dporto

"This is a clear lack of communication/ miscommunication that lacked any clarity for the owner of the vehicle."


Perhaps there was even obfuscation passed off as "miscommunication"...herein lies the rub.

Noz1974

A bit misleading I would say they lead you to believe the ims was done , this is a well known term and by changing the acronym to intermediate seal is out of order and false advertising in my opinion they are going around selling cars saying " yes it's has all the necessary bits ims Rms so you have no worries there" gambling on the fact that most cars are ok anyway then when one goes it's " well actually if you read the small print ims means we did next to f all instead of replacing the bearing.
I'd sit outside the dealership every weekend telling every customer how **** they are until they buy you a new engine, don't let them offer a repair just enough cash to by a good used motor !

peteb3

When I bought my 2002 C4S, it also had an invoice from the previous owner through a reputable independent for "IMS repair" and clutch work
When I tore it down to do the clutch again (the previous service only replaced the clutch and didn't address the flywheel), I noticed that all that was replaced during the previous "IMS repair" was the seal and flange and a new RMS, I installed the LN IMS bearing to be safe, the original bearing was fine though.

HallEYA

Update:
Got an acceptable roller price on the 911 ($8,000), and a nice proposed adjustment on the Cayenne purchase, so made the problem go away in 1 transaction. Thanks to all for words of advice/encouragement.

P.S. Not that it matters now, but found old paperwork from previous owner: Town Motor KNEW there was an IMS/RMS issue, as it was leaking at 32,000 miles (while presumably still under warranty), and they replaced the rear main seal and the intermediate flange seal in February of 2012, while also removing and re-installing transmission, clutch, and flywheel.

It is maddening that they had 2 chances to retrofit an obvious problem, and passed. But also a cautionary tale to others that one needs to be EXPLICIT when discussing IMS. I clearly wasn't, and won't make the mistake again.

WalterRohrl

Not that it really matters but my own car has a stack of receipts showing that it was a chronic leaker since day one. It had the RMS and IMS seals replaced several times over the years as that was the procedure for leaks until the previous owner was buying it (from the same dealership that sold it twice before including new) and while it was on their lot before he picked it up it leaked again. This time when they looked at it, they got direction from the factory to check the bore of the IMS, they measure it and found it was out of round by .07mm. Factory had them put in a new engine this time.

Engine was running fine at the time of replacement, just leaking again. If it had the bearing replaced it would still have been a problem since that wasn't the actual issue but over time probably would have caused more of an issue or failure. At time of replacement engine had 58k on it, fully documented, original bearing, just leaks due to out of round shaft/bore.

Glad it's working out for you more or less to your satisfaction in the end.