Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghostrider 310;278716 My guess would be[I
the engineers told management the design was weak[/I]. The true people to find and fry are the bean counters at the company. Bring each unit to market at xyz price, even if that means ignoring the engineers and crossing fingers. Building anything the best way and keeping it profitable seldom have a nexus. As for the numbers thread, regardless of how many engines blew up, when one does and a customer complains about it, stonewalling is a poor response, their customer care must be run by Heinrich Himmler.
PS To rip Robin W, Look, your IMS like a testicle hangs low in the sky. If I still had my 986 I'd just replace the IMS every clutch job.
|
Ghostrider,
The bean counters didn't design the bearing, the engineers did! They should have done their stress analysis to come up with the MTBF (mean time between failure) models. Those models would have produced numbers showing an inferior design through premature breakdown and failure. At that time only the prototypes would have been produced and cost would have been low to redesign.
I would think a roller bearing over a ball bearing to distribute all the stress and handle the high speeds the IMS encounters. Think about it, the surface (and pin point pressure) of a ball bearing in contact with the race vs. the surface of a cylindrical bearing and the distribution it can achieve...duh!