Apex996

Wonder why Porsche went to the effort (expense) of re-engineering the bearing twice and then ultimately eliminated it from the new engines? Perhaps it was just the endless pursuit of perfecting the already perfect? The accounting dept @ VAG loves that stuff.

You really ARE Capt. Obvious
The reason yours was perfect is the same reason my 40k mile 3.6 bearing was perfect. 80+% of them are perfect.

Capt. Obvious

Fixed that for you, and that is exactly my point.

The engines in these cars are not a ticking time bomb like so many have been lead to believe. The IMS bearing is a known weak point of the engine that owners of these cars should be aware of--and consider addressing at some point--but they shouldn't shudder in fear every time they start their car because of it.

Imo000

Daily driving can't be bad for these bearing. Mine had 200K miles when I replaced the bearing and it felt, looked and sounded normal.

pfbz

Go to any enthusiast forum for any marque and you'll find countless ticking time-bomb, gloom-and-doom, engineering-screwed-the-pooch-and-corporate-is-covering-it-up stories...

Ford, Honda, BMW, Audi, VW, Mercedes, you name it... There is absolutely nothing unique about a vehicle having a known issue that has the potential for major annoyance or expense.

For that matter, look at any generation 911 and you'll find 'engineering deficiencies' that create the potential for very large repair bills.

In the overall scope of things, having an engine with a known weak spot that can be preventatively addressed for minimal incremental cost every 50K miles isn't a big deal in my view of the performance car world.

Capt. Obvious

GTFO here with that rational thinking. This is neither the time nor the place for such things.

fanny bay r1

+1 !!!!!

Gonzo911

I love my car.

rpm's S2

If the cost of the repair from an IMS failure was not so painful the issue would not receive nearly the press (or cause all these arguments). No matter the actual % of failure, the resulting damage for those afflicted is terrible and can leave a car financially unrepairable. One moment you are the proud owner of a $25K sports car, the next you are selling a rolling chassis for $4,000. And that simple fact separates this problem from most of the 'known issues' in other Porsches and other marques. It most likely won't happen to you, but if it does the word catastrophe directly applies.

I double love my car - and sleep soundly at night with my LN Engineering IMS bearing.

Imo000

"......*can leave a car financially unrepairable" WTF is that supposed to mean?

Capt. Obvious

All of the below issues are common to these cars and are many thousands of dollars to fix should they occur. EVERY car has something that could go wrong at any given time and cause a lot of expensive damage, the 996 is not unique in this.

B5 Audi S4 - Turbos
B6/B7 Audi S4 - Timing chain tensioners
Ford F-series with 6.0 Powerstroke - EGR valves/head gaskets/stretched head bolts
Dodge trucks - Transmissions
E36 BMW M3 - VANOS units, rear subframe mounts tearing out of chassis, "money shifts"
E46 BMW M3 - Same as above
Chevrolet Corvette (all years) - Permanent mullet syndrome
Any car with a timing belt - Unexplained belt snapping

Throttle

I believe this has been scientifically proven to happen only with the C3 to C6 models. In fact, a late model C1 (1961-1962) not only permanently eliminates any trace of mullet syndrome, it frequently causes a severe, often permanent case of "car envy" among anyone who ever beholds one in person. The new C7 has similar affect, unless viewed from the rear, in which case it causes an immediate, sometimes violent verbal query from nearly all asking why they would use Camero tail lights on an otherwise beautiful car, and is often accompanied by a commitment to wait until that is fixed before purchasing one.

Macster

My info is one reason for the intermediate shaft was to be able to spread the wear of the sprockets/chain rollers out more.

Relatively prime numbers are used for the number of crankshaft and IMS sprockets so (IIRC) the same roller makes contact with the same sprocket tooth every 9th revolution.

With new DFI engines then the goal, one of the goals, was to offer a simpler engine. The sprocket/chain wear issue I guess was found to be a non-issue and the IMS could be done away with. Fewer parts. Less chain/sprocket/rail contact. Quieter engine. Less expensive to make. Fewer parts to catalog/stock. Etc.

Gonzo911

I can't believe anyone could get upset over a car manufacturer using the same lights from a different model. Has that ever happened before?

Imo000

The Chevy Binevill had the same headlights as the Trans Sport van and I think the Durango has the same tail lights as the Caravan

Throttle

True that re-purposing lights is not that uncommon; however, replacing the iconic round light from a Corvette with one a new shape from a Camero pushed many over the edge. While I think it was an incredibly bad decision given the iconic nature of the round light, I would still love to have a new C7 convertible in my garage.

But before we upset anyone, perhaps we should stay focused on P-cars. ;-)