This IMS Dark Horse...
Advanced
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 62
Likes: 12
Hi All!
I am new to the 911 world. After reading all of the posts on the IMS issue, I hope to be in the "less than 5%" group. I have an early '05 997.1. Manufacture date is 2/05 with a warranty start date of 3/05. Currently has 40k miles and no issues! The underside of the engine is dry as a bone! No leaks, no seepage.
I was instructed by my local Memphis shop to wait until I do a clutch overall to replace the bearing. So I will drive her. as this is my daily driver. I average about 12k yearly with a combination of city, highway miles. At first I was shifting in the 3k rpm zone. After reading the forums, I am now shifting in the 4k range and even driving on the highway in the 4k zone.
More to come….
Bob
I am new to the 911 world. After reading all of the posts on the IMS issue, I hope to be in the "less than 5%" group. I have an early '05 997.1. Manufacture date is 2/05 with a warranty start date of 3/05. Currently has 40k miles and no issues! The underside of the engine is dry as a bone! No leaks, no seepage.
I was instructed by my local Memphis shop to wait until I do a clutch overall to replace the bearing. So I will drive her. as this is my daily driver. I average about 12k yearly with a combination of city, highway miles. At first I was shifting in the 3k rpm zone. After reading the forums, I am now shifting in the 4k range and even driving on the highway in the 4k zone.
More to come….
Bob
Last edited by bpossel; Feb 19, 2014 at 06:42 AM.
Pro
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 670
Likes: 1
From: San Antonio, TX
At first I was shifting in the 3k rpm zone. After reading the forums, I am now shifting in the 4k range and even driving on the highway in the 4k zone.
Congrats on the p-car!
6th Gear
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From here this is my options now... ?
Direct oil feed (DOF) 1900$ Pelican
LN bearing 650$
Pelican bearing update 165$
Do nothing, 8% risk of failure 0$
Other option ?
Can you guys summerize and comment all of our options here so far, from best to worst ? Also considering that I can change the bearing periodicaly as a maintenance.
Thanks for the IMS Review guys.
Direct oil feed (DOF) 1900$ Pelican
LN bearing 650$
Pelican bearing update 165$
Do nothing, 8% risk of failure 0$
Other option ?
Can you guys summerize and comment all of our options here so far, from best to worst ? Also considering that I can change the bearing periodicaly as a maintenance.
Thanks for the IMS Review guys.
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,603
Likes: 2,562
From: Atlanta
Pedro had a DOF solution for around $800
http://pedrosgarage.com/Site_2/TechnoFix_DOF.html
Peace
Bruce in Philly
http://pedrosgarage.com/Site_2/TechnoFix_DOF.html
Peace
Bruce in Philly
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 96
From: NJ
Pedro had a DOF solution for around $800
http://pedrosgarage.com/Site_2/TechnoFix_DOF.html
Peace
Bruce in Philly
http://pedrosgarage.com/Site_2/TechnoFix_DOF.html
Peace
Bruce in Philly
Thread Starter
Instructor
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: ON, Canada
Rennlist Stories
The Best Porsche Posts for Porsche Enthusiasts
9 Features and Characteristics That Only Porsche People Understand
Verdad Gallardo
I've Written 500 Rennlist Articles: Here's How Porsche Has Changed Along the Way
Joe Kucinski
10 Most Unnecessary Porsches Ever Built (And Why We Love Them)
Verdad Gallardo
Porsche 911 GT3 S/C vs 718 Spyder RS: 10 Categories, One Winner
Joe Kucinski
This Builder Is Turning Heads With Its Slantnose 911 Creation
Verdad Gallardo
Porsche 911 GT3 Artisan Edition Pays Homage to Japanese Culture
Verdad Gallardo
Porsche Reveals Coupe Variant of the Electric Cayenne With a Fresh Look
Verdad Gallardo
10 Porsche Colors That Have More Personality Than Most People
Verdad Gallardo
Guntherwerks' Final Speedster Creation Is the Ultimate Porsche Restomod
Verdad Gallardo
Three Wheelin'
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 16
If insufficient lubrication and insufficient load carrying are the primary causes of IMS bearing failure with the smaller, single-race bearing, then why isn't the failure rate five or ten times higher? And why do failures occur at vastly varying mileage? It would seem to me that there must be another powerful variable involved. The one that comes to my mind is assembly tolerance. Given that you have a narrow bearing that is press-fit into a hollow shaft, and then turns on a spindle secured by a torqued nut, that fitment of the component parts might play as critical a role as the parts themselves.
