Torontoworker

Just in case any 996 owners here in the Canadian section missed this tread:

Apparently we now have some sort of 'proof' concerning the % of IMS issues in 996 and gen 1 997 models from the documentation in the class action lawsuit. In the discovery process it was revealed that the issue is concerning the single row IMS bearing that has an 8%-10% failure rate, (depends on where you live - ambient heat?). The double row bearing is considered to have a less then 1% rate of failure. 99's and 2000's used double row - although there is a great debate on *when* it was changed over to single and what year. No info concerning Canadian coverage in the suit. You can read the long and continuing thread (link) below. I changed my 99's bearing with an LN bearing anyway under the 'tired of the worry' or 'maintenance just because' mode. Can I say I'm part of the 1% club now?

https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...-mar-12-a.html

ronnie993tt

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Amazed Porsche did not release these stats, maybe even by mileage. Media speculation was much worse with some estimates ranging from from 25% to eventually all would fail....

zer026T

My '05 997 is on the affected VIN list but is still covered under CPO warranty for the next 9 months. Planning on the LN upgrade as soon as the CPO runs out.

Turbodan

what is the failure rate of the LN bearing? I have heard of the LN failing as well, although I am sure it is very low rate of failure. stick with air cooled or Metzer

aviography

I recall reading 3 LN bearing failurs being mentioned by Flat Six Innovations, with two that can be traced to improper installation, the last one was inconclusive.

I beleive they have since changed from phenolic bearing race to metallic bearing race, or something to that effect, likely to both strengthen the part, and also to allow their IMSB Guardian to pick up the ferrious particles if the bearing or race starts to fail.

theiceman

interesting , but you just know the the fan- boys are going to still have a story and convince everyone its internet hype and not really a problem ( this may be a necesary move to protect resale value ) . But just in our Random sampling of small Canadian forums here. I have heard of engines being replaced for other reasons , not one IMS bearing .. still .. replacing an engine on any of these cars before its due days ( in the 100,s of thousands ) to me seems totally unacceptable.

ronnie993tt

+1 for this comment and Metzger engine.

dbv1

So what are the settlement details? Will Porsche extend the warranty on the bearing for the 01-05 cars?

Imo000

Where did all the hysteria came from?

TurboS

Women drivers...

petee_c

Does this increase the value of our US imported Boxster S's?

Peter
'01 Box S

theiceman

nope you are still stuck with the stigma of an m96 engine

Dale Gribble

M96 gets no lovin from the Metzger crowd

SToronto

Damn I clicked this thread due to seeing Dead Eyes avatar in the MSG preview.

500

The language in the suit is tricky. Actually the 4% to 8% refers to the number of warranty claims and goodwill payments for cars with the single row IMS design, it does not seperate out those claims that were for issues specific to the IMS. The language is a little pick-and-choose, as it usually is in these suits. It later references 3100 actual IMS-related claims and goodwill payments, which a little over 4% of class vehicles.

Still, it is more than the double row design and it is a huge killer if it happens to you. Better to replace it proactively!