One of us has missed the point. Since there is an eightfold increase in single row failures there has to be a heavily weighted variable, one might even hazard to say exponentially weighted in favor of the dual row bearing. Assuming the Porsche designers had not been pithed just before designing the single row ( A distinct possibility), the bearing loads and speeds should pan out. As speed and loads should be accommodated, that would seem to leave lubrication. So what have I missed?

And Jake - I had no idea the 6204 was used in GM alternators! It's also used in mower decks.

One note to calibrate me to others. I believe that all IMS bearings suffer oil intrusion and subsequent lack of appropriate lubrication due to the closed design of the IMS shaft. Its got something to do with the ideal gas law, that whole PV=nRT thing, or something very close to that for the purists out there.

Jamesp:

To your last two comments...

1 - the differential effect of loading on dual and single row the rates of spallation

2 - two mechanisms at play: a) heat hardened bearing seals leak and allow engine oil to blend with / wash out bearing grease and b) contaminants build up in IMS tube oil because inflow and outflow rates are different and they find their way eventually into the IMSB through the leaking inner bearing seal

Thing 1- Once spall begins in any bearing the rate is not of consequence - spall is the removal of chunks of material, not normal wear. This is a failure mode that feeds on itself and quickly destroys any bearing. Lack of lubrication or overload can both result in spall. I posted a picture of cut bearing apart bearing that had lines in it that looked like it could be the start of spall. Jake commented that bearing was failing, but no tribologist came forward to name the failure mechanism.

Thing 2 - You're on the right track, but there needs to be a motivating force to push oil into the bearing or it would tend to just drip off the bearing seal. Granted it would tend to soak in under its own power, but I wonder what motive force could literally push oil past the seal to fill the IMS tube with oil? It may have something to do with thermodynamics.

Trust that Lake Speed Jr. Is one of the Tribologistvthat has been working with us for years on these studies. He is one of 300 people in the world to hold dual certifications as both an oil analyst and a certified lubrication specialist. He just happens to be the guy that we've worked with to also develop the DT40, DT50 and XP9 oils.

He doesn't have time to step forward on forums and deal with a lot of the challenges of doing so. My days on forums are numbered too.

Lake will be part of a PCA Tech event held at our facility on April 5, 2014 where he will be one of the presenters.

People can debate the fine points of failure mechanisms all day. Whatever the merits, the arguments must consider the two factors that distinguish single and dual row bearings, namely 1) how loads get distributed within their designs and 2) the 8% versus 1% respective failure rates. Lubrication is common to both designs. While it may explain the failure baseline (1%), it doesn't address the rate differences.

I have been spin-testing my bearing with the supplemental seal and it spits out a little grease each time I start spinning it after a cool down period. I have a feeling my prediction may be correct. It may be that using grease will require some type of ventilation.

Jake, I just saw the Second Generation ad, very interesting...........:)

Thats a fact... And with that said, its the time we've been waiting for!

What if you could fit a dual row IMS Bearing into a single row shaft without engine disassembly, and do carry this out as an "in car retrofit"? Well, now you can, just like we have been!

Remember when Jamesp stated this?
See all the details here that explains how the Generation 2 IMS Retrofit works.
Gen 2 Single Row Pro IMS Retrofit

http://imsretrofit.com/wp-content/up...ll_page_ad.jpg

And here's a quick video that illustrates how the Generation 2, IMS Single Row Pro Retrofit kit is installed utilizing the Patent Pending "Raby IMSR Faultless Tool"

<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/84432223" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/84432223">The Single Row Pro IMS Retrofit</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user16332896">Charles Navarro</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

And here is the Raby IMSR Faultless Tool. This single tool will extract all M96 IMS Bearings, both OEM and aftermarket, to include the IMS Solution. It will Also mechanically INSTALL any IMS Bearing into any Dual or Single Row IMS shaft, to include the IMS Solution.
This tool IS REQUIRED to install the Generation 2, Single Row Pro Retrofit kit.
http://imsretrofit.com/wp-content/up...-1024x1024.jpg

Charles and Jake:

Wow, I just saw your Gen 2 page on the IMS Retrofit website and I’m blown away. It's the most innovative IMSB advance I’ve seen since you guys released the IMS Solution. Most importantly, Gen 2’s angular, dual row design directly takes on and solves the single row’s thrust and radial load carrying capacity problem that I’ve been calling to attention of forum readers for some time now.

