LN Engineering Ceramic IMS Bearing Failure at 30k miles
04-21-2015, 04:13 PM
#62
I didn't call you a liar or question any specific claim you made. I pointed out a series of items about your posts that make the whole thing questionable.
Based on my observations your post reads like a troll or mouthpiece for Martin. I haven't called you such because I'm not convinced that's the case, but that's what those flag would seem to indicate.
That may be, but on RL you made one post about a roof rack and then a series of posts in a couple of threads implying that the LN bearing failed including starting a thread about it. For a "new" user to post such incendiary statements is worth questioning.
That the basis of the failure statement is coming from someone who has personal and financial reasons to want to see Jake and LN smeared is also a red flag.
The reality is that the odds are against the LN bearing being the primary failure point. It's always possible of course, but it is such a small chance. The much more likely scenario, which Jake has been kind enough to delve into, is that there were other issues at play and the bearing was a casualty of the motor not being healthy. This is why "LN Engineering Ceramic IMS Bearing Failure at 30k miles" is so incendiary without further evidence by a knowledgable non-biased party.
It's well known that ferrous metal in the oil at the level you describe in the M96 is a sign of a very unhealthy motor. Anyone that is not seeing possible dollar signs and has a remote idea about these motors knows that continuing to run it is a bad idea.
It's the simple difference between possibly being able to save the motor if it was indeed caught soon enough and a hunk of useless metal.
The whole point of the magnetic drain plug is to know that something very bad is starting to happen. The wisdom is that you stop driving it immediately and get it throughly inspected.
You are of course free to use it as a "my engine is going to die, so fsck it!" indicator though, but that diminishes your right/credibility to jump on a public forum and start moaning about how someone's product trashed your engine.
Honestly (as evidenced in my dialog with Jake) I wouldn't expect an accident that didn't cause exterior damage to have an internal impact. When you are delving into a complex failure like this, however, something like a major accident in the recent past could be relevant.
I debug problems for a living and the reality is that no matter how insignificant, all data that can be gathered is significant. Either to diagnose the given failure or to help build a predictive model for future failures.
You are still jumping from A to Z and skipping everything in between. No one is claiming that those images show a perfectly healthy IMSB. The question is what caused it to get that way and why (if Jake's theory is correct) was the original bearing not similarly impacted (maybe that's where the accident comes in)? You are making up a cause to explain the result you see, but such things are rarely that simple.
I am perfectly on board with that. I am also on board with making sure, given the history of IMSB related discussions on RL, that such claims are vetted and viewed clearly.
It is also perfectly useful to make sure others that read this thread know that you never run the motor when you know it is throwing metal around in the oil.
You lost your engine and I feel for you on that. Everyone holds some amount of fear that theirs can go (though we all accept and manage it differently), so we understand your pain and loss.
What I have a problem with is how you presented the whole thing and your continued insistence that the bearing itself is to blame when you have no actual evidence of what happened (at least partly because you continued to drive it after the metal showed up).
Based on my observations your post reads like a troll or mouthpiece for Martin. I haven't called you such because I'm not convinced that's the case, but that's what those flag would seem to indicate.
I have previously been posting on 6speedonline. Because rennlist concentrates on Porsches, I moved here.
That the basis of the failure statement is coming from someone who has personal and financial reasons to want to see Jake and LN smeared is also a red flag.
The reality is that the odds are against the LN bearing being the primary failure point. It's always possible of course, but it is such a small chance. The much more likely scenario, which Jake has been kind enough to delve into, is that there were other issues at play and the bearing was a casualty of the motor not being healthy. This is why "LN Engineering Ceramic IMS Bearing Failure at 30k miles" is so incendiary without further evidence by a knowledgable non-biased party.
I talked to several mechanics. Two, including one who is well-known for his development work on Porsche engines, suggested running another few hundred miles to see if the problem went away. I saw little downside: if the engine needed a rebuild, it would still need a rebuild, at the risk of the core being worth less. The upside was that if there was no more metal, the engine was probably fine.
