Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea)

[feelyx]

Hi Jeff C Welcome..
Just to let you know up front I cannot talk about the patent I sold, or about any "I_s" bearings/revisions/ etc. I am now working on the redesigning corregated board fluting, so hopefully my memory is accurate.

I’ve been reviewing the thread with considerable interest; you’ve done some amazing work. I recently acquired a 2006 C2S with 80K miles and am considering how I could use this approach to oil the existing factory bearing after pulling the seal. Your photos on page 9 of the thread look like the best approach.
I do not recommend using the factory set up, its a disaster waiting to happen no matter how much oil you throw at it. Unfortunately there is nothing out there for the 2006 yet.

Looks like you used a banjo stud with its own sealing surface to work around the flange chamfer (great idea by the way). I’ve been googling and can’t find a similar part. What did you use?
The banjo fitting is from a 911 CIS fuel injector line

- In the photo you shown PTFE tubing that appears to be only held in place by the fitting barbs. Any ideas on how to make this a more robust connection?
That is nylon11, not pfte. I tested it hydraulically to 500psi. with no leaks or break down. I still use it that way on my personal boxster. There are crimp on clamps from mcmaster-carr if need be.

- You mentioned to Brando you silver soldered a 1.5 mm jet to the fitting. Instead of this, could you simply drill the flange maybe 80% through for the banjo stud and tap it with a bottoming tap. Then drill a 1.5 mm hole the rest of the way through the flange in the center of the large hole
Yes, many ways to accomplish the same thing and may even work better.

Another thought, does anyone know if the IMS flange for the 2006 large bearing is the same as that for the earlier smaller single row bearing? Some parts searches seem to show it is, but it doesn’t look quite the same to me in photos. I’d like to get one and try the milling and drilling.
they are the same but different

[Jeff_C]

feelyx - thanks for the response and I'm happy to hear you are being rewarded for your hard work and innovation. I just got the '06 (great deal that I couldn't resist) and my wife will freak out if I pull the engine and split the case so soon. I figure an oiled factory bearing is better than a dry bearing, but I agree the design is a disaster with respect to the lateral loads. Oiling it will have to do until someone comes up with a clever retrofit for the M97.

Best regards.

[evan9eleven]

feelyx...

I read this entire thread from cover to cover, and am left feeling like a great novel has ended in a cliff hanger. Are you sure you can't write a few more pages about cool prototypes and testing so I can get a fix of the stuff you got us hooked on here?

Seriously though, I'm hoping to do some sort of IMS bearing retrofit fairly soon on my 2004 Box S. The car lives in Spain, so Insaro is the "local" option with nice warranty... though the IMS Solution looks like the serious fix-it-once, eh, solution, and I like it. We'll see.

How's it going with your own car, surely you can talk about that instead of cardboard fluting?


e

[feelyx]

Originally Posted by evan9eleven

feelyx...

I read this entire thread from cover to cover, and am left feeling like a great novel has ended in a cliff hanger. Are you sure you can't write a few more pages about cool prototypes and testing so I can get a fix of the stuff you got us hooked on here?

Seriously though, I'm hoping to do some sort of IMS bearing retrofit fairly soon on my 2004 Box S. The car lives in Spain, so Insaro is the "local" option with nice warranty... though the IMS Solution looks like the serious fix-it-once, eh, solution, and I like it. We'll see.

How's it going with your own car, surely you can talk about that instead of cardboard fluting?


e

Hi evan9eleven

Glad you have enjoyed the thread, though I do not own the rights to the bearing patent anymore, I am privy to a couple of upgrades to it, and it will soon (however long soon is?) be out on the market.
It has been tested by the bearing co. with success, and "I am told" it will be available for under $300. It will be just 2 parts to install. This for 2004 and earlier, but, for 2005 and up, the shaft has a unique setup where you don't have to split the case, but you do destroy the center of the old bearing on removal with a special tool, the extra cost of the tool is unknown.
This is about all I know, and can say about it at this point, ymmv.

My car has been running very well with no issues and I have put on some serious mileage.


Don't let the corrugators hear you call it cardboard...

[harrisracing]

Originally Posted by 850dunstall

Jake Raby's Flat 6 innovations site has now posted the latest on the replacement for the IMS bearing option

see here : The IMS Solution | The IMS Solution. The solution to IMS failures in MY97-08 M96 and M97 Engines. Developed by Flat 6 Innovations and LN Engineering LLC – the team that brought you the IMS Retrofit. Copyright IMS Solution LLC 2012-2013.

seems that some of the hard thinking members here are/were on the right track....

