996/997.1 IMS issues

[Jeff_DML]

I found this article interesting

https://www.oregonpca.org/resources/ims-bearing-the-full-story/

with this quote for years

According to information published about the Eisen IMS Class Action Lawsuit, the single row IMS bearing used in 2000 through 2005 model years is reported to have an 8% failure rate, versus less than 1% with the dual row IMS bearing.

I have a buddies with a 98 996 4S and a 07 997.1 4S( 4s is kind of interesting since socal :))

[John V]

Very interesting article. But 1% is still an unacceptable failure rate for something that critical.

[FC]

Very interesting article. But 1% is still an unacceptable failure rate for something that critical.

:+1

[JST]

The failure rate is given as "less than 1 percent;" is that an engineering term of art that I should read as "near 1 percent?" Because to a layperson, that formulation reads as "really low, but without more data it's hard to specify."

I thought this was the most interesting bit:

"We have confirmed documented failures of the [LN Engineering] IMS Retrofit bearing after it was installed as part of a reactionary procedure when the original bearing had already started to fail or had failed completely."

Does that mean they've seen no failures of the retrofit in other circumstances? And what's the failure rate of the retrofit?

[John V]

I don't know what they meant by "less than 1%", but I assumed that it wasn't 0.1%. Or 0.01%.

[FC]

I don't know what they meant by "less than 1%", but I assumed that it wasn't 0.1%. Or 0.01%.

Exactly. I would would go as far as say that it likely is over 0.5%

[clyde]

An engineer friend posted this on Facebook today that made me think of this discussion:

Is it just me, or is this really dumb advertising?

Sprint: "In fact Sprint's reliability is now within 1% of Verizon..."
AT&T: "Get over 99% reliability with High Speed Internet."

In my professional career, which for about 20 years has been linked to networked electronic devices, we often talk about "five nines" reliability -- which means that a device performs to spec 99.999% of the time. (To put that it terms that make sense, that means that out of any one year period, the device will work correctly for all but about five minutes.)

Two nines reliability (99%) is considered a failure in my line of work, and we will delay the launch of a product if it only works 99% of the time.

Question (if anybody cares to answer) -- is there anybody out there that thinks that 99% reliability is something to brag about? At 99% reliability, that means that 1% of the time (about 3 1/2 days out of every year, or 14 minutes out of every day) you're out of luck. That might be acceptable if it's really cheap, but it's nothing to brag about...

[FC]

That's what Six Sigma is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

99% is pretty crappy.