Who is this raby guy or shop?
 

Now that I'm looking at buying one of these things I keep seeing this name pop up everywhere. What's the deal?

Top engine rebuilder / mods.

Jake Raby. He's the guy who shot Lee Harvey Oswald back in '63.

It was in all the papers.

Just reminiscin'..........;)

TO

Oh cool so sine I'm looking to maybe get a hot motor for a Boxster he'd be the guy to talk to ?

This is forum. It has posts. It has a search function.
You do not have to pay for any of this.

Also free and useful: A website called Google.
They have a lot of stuff, including videos.


Now where is that lazy servant of mine with my crepes Suzette?
I hate doing things for myself. My first option is always to have others deliver to me what I want.

Thank you :)

Anytime. We R helpful hear. C u latr.

p lap
 

a little edegy today?

Jake Raby designed the IMS retrofit via Flat 6 Innovations, which I think may be part of LN Engineering which sells it now. He is also active on this forum, so perhaps he will reply.

If you reading old IMS threads, I have something for you to keep in mind. Prior to Jake arriving about 5-6 years ago with the IMS retrofit, IMS was an issue that got discussed, but not nearly at the level it is today. His product promoted a lot of discussion about the IMS issue, which created a lot of IMS fear as people learned about the potential of having an IMS engine failure.

Over time this has caused people to not even question whether IMS affects any significant number of 986's. Now everyone just assumes IMS failure is going to happen to them and they need an IMS prevention product.

With the assumption now being that IMS failure will happen to you without one of these products, people forget that prior to these prevention products being introduced there where maybe a dozen IMS failures actually reported on these forums, out of 165k Boxster's. If you go to this thread only 6 IMS failures where reported on this site after over 40,000 views.

I think the IMS products are great insurance, they buy piece of mind for 986 owners with Single Row bearings. But I wonder if the fear that motivates these purchases is justified. I am sure Jake will disagree with me, but he also played a large part is the publicity the IMS issue has received.

I should add that I am not trying to bash anyone, this is simply my view on the IMS issue with the perspective of having been around before and after the IMS prevention products where introduced a few years ago. Like I said, the IMS products are great insurance and people seem very happy with them.

Jake Raby
 

You can find him on facebook too. About once a week he is posting the progress on someone's Porsche engine rebuild and the cause of failure. He knows his stuff. He's Flat 6 Innovations on FB.

This is a great forum with some world class people that are very willing to help. Based on your posts, you are either very uninformed or just here to mock…..sorry but I believe you need to be called out and move on...

If it wasn't a problem Porsche wouldn't have settled. They would have moved for dismissal and told everyone to pound sand. If they weren't confident of getting the case tossed it was because there were bad documents that would have supported the plaintiffs opposition to the dismissal. Litigation costs of trying the case are insignificant given that this isn't a case involving millions of cars like a Toyota or GM car. So no its not just fear, the issue is nothing more than logic. A sealed bearing within an engine is prone to oil starvation or oil contamination depending on driving and maintenance practices. And no sealed bearing lasts forever, it needs to be replaced at some interval, sooner if those prior practices are unknown to the new owner or if they were in fact detrimental to bearing longevity.

I dont see any of this, i mean aside from not knowing that shell of a car was majorly overpriced. http://986forum.com/forums/general-discussions/50710-what-have-you-done-break-stereotype.html

Incorrect. Flat 6 Innovations is a division of Raby Engine Development. Our company carries out development and has partnered with LN Engineering on many products. With the exception of maybe one product that LN sells we have carried out all of their testing since day one, even before LN was actually a company. The very first product that LN Engineering ever had was billet Nikisil cylinders for the Porsche 914 engine, and the very first set that was ever made can be found in my 356 and its 2.6L, 220HP 914 based engine.

Even though I assisted in the founding of LN Engineering, the two companies are completely separate from each other.

We dislike selling products and manufacturing them, so after development our part is done. LN Engineering manufactures the products and then they are channeled to large distributors across the world to be sold to Porsche shops and dealerships.

