Schnell Gelb

Just to clarify for a noob on the IMSB. The bearing itself is a minor part of the total issue. It is the collateral damage from a failing IMSB that can damage the engine beyond economical repair. I have a 2001 S in which this almost happened - possibly because of incorrect installation of the new ceramic LN IMSB by the P.O.I say "possibly" because how can you know with total certainty?There are so many ways to screw-up an IMSB install. Once debris from a failing IMSB gets distributed in the engine,It is impossible to remove all the debris without total tear-down.Some of the oil-ways are extremely small. Without the total teardown and premptive rebuild, it is unlikely a suspect engine will last long. If the engine had an LN filter kit fitted prior to the problem,the engine may survive. Mine did (because of the LN filter?)but it was a very ,very expensive and comprehensive repair that eventually exceeded the value of the car because of my incidental upgrades . The clue to the collateral damage(?) was c/s bearing failure within less than 1000 miles of the IMSB replacement. YEMV -I hope !

Loren, Thank you .

Brian, I hope your install is as successful as your previous ones. To others who may be interested in the subject : http://986forum.com/forums/performance-technical-chat/20622-aasco-flywheel-here-2.html

You asked why ? I used to work in Engineering for a European OEM. Sometimes I don't understand why contributors like JFP or Raby say some obscure things. I have learned they are invariably correct because they have been involved in this subject deeply for many years.They have also been successful at it. I have huge respect for people who build a business based on their knowledge and experience.That I humbly concede is more significant in these situations than my academic or technical knowledge. To understand harmonic and dynamic balance would take many hours of tuition to Engineers with lots of basic engineering knowledge .

As a Mech Eng I find posts like #9 difficult. I am not disputing anecdotal experience. For anyone thinking of ignoring all the engineering brainpower and experience that goes into designing and specifying a DMF to deal with harmonic(not just dynamic!) imbalance, A lwfw is less that 1/3 the cost of a DMF. Considering the budget constraints the 986 program had, why did they use a DMF?The car drives perfectly well with a solid flywheel -for a while at least. Without a DMF how will you deal with harmonic imbalance ? No, a conventional flywheel, light or otherwise does not compensate for harmonic imbalance.That is why engineers invented the Harmonic Balancer - notably absent from the M96. Without dismantling the engine to balance all parts of the rotating mass(particularly the crankshaft and rods)how will an unbalanced lwfw compensate ? JFP has answered the "well what happens if you fit a LWFW and so has Raby. I urge anyone considering this mod to evaluate the issue carefully. Just promise to share the consequences so we improve our knowledge base. And good luck with it - the benefits are great -it is the unintended consequences I cringe at.

Certainly such a large amount of weight is an attractive weight-saving target. Shaeffler have a lighter DMF in development.Hopefully this would be back-compatible. A new DmF may be imperfectly imbalanced.Mine needed a little modification. If you read the engineering details, you wonder how often a used DMF is correctly tested before being put back in service. Here is the Schaeffler info and there are You Tube videos on testing the DMF that I have linked elsewhere when this subject was discussed. http://www.schaeffler.com/remotemedien/media/_shared_media/08_media_library/01_publications/automotiveaftermarket/brochure_1/downloads_5/luk_5/luk_fail_diag_zms_de_en.pdf

Not disputing your experience ,nor your choice. Just for the info of others reading this, Raby specifically discussed this issue in the link above and said: "I feel that this failure was attributed to by a couple of things- 1- The engine was "upgraded" to a lightened flywheel. This new flywheel was installed onto the existing stock engine without being balanced to that assembly. This created an imbalance in the rotating mass AND it did away with the factory dual mass flywheel. 2- The dual mass flywheel was removed to allow the single mass lightened unit to be installed. This eliminated ALL MEANS OF HARMONIC DAMPENING!! The crankshaft was forced to absorb ALL harmonics from the engine and transaxle when the dual mass unit was removed.. So- adding the light weight flywheel was a double negative, not only did it create imbalance, it also eliminated the harmonic dampening of the dual mass arrangement. Due to this I feel that adding a lightweight flywheel to any existing engine is not a wise decision, and that they should only be added when the entire rotating mass can be balanced and indexed to accommodate the lightweight unit. This means engine disassembly, so I'd only add one of these when doing one of our performance upgrades so the entire assembly can be precisely balanced."

If after all this brilliant technical help ,it still will not start -here is a very simple ,no tools test: Feel under the seats for wetness. If the cabin carpets are wet ,the electronics(under the seat) may be soaked. There are mods to prevent this and fixes to suggest if the carpets are wet at the lowest part of the floor in the big dimple under the seat.

