Price of a new clutch nowadays

[K.I.T.T.]

1 hour ago, Clivescoobydo said:

Still don't think the single row was underspecified as all would fail within the same window.  There would be a pattern and as far as I know there isn't.

A reported failure rate of 1% with dual row vs 8% with (smaller M96) single row.

"Starting in model year 2000, Porsche began phasing out the dual row bearing and went to a smaller single row, with significantly less load capacity" - LN Engineering

https://www.oregonpca.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ORPCA-IMS.pdf

Was trying to find another source I can share (rather than quoting verbatim) that included the figures / or difference in load capacity.

Now, does this mean the single row bearing is underspecified? In isolation, perhaps not, but combined with other catalysts, eg. oil changes / maintenance, as mentioned previously, they're more susceptible to failure.

That, and I've not heard of a single failure of the larger 2006+ spec IMS/B. So, yes, I still stand by my statement that they were underspecified.

[pacificjuha]

6 hours ago, K.I.T.T. said:

AFAIK, you can't 'just' get an OE replacement as Porsche won't supply the bearing. The original dual row bearings were made by NSK, which has been mentioned (and is clear from @pacificjuha's post), but these are either NLA, or difficult to find, as alluded to, which makes an OEM solution tricky also. Hence, why most (if not all) the solutions out there are aftermarket, with varying degrees of success.

Would you mind sharing your engine number?

The engine number I have is M96/2265112007

[½cwt]

5 hours ago, map said:

I have no idea what my engine number is but I do know it has the biggester IMS/Bearing assembly that Stuttgart developed which would fit M96 engines.

HTH

It will be on your V5, saves you scrabbling under the car to clean the block so you can read it!

[½cwt]

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

A reported failure rate of 1% with dual row vs 8% with (smaller M96) single row.

"Starting in model year 2000, Porsche began phasing out the dual row bearing and went to a smaller single row, with significantly less load capacity" - LN Engineering

https://www.oregonpca.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ORPCA-IMS.pdf

Was trying to find another source I can share (rather than quoting verbatim) that included the figures / or difference in load capacity.

Now, does this mean the single row bearing is underspecified? In isolation, perhaps not, but combined with other catalysts, eg. oil changes / maintenance, as mentioned previously, they're more susceptible to failure.

That, and I've not heard of a single failure of the larger 2006+ spec IMS/B. So, yes, I still stand by my statement that they were underspecified.

I smell a bean counter at work!  Try to engineer out cost and ended up cutting the performance margin too fine methinks. 

The theory in Pedro's YT video may e a distraction but is interesting though about parking the car either nose up or nose down (can't remember which) causing the seals to sit in oil when parked long term and if older more acidic oil (engine oil get more acidic with age and use) causing failure through that route.

I respect LN's view but the engine numbers quoted by Porsche clearly make it a part way through '01 model year onward matter.

[Clivescoobydo]

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

 

Now, does this mean the single row bearing is underspecified? In isolation, perhaps not, but combined with other catalysts, eg. oil changes / maintenance, as mentioned previously, they're more susceptible to failure.

That, and I've not heard of a single failure of the larger 2006+ spec IMS/B. So, yes, I still stand by my statement that they were underspecified.

Be interesting to know what the highest mileage 986 is with a single row bearing?

[K.I.T.T.]

5 minutes ago, ½cwt said:

I smell a bean counter at work!  Try to engineer out cost and ended up cutting the performance margin too fine methinks. 

Indeed.

 

5 minutes ago, ½cwt said:

The theory in Pedro's YT video may e a distraction but is interesting though about parking the car either nose up or nose down (can't remember which) causing the seals to sit in oil when parked long term and if older more acidic oil (engine oil get more acidic with age and use) causing failure through that route.

Have heard this via a different source, and believe it's nose down. Either way, regular oil changes irrespective of miles is a good thing.

 

7 minutes ago, Clivescoobydo said:

Be interesting to know what the highest mileage 986 is with a single row bearing?

It would, as the maintenance regime.

Am aware of a very early (54 plate) 987 2.7 (using the M96 engine, with the smaller single row bearing, as per 986) with circa 180k miles that was for sale. No mention of the IMSB being replaced, which suggests it perhaps wasn't?

[map]

14 minutes ago, ½cwt said:

It will be on your V5, saves you scrabbling under the car to clean the block so you can read it!

Thank you - the engine in the car isn't the one that was fitted at the factory.

In truth it's had more engines than clutches in the time I've had it so I genuinely don't know what the engine number is now.  Interestingly the IMSBs have always been fine.......

The current engine was from my stash and has been massaged a bit. Am conscious I ought to update the V5.

This motor is fitted with the last and largest of the IMS designs - the only way to fit it is with the crank cases split open.  As the block was apart for machining/new crank/bonkers conrods and pistons the cost of a new, final design IMS and Housing was actually lower than the prices being asked for the aftermarket systems.

I was being a bit of a twit with this post 👇 - I blame lockdown 🤪

6 hours ago, map said:

I have no idea what my engine number is but I do know it has the biggester IMS/Bearing assembly that Stuttgart developed which would fit M96 engines.

