Direct oil injection

[Bristol]

Originally Posted by NOTASIX

Of them they all share one thing in common and thats the common hate for anything LN or Flat 6 developed.

Personally I don't have a big issue with LN products. What I do dislike is the LN/Flat 6 marketing in this thread. You have no interest in fairly exploring other options because your intent is to crush the competition. The picture that you, Jake, posted of the lion with blood dripping from its jaws was taking it too far and hurts the credibility of your arguments as it's clear that you're just out for blood. I think you've realized this and removed the photo because of that. I also think that your choices to not sell the IMS Solution to the DIY installer and not to sell the IMS Retrofit ceramic bearing alone are poor marketing choices. When I told folks at PCA Palooza that their IMS Retrofit would need to be changed in 50,000 miles AND that you won't sell them just the bearing, but they have to buy the $650 kit all over again, they were pissed. Marketing plans that piss off the customer and drive them away are poor marketing plans...

Originally Posted by NOTASIX

They may make comments about "here's how NASA does it" or "In my factory" but none of that has a single thing to do with this IMS Bearing in this M96 engine that they have never opened up themselves and never reassembled and made run for even 5 minutes. Unless NASA is fitting M96 engines to Ground Support Equipment or unless that "factory" is producing M96 engines all of that gibberish has no place in these topics.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Experience has its place. But science also has its place even though you want to throw it out if it is not exactly specific to our engines. Decades of research about bearing design and lubrication is quite significant to this discussion. LN and Flat 6 even enlisted the help of a bearing design engineer when developing the IMS Retrofit. Was his input just gibberish because he had never rebuilt an M96 engine?

The mention of NASA brings up a good example - following Jake's logic we should have never gotten a man on the moon. Sure we tested rockets and had some experience - but LANDING on the moon!?!? It wasn't experience that got us there, it was science! Science that was drawn from other areas, other disciplines than landing on the moon. Personally then I am very interested in what science outside the tiny world of our M96 engine has to say about this problem because it's a big, big world Jake and we have been dealing with these kinds of problems long, long, long before you ever cracked open your first M96 engine.

Kirk Bristol

[chamilun]

Just a casual observer, as I sold my last porsche 2 months ago, but I've always been a bit perplexed by the defensiveness shown by a certain company. $10k fixes should be expected in such an expensive car.. etc etc. That may be the attitude of a certain % of Porsche owners, but there are far more DIYers who are here for both advice, but also because we buy parts from Pelican to install ourselves.

And I hope that every company that gets to represent their brand here, or in the other POrsche forums, do spend advertising or give other support to the people who make these sites happen.

/rant

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by chamilun

Just a casual observer, as I sold my last porsche 2 months ago, but I've always been a bit perplexed by the defensiveness shown by a certain company. $10k fixes should be expected in such an expensive car.. etc etc. That may be the attitude of a certain % of Porsche owners, but there are far more DIYers who are here for both advice, but also because we buy parts from Pelican to install ourselves.

And I hope that every company that gets to represent their brand here, or in the other POrsche forums, do spend advertising or give other support to the people who make these sites happen.

/rant

Back in the day, forums were for wild-eyed idiots like me with too many Harbor Fright tools and too much time on their hands. Many excellent products and even companies have been built starting with a stupid question or idea proposal on a forum.
If I have any bit of advice that may be worth anything, it would be this: If you are selling something, stay off the forums. Trust me, no matter how many people trash your product on a forum, no body cares. You will not loose sales. Nothing will change. If you feel a response to defend your product is required on a forum, do it like this: "I know exactly what you want. Call me and I can explain how we can do this for you. Looking forward to hearing from you".
Last word on this, you can't win an argument on a forum. There are too many people who have much more time than you, who have nothing better to do (or even worse, retired), and they will never quit.

[thom4782]

Well Kirk, let's see if your unbiased or not. Let's see you post a fair and honest critique of DOF's marketing.

[White, Walter]

From the research I have done, "Full" ceramic bearings (not to be confused with the "Hybrid" ceramic bearing) are not appropriate as an IMS bearing, but I bought one of these "inexpensive" full ceramic bearings (from the great land of China) mostly to study the cage, which is PTFE (Teflon).
Anyway, what a wonderful device. I was absolutely amazed at how light it is, but the way it just keeps spinning and spinning when you give it a twirl. No lubrication, and so smooth you think it has an air cushion instead of balls.
It is a 608, which is very small (about the size of a dime). But that made it even more amazing since it has so little mass, the way it keeps spinning and is so smooth.

