There should be a list of "fixes" and a poll...
Can someone with Tech knowledge arrange that.....(It ain't me babe)

 

NP, why don't YOU provide the general public a head to head prospective analysis of LN IMSB vs all other replacement options out there? (we'll leave out the "solution" since it's a different device altogether) while at the same time eliminating all the confounding variables so that we have clearcut proof why LN is superior?
And be sure to define what "superior" means
I'd be interested to see if any genuine scientific analysis supports this

 

You took the words right out of my mouth!

 

Start here:

http://cad.timken.com/viewitems/deep...0--6300--6400-
http://cad.timken.com/viewitems/cyli...-single-row-is

then, here...

http://imsretrofit.com/roller-bearin...z3rSNSa73ujmxc

 

No, no, plase make the honors!

I have heard so many times that the IMS Solution is the definitive solution that I would like to know the actual numbers of installed vs failed in order to you say that is the unique definitive solution (or, at least, better than others that also claim to be definitive) I am not saying it is or its not. But I see other options on the market and its interesting knowing why the LN fans defend the uniqueness of something that is not...

 

If you can’t look at the design of the IMS Solution, and tell that it is radically different than anything else on the market, you’d never be able to grasp any form of “uniqueness” that would be explained to you. Do you understand what a ball bearing, and plain bearing are? Start there.

Never has an IMS Solution failed in the hands of anyone other than me, the inventor. That occurred in testing, and in some instances failures were forced to occur. That is what I do. It is my job to think of it, then try to destroy it.

Let’s remember who invented the tools, who invented the procedure of IMS Retrofit, and remember that it is one hell of a lot easier to be an imitator, than an originator. The “others” out there still use the tools that we invented, and they use the procedure when peddling their own copycatted parts.

Lots of people are loyal to those who took the time to originate, rather than imitate. That sort of brand loyalty is damn sure earned, and is never given.
When we developed these procedures the “myth”s were “Can the IMS Bearing be removed, Porsche says that it can’t be”. Thats how far we’ve come.

 

And there you have it, right from the horses computer!

 

Maybe its pretty simple:

Poor bearing and bearing carrier design. results in a failure mode.
The removal of the bearing without splitting the case was a challenge that LN took on.
The hole in the case is "fixed" mostly, so any option has to fit the hole.
Porsche simply came out with replacements that fit within thier world of an acceptable service item. (We all might not agree on whats acceptable... )
Most of the alternatives are a variation of the original designs, with more durable parts, and basic material science driving them.
Hartech promotes using a standard bearing and pulling the seal to allow the oil to flow through normally.. (K.I.S.S.)
The IMS solution is a developed multi dimensional product that replaces the flaws adds pressure oiling and provides a dynamic adjustment that should logically work. (Proven enough to hold a presence)
The two that seam to claim the longevity award based on significant production sampling would be the LN solution and Hartech's Philosophy.

Interestingly,, was talking to a local shop that's been around since the 356
He said he actually sees very very few IMS problems these days, he said that the ones they did see, many had the cases having the porosity problem, basically he thought a lot of the early incidents may have been engines with really minor porosity problems that didn't show up with a milkshake , but bled enough water in to the oil to affect the ball/roller style bearings when parked a lot..

Oh well just more deep thought from the internet...

 

People have short memory spans. When we first came up with the tools and the IMS Retrofits, everyone said the bearings could not be changed. The only option at that point was to wait for a failure and have to buy a new engine. Years before the class action lawsuit, we were flamed on the forums for inventing a problem where one did not exist and questioning what we did and why at every turn. Now we all know it is a real issue and owners have many options. Without our efforts, owners likely would not have had options and it's possible the class action suit may have never seen the light of day.

There have been zero failures of the IMS Solution. We even had one shop fit one without the oil line and it survived being driven with just splash lubrication until an oil leak was found from the hole in the flange (which proves there is enough oil at the IMS if it was sufficient to lubricate a plain journal bearing).

There have been zero verified dual row failures. I am aware of two videos floating on the internet about noisy dual row bearings, one of which suffered through an engine failure and was reused after being pulled and re-installed.

There have been single row bearing failures - it's the weakest of the bearings and once Jake developed the Faultless IMS tool to allow production of the Single Row Pro (which is patented, like the IMS Solution), it superseded the Classic Single Row. We haven't manufactured the Classic Single Row in almost five years and any car fitted with a Classic Single Row IMS Retrofit is likely due for a replacement based off our recommended 4 year / 50,000 mile interval.

Owners who choose to ignore our recommendations and drive any bearing to point of failure I don't consider a failure any more than when a timing belt fails because it wasn't changed at the manufacturer recommended service interval.

While we are discussing IMS options, it's important to throw out that Porsche came out with their own "Retrofit" using a sealed, single row ceramic hybrid 6204 ball bearing about two years ago. Basically a copy of the Classic Single Row IMS Retrofit.

