Definitive Word on IMS
Discussion
There is nothing silly about free advertising which is half the purpose of some posts.
Cynical? If those previous comments don't serve the purpose of exploiting a general paranoia on these motors then I'm not sure what would. Sorry Baz, I appreciate your engineering knowledge but you can't expect to use words like "most...." when talking about particular engines and not receive some comment. It comes across as scaremongering.
Cynical? If those previous comments don't serve the purpose of exploiting a general paranoia on these motors then I'm not sure what would. Sorry Baz, I appreciate your engineering knowledge but you can't expect to use words like "most...." when talking about particular engines and not receive some comment. It comes across as scaremongering.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Are you being serious? There is a whole industry built up on the back of these engines, 3rd radiators, IMS solutions, low temp stats, different pistons, waterless coolent, do all cylinders not just the one that's failed etc etc. Its not just about rebuilds is it. What a great start to the New Year - thanks guys!
Yes there is a logic trap here. We generally only get business when an engine has failed - but there are plenty making a living from apparent preventative work that does not exclude the potential for other failures. In this respect advising against wasting money cannot possibly bring us more work - only hopefully the respect for our honesty and integrity - that I am glad has filtered through to the majority.
All my posts are just my opinion on the engineering technical situation. Of course when I think we offer a reliable solution (when I know some others don't) I feel it is in the public interest to mention it and of course it informs what we do - but I do not overplay it and rarely directly criticise competitors (unless asked a technical question that cannot be answered without reference to them and even then I try and skirt round names etc).
There is nothing I do to prevent any competitor doing likewise for their own products - but usually they keep away because they know what I report is accurate (when it could expose their own short comings to get into a technical argument they end up losing).
The only things I think I promote that do not result from an engine failure are the LTT (for which we did more research than anyone) and the third radiator potential problem. If we did not supply the LTT etc we would get more work rebuilding engines because more would fail and the minute margin on a thermostat (now taken up and sold by all our competitors) will never recover the cost of the work we did testing it to help owners protect their cars. Only an idiot would conclude that this was in some way drumming up business and not helping owners prevent failures and considering engine rebuilds are the largest part of our business now - to suggest otherwise lacks reasoning.
As far as doing more cylinders than failed - to think of this as scaremongering is also lacking in logical thinking. There are too many failing for it not to be a general weakness and the largest part of the cost of a rebuild is the work required stripping, cleaning and rebuilding the engine and getting the car running again. If one cylinder fails it will be because it is just the first and not the only one - so the extra cost of replacing the others at the same time makes perfect sense for little extra cost (which by the way we discount with quantities), actually costs less than some competitors Nickel plated cylinders (that are not supported in a closed deck transformation) and very little more than inferior alternatives. Furthermore the eventual value of a car with all cylinders replaced with Closed deck Nikasil alloy ones more than makes up for the small extra cost. Despite this - apart from advising the benefits and cost savings - those that have dealt with us know that we do not refuse to repair just one cylinder (if that is what the customer wants) and only advise alternatives and future proofing but carry out their wishes with the same care even when they decline our advice.
I don't see why I should not be proud of my business, the "team" and the work we have done for these engines and the very great success that has resulted and I don't see why I should not help people by sharing my technical experience and advising what I believe to be the best solutions to help them avoid expensive mistakes.
It is a difficult subject (there would not be a problem if it were not so) and solutions are not easy for anyone and especially very small businesses trying to help fix problems caused by huge manufacturers who do little to help themselves.
I would never shirk from others arguing against my position and would happily take others on if they contributed but I see nothing similar and know full well that without the type of contribution I provide more unscrupulous traders would benefit from the lack of response to poorly thought out products and solutions and therefore more owners would waste money and become more disenchanted with the products we revere and make our living from. All I do is try and explain and open my reasoning to criticism by going into technical detail where possible.
We will soon have our new Technical Manual available with more modern click links to deeper technical information, photos and video access to issues to help others understand (to replace our very ageing "buyers guide") and as with our posts on here they can be studied, argued against and provoke discussion and opinion - all of which is good for everyone. The ones to fear are those that cannot or do not offer such open explanations - because they know they have something to hide or weak foundations to work from.
