Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Performance and Technical Chat

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2013, 03:40 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sanford NC
Posts: 2,590
What do we know about what happens if you remove the seal?

With product H we have a use the OEM part but remove the seal process. Done in the UK and done for several years. Unknown quantity and unknown miles and unknown analysis of long used bearings. UK forums not full of failure reports.

With product N we have a ceramic part and remove the seal. Lots out there and comparatively lots of years and miles. The forums aren't full of failure reports so we know at least something. Not the ultimate shape of the failure curves but something out to 50k.

With product C we have something similar to the N but small quantities.

And then there are two pressurized oil lubed bearings that are both different in their lubrication method but how many have been used and under what conditions? We have no data. Not even the sketchiest.

Since someone are doing an IMS to reduce risk, how much added risk is there to using one of the lesser known-about products even if their logic appeals to you?

Isn't the one common thing about the two approaches that have been in the wild for the longest that they use the "remove the seal" approach? Doesn't that tell us something about them getting enough lubrication? Maybe not enough to last forever but for a long time?
mikefocke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 04:00 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 84
Good feedback Mike but that brings me back to same question then why did Porsche not use that same procedure and remove one seal off the bearing,whay through another sealed bearing in,they have to have a good reason not to.
moresquirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 04:01 PM   #3
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Simply installing a larger bearing seems pretty limited outlook for thease world famous engineers it seems.
By that time the 9a1 was already a reality. They knew that the crankcase would go away in 2008, and the easiest way to address the issues that were occurring at low engine speeds was to increase bearing diameter, increase surface speeds and reduce load the bearing sees.

Reinventing the wheel for only 2-3 years didn't make any sense. They didn't even alter the crankcase, if they did we'd be able to retrofit M97 bearings, too.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page