Gnat, you seem really smart. Tell me how this logic is wrong.
The whole point of the magnetic drain plug is to know that something very bad is starting to happen. The wisdom is that you stop driving it immediately and get it throughly inspected.
You are of course free to use it as a "my engine is going to die, so fsck it!" indicator though, but that diminishes your right/credibility to jump on a public forum and start moaning about how someone's product trashed your engine.
No one could give me a reason that getting rear-ended would cause metal in the oil.
I debug problems for a living and the reality is that no matter how insignificant, all data that can be gathered is significant. Either to diagnose the given failure or to help build a predictive model for future failures.
Yes, I think that the LNE IMSB is at fault. The races are clearly worn and I'm out over $14K. Sorry Gnat if the truth is incendiary.
I asked posters to keep this discussion useful. I guess you're not on board with that.
It is also perfectly useful to make sure others that read this thread know that you never run the motor when you know it is throwing metal around in the oil.
You lost your engine and I feel for you on that. Everyone holds some amount of fear that theirs can go (though we all accept and manage it differently), so we understand your pain and loss.
What I have a problem with is how you presented the whole thing and your continued insistence that the bearing itself is to blame when you have no actual evidence of what happened (at least partly because you continued to drive it after the metal showed up).
04-21-2015, 05:40 PM
#64
Burning Brakes
> duty
> breach of duty
> causation
- Actual cause
- Proximate cause
> damages
Even if you could somehow prove that the engine damage can be traced to the collision, there will always be the issue of defective parts, how the car was treated prior to the accident, etc. etc. If I were on the defense, I would have a lot of fun with a case like this.
Traffic cases are fun.
And they almost always settle, in my experience, because of issues of proof.
04-21-2015, 05:46 PM
#65
Yeah, for every argument there is a counter-argument and an insurance defense lawyer to raise those arguments.
In positioning the claim:
1. My car went 58,000 miles on an original OEM bearing;
2. My car then went 30,000 on a state of the art ceramic bearing with improved design;
3. My car was rear ended and I suffered frame damage etc.
4. The next time I changed my engine oil I noticed metal that wasn't there in my prior oil changes during the past 30,000 miles with this bearing;
5. The bearing designer states that the likelihood of the new bearing failing in 30000 miles is minimal after X,000 installations.
and so on and so on...Res Ipsa Loquitor
every juror knows that a hard impact can cause unseen damage right? I'm still suffering from neck and back pain from a rear ender that totaled my car in college -- but nothing on the x-ray will show soft tissue damage.
The diminished value claim also may take away the need to get into the engine damage and causation issues anyway and pay for all or part of the OPs engine repair cost, but a suit likely will need to be filed to get AAA's attention.
This is not legal advice and one should retain and consult their own attorney. I'm not a litigator, I only play one on TV.
In positioning the claim:
1. My car went 58,000 miles on an original OEM bearing;
2. My car then went 30,000 on a state of the art ceramic bearing with improved design;
3. My car was rear ended and I suffered frame damage etc.
4. The next time I changed my engine oil I noticed metal that wasn't there in my prior oil changes during the past 30,000 miles with this bearing;
5. The bearing designer states that the likelihood of the new bearing failing in 30000 miles is minimal after X,000 installations.
and so on and so on...Res Ipsa Loquitor
every juror knows that a hard impact can cause unseen damage right? I'm still suffering from neck and back pain from a rear ender that totaled my car in college -- but nothing on the x-ray will show soft tissue damage.
The diminished value claim also may take away the need to get into the engine damage and causation issues anyway and pay for all or part of the OPs engine repair cost, but a suit likely will need to be filed to get AAA's attention.
This is not legal advice and one should retain and consult their own attorney. I'm not a litigator, I only play one on TV.
Last edited by sds911; 04-21-2015 at 06:29 PM.
04-21-2015, 06:01 PM
#66
Racer
DrMeMs:Again, it's hard to understand why your bearing failed if other LN bearings are in service and have not failed. Very hard to quantify since there are many unknowns (such as how many LN bearings are in service and how many miles do they have on those bearings etc.).