Thom

PS: How does Gen 2's price point compare to the IMS Solution and the original single row Retrofit?

Interesting, The bearing looks wider than a single row. Does the outer bearing shell stand proud of the IMS shaft?

Thom4782,

The Gen 2 arrangement is priced at 799.00, whereas the IMS Solution is 1759.00. The Faultless installation tool thats required to fit the Gen 2 dual row bearing into a single row shaft is a very high quality piece thats built like a Panzer and that cost 729.00.

The good news is the Faultless tool will last for thousands of installs, so while it is costly, people will love to add it to their tool box, because of what it does and how awesome it is, carrying out extractions and installations of all IMS Bearing technologies developed by our group.

With the Single Row Pro bearing kit, the challenge of fitting a dual row IMS Bearing to a single row shaft is no longer a mystery.

While the Gen 2 will never offer the same characteristics as the IMS Solution, it's 1,000.00 price point difference will bridge the gap in regard to more load carrying capacity at a much lesser cost. The IMS Solution remains king of the IMS game for those who have the money.

Two Rows Are Better Than One.

No, watch the video and you'll see that the custom dual row bearing fits flush with the end of the IMS bearing housing.

Accomplishing this was far from easy, in many ways this development offered more challenges than the IMS Solution did.

The magic comes from The Faultless Tool..

Do you cut a new groove in the IM shaft for the lock wire?

Nope, and totally un-necessary. The position of the groove and the diameter, tension and design of the internal wire lock were all developed to specifically park in the optimum position for bearing retention. The Dual Row bearing when properly fitted to the Single Row shaft requires exceptional force to remove, which can only be accomplished with the Faultless Tool which provides support at both the IMS flange and the bell house equally.

No machining necessary, this is a total in-car retrofit when utilizing the Faultless tool. Thats why its an entire retrofit system.

How the heck did you fit a 2 row bearing into the single row shaft? I am amazed!

Edit: Okay, I see

It's what happens when you allow a problem and it's solutions to consume your life completely, and when you have the proper resources to carry out development with an open checkbook.

Well done Jake & team! Thank you for all your dedication to our hobby! :)

My pleasure... Literally!

Thanks Jake. I am amazed - again

Now lets see the "opposition" jump on the bandwagon & start the diatribe scramble to poo-poo this great idea.....

It would have been so much better for them if they would have chosen to work with us, rather than against us. Best friend or worst enemy; there's only two choices when dealing with my breed. We never quit, we never give up and we live for resistance.

Just wait till you see what I have saved for last.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1390136778.jpg

Jake,
Nice selfe!

I didn't even have to photoshop it! Although I think I have gotten too much sun lately...

After I exhaled I am not so high on grease anymore.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1390193012.jpg

While testing the seals on the Nachi bearing, I was surprised to feel and hear any clunking from the bearing even with grease in it. I get a lot of that when spinning the bearings dry, but didn't expect any when greased, but there is still some of that going on even with grease. I assume it is bits of debris getting caught between the balls and race, or the cage getting in a jam.

After a couple hours, what started out as a golden honey-like grease has turned to black goo. I am now thinking the grease may not be as good a lubricant as a continuous flow of oil. So I think I will go back to the oil route.

One thing I do know, before my new bearing goes into my Box, it is going to be run in grease for 3 minutes, cleaned and re-greased, run for 20 minutes, clean and re-grease, then run for 3 hours on the test stand before being oiled and installed.

If feeding directly into the bearing you might want to do a Patent search first.

Thats the case for anyone wanting to develop an IMS fix, don't assume that its not in existence just because you haven't heard that it is.

And no longer is something a quality product just because its patented, there are instances where the bad ideas are protected simply as flanking maneuvers.

[QUOTE=Walter White;381890]So I think I will go back to the oil route.QUOTE]

Grease is used successfully in many bearings. Ask just about any electric motor or wheel you know.