We develop the products so they will be available for use in our engines, which are our only commodity that we sell direct, and we only sell them direct. Our engine program was the first in the Porsche industry for the M96 powered cars and was in place years before anything else.

Our IMS product line was also the first, and we developed the IMS Retrofit (TM) procedure from scratch. I invented the first IMS extraction tool, as well as the Faultless IMS Tool recently released. We invented and developed the IMS Solution, and the Single Row Pro (dual row bearing for a single row application) and the list goes on. Today our competitors that have spawned in the past few years use the tools, procedures and (some) of the same parts to try to assemble an engine as good as ours, but they can't, because the specific components that we use aren't sold to anyone else, or even divulged. Thats the benefit that we have from having assisted with the founding of LN Engineering.

On the IMS issue, no one here knows what actually transpired or who pushed Charles (from LN Engineering) and I to create IMS related products. I divulge some of this in my book.

It was just as big of a deal, the difference was NOTHING could be done about it. If an engine started to fail because of an IMSB, you either sat back and let it consume it's self, or you bought a new engine. No resurrections were possible. The IMSB at that time was believed to be non-replacable and impossible to remove (dual row especially).

People have opinions that are based on assumption, about a topic that they know nothing about. We never tried to scare anyone, we told them the truth and that scared the hell out of them. Today we can't even share the truth or what we find without people and their opinions getting in the way.

We responded to a DEMAND and solved a problem. ALL I care about is solving problems, its all I know how to do. Read this PCA article about me and my shop that was published in December of 2013. See page 11 of this PDF for a better understanding as the interview reveals quite a bit thats never been mentioned before.
http://www.peachstatepca.org/content/newsletters/PresseFall2013.pdf

Hey man like I said Ive been around Audi and VW for years but other than hearing this and that have never really looked into buying a Porsche or working on it. Maybe I'm not as smart as you but don't call me an idiot.

See heres what I don't know I keep reading about all this IMS fuss and I know that there are some people who sadly have been screwed by it but out of the half million or however many cars were built how many have really blown up over this?

Ive put plenty of cam followers into the VW and Audi FSI motors since its a simple job and the parts are cheap but it looks like to do the IMS fix you have to pull the motor from the car to get to it so how much risk are you really running by leaving the stock bearing in and just hoping for the best?

Jake, I want to thank you for replying and clarifying everything. I should add that I think you offer a great product, that it provides a solution to a problem that could not previously be solved and gives a lot of people piece of mind. If I had a single row IMS I would likely buy your retrofit when I changed my clutch. I have a lot of respect for you for creating a solution.

@VWAudiChris - That post is my opinion, which is that, yes IMS failure can happen, but it is not as likely as the number of posts about it would have you believe. Almost every potential or new Boxster owner that comes to this site posts about it.

There where about 165,000 986 Boxster's ever sold, there is no solid statistic on how many suffered IMS failures. So any number is pure speculation, the average guess is between 1-8%. It's up to you to decide how worried about it you want to be, and if you are worried Jake has provided you with a solution. If you aren't then you can start enjoying your Boxster that much sooner!

EDIT:
Well worth a read:

Jake,
I'm a beneficiary of your IMSB retrofit, and I'd like to thank you for that. Car runs beautifully minus the anxiety.

Minor clarification:
Porsche Boxster 986/987 (early 987's should be counted) were at 200,000 in Nov, 2006.
Porsche Boxster/Cayman total sales surpassed 300,000 in June, 2011.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/20/porsche-produces-200-000th-boxster/

Porsche Celebrates Production of 300,000th Boxster Cayman

Just keeping the numbers current for other readers doing the math at home. :)

About 1% for dual row and 8% for single row. How much risk do you run not changing a timing belt? Some of those go a long time, some don't.

I have an '02 base 2.7 with single bearing, the most likely to fail (8%). Every oil change I check the magnetic plug and cut open the paper filter and check for ferrous particles. So far so good but the first evidence of iron in the oil on goes the new ceramic double bearing.!!! I am putting "resources", as the govt. likes to define money, aside for the operation.

