Re: New version of Cylindrical Roller Bearing IMSB

There is a new product in the Intermediate Shaft Bearing replacement market for the M96 engine.
It is offered by RND & SSF. The product development was done by the LN/Flat6 guys.It s a cylindrical roller bearing with thrust control - like the NUP204 E. The T(H)rust control is a 'big deal'.
Just wondering if Pedro may add this to his bearing options in Technofix DOF? I ask because the current vendors are "To the Trade Only " and no DOF of course.
It requires the use of the usual LN tools for install/removal.
[www.pedrosgarage.com]

We do not believe now, or have ever believed that the bearing is the problem.
By beefing up the bearing and adding ceramic balls or rollers or whatever isn't going to change the fact that the problem with the IMS bearing in the M96/M97 engines is the lack of lubrication (cooling).
As a matter of fact if you put rollers instead of balls you will be creating even more heat from friction.
The OEM bearings are fine as soon as you put a stream of oil that cools them and lubricates them.
Vertex Auto also introduced their "Eternal Fix" about 2 years ago with roller bearings with thrust control and soon thereafter realized that they needed to cool them down and lubricate them after a couple of failures.
There's no need to try to reinvent the wheel (bearing).
We do not recommend anything but the OEM bearings when installing the Direct Oil Feed Kit.
Happy Porscheing,
Pedro

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 314,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna

That's why I installed your Technofix DOF kit !
I hope the rest of the diy M96 community gets your message.

... why do some of these solution providers keep coming out with the final solution every couple of years?
Once you have the true solution to the problem, that should be it. No?
Happy DOF'ing
Pedro

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 314,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna

when installed "correctly" (which is conveniently defined as an installation that hasn't failed). There have actually been a number of failures reported but those by definition weren't installed correctly and by some logic I don't understand the burden falls on the installer to prove that the cause of the failure was the bearing.

So assuming zero failures, why is a new design merited? It's not cheaper so that's not it.

Pedro tells us in his excellent videos that one of the causes of failure of the OEM bearing is pressure changes inside the IMS tube.The pressure differential draws oil past the bearing & inside the tube .This invading oil stays inside the tube & eventually becomes acidic and gets purged through leaky IMS bearing seals.This acid attacks the balls and race of the IMSB.
With DOF ,the same pressure changes may still occur?
But the oil drawn into the tube purges easier because it only has to pass 1 seal and then it gets flushed out by the DOF supply.
There have been suggestions to 'plug' the tube immediately behind the new DOF bearing .This would be a huge reduction in the physical volume of tube available to invading oil. This would reduce the acidic oil problem. A small breather hole in the 'plug' would relieve pressure differences.
Others suggest making a small breather hole in the single inner seal on the DOF bearing .
Is there any technical merit to these ideas?

It is not lubricated.

So it fails.

The acid oil sitting inside the IMS has been noted, but that has more to do with corrosion of the bearings. If one changes their oil regularly i suspect its less of an issue.

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

Here are the details:
[rennlist.com]

Good question. Here is what they said in essence:
'Our distributor Sales staff asked for this product'.
No mention of Engineering.

I'll warn you in advance, your eyes will glaze over.

And after many pages of silly ,abusive,rude,irrelevant posts on the 'other' site, you could have read the facts here in just a few lines :-). And saved a bunch of $$$ also.
Thanks for the Forum Pedro.

This appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

The sellers note that roller bearings generally can only sustain 10% of the thrust that a ball bearing can sustain. (I have no idea how true that is - but if the seller says it - it suggests that the product is known to be inferior.)

The seller says it is a low cost alternative. Ok, spare me. We are talking about the engine here.

The seller's colleague then says - we figured out it was the oil and refers the reader to their new oil feed product which competes with the DOF. ( I am not competent to compare the two alternatives - so I will leave that to others)

Bottom line... even the seller's comments would lead a reasonable person to simply pass. If you HAVE to replace the bearing - do not use this option. period.

1."the sellers note that roller bearings generally can only sustain 10% of the thrust that a ball bearing can sustain"
Yes, but the specific bearing in this Post is not a regular cylindrical roller bearing.NUP204E will tolerate much more thrust load than 10%.That is the whole point.Search Timken to learn more.
Even with this augmented thrust capacity, it is a false solution because of the huge cross-sectional area of the rotating elements(compared to a deep groove ball bearing).This causes friction=heat=lubricant degradation/film failure.
See Pedro's comments above for an example of cylindrical roller bearing failure.

2."even the sellers admit that the oil is the problem." - Incorrect.
They say the problem is load. We have covered this in excruciating detail many times.

3.They do say the IMSB is always partially submerged in oil and therefore the IMSB needs no supplementary oil supply. Others disagree.See Pedro's video.
Hence DOF+deep groove BALL bearing for the IMS.