There will always be some engineers and businesses that are better than others (and we are not the only good ones - we know who the others are and who are not) and they are all free to state their case and opinion on here and I do nothing to prevent that.
Just because I am almost the only one offering technical engineering responses (that inevitably sometimes mention our solutions and why) - does not mean they are just posted for business development - and while we have no plans for global domination and have been flat out for years (and expanding turnover every year)- we don't need any more promotion than the acknowledged satisfaction of the many people who have benefitted from our work and approach already provides.
However I am not against criticism nor alternative arguments if they are constructed from sound engineering principles, experience, practical proof and customer feedback but I do object to (but accept as inevitable with hopefully good grace) ignorant comments, competitors that are trying to fool customers (often innocently through not knowing enough about the subject themselves) and trolls just out to be noticed and make a reputation for themselves and trouble for others and will always stand my corner when required.
So - bring it on if you dare!
Baz
Yes there is a logic trap here. We generally only get business when an engine has failed - but there are plenty making a living from apparent preventative work that does not exclude the potential for other failures. In this respect advising against wasting money cannot possibly bring us more work - only hopefully the respect for our honesty and integrity - that I am glad has filtered through to the majority.
All my posts are just my opinion on the engineering technical situation. Of course when I think we offer a reliable solution (when I know some others don't) I feel it is in the public interest to mention it and of course it informs what we do - but I do not overplay it and rarely directly criticise competitors (unless asked a technical question that cannot be answered without reference to them and even then I try and skirt round names etc).
There is nothing I do to prevent any competitor doing likewise for their own products - but usually they keep away because they know what I report is accurate (when it could expose their own short comings to get into a technical argument they end up losing).
The only things I think I promote that do not result from an engine failure are the LTT (for which we did more research than anyone) and the third radiator potential problem. If we did not supply the LTT etc we would get more work rebuilding engines because more would fail and the minute margin on a thermostat (now taken up and sold by all our competitors) will never recover the cost of the work we did testing it to help owners protect their cars. Only an idiot would conclude that this was in some way drumming up business and not helping owners prevent failures and considering engine rebuilds are the largest part of our business now - to suggest otherwise lacks reasoning.
As far as doing more cylinders than failed - to think of this as scaremongering is also lacking in logical thinking. There are too many failing for it not to be a general weakness and the largest part of the cost of a rebuild is the work required stripping, cleaning and rebuilding the engine and getting the car running again. If one cylinder fails it will be because it is just the first and not the only one - so the extra cost of replacing the others at the same time makes perfect sense for little extra cost (which by the way we discount with quantities), actually costs less than some competitors Nickel plated cylinders (that are not supported in a closed deck transformation) and very little more than inferior alternatives. Furthermore the eventual value of a car with all cylinders replaced with Closed deck Nikasil alloy ones more than makes up for the small extra cost. Despite this - apart from advising the benefits and cost savings - those that have dealt with us know that we do not refuse to repair just one cylinder (if that is what the customer wants) and only advise alternatives and future proofing but carry out their wishes with the same care even when they decline our advice.
I don't see why I should not be proud of my business, the "team" and the work we have done for these engines and the very great success that has resulted and I don't see why I should not help people by sharing my technical experience and advising what I believe to be the best solutions to help them avoid expensive mistakes.
It is a difficult subject (there would not be a problem if it were not so) and solutions are not easy for anyone and especially very small businesses trying to help fix problems caused by huge manufacturers who do little to help themselves.
I would never shirk from others arguing against my position and would happily take others on if they contributed but I see nothing similar and know full well that without the type of contribution I provide more unscrupulous traders would benefit from the lack of response to poorly thought out products and solutions and therefore more owners would waste money and become more disenchanted with the products we revere and make our living from. All I do is try and explain and open my reasoning to criticism by going into technical detail where possible.
We will soon have our new Technical Manual available with more modern click links to deeper technical information, photos and video access to issues to help others understand (to replace our very ageing "buyers guide") and as with our posts on here they can be studied, argued against and provoke discussion and opinion - all of which is good for everyone. The ones to fear are those that cannot or do not offer such open explanations - because they know they have something to hide or weak foundations to work from.