Apologies.

[K.I.T.T.]

2 minutes ago, map said:

I was being a bit of a twit with this post

Bullocks.

[Clivescoobydo]

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

 

Am aware of a very early (54 plate) 987 2.7 (using the M96 engine, with the smaller single row bearing, as per 986) with circa 180k miles that was for sale. No mention of the IMSB being replaced, which suggests it perhaps wasn't?

That'll do for me. In my first year of ownership I used think about it, now after 4 years I don't. My theory is if I had leased a similar category car I would spent twice as much as I paid for the car over the same period. So if it goes pop it doesn't owe me anything plus I've noticed these things are worth reasonable money even as a non runner.

[Steve Laming]

This thread has proved very useful. My car is registered in March 2001, so I believed it was a 2001 MY car and so had the single row IMS bearing.

Checking the information on the chart against my V5, my engine is of the dual row variant. Engine number 651 05682. (986 2.7 2001).

Now I need a clutch for this car (94K miles) and had planned to get the IMS bearing changed at the same time. Half of me thinks "It will be ok with the old one", the other half thinks "Well, the clutch is being replaced, so for a couple of hours extra labour and the cost of the part, I might as well get it done".

I do plan on keeping this car for quite a long time. I've had it 4 years (April) now and have spent over the purchase cost on repairs and maintenance. I do use it on track quite a bit, so like to keep on top of things and the car gets more oil changes because of the track work.

So, I think I will go with the long term view of getting it done. Whilst I appreciate other items may have also worn inside the engine (cam guides etc) it's one less thing to worry about. Plus. if I need to sell it, then the new bearing will please some potential buyers.

Just need eporsch to get their new supply of bearings in and then get it done. (or not) !?

[the baron]

1 hour ago, Steve Laming said:

This thread has proved very useful. My car is registered in March 2001, so I believed it was a 2001 MY car and so had the single row IMS bearing.

Checking the information on the chart against my V5, my engine is of the dual row variant. Engine number 651 05682. (986 2.7 2001).

Now I need a clutch for this car (94K miles) and had planned to get the IMS bearing changed at the same time. Half of me thinks "It will be ok with the old one", the other half thinks "Well, the clutch is being replaced, so for a couple of hours extra labour and the cost of the part, I might as well get it done".

I do plan on keeping this car for quite a long time. I've had it 4 years (April) now and have spent over the purchase cost on repairs and maintenance. I do use it on track quite a bit, so like to keep on top of things and the car gets more oil changes because of the track work.

So, I think I will go with the long term view of getting it done. Whilst I appreciate other items may have also worn inside the engine (cam guides etc) it's one less thing to worry about. Plus. if I need to sell it, then the new bearing will please some potential buyers.

Just need eporsch to get their new supply of bearings in and then get it done. (or not) !?

So is eporach now supplying the duel row  OE bearing?

[Steve Laming]

1 hour ago, the baron said:

So is eporach now supplying the duel row  OE bearing?

They are having them made to their spec. They did offer them in the past, but I believe there was a copyright issue with part of the design of the holding bracket, so that had to be redesigned. New stock due early May I think.

They have other items made for them as well. i got my suspension tuning forks & coffin arms from them. 

[edc]

They do plenums and wheel bolts to their spec design too. I've spent some time with Dean talking about new product ideas or rather remaking existing products and whether the production cost Vs the sale cost stacks up. He's done quite well to establish some solid manufacturing contacts. 

[½cwt]

4 hours ago, Steve Laming said:

This thread has proved very useful. My car is registered in March 2001, so I believed it was a 2001 MY car and so had the single row IMS bearing.

Checking the information on the chart against my V5, my engine is of the dual row variant. Engine number 651 05682. (986 2.7 2001).

 

Yes, an '01 car and yes, a dual row bearing based on the Porsche engine number data.  When the clutch is out get the rear main seal (RMS) changed too as these can develop a weep and you don't want to be taking the 'box off again if it does.

[tonyplymouth]

Repeat of an earlier post by me (Nov 2020).

NSK BD20-17-A-DDUA17NX01 20x47x23.812mm dual-row angular contact ball bearings with snap ring groove, as fitted by Porsche in the IMS of early Boxsters, are not available from Porsche and are very difficult to locate from usual bearing suppliers, at least here in the UK.  However they are available from French company 123bearing.co.uk for £60 delivered to UK.

Compared to the many aftermarket IMS bearing fixes, this offers the option of simply replacing an old 2-row bearing with a new, identical manufacturer and spec, 2-row bearing.  I say "simply" but of course there is a lot to be considered and researched before an IMS bearing should be changed.

It is interesting to note that, strangely, this bearing is bit of a "cross-breed" as its inner and outer diameters are metric whereas its width, 23.812mm, is imperial at 15/16 inch!

This note is purely for information only and shouldn't be taken as a recommendation. 

[the baron]

I think the problem is removing the duel row bearing with the snap ring, this can cause damage and then how do you get the new snap ring back in place with damaging the housing.