[NOTASIX]

Personally I don't have a big issue with LN products. What I do dislike is the LN/Flat 6 marketing in this thread. You have no interest in fairly exploring other options because your intent is to crush the competition. The picture that you, Jake, posted of the lion with blood dripping from its jaws was taking it too far and hurts the credibility of your arguments as it's clear that you're just out for blood.

There's no marketing going on here.. We have DIRECTLY answered the questions that were posed to us and did so without BS. When Mike Focke asked us direct questions we replied with direct answers, not vaporware. We didn't dodge these critical questions like the other developers did, and continue to do. To date they have NEVER answered technical, development questions that were directed toward them, and they believe that is fine and acceptable.

I think you've realized this and removed the photo because of that.

Nope. and I don't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks. I didn't pull that picture, it's host more than likely changed the URL as I linked it from another site. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't play games, don't sugar coat things and basically don't give a damn. I didn't come here or do any of this to lose, it wasn't bred into me. Its that hard charging, fire pissing attitude that you may not like, but thats what gets things done. So be it, thats my breed and I may be the only one of that breed left on the planet, but I still don't give a damn. Shall I be even more direct? Trust that I can be and that I love nothing more than competition and a good old fashioned fight. Hell, the Lion with the bloody face was even a little understated! Did it scare you?

I also think that your choices to not sell the IMS Solution to the DIY installer and not to sell the IMS Retrofit ceramic bearing alone are poor marketing choices.

So in one sentence you blast us for "marketing techniques" and then in another you criticize us for not marketing it enough or to a certain group of people? Make your mind up.

We have chosen not to support DIY installs or supply products for these retrofits, that costs us money, but it maintains and perpetuates a positive reputation of the product and thats all that matters over the long haul. We didn't just arrive here and we have 30 more years to play this game.

When I told folks at PCA Palooza that their IMS Retrofit would need to be changed in 50,000 miles AND that you won't sell them just the bearing, but they have to buy the $650 kit all over again, they were pissed.

Since THE VERY FIRST single row IMSB was sold that text has been on the site... It was clear and not in fine print. You can lead a human to knowledge, but you can't make them think, just like you can post the info and not make them read it. At least we have the technical data and experience to post a lifespan, and if others have it they aren't posting it- so you tell me which is worse.

Marketing plans that piss off the customer and drive them away are poor marketing plans.

Obviously you have a vendetta here and thats clear with you PURPOSELY bringing this aspect up during your presentation (that we have never denied) that is, and clearly has been posted for years. I also specifically include this information in both my WTI M96 Engine Mechanical class as well as my M96 Engine Rebuild School.
This same info is given TO ALL distributors and is included in product descriptions, if the installers didn't tell the owners of the car this, thats not our fault!

Anyway, we are all talking in the past tense anyway, because its all changed (again) and you didn't even know it.

[soling222]

The IMS (intermediate shaft) problem is fascinating. These discussions have been going on for years because of the major consequences of its failure. OEM ball bearings have steel balls, steel races (the inner and outer collars), a steel cage to maintain proper spacing between ball bearings, and dual plastic seals on both sides of the bearing with grease packing.

Ball bearings can fail because of the following (taken in part from Ball Bearing Lubrication in Centrifugal Pumps | Maintenance World – An article source for maintenance management and equipment reliability professionals
A. Contamination of the bearing oil or grease by water moisture or foreign particles. As little as 0.002% water in the bearing oil will reduce bearing life 48%.
B. High heat caused by too much lubrication. With to much lubrication the bearing will consume energy as it plows through the lubricant. This energy will show up as heat added to the lubricant causing it to first lose its viscosity and then the lubricant will begin to form varnish and coke (i.e. solids) as it gets hotter. The recommended oil level should be half way through the bottom ball when the pump is at rest. The problem with grease and oil lubricants is their low specific heat and their poor conductivity. It is for this reason that it is not recommend to put any type of oil between dual seals if it can be avoided.
C. Of course, too little lubrication will cause failure.
D. If loads are too massive, the bearing will crushed, bent, etc. immediately.

My limited observation of the failure of ball bearings is that the steel cage is a critical component of catastrophic ball bearing failure. As the friction becomes too large either because of poor lubrication, too much lubrication, or contamination by foreign objects, the steel cage stops rotating properly with the steel balls. Once the cage starts to lose its integrity friction increases even more leading to total disintegration of the cage. This results in the two steel races and ball bearings remain pretty much intact (although damaged), however the cage disintegrates into pieces. Because the balls are no longer properly spaced within the inner and outer races, the two races separate leading to catastrophic failure of the bearing. In IMS failures the debris is carried throughout the engine causing even more damage.