Again, a ceramic bearing with sintered silicon nitride ***** was a logical choice for wear mitigation considering we brought to market ceramic cam followers almost 14 years ago to fix cam lifter failures due to excessive wear, until we discovered it was the oil causing the failures. Then we moved on.

So said, (or typed),
Charles Navarro
LN Engineering

who, as I understand it, is one of the sellers. So, I say again, why would anyone consider this bearing?

and if that is incorrect, I am happy to stand corrected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2015 10:29PM by JMstamford,ct. (view changes)

There are many factors involved un the design and application of ball and roller bearings, too much to list here. Lubrication is just one of them.
See my earlier posts for more detail.

Ed B
Bearing engineer

Ed,
I did, several times and am grateful to you for your contribution. More significantly Jake and Charles have mentioned your expertise :-).
Tony
Mech.Eng.

that's a very general statement.

Are you suggesting that the predominant cause of failures in the Boxster IMS bearings is anything other than a lack of proper lubrication?

In theory, it could be anything but in practice logic suggests that failure is caused by the weakest link of all of the weaknesses.

I'd consider these as possible causes:

1. Parts dimensional variability (All are not created equal)
2. Mounting alignment variability (All blocks are not created equally)
3. Neglect (but who will admit that)
4. Porsche dictated oil change intervals (combined with winter hibernation and short length trips in winter) leading to oil contamination
5. Installation variability
6. Random aspects of any mechanical part

If you think any of the newer bearings/kits have enough history to be credible replacements, you aren't into failure prediction. When the first replacement kit was offered, I asked how we would know if it was more or less reliable given that we thought for several years that the initial few reports of Porsche bearing failures were just random events. I asked way back then how many cars with how many years and how many miles were the offered replacements tested on. Deathly silence.

No one to date has convinced me they their offerings were tested to anywhere near my level of satisfaction before being touted as the next great thing (I started distributing mission critical items in 1967. Think billions of dollars impact and/or safety of lives impact.).

Ed stated that he didn't want to write tomes yet again, but I recall he did go into length on acidity in oil beginning the spiral to death.

And i believe it. (along with lack of lubrication of course, which is the elephant on the table)

G

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

Quote
Boxsterra
that's a very general statement.

Are you suggesting that the predominant cause of failures in the Boxster IMS bearings is anything other than a lack of proper lubrication?

Or to put the question a bit differently, if we remove the lack of proper lubrication from the equation of IMS failures, what would the proximate cause(s) be?

is that failure would happen so infrequently that we wouldn't even be talking about it.

There is some new evidence that IM shaft run-out ,leading to excessive shaft vibration is an issue.This vibration over loads the single row OEM bearing way beyond it's design limits.Then it wears,wobbles/vibrates more and fails.
You may challenge the source of this info but he has infinitely more data and knowledge than me so I'll listen. The short version is that logically it may favor the use of a roller bearing instead of a single row .This may account for the surprisingly good field results of the cylindrical roller+oil feed Vertex/PS systems that use the NUP 204 bearing?Please correct this part number if it is incorrect.
see page 13,14 here - [rennlist.com]

If you jump to the beginning of the thread, it is about the failure of one of the (several) previous IMS solutions created and sold by the same people. They have gone through several iterations of solutions, each time claiming the problem is finally completely understood, a solution has been created, that it has been extensively tested found it to be bulletproof. Yet they keep coming up with new solutions.

Their evidence each time on the surface sounds reasonable to the layman and is always accompanied by scary testimonies of people who didn't listen to them and had engine failure "as a result".

If you put all of these facts together, it casts a very big shadow of doubt on the veracity of their claims.

Caveat emptor

On the basis of the many hundreds of samples they see every year, they learn more.

Lets list the progressions in understandings I remember from their public statements.

Oil change interval and driving style seem to matter.
Check the oil filter.
Ceramic bearing better than steel.
Oil mist better than grease.
Installer training and tools.
No bypass oil filter better than bypass oil filter.
Pre-qualification a necessity.
Filtered better than unfiltered.
Oil does matter.
Some IMS shafts and crankshafts not true to each other and a tool to measure it (The start of the multiple failure engines cause explanation. Not yet patented. Not yet available to others.)
Better installation tools.
2 rows better than single.
Pre-qualification should include the oil pan.
Flat bearing oil fed better than balls.
Roller bearings as a lower cost alternative.
IMS shaft acceptable run-out tolerances and a tool to measure it (Again the multiple failure engines search for cause. Three items simultaneous measurement. Not yet patented.Not yet available to others.)

And then there are the around thirty modes/causes of engine failure they have seen and chronicled on various forums for others to learn from. Many learned from engines that others had diagnosed as IMS failures. Would we have had the lawsuit settlement had not the publicity they generated caused the owner's outcry?

