street rod

Your right it is confusing Bruce. Its strange that they switched mid year for all 2000 cars then in 2001 went back to using both single and dual. I was glad when I found out my 2001 had the dual.

Flat6 Innovations

The single row bearing wasn't an upgrade! It only stimulated the accounting balance at the factory. It's not counter intuitive to a wan counter, as these cars evolved they learned how to make more money, not necessarily make a better engine. This is apparent from the mass single row failures that occur compared to dual row. All bearings fail, 01-05 single row failures make up the majority. We received two more this week, check out our Facebook page for the pics of the carnage and the post -mortem explorations. I thought one could be saved, but the driver "drove it to death"

Tbred911

so what did they do for the 997's in 06-08 ... are they dual row bearings?

CDLVancouver

So i tried to get your fb page by typing in your company name, and only came up with dean c jones' fb page. I note hes a manager at your shop.
Is this the image your company wants to publicly portray? Just wow!

Flat6 Innovations

The facebook page is www.facebook.com/fixabroken6

We hide nothing here, nothing is sugar coated or candy coated to taste better it's all reality. Dean has his thoughts and expresses them, I am the same way and no we don't agree all the time.

At any rate the 06-08 bearings are single row larger diameter bearings that are not serviceable.

Imo000

Page was not found and I couldn't find it through my desktop either.

Flat6 Innovations

Sorry, my bad. Try www.facebook.com/fixabrokensix
I am still exhausted from driving 7,000 miles in 8 days!

Palmbeacher

From all authoritative sources (and a physical comparison confirms this as the most plausible explanation) the reason Porsche went to the single-row bearing was in order to accomodate a deeper flange with triple seals. At the time, stopping oil leakage was the high priority. Whether Porsche could have predicted that decreasing the bearing rating in favour of a heftier seal would result in more catastrophic IMS failures is something upon which we can only recklessly speculate.

Flat6 Innovations

It's all reckless speculation because the factory will never state true reasoning for anything these days.
I do t buy the triple row seal reasoning because a dual row bearing can also see the same flange seal upgrade. In many model year 2000 engines found specifically in te Boxster S we see factory triple row seals employed on the dual row bearing flanges. Those are among the most resilient engines when it comes to bearing failure.

Removing 1/2 the load carrying surface is a bad idea that could only look good on paper.

heliflyer

Have a look here - some very interesting reading
http://www.hartech.org/docs/buyers%2...20part%204.pdf

And here
http://www.hartech.org/docs/buyers%2...20part%205.pdf

Palmbeacher

At the point Porsche switched to water-cooled engines, their old guard was still resisting giving-up on the Teutonic precept of over-building. The double-row bearing was in all likelihood over-specified "on paper" for the calculated load...which as you know, if the shaft, alignment, and cam-chain tensions are in proper balance, is rather mild. More than likely the single-row bearing was "adequately specified", again, "on paper". I doubt Porsche knew the requirements and purposely specified a bearing that wouldn't suffice. What they missed, I believe, was that the sealed bearing wouldn't remain so; that it would then begin to wear prematurely and quickly; and that once the bearing is no longer functioning perfectly, then its specifications are inadequate...whereas the double and large-single bearings have enough residual capacity to hold together longer.

03996

To my way of thinking, I would consider it a complete waste of money! 28k miles on one of these super-duper ceramics that cost an arm and a leg! No way I would consider replacement of this bearing at this low mileage.

03996

Mine too! When I asked them to replace the bearing they said sure, no problem. Even already had the tools from previous jobs.

Keep forgetting to send the original bearing back to LN!!!

NIACAL4NIA

So I just replaced my original slipping clutch and original IMS which looked good as new with an LN classic single row on my 2002 Porsche 996 C2 with 90000 miles. LN mentions the ceramic is 3-5 times stronger than steel bearings but gives a 4year/50000 miles interval so my question is if my original IMS lasted 90000 miles and still good, then shouldn't the LN bearing last at least 90000 miles? Or are they trying to push parts every 4 years for profit.

Flat6 Innovations

This is a recommended service interval. It is based from practical application trend data, bearing load ratings, and the recommended service interval of each particular style of bearing by the manufacturer.

The reason the service intervals are clearly stated up front, is to allow the purchaser to clearly judge which components is best for their intended application, how long they intend to own the car, and etc. The Classic Single Row has the shortest service interval of all LN products at 4 year/ 50. The Single Row Pro has a 75K mile interval (its a dual row bearing for single row applications) and the IMS Solution is a permanent retrofit that has no service interval. Why? Because it lacks the moving parts that ALL the ball and roller bearings have.

Though I only develop these products, and do not sell them, I know the reasons why the service intervals are selected, and it isn't money driven. I promise you that.