Regarding the IMS bearings in Porsches, it appears that the following are generally agreed upon.
1. The early double row ball bearing (up to about MY2000) in the M96 engine has a very low, but real, failure rate (maybe <1%).
2. The first small single row ball bearing (MY2001-2005) in the M96 engine has the highest failure rate (about 8%), and is the smallest of the three ball bearings.
3. The second larger single row ball bearing (MY2006-2008) in the M97 engine has a low failure rate to date (about 1%).
4. The bearing load capacity of the double row and second larger single row bearing is about twice that of the first small single row bearing (see bristol, http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/757877-direct-oil-injection-7.html
5. The oil level in the IMS bearing with the engine off and the car level is about 25% up from the bottom of the bearing, and is nearly ideal (see feelyx, http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/757877-direct-oil-injection-8.html). Once the engine is running, the oil level must fall, probably below the IMS bearing altogether.
6. Track driven cars appear to have fewer failures than “garage queen” cars that are driven more gently. Track driven cars are also likely to have modified sumps allowing for storage of more engine oil.
7. Removal of the outer seal of the IMS bearing probably improves bearing life (see LN Engineering or Flat 6 Innovation websites). It is unclear if removal of both seals would be beneficial.
8. IMS ceramic bearings use ceramic balls with steel inner and outer rings. While the ceramic material itself is stronger than steel, it is also stiffer, which results in increased stresses on the rings, and hence decreased load capacity. However, they can be more effective in environments where lubrication is less than ideal (see Ball bearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
9. The seals were never expected to keep the original grease in the bearing and the oil out. Seals can keep the dirt out and the grease in when the operating environment is air, but the seals could never be expected to keep engine oil out when the bottom 25% of the bearing is submerged in oil. Consequently, it is inconceivable to believe that Porsche engineers would expect the IMS bearing to be lubricated by grease.

The following is one way to integrate these findings (none of these are new thoughts but they are all in one place). Obviously, the ball bearing application in the IMS of Porsche engines is flawed, with the double bearing and second larger bearing being able to withstand more deterioration before failure compared to the first small bearing used in MY2001-2005. A completely submerged ball bearing would also fail from the increased resistance due to too much lubrication whether or not both seals were in place or removed. If the bottom part of the bearing was always in oil, then it would be properly lubricated probably regardless if both seals were present or not. However, the IMS bearing is only in oil before the engine is started. Once the engine is running the oil level in the sump decreases and no longer submerges any part of the bearing, and the presence of both seals will make any splash lubrication even more problematic. Consequently, removing the outer seal will allow for some improvement in lubrication. An engine that is raced or tracked will be constantly accelerating and decelerating, thereby splashing the sump oil upward toward the IMS bearing compared to a “garage queen” car that is driven gently. The recommendation by LN Engineering to replace the small single ceramic bearing every 50,000 miles suggests that splash lubrication is too marginal even for a ceramic bearing to be dependable. This suggests that all types of IMS ball bearings require improved lubrication.

The Tuners Motorsport (Pedro’s TechnoFix) Direct Oil Feed (DOF) has the possibility of properly lubricating the IMS bearing under the following conditions: (1) There is not too much oil fed to the bearing. It appears that the port in the IMS flange was altered last year to supply less oil (about 400cc/min from 1,400cc/min -see forums). Hopefully, 400cc/min will not be found to be too much lubrication. (2) That the oil is clear of debris particles that could otherwise become trapped in the bearing. It is possible that the bearing could act somewhat as a filter, and with the high flow of oil from the DOF the bearing may have an increased probability of being damaged by debris. In comparison, because the volume of oil due to splash lubrication would be smaller, there may be a smaller probability of debris damaging the bearing. Consequently, using only well filtered oil is probably critical. (3) Because the DOF appears to apply the oil at right angles to the bearing, hopefully the axial force of the oil hitting the bearing gage will not cause it to deform or wear improperly. A spray of oil may be better than a stream of oil. The IMS Solution (Home) also uses DOF but to a new IMS bearing that is not a ball bearing.

So the obvious question is: Why did the Porsche engineers design the IMS bearing used in the water cooled engines until 2009. Apparently, they could no longer use plain bearings that were pressure fed at both ends of the IMS in the newer water cooled engines, in contrast to the old aircooled engines. Consequently, Porsche decided upon a ball bearing at one end, and initially it seemed to work in engines with the double row ball bearing. Because there were too few IMS failures with this engine, Porsche did not recognize the ball bearing actually was a critical weak point. However, by the second design with the small single row IMS bearing, the problem became readily apparent. Consequently, they had enough time to alter the engine design to incorporate a larger single bearing in the M97 engine, but they needed more time to design and deploy the next generation of engines that did not use an IMS (in 2009). And Porsche was not going to stop selling cars just because of an intermittent, catastrophic engine problem.

