it,If I decide on the solution,
at 1800.00 and something else blows it up,can I re use the solution on a diffrant engine,..or is it molded to the I.Shaft

You need the right potatoes to make the best french fries too.