But if you want to go oil, try to skip the hoses and fittings and go straight to the source. You should be able to introduce oil directly through the oil pump drive key into the IMS shaft, and I have the start of an idea of how to do it with a very minimum of structural compensation to the drive key. Another item, I keep seeing things about sealing the IMS, a "lightly pressed" assembly. I do a lot of crazy things but making a pressure vessel that undergoes frequent thermal / pressure cycles (while bathed in oil and undergoing structural cyclical stress and strain no less) out of a lightly pressed assembly is not one of them. My sense is those forces are likely to take that assembly apart over time.

Yeah, I don't really want to run pipe or tubing anywhere.
But I am pretty sure I want to feed my bearing indirectly with oil. The cooler and cleaner the oil the better.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1390278080.jpg

I have been testing the partially open seal design and so far, measuring the oil that comes out, I calculate that 10cc/min or less may be enough. I may see if some design changes to the seal will reduce consumption. But the most important thing is to keep the oil moving through to keep the bearing clean.

I can't remember my exact calculations on the pressure of sealing the IM shaft but I think it was a difference of 30 psi from 0 to 300*F. So if the shaft were sealed with an air temperature of 70*F, the maximum pressure it would see is about +23 psi, and a minimum of about -7 psi. Since the plug would be near the end of the shaft, I think the sprocket assembly outside the shaft will provide plenty of support. I don't think it would be as stressed as if it were near the middle of the shaft. I think a plastic cam plug with some Loctite or similar adhesive would probably work. Maybe install two plugs, back-to-back.

If a hole is drilled through a loaded shaft, the most load efficient way to do it is along the axis of the shaft. Drilling a hole through the IMS bearing bolt would require a larger bolt diameter than normal to maintain load carrying capacity.

Actually, the hole does not go through the bolt shank, only the shoulder.
I think .032" should do.
But I was considering making a larger bolt and going through the cener of the shank. It would actually be easier and stronger. It would only require drilling the flange shoulder bigger. Much like the later model flange.
I PM'd you yesterday.

got the pm - What graphics program do you use?

Here was the thought, sizing the oil hole to allow only a tiny bit of oil (very small hole) would be critical. Additionally the small hole would have a small effect on key strength. Key material could be upgraded if that were found to be a problem.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1390347627.jpg

DVD's on how to rebuild a M96?? I have been patiently waiting.

James, I use a very sophisticated graphics program that takes a very powerful computer and extensive training. MS Paint. I am Paint certified.
Can this be done with the engine in the car?

I have another question for you. Is it possible to get a wrench on the IMSB bolt nut when the flywheel, clutch and tranny is installed if there were an access port in the bell housing. Or is the flywheel just too close. Is there any recess in the back of the flywheel that might allow access to that nut with a wrench when the flywheel is in a certain position.

Should be able to be done with the engine in the car.

No way I can see of getting the the IMSB with tranny and flywheel installed. No place for an access port - its all load bearing/ primary structure

You might want to lay your hands on one of these engines before attempting to save the world. Having a passionate understanding of every part is the key to solving these problems.

BTW- Their won't be any M96 DVDs, only my assembly manuals. DVDs can't be updated as we develop and understand more.

So the oil pump can be removed through the access panel in the car interior?
Incoming PM

I never really looked at taking the oil pump out throught the access panel. I've been more of a "just drop the engine and go to town" kind of a mechanic, so I'm very limited in my knowledge of working on the engine while it's actually in the car. Dropping the engine the first time was a hassle, the second time, not so much. I'm sure as I learn, it will become second nature. From what little I've done, there is a world of difference between trying to work on it in the car, and out on a stand. My sense is that to leave the engine in the car and remove the oil pump getting the front engine mount out of the way would be a benefit. At that point dropping the front down for more clearance seems logical. Someone else who has actually done that can chime in if they have a mind to.:cheers:

if you guys are really going to dive into this, the engine is easier to drop than working with it in there. Don't be scared. Just take it out.

No way, its way too low in the chassis and the oil pump body is part of the front console. To remove the console in the car is a royal ********************, I have done it once and will never do it again.