Crunching the Class Action numbers.
12-11-2014, 01:19 PM
#61
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mooresville, IN (Life Long Cheesehead)
Posts: 5,815
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes
on
35 Posts
Do you think the saps back say 2000 years ago had the same conversations about why a round wheel was better than a square one and then they pontificated about it for another 1000 years? Square wheels don't work but round do....let's move on. Capiche? I thought the capiche thing was kind of a nice touch to carry on the theme....
12-11-2014, 01:31 PM
#62
The settlement is almost a year old now (yes it just recently closed, but it was officially opened on 1/30/13), so it is not recent and there is not any new information about it that adds any additional clarity over what was available when it was first released. The settlement has also been well discussed in the intervening time.
The simple fact is that we will never know the true extent of the issue as there are far too many variables that differ from car to car (and even for the same car over the years/owners) that can contribute to or prevent a failure.
The general wisdom is that high milage cars are safe, but there have been high milage failures too.
As far as the "fixes", I don't think anyone on here that has an ounce of a clue thinks the LN options are snake oil. At the same time, however, that doesn't mean it's the be all and end all.
The only real answers are:
1) Drive your car regularly. Put miles on it and don't baby it when it's on the road.
2) Check your oil and filter carefully at every oil change. If you find metal, get that thing opened up ASAP.
3) Replace the bearing regularly regardless of the option you go with. Doing it with your clutch is the conventional recommendation.
Those are the same answers that were around before the settlement and will continue to be the answers for the foreseeable future. Nothing in the settlement changed or clarified any of that.
12-11-2014, 01:34 PM
#63
I don't think it's snake oil...however the only one I trust is from LNE/Flat6. Matter a fact on the my 997 where Flat6 is building a motor for me I'm having the IMS Solution put in. For the amount of money I have into it I would be a fool not to. But here is the deal...the 996/997 have a problem with the motor design regarding the xxx. There is a remedy. That is it. Can you believe it? There is an actual remedy! Either change it now, change when you do a clutch or never change it.
Do you think the saps back say 2000 years ago had the same conversations about why a round wheel was better than a square one and then they pontificated about it for another 1000 years? Square wheels don't work but round do....let's move on. Capiche? I thought the capiche thing was kind of a nice touch to carry on the theme....
Do you think the saps back say 2000 years ago had the same conversations about why a round wheel was better than a square one and then they pontificated about it for another 1000 years? Square wheels don't work but round do....let's move on. Capiche? I thought the capiche thing was kind of a nice touch to carry on the theme....
12-11-2014, 01:53 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mooresville, IN (Life Long Cheesehead)
Posts: 5,815
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes
on
35 Posts
Sure do but when my motor went at 121,000 miles it was on the original pcar IMS.....and it was not the cause. I never had it changed. The problem might bite you and it might not. But if it does ur **** is going ache. I'm out.
12-11-2014, 02:19 PM
#66
I totally am NOT with the engineers at PORSCHE with this. The design is flawed, the proof is evident. I can get my mind around "it had a lot of miles on it and it wore out" but "it had to little miles on it so it blew up" give me a break. When the original buyers bought these cars many were just rich guys that liked the way they looked, liked the history and glory of the name, could easily afford it and just wanted to have one. The majority were never going to race it and thought it would probably even be more reliable if they didn't. The engineers designed the car to fulfill the average customers requirements and then some, ac, climate control, power seats, stereo's etc were made for people to just drive the car to work or wherever. Nobody was told to go out and drive it hard and fast and put as many miles as possible on it or it will blow up. The fix is not snake oil, the guy that invented the fix (JR) has devoted a large part of his life to it, the Porsche engineers came nowhere close. I feel lucky that Jake makes the snake oil for us, Porsche just sells us the same old crap, or crapshoot if you look at that way.
12-11-2014, 02:25 PM
#67
Race Director
I love some good masturbation as much as the next guy, but has everyone with an opinion actually read the settlement docs?
"16. Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adapted a single
row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of
owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked
up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of
all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911
vehicles relating to IMS issues; which had different versions of the IMS have
uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles."
4-10% of class vehicles with single-row bearings. This number is not fresh, so presumably some additional number of cars have had the issue.