There will always be some engineers and businesses that are better than others (and we are not the only good ones - we know who the others are and who are not) and they are all free to state their case and opinion on here and I do nothing to prevent that.
Just because I am almost the only one offering technical engineering responses (that inevitably sometimes mention our solutions and why) - does not mean they are just posted for business development - and while we have no plans for global domination and have been flat out for years (and expanding turnover every year)- we don't need any more promotion than the acknowledged satisfaction of the many people who have benefitted from our work and approach already provides.
However I am not against criticism nor alternative arguments if they are constructed from sound engineering principles, experience, practical proof and customer feedback but I do object to (but accept as inevitable with hopefully good grace) ignorant comments, competitors that are trying to fool customers (often innocently through not knowing enough about the subject themselves) and trolls just out to be noticed and make a reputation for themselves and trouble for others and will always stand my corner when required.
So - bring it on if you dare!
Baz
When I bought my 986 I contacted the local OPC as well as a local Indie and two further Indies including Hartech. The advice I received from each was I felt practical and pragmatic, I recall Hartech being particularly helpful and down to earth, in no way did any of them attempt to drum up business for the sake of it and in fact the general advice was to just drive and enjoy the car and change the IMS if and when the RMS needed doing (its a TIP so no clutch)
Everything I have read on here I take as Baz at Hartech being prepared to spend time sharing their knowledge and no more. Part of Baz comments actually highlights the risk of changing a good IMS bearing, how can that be drumming up business?
Baz, thanks for your input, appreciated.
Everything I have read on here I take as Baz at Hartech being prepared to spend time sharing their knowledge and no more. Part of Baz comments actually highlights the risk of changing a good IMS bearing, how can that be drumming up business?
Baz, thanks for your input, appreciated.
A.G. I fully agree with you. With that paragraph the final nail has firmly been hammered into the coffin.
It's odd because Baz reiterates how the vast majority of these cars won't fail, but then with that one paragraph dooms them all to impending death. How is that paragraph supposed to be understood other than with that conclusion?
It's odd because Baz reiterates how the vast majority of these cars won't fail, but then with that one paragraph dooms them all to impending death. How is that paragraph supposed to be understood other than with that conclusion?
So this is all very doom and gloom so i will try and give another perspective......
So just to be clear i bought a 997.1 a year ago, car was perfect, 60k, and cost £20k. I was very aware of all the issues and planned to get a bottom of the scale air-cooled 911, but i simply loved the 997 and especially the worst of all the C2s so got it.
I don't think anybody could deny the issues with the engine, i think for sure they suffer higher than average failures, but i think what people miss is looking at the purchase as an overall purchase. Lets say buyers are in two categories, the 'have it for a year buyer' and the 'keep it for life buyer'. granted if you are the former you may be unlucky, but even then the odds are smallish as mentioned above so probably you will be okay....if you are the later then perhaps you will get a 10k bill, but this is my challenge to you, what 911 can you buy that, with long term ownership might not attract a 10k bill. So called bullet proof 993's can munch through a 10k bill on a suspension refresh, likewise 3.2 and 964 probably more for an engine rebuild.
I am not defending the engine issues, had a major service last week and the indy said they think around 1 in 20 of these (997.1) engines give up but with rebuilds becoming ever cheaper and how nice these cars are as basic, normal, non turbo 911's @ 20k they seem like a reasonable prospect......
As for the ims issue, i think it is second order compared to bore score but the only thing people agree on is that they don't agree, I personnally wouldnt touch it especially if it has over 50k miles unless i had reason to, taking the seal off, replacing etc all disturbs the engine and chains etc and at best these engines are pretty finely balanced.....
It seems that every version of the 911 has had its little floors and issues, its nice to know that even in the modern times of reliable, appliance type cars porsche still manage to make the 911 special, although maybe now not for all good reasons, but what the hell would we talk about if they were perfect......
So just to be clear i bought a 997.1 a year ago, car was perfect, 60k, and cost £20k. I was very aware of all the issues and planned to get a bottom of the scale air-cooled 911, but i simply loved the 997 and especially the worst of all the C2s so got it.
