Porsche 911UK Forum

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

***Non-Turbo 996 owners - Please read - IMS DATA REQUIRED***

Alex

Well-known member
Joined
6 Mar 2014
Messages
22,036
I was reading some more IMS posts last night and it got me thinking -

Why don't we have current data that statistically displays FACT?

Lets start a fresh and forget all previous stories about the issue as all it seems to do is create myth and argument.

May I suggest we do some Data collection, which I will then put into a report that can be viewed on here by anybody wanting to know the truth. I can also keep it updated and add more data as and when required.

For data collection, I'm thinking something really simple like:

date inputted: 04/03/15
member: alex yates
model: 9961 C4
engine size: 3.4
purchase date: 03/03/14
date registered: 27/10/00
mileage (at purchase): 86100
mileage (now): 94553
bearing (orig./replacement): Original
failure data (if applicable):
comment:

Please only post data requested. Only post if you are the current owner of the car.

By doing this, it would not only prove/disprove everybody's beliefs (or go some way to help in that decision making process) but also give new buyers a better idea of what they potentially could be buying into.

And if statistically we prove it's not the horror story people make out, it can only add value to the 996 - thus inflate prices.

Who thinks this is a good idea?
If I start getting some positive comments as a goer, I'll make a start.

Lets put this baby to bed!


Anybody wanting to join in, either post their data in here (in a post below) or private message me if you prefer privacy.

No user names will be used in any reporting back I do





UPDATE: 3.5 year Review below. I'll modify this whenever I have anything to report (as well as posting in this post to keep a chronological review process:http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=102070&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=55).

alex yates said:
3.5 YEAR REVIEW

Data collected so far for 132 cars (1st December 2018).

Still no 996 failures since July 2014 apart from 1 member with a 3.6 who won't enter his data so I'm unable to include it in the results.

Here's a couple of bar charts showing which engines and models have sustained a failure:

Total number of failures - 4.5% (Not including the LN as a original failure)
of which 3.4 - 0% and 3.6 - 6.7%
of which all Anniversary, X51 & C4 - 0%, C2 - 5.9% and C4S - 9.1%


mgyUlmt.jpg

08AZLxs.jpg



Last reported failure on a 996 was July 2014 (not including the LN failure).

failure%20graph_zpsdedfzj4d.jpg
 
good luck!

member: 911munky
model: 996.1 C2
engine size: 3.4
purchase date: 12/12/2014
age: First reg: 11/2000
mileage (at purchase): 80,300m (now 82,700m)
bearing (orig./replacement): Original (I think)
failure data (if applicable): N/A
comment: Fingers crossed!
 
Alex.... ALEX! You want facts? FACTS? Rumour and speculation are the currency of 911 ownership! The air-cooled bubble is in mortal danger!

Good luck and hats off to you! :thumb:
 
:floor:

Ok I'll ask the first obvious question, how does the 7th owner of a 15 year old car know if its the original IMS bearing or not :dont know:
 
easy - they post unknown in the bearing section.

But it's irrelevant really cos what we want to prove here is - If you buy a 996 now, what are the chances of the IMS bearing going pop.

If I collect data off 200 members and not one has had a failure in the last year, then it'll give us a more realistic % than 1% or 8% (that we currently quote).
 
member: chriscoates81
model: 996.1 C2
engine size: 3.4
purchase date: june 2010
age: First reg: 1999
mileage (at purchase): not sure
bearing (orig./replacement): Unknown
failure data (if applicable): N/A
comment: Sold after owning for 3 years and 30,000 miles and had no bearing failure in that time.
 
Alex - good luck.... and I really do mean that.

However, if I've had a problem and I do a google search of IMS bearing and your thread comes up, the first thing I'm going to do is complain and log my details on the thread. You then have 90% failure rate.

Now I know we won't get that, however I hope you get my point. More people who have the problem will seek to reply to you.
 
I have a friend who has a C4S, loves the car but is not a Porsche enthusiast per se. He has never been on a web forum, would have no idea what an IMS or bore score is. He just hops into his car, and drives it.

I envy him!
 
member: churny
model: 996 anniversary
engine size: 3.6
purchase date: feb 2011
age: First reg: 2003
mileage (at purchase): 67k
bearing (orig./replacement): replacement (only due to bore scoring rebuild)
failure data (if applicable): N/A
comment: Upgraded Hartech bearing now fitted
 
Wow, we are up to 30% failure rate already on bore scoring. :D
 
Robertb said:
Wow, we are up to 30% failure rate already on bore scoring. :D

25% (you've not included my car) :grin:

Let's see your figures!
 
:sad:

If we wanted to do this truly randomly, is there a way of contacting 100-200 car owners AT RANDOM via DVLA or something?

Not sure of costs etc but at least it would be random!
 
why don't we start a debate over which is faster air or water cooled......
its a nice idea alex but its not possible to get usable data of any significance from it. There are thousands of porsche owners who don't know there is a forum and just drive their car. I would hazard a guess that any data collected from here would be skewed towards a higher failure rate as people join forums in order to glean information to help with an issue they have......
 
porscheski said:
why don't we start a debate over which is faster air or water cooled......
its a nice idea alex but its not possible to get usable data of any significance from it. There are thousands of porsche owners who don't know there is a forum and just drive their car. I would hazard a guess that any data collected from here would be skewed towards a higher failure rate as people join forums in order to glean information to help with an issue they have......

Lets just see shall we. As yet, we're on a 100% success rate :grin:

....and I know it's only a sample size of 4, but I've yet not witnessed a failure on here since I joined last March :dont know:
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,237
Messages
1,438,519
Members
48,620
Latest member
qdunrpvcxsty
Back
Top