HOWEVER - 4-10% means that 90-96% of cars haven't asploded. People spend more money in Vegas on far worse odds.
Fix the bearing, or don't fix the bearing. What the world does not need is an individualized accounting of each owner's decision-making process on why - or why not - to do so.
"...to date, Porsche has spent over $20;000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor
necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective
IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
John, it seems that you did refer to the settlement docs for some of your data, but your analysis doesn't differentiate between the single-row bearings and other bearing designs. There seems a clear, significant difference between single-row cars and other cars. If you have a single-row car, the discovery docs suggest - but do not prove - that you have a greater chance of seeing this specific failure than dual-row cars, a trend that seems consistent with comments posted here and elsewhere.
158 pages of non-habit-forming sleep aid available here...
"16. Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adapted a single
row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of
owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked
up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of
all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911
vehicles relating to IMS issues; which had different versions of the IMS have
uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles."
4-10% of class vehicles with single-row bearings. This number is not fresh, so presumably some additional number of cars have had the issue.
HOWEVER - 4-10% means that 90-96% of cars haven't asploded. People spend more money in Vegas on far worse odds.
Fix the bearing, or don't fix the bearing. What the world does not need is an individualized accounting of each owner's decision-making process on why - or why not - to do so.
"...to date, Porsche has spent over $20;000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor
necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective
IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
John, it seems that you did refer to the settlement docs for some of your data, but your analysis doesn't differentiate between the single-row bearings and other bearing designs. There seems a clear, significant difference between single-row cars and other cars. If you have a single-row car, the discovery docs suggest - but do not prove - that you have a greater chance of seeing this specific failure than dual-row cars, a trend that seems consistent with comments posted here and elsewhere.
158 pages of non-habit-forming sleep aid available here...
Last edited by 5CHN3LL; 12-11-2014 at 02:52 PM.
12-11-2014, 02:53 PM
#68
Rat Balls
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scottsdale AZ, USA
Posts: 3,636
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
13 Posts
I love some good masturbation as much as the next guy, but does anyone actually read the settlement docs?
"16. Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adapted a single
row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of
owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked
up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of
all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911
vehicles relating to IMS issues; which had different versions of the IMS have
uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles."
4-10% of class vehicles with single-row bearings. This number is years old, so presumably some additional number of single-row cars have had the issue.
HOWEVER - 4-10% means that 90-96% of cars haven't asploded. People spend more money in Vegas on far worse odds.
Fix the bearing, or don't fix the bearing. What the world does not need is an individualized accounting of each owner's decision-making process on why - or why not - to do so.
"...to date, Porsche has spent over $20;000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor
necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective
IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
John, your analysis doesn't differentiate between the single-row bearings and other bearing designs, but clearly there is a significant difference between single-row cars and other cars. If you have a single-row car, the discovery docs suggest - but do not prove - that you have a greater chance of seeing this specific failure than dual-row cars, a trend that seems consistent with comments posted here and elsewhere.
158 pages of non-habit-forming sleep aid available here...
"16. Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adapted a single
row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of
owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked
up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of
all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911
vehicles relating to IMS issues; which had different versions of the IMS have
uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles."
4-10% of class vehicles with single-row bearings. This number is years old, so presumably some additional number of single-row cars have had the issue.
HOWEVER - 4-10% means that 90-96% of cars haven't asploded. People spend more money in Vegas on far worse odds.
Fix the bearing, or don't fix the bearing. What the world does not need is an individualized accounting of each owner's decision-making process on why - or why not - to do so.
"...to date, Porsche has spent over $20;000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor
necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective
IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
John, your analysis doesn't differentiate between the single-row bearings and other bearing designs, but clearly there is a significant difference between single-row cars and other cars. If you have a single-row car, the discovery docs suggest - but do not prove - that you have a greater chance of seeing this specific failure than dual-row cars, a trend that seems consistent with comments posted here and elsewhere.
158 pages of non-habit-forming sleep aid available here...
IMS
Boobies
KK
Gentle Banter
Foreign Language Lessons
I gotta admit that nothing is more entertaining than a derailed IMS thread.
