Jump to content

Welcome to RennTech.org Community, Guest

There are many great features available to you once you register at RennTech.org
You are free to view posts here, but you must log in to reply to existing posts, or to start your own new topic. Like most online communities, there are costs involved to maintain a site like this - so we encourage our members to donate. All donations go to the costs operating and maintaining this site. We prefer that guests take part in our community and we offer a lot in return to those willing to join our corner of the Porsche world. This site is 99 percent member supported (less than 1 percent comes from advertising) - so please consider an annual donation to keep this site running.

Here are some of the features available - once you register at RennTech.org

  • View Classified Ads
  • DIY Tutorials
  • Porsche TSB Listings (limited)
  • VIN Decoder
  • Special Offers
  • OBD II P-Codes
  • Paint Codes
  • Registry
  • Videos System
  • View Reviews
  • and get rid of this welcome message

It takes just a few minutes to register, and it's FREE

Contributing Members also get these additional benefits:
(you become a Contributing Member by donating money to the operation of this site)

  • No ads - advertisements are removed
  • Access the Contributors Only Forum
  • Contributing Members Only Downloads
  • Send attachments with PMs
  • All image/file storage limits are substantially increased for all Contributing Members
  • Option Codes Lookup
  • VIN Option Lookups (limited)

Recommended Posts

Another question is can this DOF kit be install on cars currently with an LN kit?

No. It cannot be used with the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit and we advise against it on our website and is not necessary. The bearing provided with the IMS Retrofit does not require any additional lubrication than what it receives from in the sump. Remember, the M96 engine is a wet sump engine and the IMS bearing is submerged in normal operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
    You can remove these ads by becoming a Contributing Member.

Another question is can this DOF kit be install on cars currently with an LN kit?

It can be installed on cars with the LN Engineering IMS ceramic bearing, the original OEM bearing, a replacement OEM bearing, the Pelican parts replacement bearing, etc...

Regards, Maurice.

We have not verified compatibility with the IMS Retrofit and I'm sure if you contact Pelican Parts, they will advise against their kit being modified outside of its original parameters for installation and operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all of these posts going back and forth, here and other forums, it seems that the point of our product has become lost. We developed a lubrication kit for the IMS bearing (ANY type bearing, original or aftermarket, steel, ceramic, ball or roller), not a bearing replacement kit as some have said. We have a mechanical component in a harsh environment, with friction and inadequate lubrication – it needs proper lubrication and cooling to increase its reliability.

We don't normally get too involved in message boards because responses can often lead to situations like this. Our posts online in different discussion boards were mainly to answer a few questions from members and to inform the community of a fix for the bearing lubrication problem. Unfortunately there are some board members with competing technologies and a self-preservation agenda that would rather engage in character assassination as well as internet muscle matches than to actually discuss our oil lubrication kit for the IMS bearing. Like someone mentioned, “this is a PR nightmare for companies.” All this back and forth is just confusing Porsche enthusiasts and owners in regards to the whole IMS bearing situation, doing more harm than good to both sides.

In the very near future we will produce a short video explaining our product in more detail, introducing another new product and answering your e-mailed (through our website) or PM’d questions during the next 10 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question is can this DOF kit be install on cars currently with an LN kit?

No. It cannot be used with the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit and we advise against it on our website and is not necessary. The bearing provided with the IMS Retrofit does not require any additional lubrication than what it receives from in the sump. Remember, the M96 engine is a wet sump engine and the IMS bearing is submerged in normal operation.

LNE may not want people to put a Direct Ol Feed (DOF) Kit on one of the LNE bearings, but I assure their readers that the DOF can and is being used by many Porsche owners who had replaced their IMS bearing with the LNE but who still felt uncomfortable with the lubrication or lack thereof of their newly installed IMS ceramic bearing.

Here's proof of the last one we installed:

With the tranny, clutch and flywheel removed

image_zpse7d65ea1.jpg

With the flange removed you can clearly see the LNE bearing

image_zps8807f944.jpg

We left the LNE bearing in place and installed the DOF which will now properly lubricate it

image_zpsaf40437b.jpg

Happy Porscheing

Pedro

Edited by ppbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your photo Pedro. The last photo shows exactly why you cannot use the DOF with the LN kit.

