Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Long time member on other subforums, new here... I'm looking at a high mileage (100K+) 2005 987 base.
BTDT, I owned the same car in 05 actually, and then decided I wanted a Cayman S instead, and then another car... Long story short, we could use a "convertible beater" (I know, sorry) and those base 987s are now cheap, so I am once again looking at the base manual car (despite preferring an S). I want the 987 because I can no longer stand the 986 interior style.

My memory is foggy, am I right in focusing on a 2005 model, because on those you CAN upgrade the IMS bearing on site ? that is vs. a 2006/07 where doing so would require splitting the case? (not feasible $$$). I wanna make sure I remember right, I may not: If I'm right was it all 05s or a mid-year change? I want to be sure when I buy that puppy that I can beef it up...

Bonus Q, is there a solution these days for the soft rubber coating peeling off the AC controls or radio knobs ?

Thanks !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
I believe you are correct, the 2005 Boxster has an M96 engine. With this engine you can replace the IMS bearing without opening the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks ! I wanna say that there's a cutoff mid 05 though, and no surefire way tell which is which...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
What you're thinking of was actually the swap from double row back to a better single row IMS bearing (both serviceable) on 987 Boxster M96 engines. This happened in the '06 model year run, and you couldn't be sure what you had until you went in there. However, both were serviceable, it wasn't until the 07/08 model Boxsters (and all 05-08 Caymans) that it went 'internal' with the M97 engine. And then it was gone on the 09+ 9A1 engines.

*Disclaimer: based on my internet reading only... not an actual Porsche engineer, just play one on weekends in my workshop. Since this is the internet, if I have misstated something I'm sure someone will chime in!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
What you're thinking of was actually the swap from double row back to a better single row IMS bearing (both serviceable) on 987 Boxster M96 engines. This happened in the '06 model year run, and you couldn't be sure what you had until you went in there. However, both were serviceable, it wasn't until the 07/08 model Boxsters (and all 05-08 Caymans) that it went 'internal' with the M97 engine. And then it was gone on the 09+ 9A1 engines.

*Disclaimer: based on my internet reading only... not an actual Porsche engineer, just play one on weekends in my workshop. Since this is the internet, if I have misstated something I'm sure someone will chime in!

Double, single, serviceable... I'm confused by your dates though. I was told and read that some early 05s are serviceable, late 05 not so much. You have that cutoff date in 06? That goes against what I have seen (it would be good news but...) What I was looking for was *certainty* that I could replace the IMS bearing. I'd have bought an early 987, done the bearing, clutch, water pump, AOS and been on my merry way for little money in the car itself. But as you can't know for sure what you get, even in an 05 (apparently), I'm going to shelve that idea unless I find a car FS with a mention that the bearing's been done. It happens, rarely (people who do it have little incentive to sell anymore)... I understand 06+ are less likely to fail but I have personal experience to the contrary (not me but not internet hearsay either, a close friend whom I know drove and took care of his car the right way) - I was OK with the odds when I had my 05 987 and 06 987CS, but this time I'm not gambling $15K for a motor on a $15K used toy car !

I find it crazy how few 09+ are for sale too ! Did porsche only make/sell like 4 of them or something ? Those are now 6-7 yeas old, I was looking for a used one to avoid the issue altogether, found like 2 in the whole state of california !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
After considerable research over the course of several years, including information gathered from reputable Porsche technicians and the IMS settlement documents, here is what I uncovered:

(1) For 987 Boxsters, MY 2005 is the year in which the change was made from the smaller to the larger single row IMS bearing. Hence some MY 2005 Boxsters have the smaller bearing while others have the larger bearing. The larger bearing, at this time, requires splitting the case for its removal, the smaller bearing does not.

(2) According to the IMS lawsuit document, which I have attached, there is a specific range of VINs identifying the Boxsters that have the smaller, more failure prone, IMS bearing. This list can be found in the attached document by scrolling down past the first section—past page 24. On page 2 of the second section, the range of VINs included in the lawsuit is listed. That is, the given range of VINs is ostensibly those 2005 Boxsters that have the smaller IMS bearing. This list, however, is not fully accurate—see the following thread for the empirical evidence supporting my assertion http://www.planet-9.com/987-cayman-...-boxster-potential-ims-issues.html#post919453. My research has uncovered at least two cases in which a 2005 Boxster has a VIN outside the listed range in the lawsuit, implying it has the larger single row IMS bearing, but it turned out that they have the smaller IMS bearing supposedly covered by the law suit.

(3) All Boxsters from MY 2006–08 have the larger, less failure prone, IMS bearing.

Hope this helps with your decision.

On the peeling rubber coating, I used my warranty to have the AC section replaced—the new controls no longer have the soft-touch coating. For the radio knobs, I pulled them off and removed the rubber coating with Goo-Gone. They now perfectly match the updated AC controls.
 

Attachments

·
Boxster Enthusiast
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
With this engine you can replace the IMS bearing without opening the engine.
not true. The engine has to be disassembled to replace the IMS.

The base has a 2.5L? engine, I don't think the IMS issue is with this engine, just the 3.2L
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
@ Deschodt,
Below are several threads which describe production numbers for Cayman. Sorry, but a quick search for the Boxter did not turn out anything. (Read just the last page(s), if time is tight)
Theorizing that the Boxter production numbers follow relatively close the ones for the Cayman, it becomes obvious that the 987.2 generation ( MO 2009+ ) is not large at all.
The main reason for this is that with calendar 2008/2009, the economic downturn was in full swing.

http://www.planet-9.com/987-cayman-boxster-chat/18190-cayman-production-numbers.html
http://www.planet-9.com/987-cayman-boxster-chat/82659-987-2-cs-rare.html

Good luck with the search!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
(2) According to the IMS lawsuit document, which I have attached, there is a specific range of VINs identifying the Boxsters that have the smaller, more failure prone, IMS bearing. This list, however, is not fully accurate—see the following thread for the empirical evidence supporting my assertion. My research has uncovered at least two cases in which a 2005 Boxster has a VIN outside the listed range in the lawsuit, implying it has the larger single row IMS bearing, but it turned out that they have the smaller IMS bearing supposedly covered by the law suit.
Thanks for posting it. I've been clicking on a lot of your threads that list a website for this document, but the site is gone ! Now I have it, thank you !

So if I read this right, the errors are in terms of cars that SHOULD be included in the suit but mistakenly are not and have the old bearing. This *could* work for me, in that if a car IS listed in the suit, then "for sure" (?) it is a smaller bearing car and I can upgrade it. Correct ?

That seems to be the case, although reading VIN is no picnic. As I recall U is finland built and S stuttgart, the car I am looking at seems to fall in the range of the recall. Can't believe the irony that that's an actual criteria for purchase ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Thanks for posting it. I've been clicking on a lot of your threads that list a website for this document, but the site is gone ! Now I have it, thank you !

So if I read this right, the errors are in terms of cars that SHOULD be included in the suit but mistakenly are not and have the old bearing. This *could* work for me, in that if a car IS listed in the suit, then "for sure" (?) it is a smaller bearing car and I can upgrade it. Correct ?

That seems to be the case, although reading VIN is no picnic. As I recall U is finland built and S stuttgart, the car I am looking at seems to fall in the range of the recall. Can't believe the irony that that's an actual criteria for purchase ;-)
You are welcome. As I was composing my preceding post, I too noticed that the link to the IMS settlement website in my other posts led to a blank page. I thought attaching the pdf file might help you and others. Maybe I should just upload it to Planet-9.

I concur with your reading, as that is what the evidence suggests.

And I agree re your criteria—its the definition of ironic. Best of luck in purchasing the car.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top