Different! - 2005 S owners - what's your engine number and production date?
#31
FWIW I have a late-May 2005 build Carrera (3.6) that I always assumed had the earlier IMS bearing and cover. The car was in with a specialist for a new clutch not long ago and it turns out I have the larger 22mm bolt on the IMS cover and hence the later bearing, i was going to have the bearing upgraded but this was not possible without a complete teardown.
My experience concurs with the Porsche shop manual for the 997 that shows the larger IMS bearing cover and nut were installed at engine number 695 07475 (3.6) - my car has an engine number in the 695 09xxx range and has the larger nut on the IMS cover; the manual provides the cutoff for 3.8S as 685 09791.
My experience concurs with the Porsche shop manual for the 997 that shows the larger IMS bearing cover and nut were installed at engine number 695 07475 (3.6) - my car has an engine number in the 695 09xxx range and has the larger nut on the IMS cover; the manual provides the cutoff for 3.8S as 685 09791.
This estimate is based on: Boolala's 3.6 engine #5025 built in 12/04, Palmbeacher's engine 5xxx built in 1/05 and your engine 9xxx built in late 5/05.
#32
Drifting
Got a print out from Porsche on my 06 S. Engine number is 68607880 the car was invoiced on 11/16/05 but the warranty start is 24 May 06. Probably when it was delivered. I think the build sticker shows 11/05 on the door.
I'm guessing I have the improved bearing.
I'm guessing I have the improved bearing.
#33
Interesting. So if 695 07475 is the start of larger IMS bearing for the C2 (3.6L) MY05, my estimate would place the change over at about the same time as the 3.8L C2S models - around early March '05.
This estimate is based on: Boolala's 3.6 engine #5025 built in 12/04, Palmbeacher's engine 5xxx built in 1/05 and your engine 9xxx built in late 5/05.
This estimate is based on: Boolala's 3.6 engine #5025 built in 12/04, Palmbeacher's engine 5xxx built in 1/05 and your engine 9xxx built in late 5/05.
#34
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Bringing this thread back up again because I found some new information.
Based on the class action suit, people with "Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche 911 vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 20, 2005, excluding the Turbo, GT2, and GT3 models, with VINs in the following ranges..." Then it lists a bunch of ranges.
This is further evidence that the IMS bearings changed over to the new larger bearings in February 2005 - exactly the month we thought.
Based on the class action suit, people with "Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche 911 vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 20, 2005, excluding the Turbo, GT2, and GT3 models, with VINs in the following ranges..." Then it lists a bunch of ranges.
This is further evidence that the IMS bearings changed over to the new larger bearings in February 2005 - exactly the month we thought.
#35
Pro
Bringing this thread back up again because I found some new information.
Based on the class action suit, people with "Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche 911 vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 20, 2005, excluding the Turbo, GT2, and GT3 models, with VINs in the following ranges..." Then it lists a bunch of ranges.
This is further evidence that the IMS bearings changed over to the new larger bearings in February 2005 - exactly the month we thought.
Based on the class action suit, people with "Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche 911 vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 20, 2005, excluding the Turbo, GT2, and GT3 models, with VINs in the following ranges..." Then it lists a bunch of ranges.
This is further evidence that the IMS bearings changed over to the new larger bearings in February 2005 - exactly the month we thought.
#36
Seems like it. The thread is posted in the 996 and 986 forums.
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...-mar-12-a.html
If my VIN decoder understanding for the 997 models is correct, these '05 997cars are included in the suit:
o WP0AA29905S715077-WP0AA29905S717475
o WP0AB299X5S740081-WP0AB29955S742109
o WP0CA29935S755064-WP0CA29935S755209
o WP0CB29915S765072-WP0CB29925S765212
o WP0ZZZ99Z5S731099
o WP0ZZZ99Z5S701444
Later '05s and '06-'08 are not included. Nor are the very early 996s cars (pre-2001) for some reason.
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...-mar-12-a.html
If my VIN decoder understanding for the 997 models is correct, these '05 997cars are included in the suit:
o WP0AA29905S715077-WP0AA29905S717475
o WP0AB299X5S740081-WP0AB29955S742109
o WP0CA29935S755064-WP0CA29935S755209
o WP0CB29915S765072-WP0CB29925S765212
o WP0ZZZ99Z5S731099
o WP0ZZZ99Z5S701444
Later '05s and '06-'08 are not included. Nor are the very early 996s cars (pre-2001) for some reason.
Last edited by Mspeedster; 03-14-2013 at 12:54 AM.
#37
Rennlist Member
Bringing this thread back up again because I found some new information.
Based on the class action suit, people with "Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche 911 vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 20, 2005, excluding the Turbo, GT2, and GT3 models, with VINs in the following ranges..." Then it lists a bunch of ranges.