A lighter flywheel is a a great mod.I fitted one to a Miata and loved it. The M96 is a different situation.Without the DMF ,how will you deal with harmonic imbalance? Some just ignore this issue or are unaware of it and may not suffer any issues but it may be prudent to investigate the issue more? There is lots of info if you Search.Here is an example: http://www.flat6innovations.com/index.php/broken-crank

Just to clarify comments like : "check other things before buying the camshaft sensor" "it wasn't the CPS" The Camshaft sensor ( 996-606-106-02) is NOT what we are discussing. It is the CRANKshaft sensor = usually 986-606-112-02- but verify.Buying and fitting the wrong part could be a $300 mistake ! This link may help: http://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/Boxster_Tech/26-FUEL-Engine_Sensors/26-FUEL-Engine_Sensors.htm The diagnostic clue for the crankshaft sensor heat-soak failure is to carefully watch the tach needle when you crank the engine.If the needle does not move at all= dead/dying Crankshaft PS. The infamous Fuel Pump relay is available as a generic part but the Porsche number(please verify for your VIN!) is 996-615-101-00 It is less than $10 at Pelican.So therefore ,rather like the problematic ,generic ignition switch ,it is minimal parts cost to replace regardless if it is at fault.If the old part is still good,it is a great spare to keep -if you are sure it is 'good'. http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/ksearch/PEL_search_2014.cgi?command=show_part_page&please_wait=N&SUPERCAT_FLAG=Y&make=POR&model=1048&section=FULFUL&page=2&bookmark=7&part_number=996-615-101-00-M504

There are well over 20 modes of failure for the M96 engine. IMSB is just one. The IMSB risk varies with the year -the double row is much lower failure risk than single row.Much more on FAQ's on Rennlist. Ensure you have a big slush fund for expensive repairs. I like the idea of buying from a good customer of your local Porsche Indie mechanic. Start your search there?

Ahsai has another useful thread here: http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/764630-updated-alternator-starter-cable.html "Y" connector is 996 607 019 03 .List price is $72. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Boxster has the same part but just a 986 part number.number .The Boxster part # is 986 607 019 02.It looks different on PET

Az564 Your codes mean there is a short circuit. Surprising that it is in both banks simultaneously. That may mean the wiring fault is some distance away from the O2 sensors ? You need to use a wiring diagram or physically trace the wires back from the O2 sensor all the way to the DME to find the short circuit. This is tedious,slow work with a multi-meter. Throwing parts at it won't help.Muddling the connections for each sensor would also cause a problem. Start by asking for a link to a wiring diagram? Here is a useful article: http://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/Boxster_Tech/19-FUEL-02_Sensor/19-FUEL-02_Sensor.htm Here are the correct parts : http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/supertech/catalog.cgi?action=frameset&return-url=/cgi-bin/supertech/catalog.cgi%3Faction%3Dframeback%26page%3D526&catalog-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pelicanparts.com%2Fcatalog%2FSuperCat%2F1048%2FPOR_1048_FULEMI_pg1.htm%3Futm_source%3DSuperTech%23item0 Hope this helps you.

I'm in Los Angeles , so no mud nor corrosion. But heat in slow/go freeway traffic and heat soak are significant concerns. The Boxster engine/trans configuration could be worse than the 911 layout from the perspective of convected heat on the coils ?

The M96 fitted to the 996 cars has a heat shield for the coil packs/spark plugs.It is aka "cylinder head plate" .It is part number 37 in this diagram: http://www.autoatlanta.com/porsche-parts/hardparts.php?dir=996-99-05&section=103-00 I am confused about the use of these heat shields on (any?) Boxsters. My 3.2 S is a Texas car with no cats in the exhaust manifolds. It has just a simple ,stock , 3 into 1 pipe exhaust manifold. So there should not be as much heat as the California cars that have a cat close to the cylinder head. The confusion is that there are no heat shields fitted. Are they missing? There are the 2 threaded bosses on the cylinder head to attach a heat shield .So I thought of making a simple sheet metal shield for each side . Is there any merit to doing this ? I ask because coil packs are expensive! 997-602-107-00 Thank you for any explanations.

The standard diagnosis technique is to remove the serpentine belt and run the engine for a few seconds to confirm this eliminates the noise. Check all the ancillaries for bearing wear. Then put the belt back on and use a stethoscope - like "Engine Ear" to isolate the offending part. How did you diagnose P/S pump?

