I worried about IMS/engine failure on all 4 prior Porsches.

I got the settlement notice - but fortunately I was never affected, so into the trash it went.

Back to Permagrin!

 

I have an early build 2005 997 which I purchased from a private party and no CPO.
I can't understand why I would be reimbursed just 25%. It is the same engine
that Porsche designed / built. So why is the
reimbursement any less than other vehicles?

 

Okay sorry, I guess I misread a previous post. You made me feel a lot better after reading that.

My car is a MY06 but obviously was built in late '05. I guess that's what had me worried. If it really is roughly .00001 like you say, then I will go ahead and forget about it, once again!

 

Perk10 - I think you are worrying too much.

This is the link to the law firm's class action declaration. http://www.imsporschesettlement.com/...ffs_motion.pdf

Point 13 states the following:
--
Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)
--

So while I don't know if it's really as low as .00001, the investigation believes it's "far less than 1%."

Credit goes to Rennlist member BED997 for finding and highlighting this information. This is probably why MY97-00 cars and March '05 built through MY'08 cars are not included.

 

The dealer had told me i didnt have a upgraded bearing unless the service manager has no clue of what hes talking about my 06 was born in july 06 weird idk. I did read the number under the car which was faint but it did end in 05 i cant remember if it was rennlist where i seen the thread where it said thats how you know if you have the upgraded bearing.

 

I was part of the rennlist thread last year where we tried to establish when the larger bearing was installed by having members check their engine numbers and build dates. The Porsche shop manual gave the engine number of when the larger bearing change happened, but no build date. Our detective work led us to believe the change to the new larger bearing happened around Feb or Mar 05.

We were pretty darn close in our guess work! As the lawsuit involves cars from May 4, 2001 and February 21, 2005.

I highly doubt your car has the older style bearing if it was built in July '06. Only a visual inspection by an expert could tell you for sure. But again, you need the motor out to do that.

 

I looked it up in some old threads, here's how to tell if you have the larger bearing:

Base engine (3.6) has designation "M96", has both the older IMS and revised larger bearing, you will need your engine number to determine which one you have:
- Engine (3.6) number up to M96/05 69507475 has the older IMS bearing and Engine number from M96/05 69507476 has the larger revised IMS.

"S" engine (3.8) has designation "M97", also has both the older IMS and revised larger IMS bearing:
- Engine (3.8) number up to M97/01 68509790 has the older IMS bearing and Engine number from M97/01 68509791 has the larger revised IMS.

 

Will this affect the 996 TT, mine is 02 and I am ready to do a clutch work

 

not at all.