Anybody used the LN Roller bearing IMS bearing?

[SilverSSS]

I tend to favor a roller bearing for this swap, has anybody here successfully used the LN Roller bearing Replacement bearing for their IM S upgrade? Any issues?

[78F350]

Originally Posted by SilverSSS

I tend to favor a roller bearing for this swap, has anybody here successfully used the LN Roller bearing Replacement bearing for their IM S upgrade? Any issues?

I'm just sitting at the office waiting for a call and you got me curious. I'll do some Googling for you at no charge.

I am not aware that LN produces a roller bearing replacement for the IMS. There is one that they offer on their web site as an "economical alternative to the ceramic roller bearing". But it appears that it is actually createded by RND Engines rather than LN.
LNE states: "We did develop a version that utilized a cylindrical roller bearing with thrust ring, but it never made it from testing to production for the primary reason that Porsche chose a ball bearing originally, not a roller."

There is some interesting discussion of OTHER roller bearings here:
http://986forum.com/forums/general-discussions/56810-ims-replaced-roller-bearing.html
and here:
EPS Eternal fix Cylindrical roller bearing ims with oil feed - Rennlist Discussion Forums

By my read it looks like the biggest problem with the roller bearings is dealing with thrust force. It looks like that one, sold on the LN web site, handles the load well and does not require an oil feed. Oil feed implementations may vary in success, so I like that this one does not need it. It costs the same as the ceramic ball bearing replacements.

I have no experience with it, but it looks like a good 4 year/50,000 mile choice.

[10/10ths]

IMS Solution Retrofits

Just ship your car to Jake Raby at Flat 6 Innovations like I did and have him install the plain bearing, oil fed, IMS Solution. Lifetime fix.

Just do it and start enjoying life.

[78F350]

Originally Posted by 10/10ths

IMS Solution Retrofits

Just ship your car to Jake Raby at Flat 6 Innovations like I did and have him install the plain bearing, oil fed, IMS Solution. Lifetime fix.

Just do it and start enjoying life.

Based on what was said in this thread:
Newbee IMS Question for 2001 S
His car may not be a candidate for that without a complete engine disassembly. ...and any fix that feeds potentially contaminated oil into the bearing is also not a good idea.

[10/10ths]

.....well......based upon THAT...



He is so far past screwed, he can't catch a bus BACK to being screwed.


A new IMS is not going to help that time bomb, only delay the explosion.

Thanks for the head's up.

New engine time.

Yikes.

Sorry, Dude.

:ah:

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by SilverSSS

I tend to favor a roller bearing for this swap, has anybody here successfully used the LN Roller bearing Replacement bearing for their IM S upgrade? Any issues?

LN produced a roller bearing version of the IMS at the request of a large engine rebuilder they do business with that wanted to have something unique for their rebuilt engine's. Truth be told, the roller bearing has no real advantages over a ball bearing version, particularly the ceramic hybrid type bearing that LN is famous for.

If you want the best, go for the IMS Solution, which is the only permanent IMS retrofit on the market. A lot of independent shops now do the Solutions, and LN released a dual row version earlier this year.

That said, just be aware that any shop doing the Solution worth its salt would flunk your car in the pre install inspection due to metal in the filter and/or sump, and refuse to do the install.

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by SilverSSS

I tend to favor a roller bearing for this swap, has anybody here successfully used the LN Roller bearing Replacement bearing for their IM S upgrade? Any issues?

Favoring one for another; a scientific reasoning should still be an influence factor in your decision (brand/makes aside). If your car never rev pass the range of an F1 car, you might as well be better with a roller long term. The ball bearing type however seems to be the trade off and best of both worlds.