When I had cancer ~6 years ago, I took my problem to a group that kept records of the last 10k+ patients they had treated and their outcomes measured every 6 months for life. That had adapted and changed what they did over the years and developed tools on the basis or research and statistics. I did that over the local choices of a one size fits all approach with no records and no seeming research to learn more. I'm now one of the success data points in their data base. I could have saved money and trouble and just believed ...

Isn't it fortunate we have choices.

BTW, since "The Solution" is a product, I think your post would have been better worded to describe their "kits" or "products" as it wasn't "The Solution" product that failed. And the link reference, after you have read all 15 pages, cites an engine with possible installation issues, a rear end accident that immediately preceded the failure, an engine that was run after ferrous debris was noted and one that was diagnosed by someone pushing a competing product.

My point is that before inspecting and analyzing the specific merits of the new product it's important to take a step back and look at the context.

The analysis can be debated -- and I'm sure it will be / has been -- but I'm not doing that. I am pointing out the fact that they have introduced several solutions using the same language stating that it is the last solution and that they finally figured it out. In a vacuum each time their story has been quite plausible but the pattern itself creates doubt.

Mike,
Thank you for the summary. Since you have reported on this issue from the beginning and cover so many Porsche Forums, this may be the most authoritative reviews of the Porsche IMSB problem and it's remedies available.

I'm not really an authority, just someone who has been fascinated with the whole IMS issue since it was first exposed. I'd go even further in denying any "authoritative" status to say I never had mine done despite owning a '1S for 5 years. My only interest was to get the facts as best I could understand them separated from the marketing and the personalities for my own understanding and then to share. All I'd claim is a sharing and cataloging mentality.

So many here had helped me ...

The one thing i don,t get and why i havent jumped on board with the DOF yet is the fact that Porsche could have done this with lil cost.Why did they not do this.They have really high paid
engineers that i am sure were aware of the issues years before and the bean counters also knew there was a storm coming with a possible law suit.All that and what they decided to do
was toss in a larger wider single row bearing.The feed was already there,they only needed to add a hose,tooling was minimal,cost was minimal but the cost off lost sales ,law suits,warranty claims
would be much greater yet they felt that this was the fix.I dont believe that they moved away from the IMS to avoid warrenty claims ect.They chainged the design to Direct fuel injection which gives more power
with less fuel unfortunately with more heat and wear i personally feel but regardless they changed the entire design off the engine or most off it.Is the bearing IMS a bad design,YES Definately but
with the larger wider bearing and more frequent oil changes i right now feel and believe that the duraibility is good and DOF,roller bearings ect are not required on the newer 987 (2006 thru 2008) motors.
I am keeping my 06 for a while and currently have approx 75000 miles and no problems BUT i havent looked at the bearing.If or when i need to do the clutch ect i will pull the outter seal and inspect,if things
look dry or less thatn perfect i will pull the outter seal and leave it alone.Just my 2 cents CDN Funds!!

The failure rate is super low and the research, development, and tooling is very expensive.

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2015 08:01AM by Boxsterra. (view changes)

It seems I should not have mentioned Pedros excellent recent video :
[www.youtube.com]
A member of another Forum claims to have published the 'discovery' of the pressure issue 2 years earlier:
[www.youtube.com]
Maybe Pedro watches M96 videos on Youtube? I am shocked, totally shocked :-).
[986forum.com]

… that member of another forum who said that I "stole his idea and did not credit him" apparently does not watch or research YouTube.
If he had, he would have seen one of my other 4 IMS-related videos which was published BEFORE his "discovery" video.
[www.youtube.com]
My ideas are my own. I do not steal anything from anyone and when I use someone's idea I will always credit them!
It's so easy to accuse someone on the Internet.
I'm almost at the point of pulling the plug as Chuck used to say
Not happy,
Pedro

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 314,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2015 09:46AM by Pedro (Weston, FL). (view changes)

Pedro,
No justification for plug pulling.
If you noticed another Poster on that Forum was quick to express sceptisism. And his request for details was only partially answered.
So the vast majority know you well ,read your stuff,buy your products,enjoy your videos. And just a few of us enjoy debating you on product ideas.Why ? Because you are knowledgeable, polite and just a throughly decent guy.
Remember there will always be nasty people.Please ignore them and concentrate on the rest of us? We're much more rewarding .And we watch your back when fools say nasty things about you on other Forums. Some of us even relentlessly promote your products there :-).

He is completely justified doing... likely won't though. Yet clearly also explains why those before him did.