This is further evidence that the IMS bearings changed over to the new larger bearings in February 2005 - exactly the month we thought.
Based on the class action suit, people with "Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche 911 vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 20, 2005, excluding the Turbo, GT2, and GT3 models, with VINs in the following ranges..." Then it lists a bunch of ranges.
This is further evidence that the IMS bearings changed over to the new larger bearings in February 2005 - exactly the month we thought.
#38
Miserable Old Bastard
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Interesting news! My 05 997S was a launch car (bought it on launch day) an so clearly has the earlier IMS. And I'm clearly in the class covered by that class action suit. (No problems with the car so far, although it has hardly been driven the last few years.)
#39
Pro
I'm right in there (VIN range) as well w/ my 2005 997S Launch Car. I'm going to check w/ my local dealer to make sure that the Class Action is still in effect. I've been toying w/ the idea of a warranty via the Costco Link but now it's a no brainer as long as PCNA will take care of an IMS failure (if one should occur). If I read the agreement it's good for 10 years or 130K miles (whichever comes first). I have about a 1 1/2 years left before I get to the 10 year mark.
#40
o WP0AA29905S715077-WP0AA29905S717475
o WP0AB299X5S740081-WP0AB29955S742109
o WP0CA29935S755064-WP0CA29935S755209
o WP0CB29915S765072-WP0CB29925S765212
o WP0ZZZ99Z5S731099
o WP0ZZZ99Z5S701444
#43
Burning Brakes
If you have not seen it (from older thread):
Base engine (3.6) has designation "M96", has both the older IMS and revised larger bearing, you will need your engine number to determine which one you have:
Engine (3.6) number up to M96/05 69507475 has the older IMS bearing and Engine number from M96/05 69507476 has the larger revised IMS.
"S" engine (3.8) has designation "M97", also has both the older IMS and revised larger IMS bearing:
Engine (3.8) number up to M97/01 68509790 has the older IMS bearing and Engine number from M97/01 68509791 has the larger revised IMS.
Base engine (3.6) has designation "M96", has both the older IMS and revised larger bearing, you will need your engine number to determine which one you have:
Engine (3.6) number up to M96/05 69507475 has the older IMS bearing and Engine number from M96/05 69507476 has the larger revised IMS.
"S" engine (3.8) has designation "M97", also has both the older IMS and revised larger IMS bearing:
Engine (3.8) number up to M97/01 68509790 has the older IMS bearing and Engine number from M97/01 68509791 has the larger revised IMS.
#44
Prefer M96 IMS
I must be backwards. I've started my search for a 997 and I'm only looking for M96 style bearing cars. I'm not convinced Porsche has fixed the problem as I continue to hear of M97 failures and like M96's no one but Porsche knows the % of actual failures.
I would rather have a M96 and replace the IMS bearing w/the ceramic LN bearing. As others have mentioned, a M97 (w/new bearing design) requires the cases split to replace the bearing, an impractical cost for most.
Maybe the lucky guys have the M96 or like me are looking for one that may sell at a discount due to a weaker, but (preferable) replaceable bearing design.
I would rather have a M96 and replace the IMS bearing w/the ceramic LN bearing. As others have mentioned, a M97 (w/new bearing design) requires the cases split to replace the bearing, an impractical cost for most.
Maybe the lucky guys have the M96 or like me are looking for one that may sell at a discount due to a weaker, but (preferable) replaceable bearing design.
#45
Rennlist Member
Great thread. '05 S guys need to figure out where we stand with this bearing issue. It still sits in the back of my mind and bugs me that Porsche really never stepped up to take care of this issue. If you read the documents of the class action suit, compensation for used buyers is crap - 25% of cost of a documented failure. Tons of documentation required, blah, blah, blah. Their lawyers did everything they could to make sure they would have to cover as few of these as possible, especially on pre-owned, non-CPO'd cars. Feb '05 seems like a reasonable time frame for the switch, but even Porsche has said that bearings were used on an available basis during the switch. So, any Jan/Feb/Mar cars are still in the dark on which bearing they have. Unfortunately, I'm a 1/05 build date.
The question becomes, as the mileage goes up are we going to see a greater percentage of failures (if not replaced with LN). They like to quote <1% for failures, but that was at an earlier date and mileages, on average, were lower. My feeling now is, as the mileages continue to increase, the overall percentage of failure rate should continue to climb. Porsche should have stepped up and made this a recall issue.
The question becomes, as the mileage goes up are we going to see a greater percentage of failures (if not replaced with LN). They like to quote <1% for failures, but that was at an earlier date and mileages, on average, were lower. My feeling now is, as the mileages continue to increase, the overall percentage of failure rate should continue to climb. Porsche should have stepped up and made this a recall issue.