There is not enough thread engagement for the center nut with the DOF and the center bearing support in the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit. Installing one with insufficient thread engagement will not allow you to accurately torque the center nut. And even if you do manage to torque it, with subsequent heat cycles the top threads will likely not hold the torque. We've already determined an improperly torqued center nut - either too tight or loose will cause a failure! I hope for your sake there aren't many out there like this.

Additionally, we closely measure and blueprint (and have so for several years) to ensure proper fitment. How does someone installing the DOF know that the flange provided is made to the same specifications as the LN Engineering IMS flange?

Lastly, how can the DOF be compatible with both the stock center stud and LN Engineering stud since they seal in different manners. Our center stud is ground to a precise dimension to ensure leak free operation with the internal o-ring located in the flange. Stock flange relies on a larger o-ring located on the center stud. Lack of an internal o-ring will result in leaks over the long term. We also know this for first hand experience where users damaged the internal o-ring or accidentally removed it. Even with loctite and flange sealant, they will eventually leak and cause a comeback. Again, first hand experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your photo Pedro. The last photo shows exactly why you cannot use the DOF with the LN kit.

There is not enough thread engagement for the center nut with the DOF and the center bearing support in the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit.

Lastly, how can the DOF be compatible with both the stock center stud and LN Engineering stud since they seal in different manners. Our center stud is ground to a precise dimension to ensure leak free operation with the internal o-ring located in the flange. Stock flange relies on a larger o-ring located on the center stud. Lack of an internal o-ring will result in leaks over the long term. We also know this for first hand experience where users damaged the internal o-ring or accidentally removed it. Even with loctite and flange sealant, they will eventually leak and cause a comeback. Again, first hand experience.

Come on Charles!

You can certainly see that the last image I posted of the DOF on an LNE bearing is during the installation process. The flange hasn't been torqued yet and there's no nut on the flange to show that it's an LNE bearing/flange.

Do you want to see a couple torqued down with the nut on the shaft?

Here you go...

This first one isn't hooked up to the oil line yet, although the notch has been created.

dof-install-04boxster_zpsb1572efd.jpg

The second image is complete with the oil line connected and ready to reinstall the flywheel/clutch/transmission.

00-boxster-dualrowinstall_zps52797e25.jp

When people order the DOF from us we ask if they have an LNE bearing in place. If they do and want to keep it, we then send them a version of the DOF that precisely fits the LNE shaft and ensures a leak-free life.

Finally so that there's no doubt whatsoever that the DOF can be installed on the LNE ceramic bearing, I can categorically state that that's the combination that is in my own car.

Wouldn't you agree that that qualifies as first hand experience?

When my car turned 195,500 miles (5/10/10) I wanted to check the condition of the clutch (for the first time) and decided to replace my IMS bearing with the then new-on-the-market LNE ceramic bearing. Later that year, at 200,239 (10/21/10) miles I blew the engine on the track. I installed a reconditioned engine into which that original LNE ceramic bearing was also transferred into.

A few months later the first DOF prototypes were produced and installed for the first tests and guess where one of them ended up in.... you guessed it: MY CAR!

The mileage then was 204,554. Today, it's at 239,331.

Nuf said!

Happy Porsche'ing,

Pedro

PS: You can read about the incident and the installation of the LNE bearing on one of my PCA Tech Articles, "Chronicles of Sebring: The Clutch, the brakes and the Engine, part 1 which was published in the February 2011 issue of Die Porsche Kassette and can also be found on my website: http://pedrosgarage.com/Site_5/Chronicles_of_Sebring,_part_1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my car turned 195,500 miles (5/10/10) I wanted to check the condition of the clutch (for the first time) and decided to replace my IMS bearing with the then new-on-the-market LNE ceramic bearing. Later that year, at 200,239 (10/21/10) miles I blew the engine on the track. I installed a reconditioned engine into which that original LNE ceramic bearing was also transferred into.

