tuneRS Direct Oil Feed

[JFP in PA]

BAD124:

Your explanation makes the most sense (needing room for VCam+) so far. Thanks for the info!

JFP: If you are correct as well, now I'm really confused as to what I've got in my 2000. Likely a pure and sturdy D-row given my car's last 4 VIN numbers are: 0220, built Aug 99.

I know I am correct in what I said about the 2000-2001 cars, which proves the VarioCam+ explanation incorrect, and you also need to know that VIN numbers have proven basically useless in determining which bearing is in a given car, only the year of engine manufacture matters, and even then the 2000-2001 engines have to be visually checked for which IMS bearing style is in them as they used both. Plus you need to check the engine number for the letters "AT", which would indicate a replacement engine, which can potentially hold a different variation of the bearing depending upon the year it was remaned.

[JFP in PA]

Just a thought - maybe it coincided with the introduction of the HyVo chain drive on the IM Shaft.

That is a possible, as with many things Porsche, it is not exactly clear when they switched chains, and I have never really tried to match the chain with the bearings style.

[Loren]

The chain change was noted in the MY2001 Service Information Technik Book. So it was for sure in MY2001 models.

Could it have been in some of the last MY2000 cars? I do not know but it would not surprise me.

[Y2K911]

Learned much in the last few posts!

Good point about the engine # being the determining factor, not the car VIN. Note to self: Check that engine # at earliest opportunity!

Hy-Vo chains: Would the installation of those (new to me but google tells me they are used extensively for snowmobiles, etc) precede going from a 5-chain set up to a 3-chain set up in the M96 or would it be at the same time?

One conclusion that I can draw here is that MY2001 was a pivotal or crossroad year for the M96 engine, not 2000. So I'm still pretty sure I have dual-row, JFP: On s'accroche bien à nos rêves, n'est-ce pas?!

Merci bien!

[JFP in PA]

Learned much in the last few posts!

Good point about the engine # being the determining factor, not the car VIN. Note to self: Check that engine # at earliest opportunity!

Hy-Vo chains: Would the installation of those (new to me but google tells me they are used extensively for snowmobiles, etc) precede going from a 5-chain set up to a 3-chain set up in the M96 or would it be at the same time?

One conclusion that I can draw here is that MY2001 was a pivotal or crossroad year for the M96 engine, not 2000. So I'm still pretty sure I have dual-row, JFP: On s'accroche bien à nos rêves, n'est-ce pas?!

Merci bien!

Certains s'accrochent plus serré que d'autres.

The chain design changed between 2000 and 2001 model years (part number change, design was to reduce chain noise), but both were five chain styles; the three chain did not become prominent until model year 2003 for Boxsters and 2002 for the 996.

[Y2K911]

"Certains s'accrochent plus serré que d'autres." Oui, en effet!

Tu fais un superbe travail sur ce site. Merci, mon ami! Bonne fin de semaine!

I just told JFP above that he does a superb job on this site and thanked him for it. Cheers!

[JFP in PA]

Et un grand merci à vous aussi mon ami, et peut vous aussi un merveilleux week-end.

[mikefocke]

Flat6 and LN now offer a dual-row bearing that is installable in a single row engine. Requires a special (and expensive) tool even if your mechanic has the tools for other IMS installs. Available from distributors. This is the mid-priced of the three kits they offer for the single row.

More choices.

[stingman]

In Nov. 2011 I installed an LN engineering hybrid ceramic bearing as preventive maintainence in my low mileage (14K miles in 2011 and 17K miles now) 2001 996 cab.

FYI, the bearing removed from my car was a single row and was in perfect condition.

In 2011, the LN bearing was the only choice for an aftermarket fix. At that time, I thought this was a permanent solution to the stock Porsche bearing and not a "wear item" like a clutch.

Now that I have an LN bearing already in place, it makes more sense and will cost less money to add the DOF kit at the next clutch change rather than change the bearing. The bearing change cost me $1800 in 2011 and it will stay in my car for the duration of my ownership.