Yeah...I saw that. Too much "real" engineering work for my day job to tackle this one at the time of the idea. I love how close I was in theory. I'm glad they put something together in the real world.

[satro]

Hi,
Is there any news when the Feelyx design will be marketed?
Thanks

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by feelyx

Hi Patrick.... Thanks for the comments, Here are some pics where the oil galley leads to... up to the oil cooler. In all praticality you just need an aluminium plate with a fitting on the cool side between the cooler and block to have an exterior oil galley leading to the bearing. But, to answer the question, yes, you can remove the cooler and flush it down to the filter area with the filter housing off. Sorta back flush...

I am a student of this work and have been waiting to hear more.
I want to tap into the oil supply just after the oil cooler and I think that is what the photos above show. But I am not clear if the tubing shows the gallery route or is actually tapped into the oil supply. Hoping someone could help clarify this for me, with thanks

[satro]

I too am a fan of the design. IMO there is only one way to run a Ball race, with the middle rotating.
My only concern is, in the original Porsche design the Ims Shaft was locked to the bearing to prevent fore and aft movement. There would not have been any need for Thrust control at the front of the Shaft(plain bearing end)
So with all these Solutions what stops the shaft going forward, causing wear and eventually popping out the crankcase. Side way loads may be small, but strange things happen with chains flying around.
Regards,
John

[White, Walter]

Single row ball bearing. Also known as a "friction reducer".
It was this body of work that made me more aware of the potential torsional loading on the bearing, which a single row ball bearing can tolerate minute amounts, depending on the tolerances of the bearing.
When I install my new IMS bearing, I am going to carefully check that the bearing outer race is parallel to the case rear wall, and then I will remove the seal from the flange and I hope to be able to easily slide the flange into place and check that all 3 mounting tangs are touching the case surface. Hopefully this will insure the bearing is installed with no pre-torsional loading (misalignment).

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by satro

IMO there is only one way to run a Ball race, with the middle rotating.

Your statement got me thinking. With the inner race fixed, the load on the inner race is not only concentrated in a small area, because of the convex surface of the race against the convex surface of the ball, but that area of load does not move. So it would seem that one small area gets a continual load.

I have read that cars that run at higher RPMs have less problems with the bearing. I have read that this is because at higher RPMs there is less load on the bearing. The way the IMS bearing has been applied, if the IM shaft and the cam shafts had flywheels or enough rotational mass to keep them in motion, I would have a better understanding of this. But there is not much mass to the IM shaft and cam shafts. Plus the cam shafts have drag created by the valve springs.

So maybe it might be more of a matter of RPM range, not just high RPM. Maybe the load on the inner race is moved by changes in RPM. A garage queen that is run from 1K to 2K RPM has only a range of 1K RPM, keeping the load on the inner race concentrated in one small area. A car that is raced or driven harder has a much broader range of RPM, moving that load point around the inner race.


Perhaps it is not so important the RPM, but rather the range.
Maybe cruising at 2K - 2.5K is not so bad, as long as you switch from 5th to 4rth now and then while cruising.

[satro]

The Feelyx design is the way to go,
As he said:-
The wear is caused by leverage... The chains pull on the outer shaft causing stress on the inner race of the bearing (weakest link). The inner shaft acts as a lever on the inner race as the case flexes. The shaft was located at the split of the case with 3, 6mm bolts. at lower RPMS the case will fluctuate at the split, causing a wobbling of the inner shaft.

This is why you should locate the bearing outside the IMS, once this is done, the case will pretty much stop flexing in the area mentioned.
If you could add a 1/2" thick plate to the back of the case, then by all means use the original bearing set up.

Another thing, oil injected into the bearing from the rear, (in my case) is really to keep the IMS cooler itself. When you reach that magical temp. on the IMS the IMS will fall to pieces. The bearing sits in plenty of oil.

So until it appears in the marketplace (maybe it never will). The DOF is the best "bandaid" solution IMO, I`ll modify my outer flange to squirt some oil at the bearing and wait.
Have any members done a "feelyx" on there engine? copying the design from his photo`s.
Regards,
John

[White, Walter]

I was wondering if a brace could help in decreasing the inner race deflection.



