IMS and DOF grant - 7 years ago |
Re: IMS and DOF Anker - 7 years ago |
Re: IMS and DOF Ed B - 7 years ago |
It's a good thing Boxsterra - 7 years ago |
Do I detect sarcasm? *NM* grant - 7 years ago |
Actually, no Boxsterra - 7 years ago |
you have more confidence than I do.... grant - 7 years ago |
Re: Actually, no. Or maybe yes mikefocke, '01S Sanford, NC - 7 years ago |
Quote
Boxsterra
Although Ed is correct that you can screw up the installation in those ways I think it is far fetched to believe that that was actually the cause of premature failure. It's human nature of people to vary their caution level based on the consequences of their mistakes. In this case unless the mechanic doesn't know what they're doing they would always torque the bolts.
Re: IMS and DOF Bruce In Philly (2000 S Boxster, now '09 C2S) - 7 years ago |
Re: My memory is Jake Raby is on record stating the problem never was with lubrication... Bruce In Philly (2000 S Boxster, now '09 C2S) - 7 years ago |
Re: My memory is Jake Raby is on record stating the problem never was with lubrication... MarcW - 7 years ago |
Quote
Bruce In Philly (2000 S Boxster, now '09 C2S)
I stand corrected...... assuming Jake is correct.... and at a minimum, a bazillion times more qualified than me.
As a consumer of this avalanche of information and speculation over the years, I have come to a very simple (simple minded?) explanation for all of these failures... IMS being just one...... this engine was hastily designed and or testing was incomplete. Remember, Porsche was failing and rumored to be on the auction block (or about to be put there). The Boxster and the single platform approach was to (and did) save the company.
Most information out here is about the IMS but there are more failure modes.... and if you remember back in 1999 (when I got into this), failures were pretty common..... for reasons not even mentioned anymore..... porous blocks, slipped sleeves (from factory-fixed porous blocks), out-of-round rear main seals as evidenced by leakage IIRC and there was another... maybe it was just the bigger 911 bores..... where some bolt sheared on some shaft that then wagged around the engine (maybe this was actually the IMS bearing... but I don't think so).
It is a pity they blew it with the engine, although not surprised as the engine is the most complex, as the cars were really terrific.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
No supporting logic or evidence in that post grant - 7 years ago |
Re: No supporting logic or evidence in that post MarcW - 7 years ago |
Quote
grant
Now, we can speculate. His anecdote about dual vs single rows is somewhat interesting.
but this is a multi-faceted problem. A weak bearing well lubricated will likely endure. A strong bearing poorly lubricated might endure.
My experience says "or not"
But i don't agree with any flat statement, by Jake or anyone else, that lubrication is not beneficial to the life of any bearing.
An aside: This could be a linear programming type problem, with potentially wide variables for things like acidity, rpms, shaft concentricity, blah, blah. In such probelems there is no single cause, but a critical limitation *given a specific set of variables*.
What I do find interesting is a piece of info i heard elsewhere, that there is some evidence that some IMSs (shafts, not bearings) do not spin true, and therefore put a larger strain on the bearing. This simultaneously explains 300k mile bearings and those that fail repeatedly (which, in my case, worries me).
Looking at options that combine both improved load capacity and improved lubrication - cover all bets..
Re: That makes sense. As does mike's question about grit/dirt... mikefocke, '01S Sanford, NC - 7 years ago |
Not too concerned grant - 7 years ago |
Mist, not splash mikefocke, '01S Sanford, NC - 7 years ago |
Re: and let's remember that my retrofit degraded severely in 39k miles Pedro (Odessa, FL) - 7 years ago |
Thanks Pedro. *NM* grant - 7 years ago |