Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey everyone,

Apologies if this topic has been beaten to death, but I've been in the market for a used Boxster and found a good deal on an 06 with only 30k miles. Ofcourse, the one thing I read frequently about regarding the Boxster is the infamous IMS issue. My question is, while I understand the issue was primarily with the 2000-2004 models, how likely would I be to deal with an IMS issue with a 2006 model? I read somewhere it can depend on the build date. I have the VIN and model number, would there be a way I can tell from that? Even with only one owner and 30k, if there is any risk of catastrophic engine failure due to IMS issues, I will probably hold off.

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
I own a 2006 Boxster S with approximately 63,000 miles on it at this time, which I picked up in the spring of 2009 with 17,000 miles on it. I have done a fair bit of research on the IMS bearing matter, including reading this and other forums as well as the IMS lawsuit. To the best of my knowledge, the IMS bearing in all 2006–2008 Boxsters is the larger single-row third generation variety found in Caymans from 2006–2008. Cars with the larger single-row third generation bearing were not included in the IMS lawsuit because that bearing has a much lower failure rate compared to the smaller single-row second generation bearing used in (some) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and (some) 2005 model years Boxsters. I have read a few cases where the larger single-row bearing did indeed fail, however.

The 2005 Boxsters were the model year that had the bearing change from the second generation single row to the third generation single row sometime during their production cycle. I do not know the exact VIN at which the switch occurred, but that could be found by reading the aforesaid lawsuit. But this does not concern you seeing as you are looking at purchasing a 2006 Boxster.

I personally do not loose sleep over the IMS bearing issue. I change the oil and filter every 5000 miles and have the oil analyzed by Blackstone each time. I have had nothing but excellent reports thus far.

Hope this helps some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racergreg

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
As Professor just said, your 2006 Boxster has the revised (larger) bearing which has proven to be very reliable.
There are some educated opinions that indicate that the new bearing is a bit more prone to failure on cars that are regularly driven on the track as opposed to "normal" driving.
So unless you plan to track the car, you should have no concerns with the bearing.
I believe it is still prudent for all owners of M96 (2005 and prior) and M97 (2006-2008) engines to check oil filters for debris when the oil is changed, and to inspect the bearing when the clutch is replaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
i have a 2005 boxster, how do i know if i have the bigger bearing or smaller?
Get the VIN of your car and read the documents pertaining to the IMS lawsuit . The said documents will list the range of VIN which are part of the suit, thereby indicating the cars which have the smaller second generation single-row IMS bearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
WP0ZZZ98Z5U722544

this is my vin number, this car is purchased from Japan

I am not interested in the class lawsuit since I am not in the US, the only Vin that is a 2005 Boxsters are WP0CA AND WP0CB which boxsters purchased in US,I have a different VIN (WP0ZZZ) <-- outside US

I am only interested to know if what type of fix do i need to do, whether i have the smaller or bigger bearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Get the VIN of your car and read the documents pertaining to the IMS lawsuit . The said documents will list the range of VIN which are part of the suit, thereby indicating the cars which have the smaller second generation single-row IMS bearing.
Hello Prof.,
My 2005 Boxster S which has an in-service date of April 25, 2005, (I don't know my build date) is excluded from the "class" based on VIN number look up on the Class Action Lawsuit website. I guess that would be considered a good thing. Correction: I just found my build date is March 2005.

From what you're saying, this would mean that I must have the new third-generation heavier single roll IMS bearing.

This heavier SINGLE row bearing, that is said to be less prone to failure, and the reason my VIN exclusion from "class", was able to be upgraded to the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit kit, which is what I did, prior to the actual class-action lawsuit going public. There was some confusion out there stating that sometime in 2005, replacement required the engine to actually be dismantled and opened up to replace the bearing. My 3rd generation heavier bearing did NOT require that.

