Price of a new clutch nowadays

[the baron]

On 1/18/2021 at 3:14 AM, Tonybandit said:

@the barron sooooo what have you done? 

Just the clutch or have you got the IMS done too?

I've read everyone's comment and am very interested in your choice.

I've thought about having mine changed but also thoughts of doing it myself as I have access to the fitting tool to do it.

If I do change myself I would fit an OE bearing as IMO if it's done 86k on the old one then it will do another 86k on this one. Cheap enough then to change with every clutch. 

Just my opinion 

Please let us know what you decide to do. 

I’ve still not decided, as have been in lockdown and the cars not been used, it is going into Lee’s on the 7th April but I’m still undecided, Lee is still adamant that I should change the IMS and is suggesting the Design 911 solution at around £600.

I might investigate the original OEM duel row bearing at around £60, as others have said if it’s done 210k then should be good for another shot to the moon.

knowing me I’ll just go with Lee’s solution as I won’t get around to finding a supplier as OPC don’t supply them just the housing

[K.I.T.T.]

As mentioned previously, am of the opinion of if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Although, your higher than average miles does throw a spanner in the works.

Regardless of that, despite what anybody says, or how good they are, there is an inherent risk in removing / replacing the IMSB without splitting the crankcase. Is it possible to minimise this risk? Sure. Eliminate it? Not if you don't split the crankcase.

Regardless what you do with the IMSB, I think there are other things which are more likely to cause catastrophic engine failure at higher miles. Worn plastic VarioCam chain guides, the chains themselves, crank bearings...

[the baron]

1 hour ago, K.I.T.T. said:

As mentioned previously, am of the opinion of if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Although, your higher than average miles does throw a spanner in the works.

Regardless of that, despite what anybody says, or how good they are, there is an inherent risk in removing / replacing the IMSB without splitting the crankcase. Is it possible to minimise this risk? Sure. Eliminate it? Not if you don't split the crankcase.

Regardless what you do with the IMSB, I think there are other things which are more likely to cause catastrophic engine failure at higher miles. Worn plastic VarioCam chain guides, the chains themselves, crank bearings...

I tend to agree, and because of that thought process I am none the wiser as to which way I’m going to go

[½cwt]

@the baron just track down one of these:

Deep groove ball bearing - double rows bd20-17-a-ddua17nx01-nsk - 20x4 (123bearing.co.uk)

[Boxstercol]

I very much doubt Lee will fit any part that you have supplied yourself...

 

[½cwt]

1 hour ago, Boxstercol said:

I very much doubt Lee will fit any part that you have supplied yourself...

 

That's as may be but the part I have linked to is dimensionally identical to the dual row IMS bearing and for those that investigate small bearing there are rarely strange coincidences particularly when imperial and metric sizes mix in an unexpected solution like the dims for a Porsche IMSB...  Why would Porsche decide to use an imperial dim for a bearing unless there was one 'on the shelf' already capable of doing the job for which it was required (although given the failures arguably not although much lower on the dual row bearing).  If it was that important surely they would have commissioned an all metric bearing being a German company and it is Highly unlikely that for such a small volume an bearing manufacturer would ahve chosen to make a bearing in this mixed set of dims just to cover Porsche engines failures on the perceived better dual row bearing on maybe 250,000 units??? Not a very big market to tool up for.... 

Now if you can find a single row bearing that matches the Porsche dims pleas e let us know.  It may be Porsche down grading to a single row bearing that was or was not off the shelf is where the real Achilles Heel came into the M96 engine.

[stew72]

On 11/12/2020 at 10:47 PM, ½cwt said:

I found this thread on rennlist:

https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/1076088-dual-row-or-single-row-ims.html

whilst it refers to 996 in the subject it is still the M96 engine and I've also cross referenced to the PET to confirm the engine numbers quoted there and they agree:

Boxster: Double Row: up to 651 12851 (M96.22) up to 671 11237 (M96.21)

Single Row: from 651 12852 (M96.22) from 671 11238 (M96.21)

Not to move too far off topic, just an engine number question. My V5 States 67Y05511, its a March 2000 registered S. Is the Y a typo or does it signify something else?

I've also read that the change to single row was sometime mid 2000, so that's a lot of engines looking at the numeric sequence. My car has the electronic throttle, so isn't a right early 3.2 either.

Does anyone know?

As for the bearing, I've found a source for the OEM dual row bearing, but lad time is out into the second half of this year. I was thinking about getting one for when I need to do the clutch etc.