You may recall a month ago I challenged the 'objectives' of your original post you conveniently ignored. Don't try and lay out now as was for debate this or that. Clearly you put it up either attempting to embarrass Pedro or just to generally be what I colloquially call a "sh!t starter". Maybe both? Regardless, Pedro, in his typically calm and evenhanded approach as a gentleman explained you his solution(s) along w/ reasons/methodology. You then did an complete 180 flipflop full of praise for all things Pedro. Had you thrown down the gauntlet on another board the mass marketers in great contrast would have belittled you endlessly while promoting whatever is their latest and greatest "final solution".

Not able to leave well enough alone... you come back round again even to the same post with another swipe at the pot. Pedro again patiently walks you through. You, again, should eat crow but do not; instead choosing to lavish false praises whilst shamelessly self promoting all 'you' do for Pedro... Apparently it's just me who cannot see a single posts by tonyd in 986forum links you provided. Nor is this the first pot you have tried serving up here on PB.

Now, before you even remotely try spouting off I'm a shameless shill for Pedro akin to all the rah-rah cheerleaders blowing sunshine up the skirt w/ praise for the bull marketers other boards, clearly I am not. Just as I never converted my '83 380SL to a twin row timing chain... there is no DOF installed on my car and I have no plans otherwise. Period. I also run the original factory installed IMS bearing - did so on my '99... still do on my '06. The hysteria behind bearing failures has never affected me for many reasons. The DOF, to my mechanical mind, seems plausible and I know many who have installed one (along w/ an IMSR or B or whatever it is now). I will not. Ever. And I have been the one more than once publicly challenging Pedro on this entire subject.

This all said, and as I step back looking at this thread in totality, I chuckle aloud:

• Why, when Porsche 'solved' the IMS issue by eliminating the IMS bearing w/ the '09MY release (in '08 ~ 7+ years ago...) is there still so much chatter... Heck even the last "final solution" has to be closing in on 2 years old now, right?
• Irony... Recently I came across a quote regarding the GOP candidates for 2016 Presidential Race which kinda sorta perfectly epitomizes this post :
  

  Quote
  Trump is the kind of a-hole who regular a-holes point to and say 'Now that guy - that guy is a REAL a-hole' and people wholeheartedly will not be able to disagree.
  

"Cool Prius!"



               -Nobody

I note the anger and profanity in your Post. I am sorry for you.Please seek help.
Attributing paranoid motives to people you don't even know is a sure sign you need help.

bountiful forum links where your "relentlessly promote" Pedro or his ideas and products. Heck or even when you just "watch [his] back when fools say nasty things" as opposed to trying to ignite in parallel the same issue on another forum. If legitimately posted and authenticated prior to your posts here I'll gladly eat some of the crow you have so aptly served yourself yet refuse to man up and eat here. In other words... prove it!

Quote
tonyd
Pedro,
No justification for plug pulling.
If you noticed another Poster on that Forum was quick to express sceptisism. And his request for details was only partially answered.
So the vast majority know you well ,read your stuff,buy your products,enjoy your videos. And just a few of us enjoy debating you on product ideas.Why ? Because you are knowledgeable, polite and just a throughly decent guy.
Remember there will always be nasty people.Please ignore them and concentrate on the rest of us? We're much more rewarding .And we watch your back when fools say nasty things about you on other Forums. Some of us even relentlessly promote your products there :-).

"Cool Prius!"



               -Nobody

Drinking ?
Unsubscribed.
Never engage rude people.Attention encourages them.

"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."

Minus 40 degrees... Is that Fahrenheit or Celsius?

Wow, so much vitriol on the subject on the 986forum posts!

My two cents:

Its a car issue we're talking about here, people. Not only that, but for cars that are 6-18 years old.
It is possible there is more than one way to address the possible IMSB failure issue.
It is OK to disagree as to which one is the "best."
It is not OK to attack, mock or disrespect those that disagree with you.

I am first time Porsche owner and probably in the bottom 10% of those on these boards in terms of engine mechanical knowledge. But I lurked in many a forum, watched many a video, and read every thing I could get my hands on for two years before I bought my 986. Truthfully, the "solutions" on the market are all only a few years old, and the jury is still out on which one is the "best." If they were a drug, the FDA wouldn't have approved any yet.

That being said, I am firmly in Pedro's camp. The DOF approach makes sense to me. I have never read or heard him attack, mock or disrespect any of his competitiors or posters. I have never heard or read him say "if you buy someone else's solution your engine will fail." Having talked to him and met him, my experience and gut tells me he is a decent, honest, and smart guy - and passionate about Porsches in general and 986 Boxsters specifically. Pedro believes in his DOF. I believe in him. I feel fortunate to have purchased one of his reclamation Boxsters, and plan on driving it for a very, very long time.

I would totally understand if he decided to pull the plug on the board, but really hope he doesn't.