Notices
997 Forum 2005-2012
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

so Porsche says 8% of M96/97 IMS were effected, help me out, wouldn't 8% basically

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-04-2017, 09:27 PM
  #1  
rodH
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
rodH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,264
Received 128 Likes on 86 Posts
Default so Porsche says 8% of M96/97 IMS were effected, help me out, wouldn't 8% basically

So if it has been "only" 8% (which is actually a really high number, of course), would it seem plausible then that the vast majority (nearly all) of the IMS failures would happen with people who:

1. Never change their oil, or go far beyond the recommended mileage?
2. Use non-approved oil?
3. Use inferior oil filters?
4. Low oil levels (never checking and topping off)?
5. Didn't use proper warm-up procedures?
6. Significant over-revs?
7. Wrong oil viscosity?

ETC....

not saying that the IMS issue would NEVER happen with proper care, as we have seen examples on this forum that have, but it seems like there are far more than 8% of the 911 population that would actually NOT follow all of the above guidelines that we tend to use. Which to me, means that the number, if proper protocol is followed, is actually MUCH less than 8%

Sorry to beat a dead horse, just some random thoughts I was having today

Thoughts?
Old 01-04-2017, 09:32 PM
  #2  
Bruce In Philly
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
 
Bruce In Philly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,981
Likes: 0
Received 1,418 Likes on 860 Posts
Default

Please state your source for the "Porsche says 8%".

Why do you point to oil as the main issue?

Peace
Bruce in Philly
Old 01-04-2017, 09:47 PM
  #3  
pavster
Instructor
 
pavster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yeah I want to see source too. Admission to having an 8% with issues would open them to a HUGE lawsuit.

Also don't agree on oil/maintenance being the issue. The bearing is sealed. It fails when its internal 'lifetime' lubrication fails to do its job. It's a design issue - using a bearing with lifetime/stress tolerances shorter/lower than it's subjected to in real life.
Old 01-04-2017, 10:46 PM
  #4  
rodH
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
rodH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,264
Received 128 Likes on 86 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bruce In Philly
Please state your source for the "Porsche says 8%".

Why do you point to oil as the main issue?

Peace
Bruce in Philly
Isn't this the number that Porsche mentioned or maybe it was the attorneys in the class action lawsuit? I have read numbers that vary from 8-10% in several articles and youtube videos, but don't really have those on hand to post links at the moment.
Old 01-04-2017, 10:56 PM
  #5  
vern1
Drifting
 
vern1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,351
Received 104 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Oh jeezus man.

You quote Porsche as the source of this number and then when asked for a source, you ask yourself for the source??

Old 01-04-2017, 11:10 PM
  #6  
rodH
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
rodH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,264
Received 128 Likes on 86 Posts
Default

A quick search gives me these results.

There are plenty more but got tired of cutting and pasting

http://theimssolution.com/ims-101/

http://www.revolution-porsche.co.uk/upgrades/single-row-pro-ims-retrofit-installation-from-revolution-porsche

http://porsche911owner.blogspot.com/2013/10/porsche-ims-engine-failure-risk.html?m=1
Old 01-06-2017, 02:31 AM
  #7  
Abe Froman
Pro
 
Abe Froman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 23 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

You people need to learn Google

https://www.oregonpca.org/wp-content.../ORPCA-IMS.pdf

"According to information published about the Eisen IMS Class Action Lawsuit, the single row IMS bearing used in 2000 through 2005 model years is reported to have an 8% failure rate, versus less than 1% with the dual row IMS bearing. The 8% failure rate cited by the settlement documents is not far off of the calculated L10 life LN Engineering has been using for the last five years!."
Sooo.....Also answers the OP's question. 1% of "normal" bearings fail. Subtract 1 from 8 and add a variance of 2% and you have a 5%+ failure for IMS.
Old 01-06-2017, 03:50 AM
  #8  
rodH
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
rodH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,264
Received 128 Likes on 86 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Abe Froman
You people need to learn Google

https://www.oregonpca.org/wp-content.../ORPCA-IMS.pdf

"According to information published about the Eisen IMS Class Action Lawsuit, the single row IMS bearing used in 2000 through 2005 model years is reported to have an 8% failure rate, versus less than 1% with the dual row IMS bearing. The 8% failure rate cited by the settlement documents is not far off of the calculated L10 life LN Engineering has been using for the last five years!."
Sooo.....Also answers the OP's question. 1% of "normal" bearings fail. Subtract 1 from 8 and add a variance of 2% and you have a 5%+ failure for IMS.
i was kind of suprised to get all the 🔫 Replies as I thought this was a fairly well know stat.

