View Poll Results: I have had an IMS problem with my 996, 997, 986, 987
Voters: 154. You may not vote on this poll
Who has had an IMS failure?
12-07-2009, 01:47 PM
#61
Ask Jake.
But let's face it, he clearly has researched this issue more than anyone I know, and has more experience with it.
And quite frankly I don't think he has any significant financial motivation to fudge numbers. I mean, this is a niche part, he's not gonna get rich off of selling 996 IMS replacements to 10% of the owners.
But let's face it, he clearly has researched this issue more than anyone I know, and has more experience with it.
And quite frankly I don't think he has any significant financial motivation to fudge numbers. I mean, this is a niche part, he's not gonna get rich off of selling 996 IMS replacements to 10% of the owners.
12-07-2009, 01:52 PM
#62
Nordschleife Master
Ask Jake.
But let's face it, he clearly has researched this issue more than anyone I know, and has more experience with it.
And quite frankly I don't think he has any significant financial motivation to fudge numbers. I mean, this is a niche part, he's not gonna get rich off of selling 996 IMS replacements to 10% of the owners.
But let's face it, he clearly has researched this issue more than anyone I know, and has more experience with it.
And quite frankly I don't think he has any significant financial motivation to fudge numbers. I mean, this is a niche part, he's not gonna get rich off of selling 996 IMS replacements to 10% of the owners.
And yes, he has a serious financial motivation to sell this part as he's not in this as an altruistic venture. He is running a business and he has invested money developing the part as well as advertising trying to sell. We won't even get into his presence on this and other forums stressing the need for this.
Remember, he's not just trying to sell an "upgrade" part but he also talks about the need for a better motor and he sells just that.
12-07-2009, 02:04 PM
#63
The point is, what exactly is Jake using as a sample to pull his number out of the air? We already know that NOBODY has the data set to sample from other than PCNA. So his guess is as good as these polls.
And yes, he has a serious financial motivation to sell this part as he's not in this as an altruistic venture. He is running a business and he has invested money developing the part as well as advertising trying to sell. We won't even get into his presence on this and other forums stressing the need for this.
Remember, he's not just trying to sell an "upgrade" part but he also talks about the need for a better motor and he sells just that.
And yes, he has a serious financial motivation to sell this part as he's not in this as an altruistic venture. He is running a business and he has invested money developing the part as well as advertising trying to sell. We won't even get into his presence on this and other forums stressing the need for this.
Remember, he's not just trying to sell an "upgrade" part but he also talks about the need for a better motor and he sells just that.
I never said he was altruistic, I just said that he ain't gonna retire off of IMS upgrades.
12-07-2009, 02:06 PM
#64
Nordschleife Master
No desire to ask him but he's welcome to chime in (I doubt he will though).
He's running a business so he's not trying to retire off IMS upgrades but rather make a living.
He's running a business so he's not trying to retire off IMS upgrades but rather make a living.
12-07-2009, 02:31 PM
#65
I don't see the point of interrogating him about this. The 10% number has a lot of traction online and off, likely from repetition. I wouldn't blame him for citing it.
One of the problems with this whole thing is that we actually don't care how many people have had IMS failures. We care how many cars have had IMS failures. That's always been a secret, and is probably now unknowable as these cars pass on to their second and third owners at prices that are making 996 owners a very mixed demographic bag, more are being tracked and an increasing number of them are being maintained at indies. There's a good chance that even Porsche doesn't know for sure anymore.
The truth is that people don't want to know how many have failed. What they really want to know is what their odds of a failure are. The answer is 100% will fail, eventually. The only question is when and at what cost, and that's about as specific and predictable as your own demise.
One of the problems with this whole thing is that we actually don't care how many people have had IMS failures. We care how many cars have had IMS failures. That's always been a secret, and is probably now unknowable as these cars pass on to their second and third owners at prices that are making 996 owners a very mixed demographic bag, more are being tracked and an increasing number of them are being maintained at indies. There's a good chance that even Porsche doesn't know for sure anymore.
The truth is that people don't want to know how many have failed. What they really want to know is what their odds of a failure are. The answer is 100% will fail, eventually. The only question is when and at what cost, and that's about as specific and predictable as your own demise.
12-07-2009, 02:39 PM
#66
Rennlist Member
Ask Jake.
But let's face it, he clearly has researched this issue more than anyone I know, and has more experience with it.
And quite frankly I don't think he has any significant financial motivation to fudge numbers. I mean, this is a niche part, he's not gonna get rich off of selling 996 IMS replacements to 10% of the owners.
But let's face it, he clearly has researched this issue more than anyone I know, and has more experience with it.
And quite frankly I don't think he has any significant financial motivation to fudge numbers. I mean, this is a niche part, he's not gonna get rich off of selling 996 IMS replacements to 10% of the owners.