So you purchased an LN bearing and installed it, you then experienced an engine failure and extracted the LN bearing from the failed engine, then fitted it to another engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you purchased an LN bearing and installed it, you then experienced an engine failure and extracted the LN bearing from the failed engine, then fitted it to another engine?

Yes, that's what I said.

Happy Porscheing,

Pedro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you purchased an LN bearing and installed it, you then experienced an engine failure and extracted the LN bearing from the failed engine, then fitted it to another engine?

Yes, that's what I said.

Happy Porscheing,

Pedro

Wow. Not only did you originally carry out an IMS Retrofit procedure on an engine where the original bearing had failed, you chose to extract the bearing and re-install it in another engine. Two things we explicitly say not to do. When shops carry out procedures like this or people see this online and try it for themselves, only bad things can happen from this. Yes, you pulled it off, but I can cite a dozen or more instances where it didn't. Foreign object debris causes collateral damage that can take 6 months or a year to wipe out the new bearing or even the entire engine.

On reusing ball bearings: http://tech.bareasschoppers.com/resources/why-cant-you-re-use-bearings/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the "brinelling" mentioned in the article also happen on ceramic bearings when placing a load on the inner race or does it only happen to steel bearings?

Or, perhaps this is a testament to the efficacy of the DOF system. Pedro stated that after he re-installed the ceramic bearing, a few months later he also installed the DOF.

Regards, Maurice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, this is all anecdotal, I believe we see that both products, DOF and LN Bearing, are proving to be very worthwhile products, especially for those who have the double rows, where The Solution does not apply.

Stop 'brinelling' each other, guys. We get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some body interested

I HAVE a BRAND NEW LN ENGENENEERING, im selling the car i wont use it, I paid 650$ its brand NEW NEVER USED OR TESTED

1999 - 2001 DOBLE ROW

My cell is 787 218 4877

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some body interested

I HAVE a BRAND NEW LN ENGENENEERING, im selling the car i wont use it, I paid 650$ its brand NEW NEVER USED OR TESTED

1999 - 2001 DOBLE ROW

My cell is 787 218 4877

There is a place for posting classified ads. Please use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a complete non technical person (just search on my name and see my posts....), it seems to me that for us who have a 2002+ 996 tip car, in either one of hese solutions, the trasmission needs to come down, but in the case of the DOF, there needs to be some rather intrusive work to make sure the new flange/oil feeder fits, so the basic question is: 1- is the problem a bearing one and LN takes care of it by offering a longer lasting (but not permanent fix!) bearing whereby you have to assume it is a consumable such as brake pads), or is the problem 2- a lack of lubrication one whereby, regardless of bearing used, the DOF alternative takes care of it (prober lubrication) permanently ?

Am I oversimplifying this? I can only assume that the inherent problem would rear its ugly face on the street or the track. At the end of the day, we are talking preventative maintenance on a $15-20K item on a $15-$35K car...

As an owner of a tip 2002 C4S, I'm genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this "possible" problem, one that has plagued the 996 series and has allowed me to own such a vehicle at a relatively modest total ownership cost basis.... I am NOT asking for the competing vendors to wage war against each other, just looking for solid proof so us buyers of either solutions could make an informed decision regarding which is the best (a subjective one at best) decision for each individual case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gob

There are probably a dozen kits, bearings, etc out there to chose from. It isn't just two.

There aren't comparble statistics in sample sizes that would be meaningful, would that there were. No one to take these things and run 100 samples 100k miles and report on the success or failure. And remember, Porsche with their test mules didn't know about the problems till after there were thousands in the wild so small sample tests over limited time aren't terribly confidence building. Hey the Porsche engineers were confident three times and wrong three times.

And to make matters worse, in the case of a choice between the DOF or a ceramic bearing, it isn't either/or, it could be both.