My plan when it's time to replace the clutch, is to inspect the IMS bearing for any evidence of pending doom and install DOF kit.

[JFP in PA]

In Nov. 2011 I installed an LN engineering hybrid ceramic bearing as preventive maintainence in my low mileage (14K miles in 2011 and 17K miles now) 2001 996 cab.

FYI, the bearing removed from my car was a single row and was in perfect condition.

In 2011, the LN bearing was the only choice for an aftermarket fix. At that time, I thought this was a permanent solution to the stock Porsche bearing and not a "wear item" like a clutch.

Now that I have an LN bearing already in place, it makes more sense and will cost less money to add the DOF kit at the next clutch change rather than change the bearing. The bearing change cost me $1800 in 2011 and it will stay in my car for the duration of my ownership.

My plan when it's time to replace the clutch, is to inspect the IMS bearing for any evidence of pending doom and install DOF kit.

Problem with inspecting your current bearing is that to do it correctly, you need to remove it, and then it should not be reinstalled.

You should also note that with all the thousands of properly installed LN bearings, I am not aware of any failing with just splash lubrication. There has also be considerable online dialog by Charles Navarro and Jake Raby about why using an oil feed source that not coming directly off the filter is a bad idea for the ceramic bearings. You might want to drop one of them a email to get the details before spending any more money.

[mikefocke]

LN advises that the DOF should not be used with their bearings.

 

The DOF also requires a special bearing in dual row engines per a recent posting by Pedro. It requires a shaved bearing whose race is of a different size and lacks the outer seal of the original. Failure to remove the seal seemed to create problems when using a DOF per a recent post on 286forum by a mechanic who was trying to figure out why a car had valve train issues. Problems went away when the DOF was removed with no other changes. Problems also were not present when another manufacturer's IMS was installed and the DOF was not used. No research as to why, just problem in car fixed. As frequently, sample size of one.

[Paul Grainger]

I fitted the DOF system two weeks ago - simply because I liked the concept and the simplicity of installation.

 

It really is quite simple to install providing that:

 

1) You have room to remove the gearbox from the car

2) You have cam and crank locking gear 

 

Point (2) was an issue for me, I had to borrow locking gear from my local dealer. If I hadn't have had this option then the installation of this kit cannot be done. The sales literature doesn't mention needing this, yet it lists spanners etc that you will need......! I don't know what you pay in the USA for the kit but I thought it was expensive when looking at what was actually supplied. The IMS flange looks to be a well engineered piece of kit but the use of aluminium for the hose adaptors results in poor mechanical strength. I managed to bend the connection at the cylinder head end whilst tightening the hose - steel would have been a better option - I think - for the two adaptors. 

Having said all that, after fitting and two weeks of use, I have to say that I think that this system is good and I would recommend it for 'piece of mind'.

I already have cylinder restraining rings (Hartech), low temp thermostat, new water pump, and Millers CF Nano oil every 5 thousand miles so I really don't think that there is much more I can do to get the best life from my engine. Clearly there is much competition between available options on this thread (LN ceramic versus DOF) but in my opinion both have been developed as solutions to the same problem and the choice of which is preferable should be left to the customer.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Grainger

[kon5t]

LN advises that the DOF should not be used with their bearings.

 

The DOF also requires a special bearing in dual row engines per a recent posting by Pedro. It requires a shaved bearing whose race is of a different size and lacks the outer seal of the original. Failure to remove the seal seemed to create problems when using a DOF per a recent post on 286forum by a mechanic who was trying to figure out why a car had valve train issues. Problems went away when the DOF was removed with no other changes. Problems also were not present when another manufacturer's IMS was installed and the DOF was not used. No research as to why, just problem in car fixed. As frequently, sample size of one.

deleted

Edited October 31, 2014 by kon5t

[JFP in PA]

 

LN advises that the DOF should not be used with their bearings.