Thread Starter
Instructor
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: ON, Canada
There's a good reason for that IMS shaft to exist. Porsche engineers are not exactly morons, I would not think...
Think of it this way the new direct injection engine does not have one. Why? Just to be rid of an engineering blunder? Probably not. Direct injection engines control the burn inside the cylinder better so there's less resulting torsional load on the CS. That means less dynamic dampening is needed therefore there's no need for an intermediate shaft to act like one in the first place...
I've struggled with the reason why this IMS was needed to begin with for a while now… With the IMS the layout is actually more complex, with more parts to potentially fail and most likely more expensive (not cheaper how it was suggested above). Think about it: even the assembly procedure is more complex with more precision parts to be fitted, therefore more expensive and more position error prone. So why bother with something like that in the first place ?
Well they needed dynamic damping in the timing system to counteract the CS induced vibrations and to a lesser degree to insulate the feedback vibration due to the camshaft operation. Without a properly damped chain tensioner (and hydraulic ones are traditionally not good at this) it's impossible to do it otherwise but having an intermediate shaft whose mass is supposed to absorb all the vibration induced loading. How all the calcs were done, no one but Porsche knows, that kind of stuff is proprietary and a close guarded industrial secret.
So, there you have it. When you sit down and really think about it logically there's no other way to interpret it... Of course I might be 100% wrong... I'm just an engineer :-)
Think of it this way the new direct injection engine does not have one. Why? Just to be rid of an engineering blunder? Probably not. Direct injection engines control the burn inside the cylinder better so there's less resulting torsional load on the CS. That means less dynamic dampening is needed therefore there's no need for an intermediate shaft to act like one in the first place...
I've struggled with the reason why this IMS was needed to begin with for a while now… With the IMS the layout is actually more complex, with more parts to potentially fail and most likely more expensive (not cheaper how it was suggested above). Think about it: even the assembly procedure is more complex with more precision parts to be fitted, therefore more expensive and more position error prone. So why bother with something like that in the first place ?
Well they needed dynamic damping in the timing system to counteract the CS induced vibrations and to a lesser degree to insulate the feedback vibration due to the camshaft operation. Without a properly damped chain tensioner (and hydraulic ones are traditionally not good at this) it's impossible to do it otherwise but having an intermediate shaft whose mass is supposed to absorb all the vibration induced loading. How all the calcs were done, no one but Porsche knows, that kind of stuff is proprietary and a close guarded industrial secret.
So, there you have it. When you sit down and really think about it logically there's no other way to interpret it... Of course I might be 100% wrong... I'm just an engineer :-)
Last edited by BogdanR; Feb 20, 2014 at 07:54 PM.
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,603
Likes: 2,562
From: Atlanta
As I understand the history, Porsche has always used an IMS in their air cooled engines since 1965. While it is good sport to try and understand why, it may lead to incorrect conclusions as to why this thing fails. A different logic path may be better when considering an approach to mitigate failure risk. This problem never occurred until the engine was redesigned. What is different then? Again, very dangerous ground here, but did you notice that the bearing on the other side of the IM doesn't fail? Hmm...did you notice that all the IMS bearings since 1965 were fed with pressurized oil and that the one failing uses a sealed bearing (the one at the other end is force fed oil)?
Now this does not explain why, but to quote an old joke "Doctor, it hurts when I do this...."
Peace
Bruce in Philly
Now this does not explain why, but to quote an old joke "Doctor, it hurts when I do this...."
Peace
Bruce in Philly
Last edited by Bruce In Philly; Feb 21, 2014 at 12:39 PM.
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,603
Likes: 2,562
From: Atlanta
Interesting information here.....
http://theimssolution.com/ims-101/
Keep in mind, as we all have learned, that this vendor has their own theory.... Pedro has his....
IMHO, should I have one of these engines, would be to fit a DOF solution and not just a stronger bearing. But no one really knows for sure other than a small group of engineers and accountants in Germany.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
http://theimssolution.com/ims-101/
Keep in mind, as we all have learned, that this vendor has their own theory.... Pedro has his....
IMHO, should I have one of these engines, would be to fit a DOF solution and not just a stronger bearing. But no one really knows for sure other than a small group of engineers and accountants in Germany.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
Pro
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Likes: 100
From: Pasadena
Not sure I trust Pedro's engineering judgement in his test videos with the seal removed. The outer race of the bearing isn't supposed to spin.
I'm with BenZ, there's something else here we don't understand. Tolerance stack up, bad lot of bearings? I don't know. Bearings generally like to be preloaded so the ***** will rotate instead of slide. Not sure how this is addressed in the IMS bearing.
I'm with BenZ, there's something else here we don't understand. Tolerance stack up, bad lot of bearings? I don't know. Bearings generally like to be preloaded so the ***** will rotate instead of slide. Not sure how this is addressed in the IMS bearing.
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,603
Likes: 2,562
From: Atlanta
I've struggled with the reason why this IMS was needed to begin with for a while now… With the IMS the layout is actually more complex, with more parts to potentially fail and most likely more expensive (not cheaper how it was suggested above). Think about it: even the assembly procedure is more complex with more precision parts to be fitted, therefore more expensive and more position error prone. So why bother with something like that in the first place ?
There are other reasons for complex and expensive parts than to mitigate a vibration issue.... The whole point of a flat engine is to get the weight down low in the chasis... other concerns such as engine length become factors.... Unlike the Porsche of today, they really seemed to desire performance goals more than many, like American car companies who desired low assembly and parts costs. Before you start making assumptions about what you see, you may want to think about the broader why first. I am not sure we know this.
I hope a real Porschephile weighs in here as there are tons of histories written about Porsche engine development.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 4
There's a good reason for that IMS shaft to exist. Porsche engineers are not exactly morons, I would not think...
Think of it this way the new direct injection engine does not have one. Why? Just to be rid of an engineering blunder? Probably not. Direct injection engines control the burn inside the cylinder better so there's less resulting torsional load on the CS. That means less dynamic dampening is needed therefore there's no need for an intermediate shaft to act like one in the first place...
I've struggled with the reason why this IMS was needed to begin with for a while now… With the IMS the layout is actually more complex, with more parts to potentially fail and most likely more expensive (not cheaper how it was suggested above). Think about it: even the assembly procedure is more complex with more precision parts to be fitted, therefore more expensive and more position error prone. So why bother with something like that in the first place ?
Well they needed dynamic damping in the timing system to counteract the CS induced vibrations and to a lesser degree to insulate the feedback vibration due to the camshaft operation. Without a properly damped chain tensioner (and hydraulic ones are traditionally not good at this) it's impossible to do it otherwise but having an intermediate shaft whose mass is supposed to absorb all the vibration induced loading. How all the calcs were done, no one but Porsche knows, that kind of stuff is proprietary and a close guarded industrial secret.
So, there you have it. When you sit down and really think about it logically there's no other way to interpret it... Of course I might be 100% wrong... I'm just an engineer :-)
Think of it this way the new direct injection engine does not have one. Why? Just to be rid of an engineering blunder? Probably not. Direct injection engines control the burn inside the cylinder better so there's less resulting torsional load on the CS. That means less dynamic dampening is needed therefore there's no need for an intermediate shaft to act like one in the first place...
I've struggled with the reason why this IMS was needed to begin with for a while now… With the IMS the layout is actually more complex, with more parts to potentially fail and most likely more expensive (not cheaper how it was suggested above). Think about it: even the assembly procedure is more complex with more precision parts to be fitted, therefore more expensive and more position error prone. So why bother with something like that in the first place ?
Well they needed dynamic damping in the timing system to counteract the CS induced vibrations and to a lesser degree to insulate the feedback vibration due to the camshaft operation. Without a properly damped chain tensioner (and hydraulic ones are traditionally not good at this) it's impossible to do it otherwise but having an intermediate shaft whose mass is supposed to absorb all the vibration induced loading. How all the calcs were done, no one but Porsche knows, that kind of stuff is proprietary and a close guarded industrial secret.
So, there you have it. When you sit down and really think about it logically there's no other way to interpret it... Of course I might be 100% wrong... I'm just an engineer :-)
With all due respect there are many engineers, Porsche even has a few last time I checked. If you have not yet gotten your car I hope it comes soon. The answer to overthinking ths stuff lies in the beauty of the machine, it's performance on the road, and the emotional connection it can establish with the inner child/man of the true auto lover.
Upon taking ownership or as soon as possible thereafter I suggest you find a sweet piece of road with good views and begin to experience the world through the eyes of Porsche owner and a car enthusiast. Forget the bearing, concentrate on the emotional door that may open for you if you let it. This advise comes to not from an engineer but from a therapist and hopefully a fellow Porsche lover.
Good luck and have fun out there.
GC