Porsche used the ball bearing because it was the cheapest way to control radial and longitudinal loads. It killed two birds with one stone, and found them in a class action suit.

The dual row IMSB has TWO thrust control surfaces to assist with those longitudinal loads and that is a very welcome aspect of the dual row design. Two rows have proven to be better than one.

Like these new ideas on the Ixx issue. But they all bring me back to the old Insaro solution. What if you just installed that bearing, and with the back up bearing that it has, you never loose your engine. Sounds like the best fix especially now that the LN needs to serviced at 50k. What are your thoughts on this guys?

It's not new that the single row IMSB has a 50k mile service interval. That's been posted since it was first available.

I'd hold out a few weeks before making any purchases... Distributors already have their purchase orders submitted for the Generation 2 Retrofit kit.

Or just install the IMS Solution and remove the ball bearing from the equation totally.

The problem with Insaro is while you may have a back up bearing, that bearing won't keep all the debris from the primary bearing failing from taking out the remainder of the engine. Collateral damage from an IMSB failure is the determining factor for engine resurrection.

Generation 2!! I must have missed that Jake,whats the difference between gen1 and gen2. Jake do u believe that the newer larger 06 thru 08 bearing is really superior to the double row and have u seen or done any work on this newer design in respect to IMSB failure. I have searched the web and found none yet.

The Gen 2 retrofit details have not been disclosed publicly as of yet. This will occur after the first of the year as our focus is to get the units in the hands of our distributors before releasing the details.

The 06-08 IMSB have proven to be solid. Though we have seen some failures they only occur on-track.

I am very interested in more info on the Gen 2 IMSB. I was planning on getting mine done later this month but it sound like I might want to wait.

Jake: Will this Gen II be offered on the LN site for individual sale? - how would my local Indy shop purchase a Gen II bearing if I decide to go this route instead of purchasing the current retrofit (I'd assume they will still be for sale?) or scheduling to see you guys in Georgia for a solution?

Thanks

[QUOTE=I'd hold out a few weeks before making any purchases... Distributors already have their purchase orders submitted for the Generation 2 Retrofit kit.

[QUOTE=BED997;375035]Jake: Will this Gen II be offered on the LN site for individual sale? - how would my local Indy shop purchase a Gen II bearing if I decide to go this route instead of purchasing the current retrofit (I'd assume they will still be for sale?) or scheduling to see you guys in Georgia for a solution?

Thanks

[QUOTE=I'd hold out a few weeks before making any purchases... Distributors already have their purchase orders submitted for the Generation 2 Retrofit kit.[/QUOTE]

No, it will only be sold to our distributors for professional installation only. Thats the direction all the IMS products have gone, for very good reason. Since doing this last year our lives have been much less stressful and the complications related to retrofits have been cut by hundreds of percent.

Your local Indy can source the components from SSF Auto Parts, IMC, Worldpac and other major, well known distributors of Porsche parts.

Makes sense Jake - looking forward to seeing what you have come up with this time! I'll hold out for a little while longer before making a decision.

BTW - nice article in Panorama - downloaded it yesterday.

I believe that I am the only 986 owner on this forum with the Insaro bearing. It was a logical choice for me with my car being located in Spain, and my indi shop certified to install it, and experienced in doing so. I agree with Jake that taking the ball bearing out of the picture is the best option, but at the time I did the retrofit I wasn't yet familiar with the shop. Now that I know them I wouldn't hesitate to have them install the Solution. The backup bearing idea is, as Jake points out, probably not going to matter for saving the engine if it gets filled with ceramic debris. However, the primary bearing and shaft are quite beefy, so I hope to get a lot of years out of it before it or something else grenades. I can always upgrade to the Solution at my next clutch change, though since my car only gets driven a few thousand miles a year that will take a while. I'm proceeding to drive the -bleep- out of the car now without worrying... :cool:

I tried to install an SKF 11124 oil seal to a 6204 bearing, but it will not work.
It was a nice tight fit pressing the steel frame of the seal into the bearing outer race groove that holds the original seal. It was so tight it caused the frame to deform a bit on the adjacent side. This seal has two sealing surfaces, one for sealing oil, and another dust seal. The oil sealing part is on the inner race, and the dust seal is overhanging. The problem is the oil seal is too tight on the inner race. It creates a lot of drag and the inner race gets hot when run at a high speed. The seal eventually began to burn. But, a better seal may be possible. This exercise is to see if a better seal if possible on a bearing this small.
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1386642956.jpg
http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1386642970.jpg

My next iteration of a bad idea. There may be enough space on the IM shaft after the clip that holds the bearing in place to press a grease seal into.
There are a number of seals available with a 47mm OD, which is the ID of the bearing holder.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1386724532.jpg

I got an oil seal that looks like it might fit into the end of the single row bearing IM shaft, as shown in my previous post.
It is a Beck-Arnley 052-3380. Can get these off eBay.

It is listed as 32 x 47 x 6 mm.
The outside diameter is about 2.865', where the bearing OD is 2.850", so it looks like it would be a nice snug fit into the shaft.
It is about .235" thick, but the edges are beveled so .200" is the required depth that will give maximum bite into the end of the IM shaft. I hope the distance from the bearing retaining snap ring to the end of the shaft is greater that .200". I know the end of the shaft is beveled so a little is lost on that bevel.
It is listed for a shaft diameter of 32 mm.
These seals are listed mostly as camshaft and tranny input shaft seals.

Some other seals that have a 47mm OD...
30 x 47 x 17 052-4002
32 x 47 x 10 052-3139
32 x 47 x 10 052-4005
32 x 47 x 8 052-3379
33 x 47 x 7 052-3288
35 x 47 x 7 052-3192
35 x 47 x 7 052-4000

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1387158734.jpg

Beck-Arnley 052-3380

I am looking for the dimension shown below, from a single row (2000 - 2004) IM shaft. It is the distance from the snap retainer ring to where the bevel starts on the end of the IM shaft.
Thanks in advance.http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1387568156.jpg

how does dual row compare
 

How does the earlier generation dual row bearings compare to the single row?
what is the rate of them failing compared to the single row?
from what ive read it seems that the dual row are not as prone to failing as the single row, any thoughts on this?

As measured from the rightmost face of the shaft

face of shaft to bend of bevel = 1.8 mm

face of shaft to snap ring 2.9 mm

so, 2.9 - 1.8 = 1.1 mm

Confident of a tolerance of 0.1 mm on all measurements

The single row failure rate is ~8x the dual failure rate.

Thanks again James. I was hoping for more depth in the bearing bore. It appeared there is significantly more depth on the bearing bore in photos, but photos can be misleading, or there may be variances in casting/machining.
Back to the drawing board.
I am following your work.

Thanks jamesp. I have a 99 box. I assume i have the dual row. Do you think i can rest my mind and take care of the situation when the clutch goes? I have 73k miles on the clock. Or would it be wise to just do it asap? Has the ims bearing issue come to a stage where the question is when it will go,rather than if?!