Bought Boxster S! IMS identification via housing.

[LoneWolfGal]

Originally Posted by Petecomplete

Thank you. Looking foreward to summer now.

No? Have you googled specificly then? Because trawling both this and the BoXa.net forum yealds plenty of positive feedback from people who have it, and with extensive searching and googling, I could not find a single well documented failure, unlike the FVD Brombacher bearing (rebranded SKF bearing) which both Porsche Classic Center (porsche's own center focused on the classics, there are 4 of these centers worldwide) and AutoTech-Sport wanted to use (the only two willing to do the job). FVD is a regular sealed ball bearing like the one originally in the car, but apparently even more failure prone with documented posts of failures after as few as 20 000 km. Porsche classic center recommended against doing anything at all, as they had not seen a orginal IMS failure in 13 years, but three failures of a changed ims (fvd brombacher is my guess). They actually called the whole IMS issue "an american problem", and said they rarely change them. True enough, very, very few 986/996 on the marked have had ims changed in the time I have looked at adverts. I decided to change it anyway, but I'm not putting in the same flawed thing as I am replacing, no way.

The EPS could easily be ordered from design911 in the UK with VAT agreement with Norway, and almost no delivery fee. Also, it comes with a flange so I did not have to figure out if i had a dual or singel row which would cost me as the car would then need to have gearbox out, and then be stuck at the workshop as i waited for the bearing to arrive. So it seemed like the obvious and most hassle free choice, as i would not want another bearing identical to the original.

I was very interested in the EPS roller bearing system for a while, until forum Porsche guru JFP in PA pointed out that the oiling system they devised for the bearing, i.e., poking a hole in the oil pump and directing the oil flow to the bearing through the hollow center of the intermediate shaft, was a flawed design. As folks here can bear witness, I went through many stages of understanding before I finally chose an IMS bearing. Although I argued and fought against it because of the cost, ultimately I realized that LN Engineering's IMS Solution was far and away the best design and the only permanent solution. It has neither ball nor roller bearings, both of which will eventually fail, and it supplies fresh, filtered oil to the bushing-like bearing. Its inventor, Jake Raby, has a number of videos about the Solution. I recommend that you watch a few. Due to JFP's and Jake's irrefutable logic, this hardheaded holdout became a convert.

[Petecomplete]

Originally Posted by LoneWolfGal

I was very interested in the EPS roller bearing system for a while, until forum Porsche guru JFP in PA pointed out that the oiling system they devised for the bearing, i.e., poking a hole in the oil pump and directing the oil flow to the bearing through the hollow center of the intermediate shaft, was a flawed design. As folks here can bear witness, I went through many stages of understanding before I finally chose an IMS bearing. Although I argued and fought against it because of the cost, ultimately I realized that LN Engineering's IMS Solution was far and away the best design and the only permanent solution. It has neither ball nor roller bearings, both of which will eventually fail, and it supplies fresh, filtered oil to the bushing-like bearing. Its inventor, Jake Raby, has a number of videos about the Solution. I recommend that you watch a few. Due to JFP's and Jake's irrefutable logic, this hardheaded holdout became a convert.

I agree. But the oiling system they made for it is totally uneccassary, they also say so themselves. I am installing only the bearing, lubed by oil in crankshaft like any open bearing. The ims solution looks very good, and the LN ceramic bearings also. If you are in the US especially. I know them well, as I have read all IMS related posts on both this forum and boxa.net. truth be told, during last 5 years i have read all posts on this subforum back to its beginning I considered LN but, over here in Europe i could not find a single vendor that sold LN bearing in a webshop, and the company listed as importer did not have a webshop, nor did they answer email. Further, no LN certified installers in my country. So LN seems to be a US thing. Further, Bad exchange rate from strong USD to weak NOK at the time + 25% VAT made the LN products very, very expensive. The EPS bearing on the other hand was available via UK webshop and ready to ship instantly. I have the bearing already, and give it to the workshop upon car delivery.


But back to the posts Main issue, cannot the type of original bearing be identified?

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Petecomplete

But back to the posts Main issue, cannot the type of original bearing be identified?

