IMS Eternal fix for Boxster, any good?

[kk2002s]

Originally Posted by pothole

Jake, you're not an independent source on the subject. It's that simple.

Fair enough but I don't necessarily agree that it's that simple.
One could say " Jake has seen more M96/97 motors in various conditions, good to bad, then most. Has possibly abused and detailed what can lead to the failures of these motors more than most.
Like all information out there, you have to filter it and keep it in perspective. It doesn't mean it is not valuable and has insight

Originally Posted by pothole

Moreover, the fact you claim information you can't possibly have really only makes things worse. There's no way for you or anyone else to be sure exactly how many have failed.

So No information is better?
If someone does have limited data and it shows trends, isn't that useful?
This whole IMSB failure percentage thing falls into "..who really knows.."
All anyone can agree on is that this area of the motor fails at a surprisingly high rate

Jake keep the info coming. I'll put on my big boy pants and decide what I'm going to do with it

[pothole]

Originally Posted by kk2002s

Fair enough but I don't necessarily agree that it's that simple.
One could say " Jake has seen more M96/97 motors in various conditions, good to bad, then most. Has possibly abused and detailed what can lead to the failures of these motors more than most.
Like all information out there, you have to filter it and keep it in perspective. It doesn't mean it is not valuable and has insight



So No information is better?
If someone does have limited data and it shows trends, isn't that useful?
This whole IMSB failure percentage thing falls into "..who really knows.."
All anyone can agree on is that this area of the motor fails at a surprisingly high rate

Jake keep the info coming. I'll put on my big boy pants and decide what I'm going to do with it

Sorry, but where did I question Jake's expertise? I did nothing of the sort. I am merely pointing out that when it comes to judging the reliability of a product, the vendor is not an adequate source of data for overwhelmingly obvious reasons.

Re the limited data, that's fine. The problem arises when things are misrepresented. If Jake had qualified his IMS failure numbers, then one would be inclined to take them seriously. However he did not. He presents them as conclusive, comprehensive facts when in reality there is no way for him to know exactly how many have failed and in turn no way to know the circumstances associated with any failures he may be unaware of.

I don't think there's any doubting his expertise on these matters. But that doesn't mean everything he says on a forum makes sense or amounts to good information / advice. I'm afraid his heavy handed self-promotional instincts undermine his message, in my view.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by pothole

Sorry, but where did I question Jake's expertise? I did nothing of the sort. I am merely pointing out that when it comes to judging the reliability of a product, the vendor is not an adequate source of data for overwhelmingly obvious reasons.

Re the limited data, that's fine. The problem arises when things are misrepresented. If Jake had qualified his IMS failure numbers, then one would be inclined to take them seriously. However he did not. He presents them as conclusive, comprehensive facts when in reality there is no way for him to know exactly how many have failed and in turn no way to know the circumstances associated with any failures he may be unaware of.

I don't think there's any doubting his expertise on these matters. But that doesn't mean everything he says on a forum makes sense or amounts to good information / advice. I'm afraid his heavy handed self-promotional instincts undermine his message, in my view.

Jake is, in fact, not the vendor of the retrofit IMS bearings, nor is he the manufacturer of them. In fact, he does not even sell any parts or tooling. His facility was used (in conjunction with LN Engineering) to develop and test both the components and replacement methodology for doing the retrofits.

[thom4782]

This debate on whether LN's reliability is statistically proven by independent data has little value in the real world.

Porsche's numbers for single row IMS bearings show their failure rate is at least 8%. If owners want to bet their car is not one of the 8% or greater by not replacing their IMS bearings at the time of clutch replacement, so be it.

I'm not willing to place that bet especially given the complete lack of hue and cry on the forums about failures from the thousands M96 owners who have installed LN bearings.

[recycledsixtie]

If a maker of an Ims replacement cannot provide reliability of their product in terms of failure percentage or if they cannot provide a warranty/guarantee of their product why would I want to replace the existing one in my 2001 Box? With the Ims Guardian installed then the extra $$$ cannot be justified in this fast depreciating car.

If a producer of ims replacements cannot provide stats of failure rate then why would I bother?

I will save my $$$ towards a 2009 Cayman or newer.
G.

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Jake is, in fact, not the vendor of the retrofit IMS bearings, nor is he the manufacturer of them. In fact, he does not even sell any parts or tooling. His facility was used (in conjunction with LN Engineering) to develop and test both the components and replacement methodology for doing the retrofits.

+1
I am the idea man and do all my work on the front end of things. If we didn't choose to install the products, I'd never see them again after they get into the marketplace. You guys see things years after I do :-)

[BYprodriver]

[QUOTE=pothole;389318]Sorry,
But that doesn't mean everything he says on a forum makes sense or amounts to good information / advice.

Sounds like a confession to me!