Another IMS bearing thread

[Jamesp]

IMS Bearing!, IMS Bearing! Phew! There, we're back on track.

[thom4782]

Walter…IMHO: any new design must also fix the single row OEM bearing’s Achilles heel, namely its relatively poor load carrying capacity compared to dual row ones.
This inherent weakness, not lubrication, explains why single row OEM bearings failed 8 times more frequently than their dual row counterparts.

So if you or someone else could develop a more affordable design for single row shafts that matches the dual row’s load carrying performance, then owners could drive their cars around worry free for the life of their engines.

[Jamesp]

From what I've seen, and this is simply gut feeling with - NO DATA - so I normally wouldn't say it,... the OEM single row bearings are adequate for the loads provided they have uncompromised grease lubrication. The dual rows are overkill and because of the additional load carrying capacity, can tolerate poor lubrication over a much longer time. Bearings tend to fail in an exponential manner. That means small changes in RPM, load, or other variables can lead to quick failures. I studied a case of police car alternator bearing failures. Turns out the additional electrical loads on a police car at idle was killing the batteries because the alternator could not keep up at idle. The solution?, a smaller alternator pulley so the alternator turned faster at idle. Going down the freeway those alternators were turning plenty fast. The result was repeatable bearing failures in the alternators.

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

From what I've seen, and this is simply gut feeling with - NO DATA - so I normally wouldn't say it,... the OEM single row bearings are adequate for the loads provided they have uncompromised grease lubrication. The dual rows are overkill and because of the additional load carrying capacity, can tolerate poor lubrication over a much longer time. Bearings tend to fail in an exponential manner. That means small changes in RPM, load, or other variables can lead to quick failures. I studied a case of police car alternator bearing failures. Turns out the additional electrical loads on a police car at idle was killing the batteries because the alternator could not keep up at idle. The solution?, a smaller alternator pulley so the alternator turned faster at idle. Going down the freeway those alternators were turning plenty fast. The result was repeatable bearing failures in the alternators.

Guess what.. The 6204 is a GM Alternator bearing!

[thom4782]

James: if your 'gut' hypothesis were true, then failure rates of single and dual row bearings would be similar. They are not. Data submitted in the Eisen lawsuit showed single row bearings failed more than 8 times the rate of dual row bearings.

[Jake Raby]

The dual rows are overkill and because of the additional load carrying capacity,

Let's remember that statement for a later date... I certainly concur with that statement, and I believe in overkill.

can tolerate poor lubrication over a much longer time.

None of the bearings that we have analyzed or have had analyzed show any signs of a lack of lubrication. It takes catching bearings at all the stages of failure, then analyzing them to gather this data, which takes years to accomplish.

Since 2007 we've known these issues were not related lubrication.

[Jamesp]

Originally Posted by thom4782

James: if your 'gut' hypothesis were true, then failure rates of single and dual row bearings would be similar. They are not. Data submitted in the Eisen lawsuit showed single row bearings failed more than 8 times the rate of dual row bearings.

One of us has missed the point. Since there is an eightfold increase in single row failures there has to be a heavily weighted variable, one might even hazard to say exponentially weighted in favor of the dual row bearing. Assuming the Porsche designers had not been pithed just before designing the single row ( A distinct possibility), the bearing loads and speeds should pan out. As speed and loads should be accommodated, that would seem to leave lubrication. So what have I missed?

And Jake - I had no idea the 6204 was used in GM alternators! It's also used in mower decks.

[Jamesp]

One note to calibrate me to others. I believe that all IMS bearings suffer oil intrusion and subsequent lack of appropriate lubrication due to the closed design of the IMS shaft. Its got something to do with the ideal gas law, that whole PV=nRT thing, or something very close to that for the purists out there.

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by thom4782

James: if your 'gut' hypothesis were true, then failure rates of single and dual row bearings would be similar. They are not. Data submitted in the Eisen lawsuit showed single row bearings failed more than 8 times the rate of dual row bearings.

Thats a fact... And with that said, its the time we've been waiting for!

What if you could fit a dual row IMS Bearing into a single row shaft without engine disassembly, and do carry this out as an "in car retrofit"? Well, now you can, just like we have been!

Remember when Jamesp stated this?

The dual rows are overkill and because of the additional load carrying capacity

See all the details here that explains how the Generation 2 IMS Retrofit works.
Gen 2 Single Row Pro IMS Retrofit



And here's a quick video that illustrates how the Generation 2, IMS Single Row Pro Retrofit kit is installed utilizing the Patent Pending "Raby IMSR Faultless Tool"

from Charles Navarro on Vimeo.

And here is the Raby IMSR Faultless Tool. This single tool will extract all M96 IMS Bearings, both OEM and aftermarket, to include the IMS Solution. It will Also mechanically INSTALL any IMS Bearing into any Dual or Single Row IMS shaft, to include the IMS Solution.
This tool IS REQUIRED to install the Generation 2, Single Row Pro Retrofit kit.