[½cwt]

6 minutes ago, stew72 said:

Not to move too far off topic, just an engine number question. My V5 States 67Y05511, its a March 2000 registered S. Is the Y a typo or does it signify something else?

I've also read that the change to single row was sometime mid 2000, so that's a lot of engines looking at the numeric sequence. My car has the electronic throttle, so isn't a right early 3.2 either.

Does anyone know?

As for the bearing, I've found a source for the OEM dual row bearing, but lad time is out into the second half of this year. I was thinking about getting one for when I need to do the clutch etc.

Y is 00 model year.  The 3.2 was introduced with the electronic throttle.  My car was a May 2000 registration.  The engine is a few later than yours 67Y006406 and my research which found this listing on 986Forum.com indicated this is a dual row version as the changes are in the 01 model year as you can see from the engine numbers.

Up to engine # M 651 12851 Boxster 2.7L M96.22 Double Row Bearing
Up to engine # M 671 11237 Boxster S 3.2L M96.21 Double Row Bearing
Up to engine # M 661 14164 Carrera 996 3.4L Double Row Bearing
From engine # M 651 12852 Boxster 2.7L M96.22 Single Row Bearing
From engine # M 671 11238 Boxster S 3.2L M96.21 Single Row Bearing
From engine # M 661 14165 Carrera 996 3.4L Single Row Bearing
All 2005 Boxster 987 (maybe some 2006 models) Single Row Bearing
All 2005 Carrera 997 (maybe some 2006 models) Single Row Bearing

[½cwt]

13 minutes ago, stew72 said:

 

As for the bearing, I've found a source for the OEM dual row bearing, but lad time is out into the second half of this year. I was thinking about getting one for when I need to do the clutch etc.

@the baron  ^^

[the baron]

2 hours ago, stew72 said:

Not to move too far off topic, just an engine number question. My V5 States 67Y05511, its a March 2000 registered S. Is the Y a typo or does it signify something else?

I've also read that the change to single row was sometime mid 2000, so that's a lot of engines looking at the numeric sequence. My car has the electronic throttle, so isn't a right early 3.2 either.

Does anyone know?

As for the bearing, I've found a source for the OEM dual row bearing, but lad time is out into the second half of this year. I was thinking about getting one for when I need to do the clutch etc.

Can you reveal your source😀

[K.I.T.T.]

All 2.5 engines are obviously dual row from the factory, and it's likely that a '99 2.7 /3.2 would be too. From '00 onwards, it's impossible to say without looking at the bearing carrier.

Going by the engine numbers quoted may not give an accurate answer in every circumstance.

 

17 hours ago, the baron said:

I tend to agree, and because of that thought process I am none the wiser as to which way I’m going to go

Which comes to my next point. If the car's a keeper, at that mileage rather than just replacing the IMSB, would you consider an all-in rebuild, IE crankcase split, IMSB replaced (the correct way) / upgrade to the later IMS with the larger single-row bearing, chains / tensioners / guides, crank bearings.

Bearings aside, the bottom end of the 2.5 is solid, so at most a cylinder hone and piston rings. And perhaps a top-end rebuild.

Again, IMO, I wouldn't just replace a bearing (particularly dual-row) that shows no signs of failure. If I was, at those miles, there are other things which are more likely to grenade the engine, hence the all-in approach. But appreciate, rabbit hole...

[½cwt]

40 minutes ago, K.I.T.T. said:

All 2.5 engines are obviously dual row from the factory, and it's likely that a '99 2.7 /3.2 would be too. From '00 onwards, it's impossible to say without looking at the bearing carrier.

Going by the engine numbers quoted may not give an accurate answer in every circumstance.

 

Porsche know at what engine number they changed the bearing type, it is given in the PET, see below.  Item 13 is the IMSB carrier and the detail under the part number shows the engine number breaks for both 2.7 and 3.2.  Pretty clear cut for 99.9% of cases. The information source I quoted neatly summarised the info in the PETs for more than just the 986 so I figured was possible more helpful to a wider audience. Bottom line there is a definitive engine number stated by Porsche at which the single row bearing was introduced for each engine type.

If the engine has been changed other than by Porsche then there is possible uncertainly if it is a 2001 engine but otherwise pretty clear everything in the whole model years up to and including 00 is a dual row and everything in 02 model year onwards is a single row with this switch in the '01 model year.  However you have to work by engine number not by chassis number, a later build spec could have used an earlier engine and vice-versa.

 

 

 

[K.I.T.T.]

11 minutes ago, ½cwt said:

Pretty clear cut for 99.9% of cases. 

There are a number of instances where this is not true, however, and I suspect the percentage is not as high as that. May still be in the 90s, but...