Does that mean that there would be an additional IMS Bearing change, after the heavier third-generation single row bearing that required engine dismantling, and not just a tranny drop, possibly when going to a dual row bearing later in 2005?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Why a mistake? Odds are in your favor it will never happen. Better and stronger IMS bearing, under 1% failure rate.
Drive it like you stole it and just enjoy it. Keep your maintenance up, changing oil every 5K miles or less, keeping an eye on the oil filter and use a magnetic drain plug.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Hello Prof.,
My 2005 Boxster S which has an in-service date of April 25, 2005, (I don't know my build date) is excluded from the "class" based on VIN number look up on the Class Action Lawsuit website. I guess that would be considered a good thing. Correction: I just found my build date is March 2005.

From what you're saying, this would mean that I must have the new third-generation heavier single roll IMS bearing.

This heavier SINGLE row bearing, that is said to be less prone to failure, and the reason my VIN exclusion from "class", was able to be upgraded to the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit kit, which is what I did, prior to the actual class-action lawsuit going public. There was some confusion out there stating that sometime in 2005, replacement required the engine to actually be dismantled and opened up to replace the bearing. My 3rd generation heavier bearing did NOT require that.

Does that mean that there would be an additional IMS Bearing change, after the heavier third-generation single row bearing that required engine dismantling, and not just a tranny drop, possibly when going to a dual row bearing later in 2005?
Sorry for not replying sooner—somehow I did not see your post.

To answer your question, and to the best of my knowledge, I believe there are only three intermediate shaft bearing designs.

You are at least the second person that I have read about who has a 2005 Boxster S with a VIN excluded from the IMS lawsuit, but yet has had the IMS bearing replaced with the LN Engineering IMS bearing without splitting the engine case. This suggests to me that you indeed had the smaller (second generation) single row bearing, which can be replaced without splitting the engine case and retrofitting the LN Engineering bearing. As I recall, this is also the conclusion reached in the other instance I read about and noted above—I think I read about the other instance on Rennlist. For reference, the first generation bearing was a dual row version.

Your situation and the one I mentioned above appear to be evidence that some of the VINs excluded from the IMS lawsuit are indeed cars that have the smaller second generation IMS bearing that the lawsuit was meant to cover. Said differently, the IMS lawsuit VIN breakdown may not be entirely accurate with regard to which 2005 Boxsters have the second versus third IMS bearing. I once thought the said lawsuit might be fully accurate in this regard, but your case and the other I recall reading about suggest otherwise.

Hope this helps some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boiler Inspector

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Sorry for not replying sooner—somehow I did not see your post.

To answer your question, and to the best of my knowledge, I believe there are only three intermediate shaft bearing designs.

You are at least the second person that I have read about who has a 2005 Boxster S with a VIN excluded from the IMS lawsuit, but yet has had the IMS bearing replaced with the LN Engineering IMS bearing without splitting the engine case. This suggests to me that you indeed had the smaller (second generation) single row bearing, which can be replaced without splitting the engine case and retrofitting the LN Engineering bearing. As I recall, this is also the conclusion reached in the other instance I read about and noted above—I think I read about the other instance on Rennlist. For reference, the first generation bearing was a dual row version.

Your situation and the one I mentioned above appear to be evidence that some of the VINs excluded from the IMS lawsuit are indeed cars that have the smaller second generation IMS bearing that the lawsuit was meant to cover. Said differently, the IMS lawsuit VIN breakdown may not be entirely accurate with regard to which 2005 Boxsters have the second versus third IMS bearing. I once thought the said lawsuit might be fully accurate in this regard, but your case and the other I recall reading about suggest otherwise.

Hope this helps some.
Exactly. I believe the method of selection and exclusion was based on "that's good enough for now.!" It certainly did not have any rhyme or reason for the exclusion and it's obvious that my Boxster S with the smaller bearing should have been included in the class, but was not. It appears that it is the lawyers way of covering just so many Porsches and saying that we will limit some of Porsche's liability as a negotiation to Porsche. It's a moot point, because the 25% coverage that I would've had, had I been included, expires on March 1, 2015. It makes you wonder, whose side the lawyers were on, or rather they would just simply more interested in collecting their one third fee andcould have given to craps.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top