I'm sure Jake and LN are keeping their ears close to the ground wrt future failure(s) within the same batch as this failed bearing. My point being that the inner and outre races of this failed bearing could be stemming from a bad batch for some reason(s).
Moreover, this discussion has been all about single-row bearings, understandably.
Wondering if sporting a dual-row diminishes the effect of this potential misalignment!
Excellent read nonetheless and good luck to the OP.
04-21-2015, 06:09 PM
#67
That's why I'm here. I have a 99 with a dual row and on third bearing (long story) and wondering if 75K is too long a service interval.
04-21-2015, 06:10 PM
#68
I'm not an engineer, or a lawyer, but one cannot exclude the possibility or, indeed probability, of some driveline side loading after an admitted accident including frame damage. Is it so hard to believe that the thrust vector of the driveline may not be centered post accident?
And isn't it possible that the lateral shift ( if present ) would manifest itself in the driveline and its components/ bearings?
From a laymans' perspective, the accident may be a contributing factor in this failure.
And isn't it possible that the lateral shift ( if present ) would manifest itself in the driveline and its components/ bearings?
From a laymans' perspective, the accident may be a contributing factor in this failure.
04-21-2015, 06:12 PM
#69
+1 - yeah what he said
04-21-2015, 06:25 PM
#71
Burning Brakes
Yeah, for every argument there is a counter-argument and an insurance defense lawyer to raise those arguments.
In positioning the claim:
1. My car went 58,000 miles on an original OEM bearing;
2. My car then went 30,000 on a state of the art ceramic bearing with improved design;
3. My car was rear ended and I suffered frame damage etc.
4. The next time I changed my engine oil I noticed metal that wasn't there in my prior oil changes during the past 30,000 miles with this bearing;
5. The bearing designer states that the likelihood of the new bearing failing in 30000 miles is minimal after X,000 installations.
and so on and so on...Res Ipsa Loquitor
every juror knows that a hard impact can cause unseen damage right? I'm still suffering from neck and back pain from a rear ender that totaled my car in college -- but nothing on the x-ray will show soft tissue damage.
The diminished value claim also may take away the need to get into the engine damage and causation issues anyway and pay for all or part of the OPs engine repair cost, but a suit likely will need to be filed to get AAA's attention.
This is not legal advice and one should retain and consult their own attorney. I'm not a litigator, I only play one on TV.
In positioning the claim:
1. My car went 58,000 miles on an original OEM bearing;
2. My car then went 30,000 on a state of the art ceramic bearing with improved design;
3. My car was rear ended and I suffered frame damage etc.
4. The next time I changed my engine oil I noticed metal that wasn't there in my prior oil changes during the past 30,000 miles with this bearing;
5. The bearing designer states that the likelihood of the new bearing failing in 30000 miles is minimal after X,000 installations.
and so on and so on...Res Ipsa Loquitor
every juror knows that a hard impact can cause unseen damage right? I'm still suffering from neck and back pain from a rear ender that totaled my car in college -- but nothing on the x-ray will show soft tissue damage.
The diminished value claim also may take away the need to get into the engine damage and causation issues anyway and pay for all or part of the OPs engine repair cost, but a suit likely will need to be filed to get AAA's attention.
This is not legal advice and one should retain and consult their own attorney. I'm not a litigator, I only play one on TV.
So how much per hour would Mr. Raby or Mr. Navarro charge as expert witnesses?
"The thing speaks for itself" ... If I didn't get it in law school, I didn't get it on the bar exam, but I'm slowly starting to figure things like this out.
I should ask one of my colleagues who handles aviation injury cases about the doctrine of res ipsa. If only for the fact that she just picked up a new Maserati GranCabrio and she wears her skirts a little too tight and her heels are a little too tall.
04-21-2015, 06:46 PM
#72
Respectfully disagree.