My own car is one such example. Original engine / IMSB and falls under the dual row category on paper, but is in fact single row.

As I said, if you want to be 100% sure, not almost certain, you need to pull the transmission and flywheel.

[edc]

If the engine is otherwise good why do a top end of even full engine rebuild? If it grenades itself you would have to do it or sell the car. It seems overkill to do a full rebuild unless there is a problem. 

[½cwt]

1 minute ago, K.I.T.T. said:

There are a number of instances where this is not true, however, and I suspect the percentage is not as high as that. May still be in the 90s, but...

My own car is one such example. Original engine / IMSB and falls under the dual row category on paper, but is in fact single row.

As I said, if you want to be 100% sure, not almost certain, you need to pull the transmission and flywheel.

As a matter of interest what is you engine number or, if you don't want to quote it, how close it is to the quoted change engine number? I assume in an earlier 2001 car.

I would find it unlikely Porsche switched, switch back and switched again in their production runs so would be interesting to find out if their quoted information is accurate.  So I imagine your number is very close to the switch point.  Besides were a recall required how would they, or any other manufacturer come to that, manage that if engine numbers were not in clear known blocks of numbers?

The only time I've been directly involved in production engines was when I worked on the RS Cosworth engines at Cosworth in Wellingborough.  Every significant component batch change was logged on the engine it started and finished on and the engines all came down the line with consecutive numbers, nothing out of sequence.  When they got to the Ford plant at Gent for installation into the cars on the line they may not have gone in in strict engine number sequence but would have been damned close at least in blocks of numbers.

[K.I.T.T.]

15 minutes ago, edc said:

If the engine is otherwise good why do a top end of even full engine rebuild?

I would ask the same of *just* changing the IMSB at those miles, when a number of other components are just as likely, if not more, to fail first and take the engine out in the process, resulting in...
 

16 minutes ago, edc said:

If it grenades itself you would have to do it

I'm actually advocating leaving it alone. Variocam chain guides are a well known weak point on these engines, which can break up and cause quite a bit of damage. I'd suggest that's more likely to be an issue at these miles than an original IMSB.

Same with main bearings, which aren't the most robust things on the planet. This is a 200k+ mile engine, not a 100k mile engine.

To be clear, am not suggesting impending engine doom if a rebuild isn't done - merely that the IMSB is not the be all and end all, particularly on cars that have been properly used.

[the baron]

5 hours ago, stew72 said:

Not to move too far off topic, just an engine number question. My V5 States 67Y05511, its a March 2000 registered S. Is the Y a typo or does it signify something else?

I've also read that the change to single row was sometime mid 2000, so that's a lot of engines looking at the numeric sequence. My car has the electronic throttle, so isn't a right early 3.2 either.

Does anyone know?

As for the bearing, I've found a source for the OEM dual row bearing, but lad time is out into the second half of this year. I was thinking about getting one for when I need to do the clutch etc.

Can you reveal your source😀

[the baron]

Jesus I’m now even more confused with an equal measure of terror.

I have the solution, I’m never driving the car again 😂

[edc]

If you are already doing a clutch change then there is barely any extra labour cost in doing the IMS. I think just doing the IMS as a standalone piece of work is not necessarily good value, unless you know it has an issue in which case the reverse may be true and mileage and last change dependent you may as well do the clutch. 

[pacificjuha]

1 hour ago, ½cwt said:

Porsche know at what engine number they changed the bearing type, it is given in the PET, see below.  Item 13 is the IMSB carrier and the detail under the part number shows the engine number breaks for both 2.7 and 3.2.  Pretty clear cut for 99.9% of cases. The information source I quoted neatly summarised the info in the PETs for more than just the 986 so I figured was possible more helpful to a wider audience. Bottom line there is a definitive engine number stated by Porsche at which the single row bearing was introduced for each engine type.

If the engine has been changed other than by Porsche then there is possible uncertainly if it is a 2001 engine but otherwise pretty clear everything in the whole model years up to and including 00 is a dual row and everything in 02 model year onwards is a single row with this switch in the '01 model year.  However you have to work by engine number not by chassis number, a later build spec could have used an earlier engine and vice-versa.

 

 

 

This is interesting, thank you for sharing.

Engine in my 2001 2.7 Boxster is M96/2265112007 and if I'm reading this above correcly, it would have the double row IMS...or am I lost here?

[½cwt]

22 minutes ago, pacificjuha said:

This is interesting, thank you for sharing.

Engine in my 2001 2.7 Boxster is M96/2265112007 and if I'm reading this above correctly, it would have the double row IMS...or am I lost here?