I don't think anybody could deny the issues with the engine, i think for sure they suffer higher than average failures, but i think what people miss is looking at the purchase as an overall purchase. Lets say buyers are in two categories, the 'have it for a year buyer' and the 'keep it for life buyer'. granted if you are the former you may be unlucky, but even then the odds are smallish as mentioned above so probably you will be okay....if you are the later then perhaps you will get a 10k bill, but this is my challenge to you, what 911 can you buy that, with long term ownership might not attract a 10k bill. So called bullet proof 993's can munch through a 10k bill on a suspension refresh, likewise 3.2 and 964 probably more for an engine rebuild.
I am not defending the engine issues, had a major service last week and the indy said they think around 1 in 20 of these (997.1) engines give up but with rebuilds becoming ever cheaper and how nice these cars are as basic, normal, non turbo 911's @ 20k they seem like a reasonable prospect......
As for the ims issue, i think it is second order compared to bore score but the only thing people agree on is that they don't agree, I personnally wouldnt touch it especially if it has over 50k miles unless i had reason to, taking the seal off, replacing etc all disturbs the engine and chains etc and at best these engines are pretty finely balanced.....
It seems that every version of the 911 has had its little floors and issues, its nice to know that even in the modern times of reliable, appliance type cars porsche still manage to make the 911 special, although maybe now not for all good reasons, but what the hell would we talk about if they were perfect......
I thought Baz's comments on ims options were credible and informative. One of the best posts I've read on the subject and one of the best from Hartech.
It's ironic that nikasil is perceived as the preferred cylinder liner when that was the very technique that gave BMW so much trouble in the 90s, but I digress. Fingers crossed my 2001 3.4 996 survives.
Anyway back to ims, it seems there is no definitive, but my risk appetite has increased and I more strongly favour option 1. (or has my perception of risk decreased?)
It's ironic that nikasil is perceived as the preferred cylinder liner when that was the very technique that gave BMW so much trouble in the 90s, but I digress. Fingers crossed my 2001 3.4 996 survives.
Anyway back to ims, it seems there is no definitive, but my risk appetite has increased and I more strongly favour option 1. (or has my perception of risk decreased?)
griffter said:
I thought Baz's comments on ims options were credible and informative. One of the best posts I've read on the subject and one of the best from Hartech.
It's ironic that nikasil is perceived as the preferred cylinder liner when that was the very technique that gave BMW so much trouble in the 90s, but I digress. Fingers crossed my 2001 3.4 996 survives.
Anyway back to ims, it seems there is no definitive, but my risk appetite has increased and I more strongly favour option 1. (or has my perception of risk decreased?)
well perhaps you now figure in amongst all the other issues, maybe one should focus on this one, bit like my doggy knee, was an issue in my 30's, now in my 40's considering my back, doggy shoulder, etc it doesn't seem that bad.....It's ironic that nikasil is perceived as the preferred cylinder liner when that was the very technique that gave BMW so much trouble in the 90s, but I digress. Fingers crossed my 2001 3.4 996 survives.
Anyway back to ims, it seems there is no definitive, but my risk appetite has increased and I more strongly favour option 1. (or has my perception of risk decreased?)
Thanks again guys for your general support.
Can I try and explain what some perceive as an anomaly?
By 50 or 60K most cars will still be running perfectly OK but if for any reason the engine was stripped, most would reveal shells sometimes worn down to the base metal, if the cylinder bores were measured they would be oval and if the plastic coated pistons were inspected they would have some coating loss.
This does not mean they have failed yet - only that the wear rates are relatively high and the mileage when a failure does occur and a rebuild may be necessary is already closing in.
Some will have more shell wear than others, some will have more bore ovality than others and some will have more piston coating loss than others and some random quality issues over the Lokasil cylinder bore surface will throw in a random failure that defies statistics for some - then who ever owns them next and however they are looked after and driven will influence how long it is until a failure eventually occurs.