I don't understand the semi or outright animosity toward Jake and his development of solutions to the problem. We all knew there was a problem with the number of posts concerning IMS failure. Jake came up with a solution and continues to refine the M96 for us. I thank him for that otherwise I would probably have just sold the car and moved on.

Yes, when I heard about the IMS failure I was "scared" but now have a fix. Porsche engineering unwillingness to admit to the problem or offer a fix scared me not Jake's solution. Let's keep things in perspective here after all we are all supposed to be friends.

AKL :cheers:

I am not trying to stir the pot, but I have never seen anyone be so definitive about the percentages, do you have a source? I am genuinely interested, if there is hard data I would love to see it, it might change my view. :cheers:

I was specifically talking about 986 Boxster's (source). When production wrapped up 164,874 986 Boxsters had been sold, although you are right about including early 987's in the IMS issue.

EDIT:
I am trying to figure out the numbers a bit, although there is no public hard data on the issue so it is all speculation.

If we take 164,874 986 Boxsters, and divide by 8 years of sales 97-04. We end up with 20,609 Boxsters sold per year on average, however only years 01-04 are really affected by the IMS issue, so 82,437. However, in the header of Jake Ray's PCA article years 01-05 are noted to be those most affected. So if we use the number given in the top autoblog article, that 27k Boxsters and Caymans where sold in 05/06, and assume half are Boxsters we can add another 13,500. So total estimated cars affected by single Row IMS issue - 95,937. That is just an estimate, however it does support the case of IMS being a higher percentage issue, because in the past people (including myself) often referred to the issue as being out of 200k Boxsters sold, not 95k. The unknown variable is still how many cars actually suffered a failure.

EDIT 2:
Here is a link to the Class Action lawsuit, mentioned by Jake below. Section II B gives a good idea of the numbers. They had access to PCNA files, so I would assume the numbers are pretty accurate. 4-8% for 2001-2005 (which is in line with the 5% normally speculated on these forums in the past), less than 1% for other years. That does change view significantly, glad I could be a part of the discussion.

Those percentages came from the discovery documents that were part of the Eisen Vs. Porsche Class Action suit.

You'll never find us posting a percentage, because the numbers that would be utilized to create the equation simply are not available with any level of accuracy.

All I know is how many failure calls we have per week. This is for all modes of failure, not just the IMSB. We don't receive as many IMSB calls as we used to, because so many cars have been retrofitted.

Has this lawsuit been resolved? If you buy a car with a blown motor I assume you can't collect on this since the guy who had the car would be the rightful recipient of that cash right?

VWAudiChris,

For more info on the lawsuit checkout this website.

IMS Porsche Settlement Class Action Lawsuit Information Center | IMS Porsche Settlement

The case was a settlement.
Still think there's not a problem? Come answer my phones for a week, after the second day you'll be blown away.

I think it's more the delivery than the product.

Having said that, the entire 986 class owes a huge thanks to people like Jake who develop solutions to engine killing issues like this. The option is there if you choose to take that route just like any preventative maintenance. Folks are free to swap a water pump if they want or can wait for failure signs. Part of that decision should be the opinions of people who know the engine and it's failures. It was easy for me to advocate owners being free to make their own maintenance decisions and not feel shamed into those decisions, while at the same exact time my own water pump was failing.........

Thank you.
Anyone who has been around these cars for more than a decade remembers when there were no options. Most people here on this forum don't remember those days.

Nothing worse than a problem that has no solution.

......but it looks like to do the IMS fix you have to pull the motor from the car to get to it so how much risk are you really running by leaving the stock bearing in and just hoping for the best?[/QUOTE]

You have to pull the tranny in Boxsters but not the engine. I think you have to pull engine and tranny in 911's with the auto box, only.

.......................................

You have to pull the tranny in Boxsters but not the engine. I think you have to pull engine and tranny in 911's with the auto box, only.[/QUOTE]

Oh, ok thanks.

The more I read about how problematic and expensive these motors are the more sense it seems to make to put a LS motor in there and call it good!

So I think I'm on the lookout for a Boxster roller that I can do that to!