However, unless someone discovers/invents/disproves/improves ANYTHING having to do with the IMS/IMSB's failures/fixes/maintenance/prevention...then I am pretty certain it has already been covered ad nauseum (note the latin)!
12-11-2014, 04:05 PM
#72
"I read one too many IMS threads and just snapped. It was all going fine with all the boobies and all, but then some idiot thought he had a whole new perspective that no one ever in the history of the IMS saga could have ever possibly thought of. I just snapped. I'm sorry."
Bet you'd get out of any charge if you could force the jury to slog through the threads on just the first page!
12-11-2014, 04:42 PM
#73
Race Director
12-11-2014, 05:00 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Good information. Thank you. Of course the state of affairs when the class action was filed is very different from how things are when it was concluded...and the latter just happened recently so it is not old news.
Am I to gather that the 1999 models did not have problems because they used a double bearing design? My understanding is that the bearing/shaft/cam chain gears went through three separate design generations...however if none of them prevented the damage (and I assume Porsche was really really trying to build cars that would not explode) then(as Spock might say) one might want to consider something else as the cause. One theory put forth is that the VariocamPlus is very dependent on proper oil level and that letting the level get down to the Min mark, when combined with other factors can lead to a chain jumping the gear, throwing the shaft out of balance and trashing the engine as well as the bearing. Yet that doesn't explain the metal pieces proven to be from the bearings and found in pre-failure engines. Which brings us back to which came first, the chicken (cam chain gear) or the egg (bearing)?
The current popular solution of replacing the factory bearing with a limited life aftermarket bearing leaves me wanting something better in terns of a solution. If replacing the IMS bearing is so easy, why not have a Porsche dealer do it with an OEM bearing? These aftermarket fixes are good for 30 to 50 thousand miles based on my reading here. They do not provide a permanent fix in the way that the factory bearings were hoped to be lifetime bearings. The idea of changing the bearing every time you get a new clutch makes me wonder what is wrong with the clutch. I've been driving manual transmissions since 1960...hot rod Chevy's, Corvettes, MGs, Hondas Fiats Alfas Maserati Ferrari and Porsche. As daily drivers and as cars that have been heavily tracked. I've never had to replace a clutch on any of my cars.
Using the class action numbers in your post, you say that roughly 3100 cars were given warranty or good will service. That isn't 4 to 10 percent of the 996s made, that is only 2%. Unless the 4 to 10 percent is the percentage of cars sold in the USA...but the spread from 4 to 10 is a 250% jump...and I find that a little too imprecise for my taste. And do we have any numbers from cars in Europe? Certainly they must be considered in any real discussion of the issue.
Of course the easiest thing to do is never talk about this anymore and just keep putting temporary fixes on our cars. And for those who are happy with that, no one is stopping or criticizing them from doing it. Hopefully they will not want to stop or criticize those who want to pursue discussing the issue.
Am I to gather that the 1999 models did not have problems because they used a double bearing design? My understanding is that the bearing/shaft/cam chain gears went through three separate design generations...however if none of them prevented the damage (and I assume Porsche was really really trying to build cars that would not explode) then(as Spock might say) one might want to consider something else as the cause. One theory put forth is that the VariocamPlus is very dependent on proper oil level and that letting the level get down to the Min mark, when combined with other factors can lead to a chain jumping the gear, throwing the shaft out of balance and trashing the engine as well as the bearing. Yet that doesn't explain the metal pieces proven to be from the bearings and found in pre-failure engines. Which brings us back to which came first, the chicken (cam chain gear) or the egg (bearing)?
The current popular solution of replacing the factory bearing with a limited life aftermarket bearing leaves me wanting something better in terns of a solution. If replacing the IMS bearing is so easy, why not have a Porsche dealer do it with an OEM bearing? These aftermarket fixes are good for 30 to 50 thousand miles based on my reading here. They do not provide a permanent fix in the way that the factory bearings were hoped to be lifetime bearings. The idea of changing the bearing every time you get a new clutch makes me wonder what is wrong with the clutch. I've been driving manual transmissions since 1960...hot rod Chevy's, Corvettes, MGs, Hondas Fiats Alfas Maserati Ferrari and Porsche. As daily drivers and as cars that have been heavily tracked. I've never had to replace a clutch on any of my cars.