At a similar mileage many 3.2 Carrera's will have worn out piston rings - but still run with low bottom end torque, their cranks will probably be OK and there will be little or no cylinder ovality - and this is a difference. Early 964's may have cylinder head sealing problems, 993's may start leaking from the plastic cam covers, 944 S2's and 968's will have worn camshaft sprockets and stretched chains etc. They will all still be running but the weak spots could be picked up by anyone stripping them to inspect them.
Now when we add into the question of what to do about the IMS problem - the simple fact that for those with a small bearing the best answer is to replace it during an engine rebuild and that many apparent alternative solutions are not as good as the sellers make out and that changing in situ can create a problem - the time left before it may be necessary to strip and rebuild the engine for some other reason becomes something to factor in to the "risk statistics".
Just because so many are still running OK and some others have covered huge mileages does not mean that most will not already have some wear that indicates that they are unlikely to last as long as previous Porsche engines and therefore taking the risk to wait and fit the larger bearing IMS during a rebuild should at least be considered.
Can I just promote the fact (not mentioned on the previous page) that we do offer an alternative under our Maintenance Plan that for low monthly payments covers the labour cost (which is the highest amount) of an engine rebuild and then offer arguably the best solutions during a rebuild available. Please look into that before giving up on ownership.
If what I have written puts some off ownership - since it is the reality of the situation - it is probably best that owners not valuing Porsche ownership that highly - do avoid the risk while those that do know what to expect.
Baz
Can I try and explain what some perceive as an anomaly?
By 50 or 60K most cars will still be running perfectly OK but if for any reason the engine was stripped, most would reveal shells sometimes worn down to the base metal, if the cylinder bores were measured they would be oval and if the plastic coated pistons were inspected they would have some coating loss.
This does not mean they have failed yet - only that the wear rates are relatively high and the mileage when a failure does occur and a rebuild may be necessary is already closing in.
Some will have more shell wear than others, some will have more bore ovality than others and some will have more piston coating loss than others and some random quality issues over the Lokasil cylinder bore surface will throw in a random failure that defies statistics for some - then who ever owns them next and however they are looked after and driven will influence how long it is until a failure eventually occurs.
At a similar mileage many 3.2 Carrera's will have worn out piston rings - but still run with low bottom end torque, their cranks will probably be OK and there will be little or no cylinder ovality - and this is a difference. Early 964's may have cylinder head sealing problems, 993's may start leaking from the plastic cam covers, 944 S2's and 968's will have worn camshaft sprockets and stretched chains etc. They will all still be running but the weak spots could be picked up by anyone stripping them to inspect them.
Now when we add into the question of what to do about the IMS problem - the simple fact that for those with a small bearing the best answer is to replace it during an engine rebuild and that many apparent alternative solutions are not as good as the sellers make out and that changing in situ can create a problem - the time left before it may be necessary to strip and rebuild the engine for some other reason becomes something to factor in to the "risk statistics".
Just because so many are still running OK and some others have covered huge mileages does not mean that most will not already have some wear that indicates that they are unlikely to last as long as previous Porsche engines and therefore taking the risk to wait and fit the larger bearing IMS during a rebuild should at least be considered.
Can I just promote the fact (not mentioned on the previous page) that we do offer an alternative under our Maintenance Plan that for low monthly payments covers the labour cost (which is the highest amount) of an engine rebuild and then offer arguably the best solutions during a rebuild available. Please look into that before giving up on ownership.
If what I have written puts some off ownership - since it is the reality of the situation - it is probably best that owners not valuing Porsche ownership that highly - do avoid the risk while those that do know what to expect.
Baz
So you are telling me, Baz, if I buy a Boxster or Cayman S privately, and I come to you and pay you £133 a month, that pays for anything that breaks?
(aside from parts)
So for example a clutch, I just pay £400 for the clutch kit and not the 4 or 5 hours labour?
So say I suffer from cylinder scoring on 1 cylinder, do you re-bore all the cylinders? For free? Or do I need to pay for the liners etc.
(aside from parts)
So for example a clutch, I just pay £400 for the clutch kit and not the 4 or 5 hours labour?
So say I suffer from cylinder scoring on 1 cylinder, do you re-bore all the cylinders? For free? Or do I need to pay for the liners etc.
