Pedros Techno DOF IMS fix?

[Jake Raby]

I really can't see aeration and system pressure losses as being significant down sides.

Time and studies will tell.

Kirk, It sounds like you've made your mind up. I believe that decisiveness is a key to anything, so it looks like stage 1 is complete for you.

Charles and I had our version of the DOF in 2007, the studies that we did then, and the data that we collected are the reasons why we do not support a DOF when being utilized with the LN Ceramic hybrid bearing. We did this when having a difficult time extracting OEM dual row bearings, hoping that it would be an alternative to a retrofit, which at the time seemed was not an easy process.

The mistake we made then was not patenting the procedure. We've learned from our mistakes, and trust that from this point forward we'll not only protect the things that we plan to bring to market, but also competing technologies, even if we don't prefer them, or have any plan to bring them to market.

Let us know how the DOF install goes.

What is more, your new 'solution' is also not supported by a large number of installations over long periods of time.

Been there and done that before... Remember, we were the guys getting chastised here on the forums for "a retrofit" back in the day. Back then any retrofit wasn't accepted and people basically made these same statements about anything that we did. Thats what happens when you pioneer something.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Jake Raby

Kirk, It sounds like you've made your mind up. I believe that decisiveness is a key to anything, so it looks like stage 1 is complete for you.

Charles and I had our version of the DOF in 2007, the studies that we did then, and the data that we collected are the reasons why we do not support a DOF when being utilized with the LN Ceramic hybrid bearing.

Jake, you are right that my mind is made up about the DOF. What I do will most definitely include the DOF. My big question is what kind of bearing will the DOF be spraying oil on??? I called Mike at TuneRS today and I am awaiting bearing data from him for what he offers. He made it clear though that he is not trying to sell a bearing solution. He is trying to sell a lubrication solution and leaving the bearing question mostly up to others. Your response though still leaves me looking for an answer. So you tested the DOF and found it unsuitable for your ceramic bearing, but WHY, WHY, WHY??? What is the reason, what did the data show? Doesn't the quote that Charles Navarro gave apply here?

Christopher Hitchens - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

You make me think that there is no good reason not to do this by not supplying one.

Kirk Bristol

[Jake Raby]

Sharing the things that we know about spraying uncontrolled oil inside the crankcase would be targeting and would be frowned upon.

What we did was not a DOF, as that is the name that they have chosen for their specific product. Essentially it was the same thing, and there are more than a few ways to do it, some better than others.

I was simply stating that we have first hand experience with this form of potential increased bearing life. That's where our standing comes from, not just saying "Don't apply the pressure fed oiling to an LN bearing because we said so".

Like anything else, time will tell.. In fact you may experience some of the things that we did yourself. Just pay attention and share your findings fair and balanced, good or bad. Don't stop analyzing after the install, watch oil consumption, fuel consumption and pull the hose from your AOS after a hard drive before and after the intervention. Pay attention to every noise and every smell. In fact remove the hose from the AOS and block off the port on the intake and see what happens after a hard drive before and after.

Moreover, run your engine at 6,000 RPM for 10 minutes and drain the oil immediately after it shuts off, then do the same test and install a cut off valve in the line feeding the oil flange. Then shut that valve off and do the same test at the same RPM and drain your oil and see what you notice. Then carry out UOA and compare before and after.

The majority of development is just paying attention; listen to the engine as it doesn't know how to lie and it will tell you what it wants and what it likes. Throw the engine on an engine dyno, or the car on a chassis dyno and shut the valve off and on between runs, or utilize an inline electronic fuel shut off to kill the flow of oil at WOT during a run and see what happens. When you do that you can integrate some transducers in the exhaust system and wee what you find then. Maybe you'll see something, maybe you won't and you have to be looking for issues when doing this, because everything is guilty until proven innocent- right?

You might waste your time and thousands of dollars, or you might find something that someone else hasn't.

What I stated here barely scratch the surface of the things that one would need to pay attention to when carrying out this sort of development. These kinds of things are all I do, all day everyday and it is enough to drive someone crazy. Fortunately I was already crazy before I started all of this.

You make me think that there is no good reason not to do this by not supplying one.

Exactky. Your mind was made up before you even started posting.

[thom4782]

The decision to reduce IMSB risk with what technology would be an easy one in a world of perfect information. That world doesn't exist for the Boxster community today and will not exist for years to come if ever. Owners can only rely today on the available empirical information and the opinions of the developers and other community members.

My calculus is simple...

1. The differential IMSB bearing failure rates documented in the class action law suit make it more likely than not that single row bearing weakness is the root cause of the majority of IMSB failures.

2. The LN Retrofit dual row real world experience over many years and thousands of miles make it more likely than not that it is a life of the engine fix as Charles opines.

3. The LN Retrofit single row experience suggests it is a long term fix, at least 50,000 miles, but its developers caution about inherent single row bearing weakness suggests it is a wear item that one should consider replacing at the 50,000 mile mark.

4. DOF may extend the worry free lifetimes of single row ceramic bearings far beyond wear intervals, but there is no empirical experience or developer opinion to suggest by how much.

For me, the above is more than enough to make an informed decision regarding how to mitigate risk. I don't find further hypotheses about possible failure mechanisms or the merits of one technology versus another helpful. They are speculative and their degree of correctness is unknowable without more data. And that's the beauty and curse of the scientific method - hypotheses are just informed guesses that beg confirmation through laboratory or real world observations before they are proved correct or not.

At the end of the day, each owner must look at the data, opinions and speculations that lie before him or her and decide for themselves if, when and how to deal with the IMSB risk problem.

[southernstar]

Jake, I agree totally - the criticisms you received upon introduction of the retrofit bearing come with the introduction of any new technology that has not yet been proven on many vehicles over many miles in real world usage. It is the same criticism that is now being levelled at the DOF (and at the new IMS Solution).

I still maintain that for owners of double-row bearing engines, the retrofit is probably the most cost effective answer. For owners of single-row bearing cars, I suspect that the retrofit with your recommended replacement schedule is likely the most cost effective answer - although with better evidence on aeration, I would be inclined to see DOF as an important augmentation to a bearing upgrade/replacement. I also believe that for those for whom money is no object, the new IMS Solution is likely the best available technology, in spite of the fact that it has not been tested on the road by a large number of cars over a large number of years: the technology just makes sense to me. By the same token, I also believe that for owners of the larger single-row bearing engines, which cannot be replaced without engine tear-down, DOF seems like a low-risk upgrade. Lets face it, even if it leads to some premature replacements of the A/OS (and that is a big if, bearing in mind that the A/OS failures tend to be based upon failure, over time, of the internal rubber flap), it is much cheaper than complete engine replacement if the IMS bearing fails. As to minor oil pressure variances, again I believe that the engines were designed to accomodate significant variations in oil pressure as occurs naturally depending upon various factors such as oil viscosity, oil temperature, RPM's etc.

Customers who purchased your retrofit bearings at the time of their introduction did so not because it had been proven on many cars over many years, but because the technology made sense. Today, after many years and many units, that logic has been supported in real world usage. I believe that we are in exactly the same position today with respect to the introduction of the DOF and IMS Solution as those who originally purchased the retrofit: prospective customers must look to logic, risk, costs associated with those risks and the particular engine that they have. It may be, as I ssupect, that one size (or one solution) does not fit all.

Brad

[Steve Tinker]

[QUOTE=southernstar;368706]
Customers who purchased your retrofit bearings at the time of their introduction did so not because it had been proven on many cars over many years, but because the technology made sense. Today, after many years and many units, that logic has been supported in real world usage.

You are correct.

I had my LN ceramic bearing fitted back in 2010 when many people didn't know & didn't care about retrofitting the IMS bearing.
But I come from an engineering background, so the logic of the ceramics and the commitment in $$ portrayed by Navarro and Raby convinced me that it was a better solution than the factory original. Convincing enough for me to stump up close to $4,000 for the retrofit which to me is a serious cost for something you can't see, feel or hear!.
Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated - as southernstar says, many years & many units later they are still out there and working, so somethings right with the design ......

I don't know how much time, effort or dollars Flat6 and LNEng has sunk into the whole M96 bearing debacle (and probably they don't either), but you've got to give credit where credit is due - both Navarro & Raby will be bearing enough scars on their gonads to last a liftime - a bit like war wounds to be worn with pride.

[Jamesp]

This is a fantastic discussion on the IMS bearing. It includes opinions from folks like me with an engineering background and many engine rebuilds, but very little (say zero) experience with the M96 engine, other than tearing it down for rebuild. It also has experts who do this every day for a living. Perhaps a little self promoting to be sure, but usually with the caveat, "I am biased, but..." . I did not see any one beating on anyone's character, their product approach perhaps, but that is expected in the marketplace. I'm also not sure why anyone would view this string is a "situation", it's a free exchange of ideas, some good, some maybe not so good. It is up to the participants to decide what they think. I enjoy the spirited technical discussion, and would hope folks would contribute to it with their ideas and products. If you've got something to say, put it out there, we all want to read it. I've learned quite a bit about the IMS - the latest comment on low speed loads (a little hand tip perhaps?) supports a thought I had on lubrication viscosity. Lets keep the technical discussion flowing, and maybe we can get the technical experts to tip their hand a little more...

Jim

[thom4782]

[QUOTE=Steve Tinker;369011]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated - as southernstar says, many years & many units later they are still out there and working, so somethings right with the design ......

It matters in the following $350 sense…

The apples to apples trade off in rough price terms is this: the $650 custom manufactured LN Retrofit lubricated by sump oil versus the $1000 combination of an off-the-shelf ceramic bearing (@ $200) lubricated by DOF (@ $800). People struggle because they are trying to figure out what approach provides the greatest IMSB reliability – LN supposedly better bearing or the combined DOF fix’s supposedly better lubrication approach.

If the bearing is the problem, then the LN approach might be best. If lack of lubrication is the problem, then the DOF approach might be best. And if these two points of distinction – bearing quality and lubrication method - don’t matter much in real wprld applications, then the low cost option is the rational economic choice.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Steve Tinker

Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated

Absolutely! Bearings are NOT happy if they are not lubricated. We've had this before at my factory - a piece of equipment is returned from rebuild. It's not lubricated by the rebuild shop. We assume it is and put it in the machine. How long do you think it lasts? Not long!

This is from the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit website:



See that tiny slit between the IMS shaft and the IMS bearing cover? That's what the IMS Retrofit depends on to get oil bath, splash, or mist lubrication from. That's what scares me about that solution - there is not a great, reliable path for consistent lubrication. Now if you could pump in oil from inside and just let it drain out of that slit you would end up with the area between the end of the shaft and the cover filled with oil - thus flooding the bearing at all times. Both the TuneRS DOF and IMS Solution plain bearing put oil inside and drain out of this slit. I don't see why aeration or anything else would be a concern in either application.

Kirk Bristol