It sounds like the oil doesn't really have much to do with it anyway, so I guess that in that sense this thread is useless?
Old 01-06-2017, 10:47 AM
  #9  
Sneaky Pete
Rennlist Member
 
Sneaky Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mooresville, IN (Life Long Cheesehead)
Posts: 5,815
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rodH
this thread is useless?
BINGO!!
Old 01-06-2017, 11:20 AM
  #10  
Bruce In Philly
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
 
Bruce In Philly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,981
Likes: 0
Received 1,418 Likes on 860 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rodH
i was kind of suprised to get all the �� Replies as I thought this was a fairly well know stat.

It sounds like the oil doesn't really have much to do with it anyway, so I guess that in that sense this thread is useless?
The stat only relates one type of failure over a specific set of years. Your comment and then points appear fairly random, and to be honest, smells a bit of a troll post.

Folks here I suspect have some fatigue on this issue but to be fair, it still looms large and relevant. Throwing out comments about oil and abuse all in the same post appears... well.... pretty darn hard to respond to your post given the years of thoughtful analysis by technicians and owners who had failures (includes me).

Peace
Bruce in Philly
Old 01-06-2017, 11:24 AM
  #11  
TonyTwoBags
Three Wheelin'
 
TonyTwoBags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

please rename thread to "question that quickly turns into faceplant"


Old 01-06-2017, 12:35 PM
  #12  
vern1
Drifting
 
vern1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,351
Received 104 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete
BINGO!!


I love rodH threads and anything like "will brake dust on my rotor cause my car to spontaneously blow up if I drive it"

As they say on Seinfeld, its gold Jerry, GOLD
Old 01-06-2017, 09:40 PM
  #13  
gpjli2
Three Wheelin'
 
gpjli2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

OP wants to believe that if he changes the oil on his 997 he has no need to worry about engine failure. Dream on guy. Ask me how I know, or better yet, don't.
Old 01-07-2017, 11:40 PM
  #14  
Own Goal
Team Owner
 
Own Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 28,112
Received 2,322 Likes on 1,395 Posts
Default

Don't think OP is trolling. Also does not say he has a 997 yet. It's a lot of money and a decision that requires some judgement to assess.
I suggest he read a LOT. The L&N guys have offered to share a lot of info on here.
On the other hand if need to see what first class trolling looks like, come on up to P&C anytime and get an education on that topic.
Old 01-08-2017, 12:13 AM
  #15  
Jack667
Rennlist Member
 
Jack667's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Milton, GA
Posts: 2,259
Received 110 Likes on 58 Posts
Default

Most of the threads that talk about engine failures and most that mention Raby, LN, Hartech, etc - talk about the importance of changing oil often. And we all know people get religious about what oil to use. And the importance of oil analysis, and magnetic drain plugs, and on and on.
Why is it so crazy for someone to take the logical leap to say that NOT doing those things would cause trouble? Heck - it's all over this forum already. If you want your engine to last longer - do A, B, and C. If you don't do those things, would that not put you at greater risk?
We know many of these cars are leased or owned by people too carless to bother with certain oils, or oil interval, etc. How many people are careless with their oil? 3%, 5%, 8%, 20% ??
Why is it so crazy to think that some number of failures are related to those careless owners?

I'm not saying he's right, but I don't think it makes any sense to berate him, given all the "information" on this and other forums.


Quick Reply: so Porsche says 8% of M96/97 IMS were effected, help me out, wouldn't 8% basically



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 01:12 PM.