KrazyK

Ah yes, everytime I read this thread I am comforted in the prudent decision to buy the 996 time-bomb. But seriously, I am very happy with mine and love it. Maybe I got one of the 95% to 99% of the good ones (fingers crossed).

Mike J

approaching and passing the 996 while it's dead on the side of the road?

Sorry that was not called for ... my apologies. Every 911 model seems to have it's issues (valve guides, steering racks, exploding rubber clutches, RMS, IMS, rust) but this one is particularly nasty because there is no warning, difficult to detect, and it's so deep in the engine as to be expensive to even do preventive work.

It will take time to see what the 991's issue will be - excessive carbonization due to direct injection? PDK issues? The DFI issue is emerging across many brands of cars, with many picking up excessive carbonization on the intakes and intake valves because of no fuel washing occurring.

Sometimes I wonder why I don't just drive something simple, simple, simple like a 356...

Cheers,

Mike

street rod

Dream Carrera, I have been following this closely but missed the one page where it was posted that the single row IMS bearing was targeted. My comprehension is fine I just missed that one page. Also my comment about not being sure if the theory was correct about the bad bearings was not referring to single row vs dual row, but rather a few people that speculated that it could be due to some bearings being inferior due to the country they were made in. In fact now that I see the post about it being about all single row bearing it pretty much confirms that theory was incorrect. I am still unclear why the thousands of year 2000 cars that have the single row bearing were excluded from the lawsuit. Some 2000 cars had the dual row but many had the single just like the 2001 which has both. If a 2000 car had an earlier failure withing the 10 year period what was thier reason for excluding these from the action. Thats the part that still seems unclear.

majariwr

Yes, please keep us posted. As the owner of a 2005, diminished value, ticking time bomb, I (and others) have a vested interest in your success. I can only hope that Porsche wakes up and realizes that the cost of fixing the problem for those cars still on the road is way less than the loss of good will that is spreading throughout the sports car world. Its making an M3 look better and better . . .

BlackP3

Rob, are you saying the California law firm will represent us Canadians? I would like help since my IMS went under ten years from delivery and I had to pay the whole bill..... IMS went at 45,000 miles and 5 days after Porsche replaced my clutch !!!! @#%&*!!

DreamCarrera

The following passage was taken directly from the lawsuit discovery pages:

"Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001..."


Therefore, apparently you know something that this law firm does not. Perhaps you can contact them and clue them in on your info...

street rod

This is from the L&N Engineering web site. Notice the single row as well as dual row bearings are in some MY 00 and 01 cars. I tend to trust they know what they are talking about. If they are wrong then I stand corrected.

LN Engineering offers three IMS Retrofit solutions, two of which can be done without disassembly of the engine while the engine is still in the car:
■single row IMS Retrofit™ kit (fits MY02-05 M96 engines including some MY00-01)
■dual row IMS Retrofit™ kit (fits MY97-99 M96 engines including some MY00-01)
■MY06-08 IMS Retrofit™ kit (fits MY06-08 M97 engines, requires engine disassembly for installation)

DreamCarrera

I, OTOH, would be FAR more apt to believe Porsche...after all they are the ones who actually built the cars. If any MY 2000 cars were built with single row bearings the law firm representing the class members certainly would have included certain MY 2000 owners(those with single row bearings) in the class. After all, its wise to cast your net as wide as you possibly can when preparing these class action suits.

alpine003

Keep in mind that some companies make reference to either European model year(sometimes delayed a year for other countries) or the manufactured date of the car. If a company wants to cover both, they might state both years to play it safe. Remember LN is marketing to a global market, hence the 1997 reference. We know 996 only came in the US as a '99 model only, while parts of Europe got this over a year earlier.

Before LN revised their site and when they had VIN references to dual and single row, I'm fairly sure only the '01 model VIN had single rows. This is before they tackled the global market.

Cefalu

+1

I would place my money on the bet that Porsche, under the scrutiny of legal discovery and the pressure of a class action lawsuit would provide VIN numbers as accurately as possible to include all potential claimants. It is in their BEST interest to do so.

Res judicata puts liability for this issue behind Porsche forever if the include all single row VINS in the settlelemt agreement. Done. Finito. Adios.

Or maybe we can put our tinfoil hats on and concoct other conspiracy theories.

Cefalu

For those of you class members who want to opt out and go it alone, if I were you, I would obtain as much of the discovery info that Porsche has submitted as possible. There are 4,000 pages of documents, and the depositions of Porsche's USA head of warranty, and another technical guy from Porsche who has technical info about the bearing design.

You can get a huge head start with the work the class action lawsuit has already covered.

I don't know why the class action lawyers would care since their fee is fixed by the court and is unaffected by how many claims are made.

LordVicious

Without the discovery documents this is really a 15 page fantasy thread. With the discovery documents ... it's probably still a 15 page fantasy thread. Given that about %90 of rennlist posters claim to have blown up an IMS bearing, why are the discovery documents still in hiding? Hey, I own a '99 so they aint gonna send them to me (or I would have them by now.) Incidentally, isn't the 20 day filing extension about to expire?

Mike J

I think the best way is to approach the lawyers representing the class action and ask ..... that would be the most accurate way to get an assessment.

Cheers,

Mike

Cefalu

What is it with these single row guys? Why won't any of them even try to get their hands on the discovery documents! I'm a dual row car so I am out too.

DreamCarrera

+1

Dual row here as well but if I owned a car with the single row bearing I would have had a request in for these discovery documents within 5 minutes of learning about the suit.

It's always mentioned in the millions of IM$ threads that the only party that really knows the extent of these failures is Porsche, and they aren't talking. Well this suit made them talk. Is anyone listening???