When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Thanks for all the responses, I'll keep the appointment with the shop to do the IMS then. The guys uses both LN & EPS but has a slight preference for the latter. RMS is also included in the job.
Picking up the car tomorrow (well, actually later today being that it's past midnight here)
slight preference for EPS? Any details on why that is?
Shocking that a someone wouldn't like a competing company's design.
Oh wait they do like the roller bearing they sell.
I have explained this in previous threads, but I will nonetheless explain it again.
We were approached by SSF Imported Auto Parts many years ago as they wanted a roller bearing due to requests from independent shops that were not happy with the other available roller bearing kits. They considered available products at the time and did not want to offer any of them.
The roller bearings used by other companies have historically been the lowest quality, one example URB from Romania. Second issue is that these roller bearings do not have captured center races and they can only handle thrust in one direction. If you remove cost out of the equation, there are roller bearings that have captured center races and can handle thrust both fore and aft, like the bearing we selected for the RND kit we manufactured for SSF.
Another issue is that other roller bearing kits have no positive retention for the bearing.
Short of the massive roller bearing used for the 06-08 shaft in place of the 6305 bearing, all the other roller bearings out there have lower load ratings than the one used in the RND kit. I will add that the claims made by others as to their bearing being X times stronger are completely false and misleading. You can see actual load ratings here for the popular bearings used by all manufacturers:
We originally considered a roller bearing but chose against it for the original IMS Retrofit for several reasons:
1) Porsche didn't use a roller bearing - they used a ball bearing. Anywhere a roller bearing is commonly used, it's paired with a ball bearing, like in the transmission. The roller bearing typically is not designed to take the thrust loads, hence the fact they can only take 10% of total load as thrust.
2) When we first introduced the IMS Retrofit, there was significant skepticism, even many saying the IMS issues was made up. This was years before the Eisen class action lawsuit brought attention to this issue. Again, since Porsche used a ball bearing, we assumed this was for thrust control as the other end of the shaft has a plain bearing without thrust control.
3) We chose a ceramic hybrid ball bearing to replace the conventional ball bearing due to our past experience with sintered silicon nitride, which the ***** are made from. We used that material to make camshaft lifters years ago when conventional cams and lifters were failing (due to the reformulation of engine oils which ultimately was the original cause of the issue). The ceramic lifters and cams would never show any wear.
4) Ceramic hybrid bearings are commonly used in performance powersports and motorsports applications where cost is not an issue.
Here we go again. We're overdue for another round of a Raby employee, installer or related party smearing a competitor. This poster, Zuffen-whatever, is Jake's video guy, by a changed name of course (how does one do that?).
So much wrong here, that bearing is not bad, the 2mm or so beyond the sproket accomodates the wider rollers and is handled by the flange, the bearing never contacts the flange (as poster states) at all since there is a machined thrust type washer in between with oil channels and the broken off nut is what often happens during extraction with ANY of the IMSBs. This bearing is press-fit using loctite so, yeah, it's in there solid.
It's really too bad because new members come to the forum hoping to get objective information yet the LN/FSI related parties won't have that.
Anyway, here's a picture of an actual failed, so called, "solution" and let's not get started on the many, many ceramic bearing failures, even with low miles. They should be recalled.
Originally Posted by ZuffenZeus
I like to follow Lee Jenkins of Hartech, UK. The EPS bearing seems to be more popular in Europe. Every month Lee is posting another failure associated with EPS.
Contact Lee and let him tell you want he thinks about the EPS roller bearing.
Look how it doesn't sit flush on the shaft. It tends to grind into the flange. In this case, it appears it broke the center bolt.
Sorry for the lack of response, I am on vacation in Italy with spotty wifi (but great food & sights).
Regarding EPS vs LN I spoke with two local shops:
-one just felt like the EPS solution was a better built product but didn’t elaborate further
-the other used to install about 80 LN IMSB per year but switched to EPS after LN changed their approach about the ceramic IMSB not being a lifetime item anymore. He installs fewer IMSB now (15 or so per year for the last 6 years, says demand for IMSB changes declined as most cars have already been retrofitted) and never had an issue. The guy didn’t diss the LN product and believes most failures are due to improper install rather that a product fault, but just felt better going with EPS from then on. He’d also developed a similar system to the IMS solution for a few rally customers, but thought this type of product was overkill on anything short of a dedicated track car. On a side note, he didn’t like the FVD bearing. Like, at all.
In any case, it seems my car is getting the EPS bearing, and the chips will fall where they may. Best case scenario is I’ll never know I made the right choice.
07-06-2023, 01:16 AM