As noted previously, 2000 and 2001 engines were a transitional period where either bearing could be in play. The ONLY known and proven way to determine which bearing is in the engine is to take it apart and look, period.

My shop has been doing retrofits since they first began, and that is what we do when cars of that vintage come in. All the internet nonsense about VIN numbers, engine seral numbers, build dates, phases of the moon, etc. have proven to be invalid. We have seen very early 2000 cars with single row bearings, and very late 2001 cars with dual rows, as well as the reverse. Visual inspection is required.

[Petecomplete]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

As noted previously, 2000 and 2001 engines were a transitional period where either bearing could be in play. The ONLY known and proven way to determine which bearing is in the engine is to take it apart and look, period.

My shop has been doing retrofits since they first began, and that is what we do when cars of that vintage come in. All the internet nonsense about VIN numbers, engine seral numbers, build dates, phases of the moon, etc. have proven to be invalid. We have seen very early 2000 cars with single row bearings, and very late 2001 cars with dual rows, as well as the reverse. Visual inspection is required.

Ok thanks again JFP. Appreciate your response. Either way, my insurance provide drivetrain insurance so i do not worry much. Not long before it goes to the workshop either way. I have not bothered bying a foxwell reader to read out cam deviation either, as the brown particles in the filter indicate that I should do that job at the same time either way. Workshop will change pads and chains.

[LoneWolfGal]

Originally Posted by Petecomplete

I agree. But the oiling system they made for it is totally uneccassary, they also say so themselves. I am installing only the bearing, lubed by oil in crankshaft like any open bearing. The ims solution looks very good, and the LN ceramic bearings also.

Pete, I could have written that almost verbatim five or six months ago, before my thinking evolved. In an effort to avoid forking over what I considered (and still consider) the Solution's exorbitant cost, I reproduced LN's contradictory statements as a fait accompli. (Example: The sump provides all the oil a bearing needs.) Oiling method aside, the Solution's bearing design won me over, although I came close to choosing their ceramic-hybrid bearing. A shame LN's products are unavailable in Europe. Best of luck on your IMS bearing's longevity.

[Petecomplete]

Originally Posted by LoneWolfGal

Pete, I could have written that almost verbatim five or six months ago, before my thinking evolved. In an effort to avoid forking over what I considered (and still consider) the Solution's exorbitant cost, I reproduced LN's contradictory statements as a fait accompli. (Example: The sump provides all the oil a bearing needs.) Oiling method aside, the Solution's bearing design won me over, although I came close to choosing their ceramic-hybrid bearing. A shame LN's products are unavailable in Europe. Best of luck for your IMS bearing's longevity.

Yep. If there was a importer and a workshop familiar and certifies with the LN product line, i probably would went for the solution myself. There is no doubt it is the best design overall, removing moving parts.

However the IMS issue is considered greatly exaggerated here in europe. Porsche entusiasts know about it, but 95% cars on the marked has not had it changed. Allthou personally i think the 8-10% failure rate proven i the lawsuit is too high for comfort and is the reason i wanted to change that 25 year old, 73000 mile bearing thats in the car now.

I think the eps bearing will be fine. Chances of failure are not 0% but its def a upgrade. Considering its a 25 year old car and all other failure prone components of the m96 engine, i'm ok with the odds. I got the car somewhat cheap, because it was fall, and seller had given up selling it that year. Paint was miserable as well. The part of the reason i did not go for a 996 is the fact that i now have funds for a replacement engine or huge costs should the issue arise. That, and the fact that my insurance company gives drivetrain insurance up to 200 000km (no age limit) with only 1000USD paid by me if engine grenades, leaves me pretty relaxed about this.

I even managed to track down Norways answer to mr.Raby! A guy dedicated to rebuilding these engines. He said he works exclusivly on the engines, no other work on the cars. Rebuilds and work on around 10 engines a year and has been doing that for 17 years. He said if I ever had problems, too contact him. He converts to 3.4/3.6 as well. All the workshops and insurance companies knows him, even thou he stays off forums and doesn't even have a web page. He said he wants the work he does to speak for itself. Very interesting talk with him on the phone.

Now the snow melts, the birds have arrived for spring, and I can't wait to have the car ready for summer!