The other big issue is that manufacturers of kits with roller bearings are overstating their load ratings - they aren't twelve or even five times stronger than the original single row bearing used by Porsche. Here are some real technical specifications, which can be verified in any bearing manufacturer catalog and spec book:

6204 (original dual row, Classic Single Row, Pelican) dynamic load rating 2900#
5204 (original dual row, Single Row Pro, Classic Dual Row) 4000#
6305 (06-08) 5845#
NJ204/NU204 (most roller bearing ims kits) 3750#
NUP204E (RND RS Roller) 5800#

As you can see, the 6305 bearing is actually the strongest one. Hartech has been using these with the grease seal removed for a very long time successfully and why we recommend just removing the grease seal as preventative maintenance on the 06-08 models.

Ball bearings can handle 50% of their total load as thrust; roller bearings can only handle 10% in one direction (center race is not captive and shouldered on both side, with exception of the NUP204E which can handle thrust in both fore and aft internally)

 

Well... I am also an engineer (I guess like you) and I think both we'll agree that a different technical approach doesn't mean:

1- been the best solution
2- been the unique solution

Do we agree on that? If you are an engineer... I'm sure we will

Im not going to discuss the benefits or not of your solution (my field of expertise is not mechanical) but I know a little about development, R&D and quality. I work for one of the most important OEM part manufacturer and I have my opinion (and personal approach when addressing that "problem") on differences about development capabilities of small workshops (I am not only refering to your) or big companies like Porsche for instance.

The only point that I was mentioning in my previous posts, is that when somebody ask about options in the market for a permanent solution to the IMS "problem", is not accurate at all (neither from the technical point of view or the commercial) saying that "The IMS Solution" is the only one, because there are in the market other different options that claim to be definitive solutions (as you do), like, for instance, here in the US, the Direct Oil Feed.

 

Thanks for the explanation and for providing data!

 

Incorrect. The IMS Solution is NOT a “roller bearing”. The IMS Solution is a PLAIN bearing.

Over the holiday I shot a Rennvision video about the “confusingly similar” differences between the IMS Solution and other products that are marketed to confuse the unknowing into believing they are the same.

Subscribe to Rennvision to receive the video once it’s edited.

 

The Pelican kit uses the factory sealed single row ball bearing Porsche used, but they recommend a 3 year/36k service interval.

The IMS Retrofit is not a sealed ball bearing. What people commonly mistake as a seal is the ball cage.

Jake already commented on the IMS Solution being a plain bearing, not a roller bearing. It backdates the M96 engine to a pressure fed plain bearing like the Mezger engine.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I realize that many of you know this stuff like the back of your hand, but for anybody that hasn't spent hours on research, it's all a little opaque. Having a FAQ on this issue that lists the options, their physical attributes and the pros/cons of each would be really helpful.

The existing thread mentioned upstream, while useful, is hardly concise.

 

To the OP: There are several means and methods for resolving the IMSB issue, and by now they've been covered pretty well. All of them are by now mature enough to have gathered some run data. The problem that I have with the IMSB fixes is that there is very little effort, and almost no failure data to be found on any of the fixes offered. The only thing I would say definitively is that any one of the fixes offered to date is better than leaving the time bomb in there. Even if it's an early 99 engine with dual row and a presumably straight IMS with little RRO.

My other op-ed is that any investigation, remediation, repair of the IMSB is better than nothing when done by a qualified person. We've seen pics on here of bearings removed in early stage of failure, middle stage, and of course complete failure. Just like a cancer, catching a failing bearing early will provide best opportunity to mitigate serious issues later. Even if you take out an old bearing and put a new good quality standard bearing back in there, that would be an improvement. I was originally a fan of the DOF method, provided both of the bearing shields were removed. Some cases of this fix the inner shield of the bearing was left in place, and that didn't make a lot of sense. I was planning to use the DOF method, along with a new unshielded bearing to provide pressure flow of oil to the IMSB. However, after further investigation I realized that this would be pushing un-cooled, and non-filtered oil to the bearing. The first thing the oil pump does is send the fluid through a filter, and cooler before circulating it through the rest of the engine bearings. The roller bearing is a better bearing in general, but the failure mode doesn't really equate to a bearing load rate issue. The failure mode is more often a contamination, or material degradation issue(although that is by no means definitive). So, the roller bearing while having a higher radial load rating didn't sound like a real gain either.

At this point, with the time, effort, and cost involved in remediation, you might as well go with the type and quality of bearing that Porsche should have used at the start. A plain (babbit style) bearing, which is lubricated by clean, cooled oil. This type of bearing has been used for a long, long time with excellent wear and load characteristics. a properly designed, installed and lubricated plain bearing has a lower coef of friction than any ball or roller bearing. This means less heat, and less mechanical vibration, less drag, and less installed parts to potentially fail. Even a minor defect in one of the ***** of the dual row bearing will eventually ruin the race, and then the other *****, and then the other race, and so on to complete failure. The fractional increase in cost of the lubricated plain bearing fix is a worthy upgrade over all other fixes. The trans will be out, the time and effort to get in there, and resolve this sort of defines the correct fix one time.

YMMV, objects in mirror, contents have settled, and may cause **** leakage.