Still today nobody have been able to output centrifugal force data on the shaft itself so hard (near impossible) to say which is better. If it be me I'd stick with what Porsche says

Roller bearings are a type of bearing that use rolling elements to support loads and reduce friction. As opposed to ball bearings, roller bearings have barrel-shaped rolling elements instead of spherical balls. They are capable of supporting heavier loads than similarly sized ball bearings but cannot handle as high of speeds as ball bearings.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

Favoring one for another; a scientific reasoning should still be an influence factor in your decision (brand/makes aside). If your car never rev pass the range of an F1 car, you might as well be better with a roller long term. The ball bearing type however seems to be the trade off and best of both worlds.

Still today nobody have been able to output centrifugal force data on the shaft itself so hard (near impossible) to say which is better. If it be me I'd stick with what Porsche says

Roller bearings are a type of bearing that use rolling elements to support loads and reduce friction. As opposed to ball bearings, roller bearings have barrel-shaped rolling elements instead of spherical balls. They are capable of supporting heavier loads than similarly sized ball bearings but cannot handle as high of speeds as ball bearings.

A far larger factor than RPM is the harmonics of the shaft itself; most IMS retrofits still allow, or even encourage, oil intrusion into the shaft, which can set up strange vibrations as the shaft, now partially full of oil, accelerates under load; none of which is doing the rear bearing any good.

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

A far larger factor than RPM is the harmonics of the shaft itself; most IMS retrofits still allow, or even encourage, oil intrusion into the shaft, which can set up strange vibrations as the shaft, now partially full of oil, accelerates under load; none of which is doing the rear bearing any good.

I know, makes you really wonder if the kit got balanced in that Finland backshop before each installations lolll That should have taken care of the harmonics at best.

Was just sayin RPM, often the easiest decision benchmark when CAE data is out of reach. Old formulas. Tons of engineer calculators available online that will let anyone know how much you'll be able to rev up that little sport car during those spirit drives (roller vs balls, etc). Not a taboo thing

MicroPoly - Maximum RPM Calculator

(J - why builders want rollers? any specific reason(s) to this?)

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

I know, makes you really wonder if the kit got balanced in that Finland backshop before each installations lolll That should have taken care of the harmonics at best.

Was just sayin RPM, often the easiest decision benchmark when CAE data is out of reach. Old formulas. Tons of engineer calculators available online that will let anyone know how much you'll be able to rev up that little sport car during those spirit drives (roller vs balls, etc). Not a taboo thing

MicroPoly - Maximum RPM Calculator

(J - why builders want rollers? any specific reason(s) to this?)

They advertise "superior thrust control", which makes no sense because the shaft uses the IMS rear flange as a rear thrust bearing, and even the factory IMS bearing uses the center bolt to limit forward thrust.

We have pulled a lot of OEM bearings, and not once have seen evidence of excessive thrust loading.

[Nine8Six]

huh? Completely lost now man. Roller bearings have nothing to do with 'thrust', I'll check again but last time I did it wasn't lolll I would have expected the use of the roller bearing to defeat any great centrifugal force/load that the shaft could have made. Interesting....

Thrust? as in gravity pull under accel? momentum (kg.m/s)? data based on what exactly? If you know. Not that I care to know, just curious

[jdraupp]

I'm kind of surprised that for someone who claims to be very knowledgeable on cars, and familiar with roller bearings, you've ignored the most important step to a retrofit which is an engine cleaning. If you have ferrous metal in your engine then a retrofit isn't going to help you. The metal will only destroy the next bearing you put in.

[78F350]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

huh? Completely lost now man. Roller bearings have nothing to do with 'thrust', I'll check again but last time I did it wasn't lolll I would have expected the use of the roller bearing to defeat any great centrifugal force/load that the shaft could have made. Interesting....

Thrust? as in gravity pull under accel? momentum (kg.m/s)? data based on what exactly? If you know. Not that I care to know, just curious

I'm no engineer, but in this reference I think that "thrust" is referring to motion perpendicular to the axis of rotation.


I would not expect a lot of force in that direction on the IMS, but a slight oscillation at high RPM over time could wear a roller style much more than a spherical ball. ...?

