Jake, there is no arguing that with respect to the retrofit bearings. Nor is there, IMO, any argument that your IMS 'solution' is an elegant bit of engineering that effectively replaces the problematic IMS ball bearing with a bearing that mirrors the one on the other end of the IMS - one that has never been known to cause problems. You then, of course, provide for the required oil feed to the new bearing. While I suspect that the number of 'solutions' installed in customer cars to date is nowhere near 10,000 (and customer use would also be for less than a year), I am nevertheless satisifed that it will work as advertised based upon common sense.
Intellectually, however, I also think that the DOF plus a replacement bearing (in engines prior to the large single-row bearing), or just the DOF in large single-bearing engines, should prove to be an excellent solution. With proper oiling, I do not see how a ball bearing IMS bearing (and particularly, a dual row ceramic IMS bearing for the earlier car) should fail. Which 'solution' would I have more confidence in? For the single-row bearing engines, yours, hands down. For the later large bearings, if they still appear sound, I wonder if the cost of disassembly would be justified.
Brad
|