If this data provided from Porsche in the parts catalogue is correct, yours would be a dual row bearing i.e. your number 12007, last engine with dual row 12851.  However pending info from @K.I.T.T. on his engine number there could be anomalies.

[K.I.T.T.]

2 hours ago, ½cwt said:

As a matter of interest what is you engine number or, if you don't want to quote it, how close it is to the quoted change engine number? I assume in an earlier 2001 car.

I would find it unlikely Porsche switched, switch back and switched again in their production runs so would be interesting to find out if their quoted information is accurate.  So I imagine your number is very close to the switch point.  Besides were a recall required how would they, or any other manufacturer come to that, manage that if engine numbers were not in clear known blocks of numbers?

The only time I've been directly involved in production engines was when I worked on the RS Cosworth engines at Cosworth in Wellingborough.  Every significant component batch change was logged on the engine it started and finished on and the engines all came down the line with consecutive numbers, nothing out of sequence.  When they got to the Ford plant at Gent for installation into the cars on the line they may not have gone in in strict engine number sequence but would have been damned close at least in blocks of numbers.

671 07751, which is well before the cutoff below. It's an early 2001 car, originally on a "Y" reg.

I will add that I broadly agree with your comments, and it's not in my interest to debate for the sake of debate (even if that may be perceived from some of my posts...)

7 hours ago, ½cwt said:

Up to engine # M 651 12851 Boxster 2.7L M96.22 Double Row Bearing
Up to engine # M 671 11237 Boxster S 3.2L M96.21 Double Row Bearing
Up to engine # M 661 14164 Carrera 996 3.4L Double Row Bearing
From engine # M 651 12852 Boxster 2.7L M96.22 Single Row Bearing
From engine # M 671 11238 Boxster S 3.2L M96.21 Single Row Bearing
From engine # M 661 14165 Carrera 996 3.4L Single Row Bearing
All 2005 Boxster 987 (maybe some 2006 models) Single Row Bearing
All 2005 Carrera 997 (maybe some 2006 models) Single Row Bearing

 

Playing devil's advocate, however, I have never seen the bearing / carrier and am only going off the info that was provided when my clutch / DMF was replaced, and IMSB inspected (in situ). There is a possibility, the wrong information was quoted on my report? However it does mention (single row type) when typed up, and later on the service checklist, there's a handwritten note that says "late type inter brg ok", which is at least consistent. Believe me, I would be very happy if the info they gave me is wrong, and it is in fact dual row...

 

I used to have an early 2.7 ("V" reg, registered Jan '00, so likely 1999 engine). My indy was almost certain it would be a single row, but this was a double row when it was apart as per above. The engine number on that always confused me though. It was 65Y 06638. Why a "Y" (lol) instead of a "1"?

[McDonald]

48 minutes ago, K.I.T.T. said:

671 07751, which is well before the cutoff below. It's an early 2001 car, originally on a "Y" reg.

I will add that I broadly agree with your comments, and it's not in my interest to debate for the sake of debate (even if that may be perceived from some of my posts...)

 

Playing devil's advocate, however, I have never seen the bearing / carrier and am only going off the info that was provided when my clutch / DMF was replaced, and IMSB inspected (in situ). There is a possibility, the wrong information was quoted on my report? However it does mention (single row type) when typed up, and later on the service checklist, there's a handwritten note that says "late type inter brg ok", which is at least consistent. Believe me, I would be very happy if the info they gave me is wrong, and it is in fact dual row...

 

I used to have an early 2.7 ("V" reg, registered Jan '00, so likely 1999 engine). My indy was almost certain it would be a single row, but this was a double row when it was apart as per above. The engine number on that always confused me though. It was 65Y 06638. Why a "Y" (lol) instead of a "1"?

My engine number doesn't look like those listed. 62504628

No Y or I

Something else I read convinced me I was single row, so vulnerable.

Any clues?

[K.I.T.T.]

23 minutes ago, McDonald said:

My engine number doesn't look like those listed. 62504628

No Y or I

Something else I read convinced me I was single row, so vulnerable.

Any clues?

Am guessing you have a 987.

The above applies to 9x6 cars.

[myfirstboxster]

4 hours ago, edc said:

If you are already doing a clutch change then there is barely any extra labour cost in doing the IMS. I think just doing the IMS as a standalone piece of work is not necessarily good value, unless you know it has an issue in which case the reverse may be true and mileage and last change dependent you may as well do the clutch. 

^^^ this exactly , that's when I had my IMS done , turned out to be the original bearing on 107k and was in good condition ( single row )