Petrvspetrvs

2005 C2 cab, 03/05 build date. tiptronic, 80k mi, no IMSB issues. recently had the tip valve body replaced, had tech look to see which IMS bearing, while trans was out — was larger, newer one. i knew i was right on the cusp. i think i'm happy about that.? car runs beautifully.

MChanMD

2005, daily driver, 35K miles, annual service religiously, all records kept meticulously, first owner from dealer. Porsche paid for the parts $8K and I covered the labor, another $8K. Two months at the dealer and $16K later, I have my 997 back. Now looking for a 3.8 GT3 997. I'm sure I'll get bitten by the CL unless the recall is already done!

Sporty

MCHANMD-- what was your build date and which bearing-the smaller or revised larger one? I believe the larger one was in March 2005 builds and on, but not necessarily absolute. If everyone listed this (for 2005 MY) then it would help discern older style bearing failure vs larger bearing failure rate with regard to 2005 997s.

keithswick

2000 Boxster at shop now. Shop owner said my IMS bearing failed and now he valves are all bent. Needs a new motor. How much would the car be worth with a bum motor?

atlast911

Do not ignore the warning signs: any metal in oil filter element, weeping from RMS (visible after removing rear belly pan) or any rattle at cold start. My 05 (build 9/04) C2 w/37k had all three (a handful of very miniscule metal pieces in filter) and despite a "normal" oil analysis the bearing was failing. I'm spinning it in my hand and it's noisy. This problem is frustrating, stressfull and real. Spend the $3k. You suck Porsche for not handling this better, but somehow I can't stay mad at you.

dieselophile

2005 997 series 1, C2. No IMS issues as of yet, 41K miles.

outamoney

Have a '06 C2S with about 16,000 miles, no issues. But how do I tell if it has the problem. Build date was April, 2006. Presently trying to sell and one of the buyers asked about it. Thanks

DoninDen

Your's is a 2006, the build dates for the old bearings are supposedly late '04 and early '05. Scroll through these posts, I believe there are exact parameters listed or do an advanced search in title only for IMS in this forum. Look at post 317 for example, his build date was March '05 and he was told by Porsche that his has the new bearing.

The best thing for your buyer to do if there is concern is have a PPI done at a dealer and have them verify it for him.

utkinpol

Could anybody who had IMS failure and had aftermarket insurance to cover portion of the bill chime in on how difficult the process was and what kind of insurance it was? this topic raises up constantly but we do not have nearly enough information on this issue - what companies do pay OK and what companies only create problems.

floatingkiwi

What is your engine number for interests sake?

CamsPorsche

2006 Carrera 4, no IMS issue or replacement and currently at 31k miles. However the prior owner had RMS replaced by Jack Daniels Porsche.

BED997

From the class action suit: Model Year 2001-2005 Porsche Boxster or 911 vehicle

"Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted 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. Indeed, 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.)"

McCrazy

Just bought a 2006 C2S with 23,000 miles and CPO from the local Porsche dealership. Dealer said they just replaced the RMS just to be safe and made no mention of the car having prior IMS issues.

I believe they can't CPO a car if it has had major mechanical problems prior so I am fairly sure the car never had an IMS failure.

Mspeedster

Since the class action settlement has caused the IMS issue to make the headlines once again, I decided to check on the accuracy of the "YES" responses in this poll. I have pain stakingly checked on each rennlist poll participant who checked yes and the result is quite eye opening.

Many of the folks who voted "yes" don't even own a 997!!!

Of the 37 "yes" replies as of July 28, 2013, only about half are valid IMHO. I would break it down into the following groups:

Group 1 - Confirmed or probable 997 IMSB failure number: 18
- 16 of the 18 are MY05 997 cars, 1 MY06, and 1 MY07
- As this poll is really suppose to be about 997 failures, in my view, only the "yes" replies given from Group 1 are valid.

--
Group 2 - Confirmed or probable non-997 IMSB failure number: 7
- 5 996 owners, 1 Boxster, and 1 Cayman

Group 3 - Suspect, unconfirmed or second hand "yes": 4
- After exhaustive searching, I could find no evidence to indicate these folks really experienced an IMSB failure. One person seemed to be a Porsche indy and perhaps provided a second hand "yes". The rest I called "suspect" or "unconfirmed".

Group 4 - Mistaken "yes": 2
- Two people in the poll admitted to wrongly answering yes

Group 5 - Spoilers: 6
- These are folks who seem to have no record of ever owning a 997 (or 996 or Boxter or Cayman) and voted "yes" for the heck of it. Most are 993 owners.

997_rich

Yes- M speedster, I've been occasionally doing the same calcs as you and contacting the people who have had failures.

For groups 2, 3, and 5 I've contacted a number of them and received a response that many of them own multiple cars or have since switched cars since the failure. So very difficult to get a truly accurate account.

This poll was never intended to be a truly scientific poll but when I started the poll, there were some people saying that 50% of 997s were failing or 1% were failing. Clearly, neither of those are the case. The poll is also biased because it's polling enthusiasts (people who are involved with a car enough to spend time on the computer talking about it). Those people MAY have use patterns that may cause more failures etc.

What can we scientifically conclude from the poll?: Not much. It's likely but not proven that the failures for 997s as a whole are less than 5-6% (probably more like 3-4% and there may be extenuating cirmcumstances that cause many of those). The m96 engined cars are more likely to fail than the m97 cars.

I'm pleased though that at least now we have some sense of what we can expect as 997 owners.