Why then, did the engineers continue to have the IMS bearing installed with both seals? The most likely answer is that they thought the bearing received enough lubrication particularly since the bearing was submerged 25% in oil with the engine off. And by keeping the seals in place, any oil in the bearing may be kept inside the bearing. In addition, they probably thought that the presence of both seals was important in keeping debris out of the bearing. However, we now know that the presence of both seals keeps lubrication out while the engine is running, and this becomes a more important factor than keeping debris out. Lastly, the corporate side of Porsche decided it would cost less to the company to deal with engine failures on an individual basis, and perhaps also on a class-action basis then to order a recall to solve the IMS problem in all of their engines.

[NOTASIX]

High heat caused by too much lubrication. With to much lubrication the bearing will consume energy as it plows through the lubricant.

Interesting that someone else finally holds this knowledge and is willing to post it. I can't think of anyone else that has even considered these things.

If a little is good, then more is always better? That mindset is like the "bigger is better" mindset. If that was the case we'd all be driving around with 10 liter engines with a full inch of valve lift and ports large enough to drop a tennis ball through. Not the case.

Thats a pretty good first post!

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by soling222

So the obvious question is: Why did the Porsche engineers design the IMS bearing used in the water cooled engines until 2009. Apparently, they could no longer use plain bearings that were pressure fed at both ends of the IMS in the newer water cooled engines, in contrast to the old aircooled engines. .

I believe it is because the IM shaft is too long for just 2 plain bearings. It would need at least one more, if not 2, plain bearings along the length.

Originally Posted by soling222

Why then, did the engineers continue to have the IMS bearing installed with both seals? The most likely answer is that they thought the bearing received enough lubrication particularly since the bearing was submerged 25% in oil with the engine off.

That would assume the car is level.

[NOTASIX]

Don't fool yourselves.. The 9a1 engines were still impacted by the accountants and removing the IMS and subsequent components reduced engine costs.

With a 2014 9a1 apart right now, and a 2013 going back together tonight, we've learned a few things about the 9a1 over the past 4 years of internal exploration with those engines. Just see page 66 of last month's Panorama for a taste :-)

[schoir]

Originally Posted by White, Walter

I believe it is because the IM shaft is too long for just 2 plain bearings. It would need at least one more, if not 2, plain bearings along the length.
...

Could you elaborate a little further as to your belief that the IM shaft is too long for just two plain bearings?

Regards, Maurice.

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by soling222

1. The early double row ball bearing (up to about MY2000) in the M96 engine has a very low, but real, failure rate (maybe <1%).
2. The first small single row ball bearing (MY2001-2005) in the M96 engine has the highest failure rate (about 8%), and is the smallest of the three ball bearings.
3. The second larger single row ball bearing (MY2006-2008) in the M97 engine has a low failure rate to date (about 1%).

To be fair, let me point out a few differences I have observed in these bearings.
1. The earlier 2 row bearing is longer and as it is pressed into its bore, I think it is more self-aligning, because of its length. Even if the back of the bore is not square, it will more-or-less be square in the bore.
It also uses the W or crown type separators (cage, but with this type I think separator is a better term for the W type).
2. The single row bearing is much narrower, and when it is pressed into its bore, I think misalignment could be a factor. If is is pressed against the rear of the bore, and that seating surface is not square to the axis of the shaft, misalignment can again be a factor. This bearing also uses the J type cage.
3. The larger later model bearing, being both larger in diameter and longer than the earlier single row, could be less susceptible to misalignment I think, and, because of its overall larger size, I think it is probably more tolerant to the torsional loads created by possible misalignment. It too uses the J type cage.

This is why I think the ball bearing is used in the design. They can accept a degree of torsional loading, created either by misalignment on installation or by deflection of the shaft.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by White, Walter

To be fair, let me point out a few differences I have observed in these bearings.
1. The earlier 2 row bearing is longer and as it is pressed into its bore, I think it is more self-aligning, because of its length. Even if the back of the bore is not square, it will more-or-less be square in the bore.
It also uses the W or crown type separators (cage, but with this type I think separator is a better term for the W type).
2. The single row bearing is much narrower, and when it is pressed into its bore, I think misalignment could be a factor. If is is pressed against the rear of the bore, and that seating surface is not square to the axis of the shaft, misalignment can again be a factor. This bearing also uses the J type cage.
3. The larger later model bearing, being both larger in diameter and longer than the earlier single row, could be less susceptible to misalignment I think, and, because of its overall larger size, I think it is probably more tolerant to the torsional loads created by possible misalignment. It too uses the J type cage.