The bearing bolt could have an extra long threaded section. The bearing and bolt installed as usual with the regular bearing bolt nut torqued, but then a spacer slipped over the remaining section of thread, the brace slipped onto the bolt against the spacer, then another nut torqued onto the bearing bolt securing the brace to the bolt.
Then the brace could be bolted to the crankcase bell housing flange by drilling and threading a couple of holes in the aluminum, or just using nuts and bolts maybe. Having a snug fit between those cast-in aluminum braces would only help.
It appears to me that this would give a little opposing leverage to the bearing inner race. The further the brace can be installed from the bearing flange the more opposing leverage there would be it seems. It seems like this would make the bearing flange the fulcrum point for all the leverage, instead of the bearing inner race.

[White, Walter]

This is what I think this body of work is describing, I hope it is correct.




This is a top view of the brace idea, which I think might help reduce the deflection shown above by offering a counter-leverage to the bearing bolt.

[White, Walter]

The Pro version. While the "Street" version offers horizontal support, the Pro version adds a little vertical support.

[White, Walter]

By eliminating a nut on the end of the bolt, and letting the end of the bolt float in a bushing, the brace can be placed even farther away from the bearing, and, axial forces induced either by the brace on the bolt or the bolt on the brace, will be neutralized.

Edit: Cantilevered! that's the word I have been trying to remember but couldn't. The brace idea cantilevers the bolt.

[White, Walter]

Here is a collection of things I think can be implemented to address several issues. The original bearing flange needs simple machining to be more like the later model flange. And the bolt needs to be redesigned to accommodate several important additions to the original design.

The bolt is bigger in diameter, and the shoulder that the bearing inner race is mounted onto runs nearly the full length of the inner race. The inner race is also pressed onto the bolt shoulder. The press fit and extra length of the shoulder should help dissipate heat from the inner race.

The bolt also has a flange that can help keep press-on ball retainers from popping off. Also a large mass of material, maybe fins cut into it, to help cool the bearing inner race.

Another feature is the brace, where the end of the bolt rides in a bushing.

The IOF (Indirect Oil Feed) I hope can be fed through the larger diameter bolt. The purple thing near the brace is a banjo fitting to feed oil into the bolt. I think it would be okay to drill a small hole in the bolt radially. There should not be a lot of force on the bolt out near the end.
The oil is fed behind the bearing where a freeze plug keeps it near the bearing, and a partial seal on the other side of the bearing lets oil flow through. My testing of a partial seal shows me that 10cc/Min may suffice.

[feelyx]

Originally Posted by satro

Hi,
Is there any news when the Feelyx design will be marketed?
Thanks

Hi Satro

I have no news... sorry. But, I am making headway with the release of the infra-red/night vision videos inside the engine of the OEM bearing running through the gears, at the track, pokin' along the freeway, etc. They will be very informational.

As to your other questions, I used a 6205 bearing in the original mounting. But, the bearing and housing is now a 1 pc. chrome steel unit, with steel or ceramic balls(choices).

Have any members done a "feelyx" on there engine? copying the design from his photo`s. I would encourage anyone to build one for themselves, there should be enough info in this thread to assemble one.

Hope this helps

[satro]

Thank You Feelyx for your help,

Regards,
John

[ircrdu]

Ok, enjoying the cross talk here but is the M97 engine really at risk?? I know lots of Cayman owners and no problems at all. Most track them. I know the Suncoast Porsche Cayman that they track all the time and no Issues. I have driven that car. And that car is either wide open most of the time or sliding to a stop. Mine is an 07 with 18,000 miles, oil changes every 2,000 miles. I have spoke to quite a few Porsche service departments and they all say they never see this issue come through. And if this is a problem, and I am not saying it isn't, then why weren't the M97 engines included in that class action lawsuit against Porsche. That suit only addressed 01 through 05 models. So is the sky really falling here??

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by ircrdu

Ok, enjoying the cross talk here but is the M97 engine really at risk?? I know lots of Cayman owners and no problems at all. Most track them. I know the Suncoast Porsche Cayman that they track all the time and no Issues. I have driven that car. And that car is either wide open most of the time or sliding to a stop. Mine is an 07 with 18,000 miles, oil changes every 2,000 miles. I have spoke to quite a few Porsche service departments and they all say they never see this issue come through. And if this is a problem, and I am not saying it isn't, then why weren't the M97 engines included in that class action lawsuit against Porsche. That suit only addressed 01 through 05 models. So is the sky really falling here??

Unfortunately, any M96/97 with an OEM IMS bearing is at risk. All of the designs Porsche tried suffered some level of catastrophic engine failures as the result of the IMS bearing failing, yours included. We have seen all of them fail at one time or another..........