@ rick3000

The Eisen estimates suggest there have been at least 3500 IMSB failures in the US and more than 7000 worldwide.

Thats the ones they know about. It doesn't count the ones that were misdiagnosed and etc.

Man thats really a high number for whats suppose to be a high end car!!!!! Mazda had there issues with the RX8 cars blowing up and they just gave everyone a longer warranty so why didn't Porsche do the same??

I guess the part about Lee Harvey Oswald is false ?

Read pages 16 and 17 of the February Panomara.

I posted this on another thread and figured I'd post it on this one, too.

Guys,
I've got to stop taking this stuff so seriously online. I either have to go, or seriously change the direction of my posts, their content and its clear that I simply can't be so direct.

I am surrounded by blown up engines at all times. Nothing comes here for an oil change or simple repairs, and not nearly enough engines come here for preventive measures.

Over the past several years it has rubbed off on me. Today while I was out driving my tow truck (hauling furniture of all things!) a Boxster pulled in behind me and was in the rear view mirror for a good while. I realized that all these failures have taken a toll on me when I had the thought cross my mind of "Should I just go ahead and stop in the middle of the road, and load that car on the truck before I see it due to a failure!". Failures and solving them for years have obviously taken their toll, because its literally all I think about.

When the car passed me I recognized the driver, and yes, I sold her the car with a bunch of upgrades about 5 years ago, but sadly she has really allowed it to really go downhill on the exterior.

After the past few days I have pretty much decided not to publish the failure chapter of my book, and not to post anything further about failures. I'll ask you guys not to ask me the questions about failures, and I'll need your help to keep this all positive.

In person things are a lot different than what they are here online and while I can still be direct in my classes, its not content that can be shared via text without being overly direct. I need to do more of my hands on classes, I really enjoy hosting them.

I don't mean to bust on DIY guys, but again dealing with their complications took their toll on me and things have been so much better since we stopped selling products direct. I'd love to figure out a way to support the DIy installs and provide parts without it dragging us down. Thats a monumental challenge that more than likely can't be achieved.

Thanks, guys.

This guy needs a vacation. I mean getting somewhere where he has zero chance of seeing a Boxster so he won't worry about it's IMS.

You should try to get past the need to force a new bearing in every car you see or discuss online, (or stop and tow every working car you see for a bearing swap) and help those who want the help. Here you have a great thread with many singing your praises, and you publicly announce on a DIY board no more DIY suggestions or support rather than simply say it's too complicated and you've seen too many get in too deep because it's a precise thing, not changing brakes. There's no shame in not wanting to give out free advise all day, but there's a better way of saying it.

The degree of help you offer here is your decision to make, just like the decision to spend thousands on a fix a car may never need. (Apparently a 90% chance)

Timco and Jake,
I see both sides of the equation. Jake is just trying to make a living. This is the perfect place for him to advertise his expertise. I can see where he is coming from in only selling his products to recommended installers. Selling them to diy guys/girls and trying to support their installation would be a nightmare.

Conversely having a few ims failures posted in this forum puts fear in the members. We know the approximate odds of a failure. For me to spend $4000(clutch, ims, rms, flywheel etc) prevention on my $19k Boxster makes very little sense. I have the IMS Guardian installed. I will take my chances.

The individual has to make his/her own choice on preemptive repairs. What do you feel comfortable with?

Cheers, Guy.

Flat6 and LNE don't have to sell anything in the forums. By that I mean that nearly all Porsche specialists who know what they're doing will suggest to an wholly un-informed owner that they replace the bearing when the customer comes in for a clutch replacement. And it's not a hard sell, "if you replace this bearing your engine will be out of danger for that type of failure. We already have everything apart to do it. Do you want to add it to the job?". Sold.
An extra bit of income on parts and labor for that shop owner.


Now multiply this hundreds of times per shop including Porsche dealerships.
Most Boxster/996 owners aren't any where near these forums. And I'd bet that most who have replaced their IMS bearings on their mechanics suggestion did so without ever having stressed over it pre and post swap.