When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
x2. It definitely is the newer M97 block. I don't have any info on exactly what date or a date range where the blocks were fuzzy between Porsche still using the older and smaller bearing and the newer larger one but IIRC, this was only on '05 models. Considering this an '06 model, I would assume it would be the larger one.
I'm leaning towards the bored theory myself on this one.
x2. It definitely is the newer M97 block. I don't have any info on exactly what date or a date range where the blocks were fuzzy between Porsche still using the older and smaller bearing and the newer larger one but IIRC, this was only on '05 models. Considering this an '06 model, I would assume it would be the larger one.
Those were still dubbed m96 though correct? I didn't think they started using the m97 designation until they went to the bigger bearing (among other tweaks to the engine).
Different Jake chiming in here but yes that is the larger bearing. A split case would be required to change the bearing. A bearing is still available for it, just a lot more labor to do so.
Thanks for chiming in! We love first-hand experience.
Originally Posted by Aspen Autosports
Different Jake chiming in here but yes that is the larger bearing. A split case would be required to change the bearing. A bearing is still available for it, just a lot more labor to do so.
I have 1999 C-2 with replacement engine, #M9601AT66X66646. Did a little research on engine number and the last 5 numbers compared to engine numbers produced after 2007 were in the same range (66646). I suspected that my engine may have the larger non replaceable bearing without splitting engine case. I pulled the transmission and confirmed it had the 22mm nut, so I replaced clutch and flywheel and put trans back in. Have been watching the 997 forum to monitor failure rates and don't seem to hear about too many with the larger bearing.
Different Jake chiming in here but yes that is the larger bearing. A split case would be required to change the bearing. A bearing is still available for it, just a lot more labor to do so.
OP, mind sharing with us how much you paid for labor to get this done? I can't imagine anyone charging anywhere close to a regular IMSB retrofit for the serviceable older motors.
Thanks for chiming in! We love first-hand experience.
No problem. Happy to be part of the community and help out fellow enthusiasts.
Originally Posted by alpine003
OP, mind sharing with us how much you paid for labor to get this done? I can't imagine anyone charging anywhere close to a regular IMSB retrofit for the serviceable older motors.
That bearing would typically be replaced while you have the engine apart for additional work. This is not something I would recommend unless the engine was being split for another reason.
OP, mind sharing with us how much you paid for labor to get this done? I can't imagine anyone charging anywhere close to a regular IMSB retrofit for the serviceable older motors.
$800. He was already replacing the rear main seal so I just paid for the parts.
now i have to think the mechanic screwed the owner - i highly doubt the mechanic had the special tool to "bore-out" the case in order to fit the new bearing??
and if he did have the tool, who in their right mind isn't going to charge an extra $2-$300 for labor to bore the case and fit the new bearing considering the amount of intrusion to the case??
Wheres the new bearing serial# tag - I am sure it can be traced back to the manufacturer thru the purchase order. i'd be all over this like a fly on sh_t
You proactively had the RMS and IMS replaced on a car that was not leaking?
Even if the mechanic DID use the machine tool to grind a larger hole in OP's engine block, that's the kind of thing I'd want to mention to a customer IN ADVANCE - "say, in order to install this bearing, I'm going to grind a hole in your car with a lash-up tool that might - but might not - leave a bunch of debris inside."
I'm not a shop owner - but if I was, there would be a huge-*** disclaimer/release of liability to sign before doing that particular retrofit.
You proactively had the RMS and IMS replaced on a car that was not leaking?
Even if the mechanic DID use the machine tool to grind a larger hole in OP's engine block, that's the kind of thing I'd want to mention to a customer IN ADVANCE - "say, in order to install this bearing, I'm going to grind a hole in your car with a lash-up tool that might - but might not - leave a bunch of debris inside."
I'm not a shop owner - but if I was, there would be a huge-*** disclaimer/release of liability to sign before doing that particular retrofit.
^^^this exactly - who the hell is going to do a major intrusion into the case without letting owner know?? i smell total BS
Last edited by groovzilla; 03-21-2016 at 06:19 PM.
Dunno, for $800 it's HIGHLY unlikely he split the case. Wonder if it came like that already done by previous owner.
Definitely doesn't include splitting the case, but even in the case of a replaceable bearing that is just about the cost of the labor alone.
It's not like replacing the bearing is simply removing 3 bolts, yanking it out, and hammering the new one in. Having to take the transmission out of the way for a new clutch/flywheel does cover some of the labor, but there is still certainly more to go.
I'd definitely want to see a detailed list of what was done and if that includes a new bearing I'd want to see the old bearing and a copy of their invoice for purchasing the part. $800 to replace what really appears to be a non-replaceable bearing definitely stretches credulity a bit.
03-21-2016, 12:46 PM