 

The DOF also requires a special bearing in dual row engines per a recent posting by Pedro. It requires a shaved bearing whose race is of a different size and lacks the outer seal of the original. Failure to remove the seal seemed to create problems when using a DOF per a recent post on 286forum by a mechanic who was trying to figure out why a car had valve train issues. Problems went away when the DOF was removed with no other changes. Problems also were not present when another manufacturer's IMS was installed and the DOF was not used. No research as to why, just problem in car fixed. As frequently, sample size of one.

OK soooooo.... can you quantify what the "valve train issues" were, and how exactly the problems were solved (perhaps by explaining the problems you experienced), sounds like BS to be honest, seriously tell the truth, you were making this up right?

 

 

I can follow up on this.  The DOF install was done by an unknown shop, but the car owner encountered poor running conditions and noise coming from the engine.  Apparently after other people had looked at it without any success, the owner took the car to a small, but respected shop that specialized in Porsche work, including race cars.  There, the shop owner's son diagnosed the noise as coming from the valve train, and also scanned the car and found the VarioCam timing was jumping around.  Just out of curiosity, he disconnected and plugged the oil feed line on the DOF system, and all the problems stopped.  Surmising the oil feed system was the source of the noise and cam timing issues, he then pulled the entire DOF system out of the car and installed one of LN's Solution systems that feeds the oil to the solid IMS bearing replacement from the spin on oil filter adaptor rather than one of the cylinder heads like the DOF, and the car  ran perfectly, and went back into service with no further problems.

 

Interestingly, when the shop reported what they had seen and done on the website of one of the principal's of the DOF system, he was immediately barraged with comments like yours implying that he was a liar, the entire event was made up, that he should have done more work experimenting to find out what was wrong with the DOF and fixing it, etc..  The shop responded that they had done the appropriate diagnostics, isolated and replace the problematic components and gotten the car back on the road trouble free, which is what shops do.  After more heated accusations, the shop posted that they would no longer be reporting such issues like this as all it did was generate inappropriately negative commentary about them.

 

If you want to know more about the incident, do a search as the thread on this was rather extensive, if a bit overheated and accusatory, and became a sad commentary on what happens when blind allegiance and emotions overtake the facts in a situation.

[mikefocke]

Kon5t, go back and reread my posting that you seem concerned about. Notice I said the experience wasn't mine. Note also the understated language I used compared to the original and the comment at the end about the sample size. 

 

Threads were on pedro's and 986forum. I stripped out the sensationalism and product loyalty.

 

Judge for yourself the meanings of that mechanic's experience.

 

(When I see a posting that is of interest and/or is contrary to the PR, I bring it to the attention of folks so it may be examined. I don't make up things, nor do I ever intentionally post BS. If personal attacks cause us to learn less about experiences that contradict our opinions, we have all lost.)

[Paul Grainger]

As an update - my DOF kit (single row, 2002) has been use for 5 weeks and about 2000 miles of motoring. So far so good. No strange valve train noises, no oil leaks from the pipework or adaptors, no visible change in oil pressure, no apparent change in coolant temperature, no faults logged on PST2......

 

......Just saying.......!

[JFP in PA]

As an update - my DOF kit (single row, 2002) has been use for 5 weeks and about 2000 miles of motoring. So far so good. No strange valve train noises, no oil leaks from the pipework or adaptors, no visible change in oil pressure, no apparent change in coolant temperature, no faults logged on PST2......

 

......Just saying.......!

 

I'm genuinely glad to hear that, but you need consider that as with any complicated technology, you always need to pay attention to the "outlier" incidents, even if they are relatively small in numbers.  When the original OEM IMS failures started, a lot of credible people brushed them aside as well, as did Porsche.  It was only with the passing of time and the collection of more data that the true magnitude of the issue surfaced, and growing legal pressures forced Porsche to admit that the problem claimed as many as 10% of all single row design engines, at a cost of over $15K each.  Always keep an open mind in these matters, being overly judgmental only ultimately blinds you to the true facts.

[kon5t]

Kon5t, go back and reread my posting that you seem concerned about. Notice I said the experience wasn't mine. Note also the understated language I used compared to the original and the comment at the end about the sample size. 

 

Threads were on pedro's and 986forum. I stripped out the sensationalism and product loyalty.

 

Judge for yourself the meanings of that mechanic's experience.

 

(When I see a posting that is of interest and/or is contrary to the PR, I bring it to the attention of folks so it may be examined. I don't make up things, nor do I ever intentionally post BS. If personal attacks cause us to learn less about experiences that contradict our opinions, we have all lost.)

Yeah you are probably right, looks like my internet balls were a bit fierce last night, now how do I delete those posts?

I am really just trying to understand whether it was a dodgy install, the product or another factor that just happened to be solved. If it was the camshaft timing that was off, it would suggest to me that someone did not install the product properly, allowing for some play with the IMS. It is of course very difficult to confirm any conclusions without being there and working on the actual car yourself. 

[JFP in PA]

 

Kon5t, go back and reread my posting that you seem concerned about. Notice I said the experience wasn't mine. Note also the understated language I used compared to the original and the comment at the end about the sample size. 

 

Threads were on pedro's and 986forum. I stripped out the sensationalism and product loyalty.

 

Judge for yourself the meanings of that mechanic's experience.

 

(When I see a posting that is of interest and/or is contrary to the PR, I bring it to the attention of folks so it may be examined. I don't make up things, nor do I ever intentionally post BS. If personal attacks cause us to learn less about experiences that contradict our opinions, we have all lost.)

Yeah you are probably right, looks like my internet balls were a bit fierce last night, now how do I delete those posts?

I am really just trying to understand whether it was a dodgy install, the product or another factor that just happened to be solved. If it was the camshaft timing that was off, it would suggest to me that someone did not install the product properly, allowing for some play with the IMS. It is of course very difficult to confirm any conclusions without being there and working on the actual car yourself. 

 

 

Actually, the VarioCam is oil pressure operated, so depriving it of either volume or pressure can make it bounce around wildly, so the bearing could have been still running true.  Low oil delivery to one head would also cause all kinds of lifter related noise.  But before anything could be determined, animosity and defense mechanism's set in and shop doing the remedial work got pissed off and clammed up and stopped posting, so any opportunity to learn something was completely lost.

 

If you look at the "edit" related buttons under your post, there is a "delete" button.

[JD ARTHUR]

I am a new 996 owner. I see that all these IMS threads bring out many different personalities and a ton of information. Until I got one of these cars I had no idea of this problem, ignorance is bliss. After reading all the posts on all the sites that I could find I see there is no agreement and it looks to me there will never be. Some don't even think there is a problem and others think that no matter what is done there will always be a problem. My opinion is nothing more than another opinion in a sea of them. I am stating it for no other reason than after spending several hours reading all this I just want to throw my two cents in. I think Jake Raby of Flat Six Innovations has the best products to fix the problem for those that feel there is a problem. He seems to have devoted many years of his life to this with actual experience and many trials and errors. I like that he never gives up and I like that he doesn't seem to give a **** what I like, his focus is on the problem and the best possible fix he is capable of. Others might be good too but my money is on Jake. I will bring my car to his shop and pay the price and feel that I made the best choice I could with what I have learned. As I said this is just my own opinion and I have no particular reason for even posting it. 

[judgejon]

well, friends, this is almost as good as the oil wars posting of a few years ago.

 

I'm interested in the DOF system, but have the LNE replacement in my car.  I did this for peace of mind, and still glad I did.

 

 

I see an analogy to the sealed chain tensioners in the SC's, and the move to pressure fed tensioners in the Carrera series 1984.  Seems that Porsche resolved the IMS issue by removal of the IMS.  Seemed the best 996 solution was the LNE bearing.   

 

One post noted that if the LNE is installed, don't put on the DOF as well.  Is this still the consensus?

[JFP in PA]

well, friends, this is almost as good as the oil wars posting of a few years ago.

 

I'm interested in the DOF system, but have the LNE replacement in my car.  I did this for peace of mind, and still glad I did.

