Why make us wait to buy a book from you in 2014 as we are all needing help and advice for this problem right now. Surely you are well aware 2014 may be too late for us. Why don't you fill us in in as this is a forum thats here for help when needed

Thought this was a good one to share. Seems like the world is coming to an end when Porsche engine quality is being overshadowed by Ford

Ford makes the best engine in the world? Germans get shocked in viral video - NY Daily News

Yes Mobil1. And yes I agree. I just bought it in july so it's not much I can do about the past.

Polk, I can understand why Jake would not want to get into an online debate as to which technology is better. It would be unseemly and ultimately, unproductive. He has been and continues to be a tremendous contributor to this site - no doubt taking time away from work at his shop that would be much more profitable. Secondly, many of us are looking forward to the release of his book - and again, we can hardly expect him to have spent so much time and effort preparing a limited-market publication without some expectation of compensation. Do you really expect that he should give it and its contents away? If you had been a member of this site for monthis, let alone years, you would no doubt appreciate how generous Jake has been in answering the questions of various members - giving up some of his substantial expertise for free.

Brad

I just want to know if this new solution is better than his? Or explain why oil is not just flying out of his bearings he sells like a food blender in perdo's video. Forgive me but I am a new observer and having to decide what to stick in my new car.

Now that response is just way over the line. If you expect Jake and Pedro to get in to a *issing match over the subject I'd say you are sadly mistaken. This is one of those moments where you should step up to the plate, do your own research, make your own choices, and live with them.

This is a straight line I expect you'll get enough comments on what to stick in your car that I'm not going to touch it.

It's a free country, man. If he chooses to not to share, we shouldn't ridicule him. However, if there is a negative effect for his action or lack of his action, his reputation is at stake.

send a sample to these guys. Maybe they an give you some clarity on what's going on in there.

Blackstone Labs

It's my understanding that the DOF complimented the LNE Retrofit, matter of fact I thought the LNE Retrofit came with the DOF until yesterday.

Relative to the LNE and DOF, how did Porsche correct the issue in the new (post 2009) engines?

In the latest engines, Porsche eliminated the IMS - no IMS, no IMS bearing to worry about.

Brad

Yeah. Lets see how that works out. We've been inside the 09 and later engines for over 3.5 years now.

A Porsche overhead cam engine has utilized an "IMS (aka layshaft) since the mid 1950s, beginning with the 547/1 and that was done for a reason.

The DOF is indeed a compliment to the IMS bearing (any bearing).
You can install a DOF on your existing LNE ceramic bearing, or you can opt to purchase an IMS Kit (steel-ball or ceramic-ball) if you want to replace the OEM bearing when you install the DOF.
Again, none of the bearings on the market are the issue. They're all fine and can handle the task.
The reason why the fail is because of improper lubrication which is what the DOF addresses.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

I'm just tossing this question out there for anyone, but is the IMS the only part in the m96 that is prone to oil starvation?

How is the bearing-free IMS Solution different from the bearing-free redesign in the 9A1 "solution"?

Jake,

Yupper! Only time will tell w/ the IMS-less. However, simplicity in engineering is always the best ingredient for a successful product.

Southernstar is correct with his statement; there's no argument about that. If I understand your implication/statement correctly, then no body is questioning the decision that porsche made to use the IMS b/t the crank and cams but many people are questioning the use of the roller bearing on the IMS. When a highly sought after company changes the design of their engine drastically, deleting IMS, their confidence in previous engine design is questionable. I'm not saying it's a problem, but it's extremely questionable.

Prior to 1996 when the Boxster came out, what type of bearings did they use for the IMS?

Oil starvation does not explain why the IMS failure rate of a sealed single row IMS bearing is 7 percentage points higher than its dual row counterpart rate of nearly 1%. The more likely reason is that single row bearings are weaker than dual row ones and, as such, they cannot carry IMS dynamic and thrust loads as well. This reason also explains why IMS bearings last longer in cars that run at higher RPMs - the drive it like you stole it ones. BTW: replacing the OEM bearing with a ceramic one fixes the loading problem.

Oil starvation also does not explain the roughly 1% failure rate common to all sealed IMS bearings. The most likely reason all IMS bearings suffer this baseline failure rate is leaking seals compromise lubrication by allowing oil to mix with grease. The resulting mixture provides much less lubrication to ball bearing and race surfaces than grease alone or oil alone. This reason also explains why IMS bearings last longer in cars that lessen the chance of seal degradation by changing oil often. BTW: installing an unsealed bearing or removing the seal on a currently installed bearings cures the compromised oil problem.

Oil starvation may explain potentially different failure rates in unsealed IMS bearing cars that use different methods of delivering oil to bearing assemblies. But first, it’s important to know if the failure rates of the two methods are actually different. The answer will come only when many unsealed IMS bearing cars with different of maintenance and driving histories amass a reasonably high number of service miles - say at least 50,000 on average. Until then, people must rely on seller opinions and the track records of their products. Both sellers claim their products are great. The LN Retrofit has a track record of almost no failures over several years. DOF is just beginning to build its track record.

So grab a few drinks and some popcorn and sit back and watch the debate as it unfolds over the next few years. Eventually, real world experiences will settle the relative failure rate question among the competing lubrication methods for unsealed IMS bearings.

On air cooled 911 it is a lapped bearing with an insert to support the rear journal.

