|
The data that was given out in the discovery phase of the lawsuit that is supposed to show that single row bearings fail anywhere from 8% to 10% (location dependent for some reason) and double row under 1% does not take into account the dealers that pulled engines based upon an early Porsche diagnostic (simple) process that was later changed to require dealers to actually pull out the bearings to check before they ordered a new motor under warranty. In the first few years of Boxster and 996 bearing issues - Porsche found after tearing down the returned motors that a significant (to them) number of engines actually had issues unrelated to the IMS and that the bearings in many were fine. Now it`s debatable if an engine with a D chunk issue or cam chains falling off would have been swapped out for a new motor or not - most likely yes - but the point is that it does tend to swing the IMS failure numbers higher in the earlier stages (some suggest 2001 was when Porsche changed diagnostic procedures) and this could affect these stated percentages in this lawsuit. I`m one of the 1% crowd who decided I would change out my 99`s double row bearing last year - just because. It turned out the bearing was fine but I changed it for the LN bearing and treated it as maintenance. I think the number of people who will be able to take *full* advantage of the low (to me) amount of $6500 after an engine blow up will be quite low when you take into account of the *clauses* in the proposed settlement.
FYI: This lawsuit has not been settled as yet.
__________________
1999 996 C2
|