Very helpful observation.There are lots of threads alluding to "lifter ticking" that are unresolved. This is a useful diagnostic test - listen to the Evap Purge valve 996-110-129-05 with a stethoscope and to the cam cover separately .Since the two parts are so close I imagine this has caused some very expensive and ineffective diagnosis in the past. Much easier & cheaper to replace(or just clean?) the Evap purge valve that replace lifters! . Thanks for the helpful postings.

Interesting comments from JFP. Here is an FYI link to the Pedro project.I have not done it so can not recommend.Just fyi for other Forum members. http://www.pedrosgarage.com/Site_3/Install_3rd_Radiator_%26_Coolant_System_Bleeding_Instructions.html

Thank you LOGRAY ! Installing the circlip on Piston #6(the most difficult one) this afternoon. First I did a 'dry' run with no clip to check my index and depth marks.. The nose piece stuck in the piston!! I am soooo glad I lubed everything carefully.otherwise this would have been a real problem. I do not understand why the nose piece is removable. It is easy enough(though a little awkward to load the clip in the full length tube. By contrast, removing a stuck nose piece is a lengthy and anxiety riddled hack. I shall try a carefully recessed pop rivet to prevent this. I shall also spend more time fiddling and checking that I have absolutely perfect alignment of the wrist pin to the tool. But the most important task was to thank Logray for sharing his idea .

Logray's tool is brilliant and imho should be supplied in the Baum kit. Then he would make the millions he so richly deserves. Baum should also include in the instructions for their Piston Driver/Circlip insertion tool B9602K a detailed explanation of how you need to index and depth mark the tool. Yes, indexing/marking adds even more time to this tedious and exacting task but compared to dismantling a partially built engine to retrieve a misfired clip it is an obvious precaution. An alternative to the old fashioned circlip would be Spiralock/spiral lock/spirolock. With the right tool,it may be less likely to misfire? I have encouraged the patent holder (Clyde/Chris Norwood)for the Lock in Tool to contact Jake to adapt the tool for the M96. Then Logray will have to invent a Spiralock removing tool and make another pile?

It may be a wonderful basis for a Track car for someone ?Lots of chat on Rennlist about this . Ask and see what the Track enthusiasts say?

I asked LN about this i.d confusion. Obviously a common subject .Got a helpful confirmation that the engine numbers are not reliable.I am quoting below to help others with the same issue. "The engine numbers really have no meaning when it comes to IMS Bearings. However, if you had a 106-08.2(note- he means the LN part number) - That's the Classic single row IMS kit of ours. The single row Pro 106-08.2.2 will work with all engines that the Classic single row did."

Dennis, From your Lemforder box, can you confirm if the Lemforder part number is : LEM-3470501 -it is just slightly fuzzy in the photo you kindly included. It is listed for an 07 Cayman-if that helps confirm the 987/986 question.

Which is why ,in my first post I said: "IF you have an LN cover dish marked "E3" ,it seems to be different ". Meaning the answer to the 1 row/2 row question. Yes,having an LN bearing retrofitted is rare but it is these exceptions that make Renntech such a valuable resource.And as time goes by, more M96 engines with retrofit LN bearings will be opened up and this exact confusion will arise.I am just making a clumsy attempt to help others avoid a $600 mistake. The interesting option in my circumstances is to consider fitting the recently introduced LN IMS Pro , 2 row part - as an upgrade to the IMS retrofit previously fitted.Yes,it is an expensive and perhaps redundant upgrade but the back story of the development of that part is compelling (well O.K., for a nerdy engineer it is). For those who are wondering : "why did this engineer-fool remove a perfectly good LN hybrid ceramic bearing ?" - see what Dennis did above and in my case,understand also that when an M96 engine has main/rod bearing failure, LN insist you do not refit the old(potentially contaminated) bearing. And one more horror - when I started removing the LN Bearing the counterstay on the center stud would not hold it. So the nut and the center bolt just spun around. Thank goodness I had access to the tools and skills for that one! And when I finally could use the wonderfully over-engineered LN tool kit to remove the bearing - I found about two tablespoons of oil inside the shaft and all the swarf from the 'pin' that had been fitted to the IMS gear !The LN bearing had been fitted for about 1000 miles and probably had at least another 49,000 miles of life left in it before it was removed. If anyone would find more photos useful to clarify ,please say so while this engine is still apart. I hope this helps a few who follow this path in years to come.

Here are a few photos