What is your installer familiar with? How many have they done of any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the case of the DOF, there needs to be some rather intrusive work to make sure the new flange/oil feeder fits, so the basic question is: 1- is the problem a bearing one and LN takes care of it by offering a longer lasting (but not permanent fix!) bearing whereby you have to assume it is a consumable such as brake pads), or is the problem 2- a lack of lubrication one whereby, regardless of bearing used, the DOF alternative takes care of it (prober lubrication)

Installing the Direct Oil Feed (DOF) is simpler and less intrusive than replacing the bearing. It just involves replacing the bearing flange and installing the oil line.

If you like the ceramic bearing but you also think that the DOF will provide better lubrication you can do both!

Order a DOF with the ceramic IMS bearing and you've covered all your bases.

Happy Porscheing

Pedro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gob

There are probably a dozen kits, bearings, etc out there to chose from. It isn't just two.

There aren't comparble statistics in sample sizes that would be meaningful, would that there were. No one to take these things and run 100 samples 100k miles and report on the success or failure. And remember, Porsche with their test mules didn't know about the problems till after there were thousands in the wild so small sample tests over limited time aren't terribly confidence building. Hey the Porsche engineers were confident three times and wrong three times.

And to make matters worse, in the case of a choice between the DOF or a ceramic bearing, it isn't either/or, it could be both.

What is your installer familiar with? How many have they done of any?

They were not so wrong with the initial double-row (996-1) and then decided to make it worse or very wrong with the single row (996-2).

Capitalizing on both of these experiences; ie, being so-so wrong (D-Row) and then very wrong (S-Row), they then decided to be not so wrong with the larger S-Row (05 to 08 997); ie, not quite there, until 09 when they got rid of the IMS.

It is what made the Porsche engineers go to a S-Row from a D-Row in 2001 that really leaves me perplexed!? What were they thinking ...?

Hence so far, dumb and happy with a D-Row!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gob

There are probably a dozen kits, bearings, etc out there to chose from. It isn't just two.

There aren't comparble statistics in sample sizes that would be meaningful, would that there were. No one to take these things and run 100 samples 100k miles and report on the success or failure. And remember, Porsche with their test mules didn't know about the problems till after there were thousands in the wild so small sample tests over limited time aren't terribly confidence building. Hey the Porsche engineers were confident three times and wrong three times.

And to make matters worse, in the case of a choice between the DOF or a ceramic bearing, it isn't either/or, it could be both.

What is your installer familiar with? How many have they done of any?

They were not so wrong with the initial double-row (996-1) and then decided to make it worse or very wrong with the single row (996-2).

Capitalizing on both of these experiences; ie, being so-so wrong (D-Row) and then very wrong (S-Row), they then decided to be not so wrong with the larger S-Row (05 to 08 997); ie, not quite there, until 09 when they got rid of the IMS.

It is what made the Porsche engineers go to a S-Row from a D-Row in 2001 that really leaves me perplexed!? What were they thinking ...?

Hence so far, dumb and happy with a D-Row!

The switch to a single row was a result of moving to Variocam +. This necessitated a slightly longer IM shaft, hence the smaller bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gob

There are probably a dozen kits, bearings, etc out there to chose from. It isn't just two.

There aren't comparble statistics in sample sizes that would be meaningful, would that there were. No one to take these things and run 100 samples 100k miles and report on the success or failure. And remember, Porsche with their test mules didn't know about the problems till after there were thousands in the wild so small sample tests over limited time aren't terribly confidence building. Hey the Porsche engineers were confident three times and wrong three times.

And to make matters worse, in the case of a choice between the DOF or a ceramic bearing, it isn't either/or, it could be both.

What is your installer familiar with? How many have they done of any?

They were not so wrong with the initial double-row (996-1) and then decided to make it worse or very wrong with the single row (996-2).

Capitalizing on both of these experiences; ie, being so-so wrong (D-Row) and then very wrong (S-Row), they then decided to be not so wrong with the larger S-Row (05 to 08 997); ie, not quite there, until 09 when they got rid of the IMS.

It is what made the Porsche engineers go to a S-Row from a D-Row in 2001 that really leaves me perplexed!? What were they thinking ...?

Hence so far, dumb and happy with a D-Row!

The switch to a single row was a result of moving to Variocam +. This necessitated a slightly longer IM shaft, hence the smaller bearing.