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by 78F350

I'm no engineer, but in this reference I think that "thrust" is referring to motion perpendicular to the axis of rotation.


I would not expect a lot of force in that direction on the IMS, but a slight oscillation at high RPM over time could wear a roller style much more than a spherical ball. ...?

You are correct in your assumption about thrust.

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by 78F350

I'm no engineer, but in this reference I think that "thrust" is referring to motion perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

Oh your dead right, thrust it is. Perfect illustration

Put thrust load on that roller bearing in your picture and it will immediately fail. Not after a few rotations, I mean immediately fail as "it just won't spin anymore".

hence why I was confused with JFP's thrust explanation. In fact, I'm convinced its a spelling mistake he didn't bother to correct. Or perhaps he's trying to make fun of the IMS business-goin'on thing situation. I don't know man.

If indeed that IMS shaft suddenly requires both thrust and load management then one needs a bloody angular bearing on that axis. Beside these sort of shaft design are rare as hell, they are terrible design in fact and are avoided as much as possible. Porsche?!

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

You are correct in your assumption about thrust.

beat me to it. I get it now lolll haha funny, I almost bit (or maybe I did already)

carry on all

[Gelbster]

JFP covered that well in #6 earlier:"
"That said, just be aware that any shop doing the Solution worth its salt would flunk your car in the pre install inspection due to metal in the filter and/or sump, and refuse to do the install."
Yes, I do hang on his every M96 word.He is very knowledgeable and helpful.

[SilverSSS]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

LN produced a roller bearing version of the IMS at the request of a large engine rebuilder they do business with that wanted to have something unique for their rebuilt engine's. Truth be told, the roller bearing has no real advantages over a ball bearing version, particularly the ceramic hybrid type bearing that LN is famous for.

If you want the best, go for the IMS Solution, which is the only permanent IMS retrofit on the market. A lot of independent shops now do the Solutions, and LN released a dual row version earlier this year.

That said, just be aware that any shop doing the Solution worth its salt would flunk your car in the pre install inspection due to metal in the filter and/or sump, and refuse to do the install.

Have you seen my Car J? Have you looked at my car. You don't Know at all. I was asking about the roller bearing, not you opinion about what you don't know. Thanks for the info about the roller bearing.
And to expand a bit on this feces with LN and their claim of never suffering a failure, which has been proven not to be true, and their 'Prequalification' as absolute dog feces. What they're doing is trying to cherry pick cars that never had a problem to begin with, so it's a huge question weather or not these cars would of ever had an issue with their bearing ever, anyway. So - Not impressed either with Stuck on Stupid comments- i know, it's the internet, or LN's magic bearing that only fixes problems that don't exist. T/Y

:ah:

[jdraupp]

Originally Posted by SilverSSS

Have you seen my Car J? Have you looked at my car. You don't Know at all. I was asking about the roller bearing, not you opinion about what you don't know. Thanks for the info about the roller bearing.
And to expand a bit on this feces with LN and their claim of never suffering a failure, which has been proven not to be true, and their 'Prequalification' as absolute dog feces. What they're doing is trying to cherry pick cars that never had a problem to begin with, so it's a huge question weather or not these cars would of ever had an issue with their bearing ever, anyway. So - Not impressed either with Stuck on Stupid comments- i know, it's the internet, or LN's magic bearing that only fixes problems that don't exist. T/Y

:ah:

When your motor grenades after a retrofit you have no one to blame but yourself.

Has he seen your motor? No. However you act like yours is so special. He's seen a million other m96s in every form of failure. As has Jake Raby. Raby has seen so many failures that he actually came up with a way to make them better. If you want to thumb your nose at that research, go ahead, it's your money. Ferrous metal in your engine is bad anyway you slice it. If you think the roller bearing will pray it away, best of luck. I'll light a candle for you tomorrow.

[SilverSSS]

Man walks into LN Medical Offices, Doc, i feel fine! Dr. Elen says, see, told you so, that will be 800 bucks! LoL.. ; )