Who is this raby guy or shop?

[VWAudiChris]

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

[Timco]

Top engine rebuilder / mods.

[TeamOxford]

Originally Posted by VWAudiChris

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

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

It was in all the papers.

Just reminiscin'..........

TO

[VWAudiChris]

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

[Perfectlap]

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.

[VWAudiChris]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

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.

Thank you

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by VWAudiChris

Thank you

Anytime. We R helpful hear. C u latr.

[nicecar]

a little edegy today?

[jdlmodelt]

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.

[rick3000]

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.

[VWAudiChris]

Originally Posted by rick3000

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.

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?

[Jamesp]

Originally Posted by VWAudiChris

how much risk are you really running by leaving the stock bearing in and just hoping for the best?

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.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

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

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

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

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.........

[rick3000]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

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 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.

Originally Posted by thstone

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.

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.

[Jake Raby]

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.

[woodsman]

......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.

[JFP in PA]

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

[VWAudiChris]

Originally Posted by woodsman

......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?

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!

[runjmc2]

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...