I'm afraid that is not correct; many 2000 and 2001 cars came from the factory with single row bearings, and they are all VarioCam, not VarioCam+ cars.......................

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gob

There are probably a dozen kits, bearings, etc out there to chose from. It isn't just two.

There aren't comparble statistics in sample sizes that would be meaningful, would that there were. No one to take these things and run 100 samples 100k miles and report on the success or failure. And remember, Porsche with their test mules didn't know about the problems till after there were thousands in the wild so small sample tests over limited time aren't terribly confidence building. Hey the Porsche engineers were confident three times and wrong three times.

And to make matters worse, in the case of a choice between the DOF or a ceramic bearing, it isn't either/or, it could be both.

What is your installer familiar with? How many have they done of any?

They were not so wrong with the initial double-row (996-1) and then decided to make it worse or very wrong with the single row (996-2).

Capitalizing on both of these experiences; ie, being so-so wrong (D-Row) and then very wrong (S-Row), they then decided to be not so wrong with the larger S-Row (05 to 08 997); ie, not quite there, until 09 when they got rid of the IMS.

It is what made the Porsche engineers go to a S-Row from a D-Row in 2001 that really leaves me perplexed!? What were they thinking ...?

Hence so far, dumb and happy with a D-Row!

The switch to a single row was a result of moving to Variocam +. This necessitated a slightly longer IM shaft, hence the smaller bearing.

While these cars have the newer vane cell type VarioCam, it is NOT VarioCam Plus (which features valve lift control in addition to valve timing adjustment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gob

There are probably a dozen kits, bearings, etc out there to chose from. It isn't just two.

There aren't comparble statistics in sample sizes that would be meaningful, would that there were. No one to take these things and run 100 samples 100k miles and report on the success or failure. And remember, Porsche with their test mules didn't know about the problems till after there were thousands in the wild so small sample tests over limited time aren't terribly confidence building. Hey the Porsche engineers were confident three times and wrong three times.

And to make matters worse, in the case of a choice between the DOF or a ceramic bearing, it isn't either/or, it could be both.

What is your installer familiar with? How many have they done of any?

They were not so wrong with the initial double-row (996-1) and then decided to make it worse or very wrong with the single row (996-2).

Capitalizing on both of these experiences; ie, being so-so wrong (D-Row) and then very wrong (S-Row), they then decided to be not so wrong with the larger S-Row (05 to 08 997); ie, not quite there, until 09 when they got rid of the IMS.

It is what made the Porsche engineers go to a S-Row from a D-Row in 2001 that really leaves me perplexed!? What were they thinking ...?

Hence so far, dumb and happy with a D-Row!

The switch to a single row was a result of moving to Variocam +. This necessitated a slightly longer IM shaft, hence the smaller bearing.

I'm afraid that is not correct; many 2000 and 2001 cars came from the factory with single row bearings, and they are all VarioCam, not VarioCam+ cars.......................

Hmmm. I know I got that info from a reputable site too (part manuf, not forum). I'll see if I can locate it again. Logically it seemed to make sense, more so than Porsche trying to solve the failed bearing issue by halving the load tolerance.

Edited by BAD124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAD124:

Your explanation makes the most sense (needing room for VCam+) so far. Thanks for the info!

JFP: If you are correct as well, now I'm really confused as to what I've got in my 2000. Likely a pure and sturdy D-row given my car's last 4 VIN numbers are: 0220, built Aug 99.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAD124:

Your explanation makes the most sense (needing room for VCam+) so far. Thanks for the info!

JFP: If you are correct as well, now I'm really confused as to what I've got in my 2000. Likely a pure and sturdy D-row given my car's last 4 VIN numbers are: 0220, built Aug 99.

There were so few changes for MY2000 that Porsche did not even do a Service Information Technik Book. One of the few years there was no updated features/changes book.

MY2001 was different as they made some mk2 changes/upgrades but not all.

So from what I have seen and learned: -- MY1999 and MY2000 are virtually the same -- MY2001 has many unique parts of both mk1 and mk2 cars -- MY2002 through 2005 are all pretty close to the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.