From what I've read and analyzed in the last several years, nobody understand why there's a problem with the IMS bearing. I mean, no body!

There are many speculations but nobody can prove why it happened!!!! I have not seen any scientific test done to it, not even close!!!!

Do you know why they change it to roller bearing? is it because of assembly issue?

where are you getting this 1% and 7%?

Check this chart he posted here.

http://986forum.com/forums/364566-post28.html

The other side of the IMS shaft has the lapped bearing and the 8mm key that drives the oil pump, so there is plenty of lubrication on that side of the engine. It does cost money to cast into the block the oil passages. Plus it is easy to the drive cage bearing into the block on the flywheel side so you have speed of assembly. The original duel row bearing is only use by Porsche, to save more cost after they thought it was safe to build cars that way, they started to use an over the counter single row bearing that is also used in a GM alternator I believe and that is when things started to go "Tic Tic Boom!!''

The total failure rates - dual 1% and single 8% - were provided during the discovery process of the IMS class action lawsuit. The 7% is the incremental difference between to two.

Those stats are for failures tracked by Porsche through their engine replacement program.
They leave out the mountain of cars Porsche had no dealing with with post warranty where owners were entirely on their own. There are far too many variables left out to put any weight behind the percentages in the Porsche numbers beyond that single bearing cars fail far more often than dual row. Its pure guessing to attempt to decipher the technical cause based on the imprecise degree of separation. For instance a dual row bearing car may catch up to a single row bearing car in terms of probability of failure if given enough time or mileage without addressing the bearing. I can not think of a more difficult statistical probability to pin down due to the infinite number of underlying variables. Its like parachute jumping over Normandy in WWII.

OK, think of the 1% and 8% as lower bounds on actual rates across all cars.

It doesn't change my points. They address the situation where the IMS bearing fails first, which leads to subsequent damage of other engine parts.

I do recognize, however, there are a number of failure modes where another part fails first, such as a chain rail breaking, that subsequently leads to the IMS bearing destroying itself as a consequence.

The 9a1 engine drives the cams directly from the crankshaft. Pictures of the internals can be found on our facebook page under the album "4.2 DFI Beast". I am putting together a WTI Engine Mechanical Class for the 9a1 and that will be available in May of 2014. Along with it will come some better illustrations.

This is true , the bigger duel row has more bearing to wear away before failure, it takes longer and with more bearing material being circulated throughout the entire engine there is more secondary engine damage.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1380034130.jpg

I see. Thanks.

Would it be my best interest to "Exclude Myself" instead of "Object" to the Class Action Settlement when my 2003 with 80k miles has been "placed in service" (registered) for more than 10 years?

I disagree with your comments that one can't "put any weight behind the percentages" and "it's pure guessing" tu use the Porsche numbers because statistics show that the uncertainties between Porsche reported failure rates and actual ones are likely very small to make meaningful differences.

For example, if Porsche used just one-fourth of all actual dual row failures when calculating its reported rate, which is very likely the case, then one can say with 95% certainty that the actual failure rate for all dual row cars lies somewhere between 0.9% and 1.1%.

Moreover, if Porsche used just one-sixth of all actual single row failures when calculating its rate, which is even more likely the case, one can say with 95% confidence that the actual rate of single row failures lies somewhere between 7.6% and 8.4%.

These differences - 1% versus 0.9% to 1.1% and 8% versus 7.6% to 8.4% - are just too small to disregard the reported Porsche numbers.

If enough people object, the terms of the settlement may get changed for the better for people like yourself. If you exclude yourself, you'd have to sue Porsche on your own to get any benefit and the cost of doing that will be greater than buying a new motor. Personally, I objected because my car like yours is outside the 10 year window.

To object is a gamble too as there is no way of knowing the outcome and it may end up that you lose your right to sue Porsche later on. I still need to think it through as to what I'm gonna do but do you mind sharing what did you state in your objection letter? Thanks!

Sent you a PM

This would be true if the cars lived in a vacuum post-warranty. But they are all subjected to very different types of driving and engine care which can drastically affect the number of failures. The more mileage goes on the engine, the more those variables can sway the numbers. Hence, within the specific set of numbers you are using, (and I'm not sure which statistics you are comparing those to) you could be correct but the problem is that you are using Porsche's numbers which were not vetted or subject to review by an independent third party and certainly not held to a standard that could pass any sort of regulatory muster. The fact that Porsche can't even tell you which cars had dual row bearings leaves me with serious doubts about the accurracy and thoroughness of their reporting as a base line.

To me the main proble with analyzing these stats for 'beyond general' analysis is that this is a dynamic failure, it's not like a product testing for light bulb where an item is subjected to the exact same rigors accross each test sample. Every test of the IMS bearing (driver habits) is different to the next test with no way of measuring that variance.

The Porsche reported numbers are based on a sample of all IMS failures occurring in all 986s up through the 2005 model year. A statistical analysis of that information can reveal the range of possible failure rates for all Boxsters regardless of whether they were reported to Porsche on not. The ranges in my earlier note reflect the results of that statistical analysis.

No, not true. If you object you will still stay in the Class. Actually you can only object if you stay in the Class, if you exclude yourself you cannot object anymore. Read the notice carefully.

I think someone mentioned objecting through Email instead of writing and posting a letter. Since I'm a lazy bum I'd like to know how I'm supposed to do that.

My objection is against the 10 years max age of the car and against the pathetic 25% reimbursement when the car is bought used.