12-07-2009, 02:47 PM
#67
Nordschleife Master
100% correct. It's a moving part that will fail. The point is, which we have been talking about for some time, is how is this a design flaw and how is this a reason to upgrade when the number of failures is so low? Either it's a weak point that WILL fail prematurely or there is something else at play that we have not identified to explain the small number of failures relatively to the perfectly fine units.
12-07-2009, 03:08 PM
#68
If you read the L&N website, they explain ways to extend the life of the IMS without upgrading and also offer the option of the upgrades. I think as a group, we should applaud the work of people that propose solutions to make our cars better, no matter how big or small.
Also from the L&N website, it appears that it is the bearing engineer that proposes the 90% "L10 life of the bearing" based on assumptions. (with a sealed bearing in an enviroment that it probably wasn't intended for, and all the many variables, I'm not sure if you can estimate the bearing's expected life)
I did read the papers on 'sealed bearings' that are linked on the site, and it does seem clear that this bearing would work much better without the outer seal. They say that oil is a better lubricant for ball bearings that grease (especially if it leaks out). It does mention that you don't want it immersed in oil.
Some IMS fail- plan accordingly.
Also from the L&N website, it appears that it is the bearing engineer that proposes the 90% "L10 life of the bearing" based on assumptions. (with a sealed bearing in an enviroment that it probably wasn't intended for, and all the many variables, I'm not sure if you can estimate the bearing's expected life)
I did read the papers on 'sealed bearings' that are linked on the site, and it does seem clear that this bearing would work much better without the outer seal. They say that oil is a better lubricant for ball bearings that grease (especially if it leaks out). It does mention that you don't want it immersed in oil.
Some IMS fail- plan accordingly.
Last edited by 15psi; 12-07-2009 at 03:24 PM.
12-07-2009, 03:14 PM
#69
Just to make a further contribution to the squandering of bandwidth...
The reason I'm so cavalier about it is that there are some underlying issues that are so fundamental and unmanageable that there's nothing to do but wait and see if you're lucky. In my fevered brain, these are:
1. Porsche was in financial trouble when this car went through production engineering. In the M96 history, there are many examples of both poor materials choices (plastics, most notably) and financially pressured QC (such as the reuse of porous blocks).
2. The decision to use this long, unsupported intermediate shaft was made to save the cost of separate casting for the right and left heads. It was a risky compromise, especially when combined with 1. Again, nothing will change this.
3. These engines were assembled by hand on a bench. It seems logical to me that, when combined with 1 and 2, this would produce more variability than a big mass production carmaker would allow. (If you don't believe this, ask someone how homologation engines are built: the motors are built with hand picked parts from production parts bins, but end up producing far above the rated horsepower for the design. That's how much variability there can be on a component level, even under ideal circumstances.)
Put it all together, and you end up with another quirky Porsche engine, of which there have been many... brilliant when it works as designed, but troublesome when it doesn't.
Just is what it is.
The reason I'm so cavalier about it is that there are some underlying issues that are so fundamental and unmanageable that there's nothing to do but wait and see if you're lucky. In my fevered brain, these are:
1. Porsche was in financial trouble when this car went through production engineering. In the M96 history, there are many examples of both poor materials choices (plastics, most notably) and financially pressured QC (such as the reuse of porous blocks).
2. The decision to use this long, unsupported intermediate shaft was made to save the cost of separate casting for the right and left heads. It was a risky compromise, especially when combined with 1. Again, nothing will change this.
3. These engines were assembled by hand on a bench. It seems logical to me that, when combined with 1 and 2, this would produce more variability than a big mass production carmaker would allow. (If you don't believe this, ask someone how homologation engines are built: the motors are built with hand picked parts from production parts bins, but end up producing far above the rated horsepower for the design. That's how much variability there can be on a component level, even under ideal circumstances.)
Put it all together, and you end up with another quirky Porsche engine, of which there have been many... brilliant when it works as designed, but troublesome when it doesn't.
Just is what it is.
12-08-2009, 02:22 PM
#74
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LVDell,
Had to ask as I'm a newbie.
Is the question flawed because not everybody on here answers?
A little like, "Have you been to Vegas and if so, did you like it?"
Well, if you've not been to Vegas, many will skip the thread most likely, therefore it will look like almost everyone has been to Vegas on the poll?
Had to ask as I'm a newbie.
Is the question flawed because not everybody on here answers?
A little like, "Have you been to Vegas and if so, did you like it?"
Well, if you've not been to Vegas, many will skip the thread most likely, therefore it will look like almost everyone has been to Vegas on the poll?
12-08-2009, 04:18 PM
#75
Burning Brakes
Thats not my number.
No one could squeeze an actual number from me if they tried.. They try all the time.
Its impossible to make an accurate forecast as to the number of failures because no one knows how many engines were produced, how many have failed or how many were swept under the carpet before the IMS failure was "known about".
I will say that we average 7 IMS failure calls per week and have for the past two years. I know that Dean has answered two of those today.
People call us on two occasions:
-1 When they want more power and reliability
2- When they have a scattered engine.
So there is some bias, I do agree.