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