Using the class action numbers in your post, you say that roughly 3100 cars were given warranty or good will service. That isn't 4 to 10 percent of the 996s made, that is only 2%. Unless the 4 to 10 percent is the percentage of cars sold in the USA...but the spread from 4 to 10 is a 250% jump...and I find that a little too imprecise for my taste. And do we have any numbers from cars in Europe? Certainly they must be considered in any real discussion of the issue.
Of course the easiest thing to do is never talk about this anymore and just keep putting temporary fixes on our cars. And for those who are happy with that, no one is stopping or criticizing them from doing it. Hopefully they will not want to stop or criticize those who want to pursue discussing the issue.
I love some good masturbation as much as the next guy, but has everyone with an opinion actually read the settlement docs?
"16. Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adapted a single
row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of
owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked
up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of
all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911
vehicles relating to IMS issues; which had different versions of the IMS have
uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles."
4-10% of class vehicles with single-row bearings. This number is not fresh, so presumably some additional number of cars have had the issue.
HOWEVER - 4-10% means that 90-96% of cars haven't asploded. People spend more money in Vegas on far worse odds.
Fix the bearing, or don't fix the bearing. What the world does not need is an individualized accounting of each owner's decision-making process on why - or why not - to do so.
"...to date, Porsche has spent over $20;000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor
necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective
IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
John, it seems that you did refer to the settlement docs for some of your data, but your analysis doesn't differentiate between the single-row bearings and other bearing designs. There seems a clear, significant difference between single-row cars and other cars. If you have a single-row car, the discovery docs suggest - but do not prove - that you have a greater chance of seeing this specific failure than dual-row cars, a trend that seems consistent with comments posted here and elsewhere.
158 pages of non-habit-forming sleep aid available here...
"16. Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adapted a single
row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of
owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked
up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of
all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911
vehicles relating to IMS issues; which had different versions of the IMS have
uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles."
4-10% of class vehicles with single-row bearings. This number is not fresh, so presumably some additional number of cars have had the issue.
HOWEVER - 4-10% means that 90-96% of cars haven't asploded. People spend more money in Vegas on far worse odds.
Fix the bearing, or don't fix the bearing. What the world does not need is an individualized accounting of each owner's decision-making process on why - or why not - to do so.
"...to date, Porsche has spent over $20;000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor
necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective
IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
John, it seems that you did refer to the settlement docs for some of your data, but your analysis doesn't differentiate between the single-row bearings and other bearing designs. There seems a clear, significant difference between single-row cars and other cars. If you have a single-row car, the discovery docs suggest - but do not prove - that you have a greater chance of seeing this specific failure than dual-row cars, a trend that seems consistent with comments posted here and elsewhere.
158 pages of non-habit-forming sleep aid available here...
12-11-2014, 05:02 PM
#75
Rennlist Member
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
So a good lawyer or statistician would argue that based on the above data, California cars are up to 2% more likely to have an #IMSBS failure? Obviously not, but it illustrates the folly of relying on incomplete statistical data.
Also remember, this was a brief written by the plaintiff's attorneys... The actual discovery docs were never made public. It was their job to portray and summarize the data to the best possible advantage for their clients. It is not gospel, and not necessarily highly accurate. Just the fact that there is such a large range quoted indicates the data was incomplete and inconclusive. Also, since their plaintiffs were later 996 owners, and specifically NOT Boxster or early 996 owners, it again was in their clients best interest to portray the single row 996 bearing as worse than double row, worse than Boxster to try and achieve the most favorable outcome or them.
The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California.
Also remember, this was a brief written by the plaintiff's attorneys... The actual discovery docs were never made public. It was their job to portray and summarize the data to the best possible advantage for their clients. It is not gospel, and not necessarily highly accurate. Just the fact that there is such a large range quoted indicates the data was incomplete and inconclusive. Also, since their plaintiffs were later 996 owners, and specifically NOT Boxster or early 996 owners, it again was in their clients best interest to portray the single row 996 bearing as worse than double row, worse than Boxster to try and achieve the most favorable outcome or them.