1. Duty - to not rear end me while I'm sitting in traffic and use reasonable care
2. Breach - you rear ended me you *&%$
3. Proximate cause - my engine worked fine until you rear ended me and then I discovered hidden damage that only became visible after I changed my oil since the part is hidden in the engine.
And, so the presumption applies, and you can now rebut it if you, the defendant, can prove that the other 3 "causes" above are true.
I already have 1 lay juror on my side - TSMacNeil
Cal Evid Code:
(c) If the evidence, or facts otherwise established, would support
a res ipsa loquitur presumption and the defendant has introduced
evidence which would support a finding that he was not negligent or
that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the
occurrence, the court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury
to the effect that:
(1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur
presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may draw the
inference from such facts that a proximate cause of the occurrence
was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant; and
(2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the
occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant
unless the jury believes, after weighing all the evidence in the case
and drawing such inferences therefrom as the jury believes are
warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was
caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant.
1. Duty - to not rear end me while I'm sitting in traffic and use reasonable care
2. Breach - you rear ended me you *&%$
3. Proximate cause - my engine worked fine until you rear ended me and then I discovered hidden damage that only became visible after I changed my oil since the part is hidden in the engine.
And, so the presumption applies, and you can now rebut it if you, the defendant, can prove that the other 3 "causes" above are true.
I already have 1 lay juror on my side - TSMacNeil
Cal Evid Code:
(c) If the evidence, or facts otherwise established, would support
a res ipsa loquitur presumption and the defendant has introduced
evidence which would support a finding that he was not negligent or
that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the
occurrence, the court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury
to the effect that:
(1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur
presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may draw the
inference from such facts that a proximate cause of the occurrence
was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant; and
(2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the
occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant
unless the jury believes, after weighing all the evidence in the case
and drawing such inferences therefrom as the jury believes are
warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was
caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant.
04-21-2015, 07:44 PM
#73
I'm gonna go against the grain and say DrMems is the victim here, not a criminal, although you couldn't really tell from some of these posts.
He stated what he believes to be accurate. One can accept it or not but it's not gonna change what happened but it is at least a record of it.
In the end he liked his 996 enough to keep it, even after an accident. He got a great deal on a x51 engine(for a great price) which I would consider an "upgrade" instead of just a "repair". Plus it seems like he got the OEM PSE mufflers with that which is also another great "upgrade". He's a true devoted enthusiast which I can't say for a lot of recent peeps on here lately.
"OMG, my car is leaking fluids. I think I need to sell it NOW!!!!"
If he drives it for 5 years trouble free, the last laugh will be on you guys.
My $.02
He stated what he believes to be accurate. One can accept it or not but it's not gonna change what happened but it is at least a record of it.
In the end he liked his 996 enough to keep it, even after an accident. He got a great deal on a x51 engine(for a great price) which I would consider an "upgrade" instead of just a "repair". Plus it seems like he got the OEM PSE mufflers with that which is also another great "upgrade". He's a true devoted enthusiast which I can't say for a lot of recent peeps on here lately.
"OMG, my car is leaking fluids. I think I need to sell it NOW!!!!"
If he drives it for 5 years trouble free, the last laugh will be on you guys.
My $.02
04-21-2015, 07:56 PM
#74
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
How many of you guys actually fix your engines with your own hads? If you would, all these BS theories of a reared causing the bearing to fail would not be posted. These cars don't have frames, the entire drivetrain is suspended in rubber so even if the chasis moved, the engine and transmission will move with it. And if it didn't, parts would bend or break. Some of you guys have one heck of an imagination and zero first hand experience.
04-21-2015, 08:17 PM
#75
So, in a unibody car with the entire engine/transmission shifted a few degrees off-center would have no affect whatsoever?
Makes no sense at all.
I think most of us know there's no "frame" in the car.
Grab a bicycle and shift the rear axle a few degrees out of true for awhile...report the results after a few weeks of riding.
Makes no sense at all.
I think most of us know there's no "frame" in the car.
Grab a bicycle and shift the rear axle a few degrees out of true for awhile...report the results after a few weeks of riding.