Off topic 
but this makes me smile
Couldn't resist
but this makes me smilehartech said:
At a similar mileage many 3.2 Carrera's will have worn out piston rings - but still run with low bottom end torque, their cranks will probably be OK and there will be little or no cylinder ovality - and this is a difference. Early 964's may have cylinder head sealing problems, 993's may start leaking from the plastic cam covers, 944 S2's and 968's will have worn camshaft sprockets and stretched chains etc. They will all still be running but the weak spots could be picked up by anyone stripping them to inspect them.
Baz
...and a 'maybe' oil leak from externally-affixed rubber gaskets is all that is mentioned on the 993 Baz
Couldn't resist
I am not at work today so cannot confirm the figures (I will check on Monday) - but basically that is right - if you have clutch, brakes, coolant pump failures you pay for the parts and we pay for the labour.
For engines the highest cost is the labour - so it represents a good saving.
If you have one cylinder scored we cover the labour cost of engine removal, stripping and rebuilding, getting running again etc - you pay for supplying and fitting the one cylinder at our usual cost structure (£600 for one discounted up to £2,500 for all 6), gaskets, seals, oil etc and if appropriate a new IMS with larger bearing (say). We also can supply LTT, our own large bearing remanufactured IMS, re-coated pistons etc at parts cost only.
This represents a bargain because we will also fit new shells (etc) at just the parts cost and generally supply all the machining upgrades to coolant channels etc within the liner price.
It means for say and IMS failure or one scored or cracked cylinder you can get a complete full Hartech engine rebuild with the very best specification and all new internals for a hugely discounted price - plus - during your ownership - any other normal wear and tear items replaced at parts costs only (there are some sensible and reasonable exceptions).
If the car is a keeper - then over several years it will need brakes, clutch (if manual), coolant pump etc so added into the free of labour engine rebuild represents a huge saving and provides a low cost repair of the highest quality if the statistics pick your car out for pain.
There are no age or mileage or cost limits and you do not have to pay annually in advance - just monthly and can stop whenever you want to.
Please refer to our web site for more details www.hartech.org or phone Grant (ext 1) or Tobias (ext 2) on 01204 302809 for specific details.
You do need a thorough service check to go on the scheme (unless you bought the car from us when it is not necessary) but this includes 4 wheel alignment, bore scoring camera work and a complete check over and engineers report and is a good thing with older cars anyway especially for new owners.
Distances to Bolton can seem a handicap but we are so thorough most owners only come up once a year (oh and we include your annual MOT FOC at the same time).
Baz
For engines the highest cost is the labour - so it represents a good saving.
If you have one cylinder scored we cover the labour cost of engine removal, stripping and rebuilding, getting running again etc - you pay for supplying and fitting the one cylinder at our usual cost structure (£600 for one discounted up to £2,500 for all 6), gaskets, seals, oil etc and if appropriate a new IMS with larger bearing (say). We also can supply LTT, our own large bearing remanufactured IMS, re-coated pistons etc at parts cost only.
This represents a bargain because we will also fit new shells (etc) at just the parts cost and generally supply all the machining upgrades to coolant channels etc within the liner price.
It means for say and IMS failure or one scored or cracked cylinder you can get a complete full Hartech engine rebuild with the very best specification and all new internals for a hugely discounted price - plus - during your ownership - any other normal wear and tear items replaced at parts costs only (there are some sensible and reasonable exceptions).
If the car is a keeper - then over several years it will need brakes, clutch (if manual), coolant pump etc so added into the free of labour engine rebuild represents a huge saving and provides a low cost repair of the highest quality if the statistics pick your car out for pain.
There are no age or mileage or cost limits and you do not have to pay annually in advance - just monthly and can stop whenever you want to.
Please refer to our web site for more details www.hartech.org or phone Grant (ext 1) or Tobias (ext 2) on 01204 302809 for specific details.
You do need a thorough service check to go on the scheme (unless you bought the car from us when it is not necessary) but this includes 4 wheel alignment, bore scoring camera work and a complete check over and engineers report and is a good thing with older cars anyway especially for new owners.
Distances to Bolton can seem a handicap but we are so thorough most owners only come up once a year (oh and we include your annual MOT FOC at the same time).
Baz
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff