Which IMS solution to use for a renewal

[AustinPorscheBill]

Betting this has been asked a thousand (ten thousand times), but thought maybe it was time for a refresh.

 

I am getting ready to replace/upgrade the IMS in a 2000 Boxster I just bought (2.7, 90K miles).  Oil and filter were spotless, but want to put the pin back in the grenade before it goes off (car is flawless but sale price still reflected a $2-3K discount for an IMS replacement).  I plan to do the clutch and RMS at same time.

 

I have a shop ready to do the work, but they want me to pick and buy the solution (this will be first time in 20+ years I've taken any of my cars to a shop -- just seems to make sense in this case given the cost of the tools to do a IMS, and the fact that I don't have a lift and don't want to do everything I have to do with say my '93 911T -- like removing bumpers, etc -- to drop the drivetrain when the car is only on jackstands -- I'm embarrassed and ashamed at how old and lazy I am getting).

 

First question:  not sure if it is a single or dual row, is any way I can figure it out before dropping tranny and inspecting the IMS retainer?  I know there are a lot of opinions about the accuracy of engine number lists, etc.  Haven't crawled under it yet to find the engine number, but previous owner (longtime -- as in 40 or 50 years -- PCA member) said it was a November 2000 build.  So let the opinions fly . . . 

 

Second question:  what solution should I use?

 

So solutions as I see it (from cheapest to most expensive) are:

 

1) OEM replacement

2) LN engineering dual row ceramic (still a sealed bearing, right?)

3) Technofix DOF (I would like this except it is relatively new and not sure of the quality of the bearing given how little they are charging for it -- a case of reverse supply-demand curve)

4) LN plain bearing (like 10x the cost of an OEM bearing)

 

Is this the list or are there other solutions?

 

The mechanic I found does a lot of track cars driven here in Austin at COTA, has done 50+ Boxster IMSs over the years (even more 996/997s), mostly the LN ceramic dual row, only a handful of the LN plain bearing upgrades (said it's overkill for all but the hardest driven track cars) and no OEM (I am guessing) or TechnoFix DOFs.  He seems to prefer the LN ceramic as he's never had one fail in 10 years, but still put the final decision/choice on me.

 

Personally, I like the TechnoFix DOF, but it's pretty new, and the bearing itself concerns me (I've bought wheel bearings that cost more than what they want for the open bearing itself,so how could can it be is what causes me pause).

 

Again, let the opinions fly . . .

 

 

 

 

[JFP in PA]

4 hours ago, AustinPorscheBill said:

Betting this has been asked a thousand (ten thousand times), but thought maybe it was time for a refresh.

 

I am getting ready to replace/upgrade the IMS in a 2000 Boxster I just bought (2.7, 90K miles).  Oil and filter were spotless, but want to put the pin back in the grenade before it goes off (car is flawless but sale price still reflected a $2-3K discount for an IMS replacement).  I plan to do the clutch and RMS at same time.

 

I have a shop ready to do the work, but they want me to pick and buy the solution (this will be first time in 20+ years I've taken any of my cars to a shop -- just seems to make sense in this case given the cost of the tools to do a IMS, and the fact that I don't have a lift and don't want to do everything I have to do with say my '93 911T -- like removing bumpers, etc -- to drop the drivetrain when the car is only on jackstands -- I'm embarrassed and ashamed at how old and lazy I am getting).

 

First question:  not sure if it is a single or dual row, is any way I can figure it out before dropping tranny and inspecting the IMS retainer?  I know there are a lot of opinions about the accuracy of engine number lists, etc.  Haven't crawled under it yet to find the engine number, but previous owner (longtime -- as in 40 or 50 years -- PCA member) said it was a November 2000 build.  So let the opinions fly . . . 

 

Second question:  what solution should I use?

 

So solutions as I see it (from cheapest to most expensive) are:

 

1) OEM replacement

2) LN engineering dual row ceramic (still a sealed bearing, right?)

3) Technofix DOF (I would like this except it is relatively new and not sure of the quality of the bearing given how little they are charging for it -- a case of reverse supply-demand curve)

4) LN plain bearing (like 10x the cost of an OEM bearing)

 

Is this the list or are there other solutions?

 

The mechanic I found does a lot of track cars driven here in Austin at COTA, has done 50+ Boxster IMSs over the years (even more 996/997s), mostly the LN ceramic dual row, only a handful of the LN plain bearing upgrades (said it's overkill for all but the hardest driven track cars) and no OEM (I am guessing) or TechnoFix DOFs.  He seems to prefer the LN ceramic as he's never had one fail in 10 years, but still put the final decision/choice on me.

 

Personally, I like the TechnoFix DOF, but it's pretty new, and the bearing itself concerns me (I've bought wheel bearings that cost more than what they want for the open bearing itself,so how could can it be is what causes me pause).

 

Again, let the opinions fly . . .

 

 

 

 

 

The LN Engineering ceramic IMS retrofit bearings are not sealed, they are open on the flywheel side to allow oil mist lubrication, which is how they stay alive.  They also have the largest successfully installed base of any retrofit.

 

The IMS Solution may cost a bit more, but it is the only permanent IMS replacement, and it can is also the only retrofit that can be moved to another engine.  The Solution also has the second largest successfully installed base of any retrofit, and is the only retrofit Jake Raby uses in engines his shop produce.

 

I am not a fan of the DOF.  Multiple reports (one out of my shop) of valve train noise and VarioCam issues caused by where it sources oil (one of the dirtiest and hottest oil sources in the engine) which promptly went away when the oil line was removed and plugged.  It also results in oil flooding the IMS shaft, which is not necessarily a good thing.

[AustinPorscheBill]

Thanks for reply.

 

The LN ceramic bearing is not universal right?  It only retro fits a single row bearing engine?

 

Any thoughts on whether I can determine a priori whether my November 2000 build is a single or double row?  I'm sure the mechanic I've lined up doesn't want it up on his rack for 3-4 days if I guess wrong.

[JFP in PA]

30 minutes ago, AustinPorscheBill said:

Thanks for reply.

 

The LN ceramic bearing is not universal right?  It only retro fits a single row bearing engine?

 

Any thoughts on whether I can determine a priori whether my November 2000 build is a single or double row?  I'm sure the mechanic I've lined up doesn't want it up on his rack for 3-4 days if I guess wrong.

 

No, they are not "universal", Porsche used three totally different design bearings.  The LN family of ceramic bearings (or IMS Solutions) covers every style Porsche used, but you need to start by knowing which one you need. None of them are interchangeable. Yours could be either a single or dual row style, but the only way to be absolutely sure is to take the car apart and look.

[cnavarro]

The only universal kit is the PEL-IMS-1, which includes spacers and uses the OEM sealed 6204 bearing. 

 

All LN IMS Retrofit and IMS Solution products are bearing specific - you replace a factory single row with the appropriate 106-08.2.2 or 106-08.20. Likewise, dual row uses 106-08.4 or 106-08.40. 

 

Other kits that say they are universal use one size bearing and don't bother with any mechanical retention for said bearing other than the very light press fit they have. If the shaft has any runout or taper, the bearing can (and does) move in the housing bore.

 

As far as OEM replacement, Porsche came out with their own kit to replace the factory single row bearing with a sealed, ceramic hybrid single row bearing about two years ago. It was available for purchase only for a short period and was removed from the catalog shortly thereafter. I have several of these kits in my possession as proof of their existance.