This is why I think the ball bearing is used in the design. They can accept a degree of torsional loading, created either by misalignment on installation or by deflection of the shaft.

Which completely fails to explain why the IMS Solution with no movable ball bearings has proven to be the most brutally reliable replacement for the single row IMS.....

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by soling222

8. IMS ceramic bearings use ceramic balls with steel inner and outer rings. While the ceramic material itself is stronger than steel, it is also stiffer, which results in increased stresses on the rings, and hence decreased load capacity. However, they can be more effective in environments where lubrication is less than ideal (see Ball bearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Here is something I found on skate board, roller skate and mountain bike forums. Many prefer to use all steel bearings even though ceramic hybrid and full ceramic bearings are available at a reasonable price. But what many are doing is placing one ceramic ball into the all steel bearing. The claim is that the one ceramic ball "irons out" any irregularities or marks left on the races by the steel balls.

[satro]

Hi All from the U.K.
After reading the Ims debate, on many Forums, for the last 6 months since buying a Boxster, I felt I would make a Post.
I have come from 45 years of Lancia ownership, and after using my Son`s car, has been the only car that compared to a Lancia in road manners. I bought the car for peanuts" because thats all they sell for in the U.K. I was unaware of the IMS "Cockup"
Removal of the Oil Filter, and tearing it apart, I saw the the shiny dust. The car has sat in the Garage never to be started, till a replacement Bearing is fitted.
The "Solutions" appear to be:-
The Ceramic Bearing, which I assume can only be fitted by Vestal Virgins judging by the price.
The Plain oil fed bearing, which looks to small to last.
Then there is the "Feelyx" design. This Guy must be the only one who has ever dismantled an electric motor, car alternator and the like, to reveal a bearing held in a housing, and the spindle goes round and round.
I can only think of a Bicycle Wheel and a cheap cooling fan, where the middle is held, and the Outer moves.
I understand his design has been sold off, Will it ever reach the market? Is it over Oiled for a ball race?

I find all the above "man in a shed" fixes" takes some believing, with a car coming out of a Large factory like Porsche.
There is a common mind set these days, which I call the "The Emperor`s new Clothes trick" ( from the Children`s fairy Tales) whereby only the very intelligent are able to see the fine weave of the cloth, and not that the Guy was naked.
Porsche have made these "garments", and are laughing all the way to the bank, with your money.

In the UK in the 70`s the joke doing the rounds was "What the difference between a Skip ( a skip is a roadside Rubbish container) and a Skoda, answer: the Skoda has 4 wheels.
Skoda went broke bought up by VW.
It needs a rubbish Porsche Campaign, On your track racer have Decals " Porsche designed by cretins" Etc. with enough bad press to make new buyers ask questions. And Maybe a Factory Mod for the IMS.
Remember the Lancia Beta in the late 60`s, after recognizing the poor sheet metal used. They offered to "Buy Back" all the Beta`s instead of just injecting some Waxoil in the box sections.
Would Porsche have done this? No, there advice would be go and buy our new model, you "Very Very Intelligent people" feel the new weave of the cloth(The Emperor's New Clothes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Apologies for any offence caused. John

[BYprodriver]

This looks interesting:

[NOTASIX]

Originally Posted by BYprodriver

This looks interesting:

Yeah.. I know the guy that developed it, he is a real *******.

He invented this tool, too... It apparently works like magic to install a dual row bearing into a single row shaft without disassembly :-)

[BYprodriver]

I saw that picture on 986forum tool thread but underestimated the size of the tool, so I couldn't see how it would mount until I saw the video.


The Single Row Pro IMS Retrofit on Vimeo

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by satro

I understand his design has been sold off, Will it ever reach the market?

Sometimes things are bought to be put on a shelf, never to be seen again. Sometimes things just don't work as planned. Making something stronger sometimes leads to something else breaking.
I am hoping for the best too. Hope something arrives soon.

[White, Walter]

Originally Posted by satro

The Ceramic Bearing, which I assume can only be fitted by Vestal Virgins judging by the price.
The Plain oil fed bearing, which looks to small to last.
I find all the above "man in a shed" fixes" takes some believing, with a car coming out of a Large factory like Porsche.

This comment is unsolicited and uncalled for. To throw insults without provocation is disrespectful.