 

 

I see an analogy to the sealed chain tensioners in the SC's, and the move to pressure fed tensioners in the Carrera series 1984.  Seems that Porsche resolved the IMS issue by removal of the IMS.  Seemed the best 996 solution was the LNE bearing.   

 

One post noted that if the LNE is installed, don't put on the DOF as well.  Is this still the consensus?

 

According to LN and Jake Raby, yes.  

 

The LN style bearing is partially submerged  or splash lubricated without any additional help.  We have numerous customers running that way, as do many, many other shops; and without problems.  And with some now 20K units in service, they seem to have a point.

[judgejon]

 

well, friends, this is almost as good as the oil wars posting of a few years ago.

 

I'm interested in the DOF system, but have the LNE replacement in my car.  I did this for peace of mind, and still glad I did.

 

 

I see an analogy to the sealed chain tensioners in the SC's, and the move to pressure fed tensioners in the Carrera series 1984.  Seems that Porsche resolved the IMS issue by removal of the IMS.  Seemed the best 996 solution was the LNE bearing.   

 

One post noted that if the LNE is installed, don't put on the DOF as well.  Is this still the consensus?

 

According to LN and Jake Raby, yes.  

 

The LN style bearing is partially submerged  or splash lubricated without any additional help.  We have numerous customers running that way, as do many, many other shops; and without problems.  And with some now 20K units in service, they seem to have a point.

 

J'apprecie beaucoup vos commentaires

[JFP in PA]

 

 

well, friends, this is almost as good as the oil wars posting of a few years ago.

 

I'm interested in the DOF system, but have the LNE replacement in my car.  I did this for peace of mind, and still glad I did.

 

 

I see an analogy to the sealed chain tensioners in the SC's, and the move to pressure fed tensioners in the Carrera series 1984.  Seems that Porsche resolved the IMS issue by removal of the IMS.  Seemed the best 996 solution was the LNE bearing.   

 

One post noted that if the LNE is installed, don't put on the DOF as well.  Is this still the consensus?

 

According to LN and Jake Raby, yes.  

 

The LN style bearing is partially submerged  or splash lubricated without any additional help.  We have numerous customers running that way, as do many, many other shops; and without problems.  And with some now 20K units in service, they seem to have a point.

 

J'apprecie beaucoup vos commentaires

 

 

Ce est ce que nous sommes ici.

[Domiac]

 

 

Kon5t, go back and reread my posting that you seem concerned about. Notice I said the experience wasn't mine. Note also the understated language I used compared to the original and the comment at the end about the sample size. 

 

Threads were on pedro's and 986forum. I stripped out the sensationalism and product loyalty.

 

Judge for yourself the meanings of that mechanic's experience.

 

(When I see a posting that is of interest and/or is contrary to the PR, I bring it to the attention of folks so it may be examined. I don't make up things, nor do I ever intentionally post BS. If personal attacks cause us to learn less about experiences that contradict our opinions, we have all lost.)

Yeah you are probably right, looks like my internet balls were a bit fierce last night, now how do I delete those posts?

I am really just trying to understand whether it was a dodgy install, the product or another factor that just happened to be solved. If it was the camshaft timing that was off, it would suggest to me that someone did not install the product properly, allowing for some play with the IMS. It is of course very difficult to confirm any conclusions without being there and working on the actual car yourself. 

 

 

Actually, the VarioCam is oil pressure operated, so depriving it of either volume or pressure can make it bounce around wildly, so the bearing could have been still running true.  Low oil delivery to one head would also cause all kinds of lifter related noise.  But before anything could be determined, animosity and defense mechanism's set in and shop doing the remedial work got pissed off and clammed up and stopped posting, so any opportunity to learn something was completely lost.

 

If you look at the "edit" related buttons under your post, there is a "delete" button.

 

 

For what it is worth, I have noticed that I get some misfires on highest RPMs if my oil level is somewhat low, still acceptable, but low. Once oil level is ideal, misfires are totally gone. I have actually tested this two times with Durametric. I do not know why but I assume it has to do with volume or pressure change.