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.

What REALLY breaks your IMS ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn mice
 
Maxie said:
bluemoon996 said:
I'm not a bazhart worshipper so I'm fine with the debate continuing :lol:

Also looking forward to seeing the output from the data logger

I don't think anyone's professing to be a 'bazhart worshipper' on here but as he is a site sponsor, I believe the admin/moderators thought he has something useful to add. Tbh, the longer this debate goes on, the more confused I am getting. Whilst I believe GT4 has a background in finance (please correct if I am mistaken) and Baz's is engineering not from just a theoretical stance butalso from a practical one too, I believe I would follow Baz's advice on engineering issues. If I wanted to know how to delta hedge my equity derivatives portfolio or calculate the vega on a European put option that paid dividends, GT4 would probably be my port of call.

--

You might add that if Baz posted a thread on finance GT4 might have something to say about that. I don't therefore see why GT4 needs to propound in Baz's areas of expertise.

GT4, enough is enough. Yes, we all know you are knowledgeable about Porsches, and you are a handy chap to have around for small things, but a self-generated diatribe saying that you are 'frequently asked' about things makes you sound like the latter generation Messiah of all things Porsche related, which you are not.

And talking of Bazhartworshippers, if you had your engine rebuilt by him and the crew at Hartech you'd have a pretty healthy respect for them as well.

I'm sorry GT4 but you do not run a professional, world leading operation, and so I fail to see why you feel yourself to be qualified to post such threads in the first place. I mean, isn't this arrogant to say the least to propose yourself to be such an expert, but is it not then worse always to need the last word, when experts such as Baz refute your findings?

Honestly, I really think the time has come for you to realize there are others more qualified than you, and bow out gracefully, without having the last word, for once. This is 911UK's forum, not GT4UK.com.
 
On that basis:

The Beast said:
You might add that if Baz posted a thread on finance GT4 might have something to say about that. I don't therefore see why GT4 needs to propound in Baz's areas of expertise.

GT4, enough is enough. Yes, we all know you are knowledgeable about Porsches, and you are a handy chap to have around for small things, but a self-generated diatribe saying that you are 'frequently asked' about things makes you sound like the latter generation Messiah of all things Porsche related, which you are not.

And talking of Bazhartworshippers, if you had your engine rebuilt by him and the crew at Hartech you'd have a pretty healthy respect for them as well.

I'm sorry GT4 but you do not run a professional, world leading operation, and so I fail to see why you feel yourself to be qualified to post such threads in the first place. I mean, isn't this arrogant to say the least to propose yourself to be such an expert, but is it not then worse always to need the last word, when experts such as Baz refute your findings?

Honestly, I really think the time has come for you to realize there are others more qualified than you, and bow out gracefully, without having the last word, for once. This is 911UK's forum, not GT4UK.com.
 
The problem is that you are still in denial.

You suggest Porsche (the advice from the engine architect and manufacturer) should know best yet accept all my comments about engines that are not new and experiment with ways of changing the way the car woks by them?.

You state that Porsche (whom you revere) intended the IMS bearing to always be grease filled yet claim that thick oil on start up is the problem even though that is what grease would give you (even thicker than 10-40 etc).

You claim that the unbalanced forces on start up are the problem yet don't seem to have realised that the pump is driven by a small allen key drive which seems to have no fatigue limit but if you calculate the cross sectional area and analyse the material qualities it is obvious those stresses are insignificant AND you completely ignore the fact that the bearing we use is 100% reliable (even though it is obviously used for start up and usually runs with 10-40 oil) but claim a ceramic one is better (which is prone to shock loading and stress reversal weaknesses which you also state are present) – talk about not seeing the wood for the trees!.

In all these (and many similar issues) you expose the limit of your engineering knowledge and/or practical design experience.

I don't have a problem with that directly – different people have different attributes and strong and weak points – and your strong point seems to be reading and absorbing data and combining it with a theoretical understanding of engineering on an academic level but not the experience of a proven automotive engineer.

I don't have a problem with that until you put a topic title in that implies YOU ARE THE EXPERT EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO and OTHER QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOLVED THESE PROBLEMS ARE SIMPLY NOT AS GOOD AS YOU AND WRONG. The danger of this is that the general public follow your advice and therefore do not follow the best advice and hence my need to correct you when you are wrong (or at last demonstrate to them there is actually an alternative).

There are many levels of engineering.

There are purely academic engineers (who have never held a spanner), unqualified practical engineers capable of finding excellent solutions, graduates in other disciplines that assume they know it all and therefore should be listened to on every subject (of which in general I find the teaching and medical profession typical – sorry – I accept there are exceptions), people – qualified or not who have demonstrated their ability to design and make things that work.

There is also a different kind of logic that is good and bad in different professions. I find good engineers typically find it hard to communicate with the legal and financial professionals (for example) and even MENSA recognises this and has different tests for different types which can show very high scores in one type of intelligence and low in another (and hence people may be accepted or refused if they take the least appropriate test). So even highly intelligent and capable people can look at the same problem differently and come up with different answers and believe they are each right (even when the evidence shows only one is (because each is used to being right in their own profession and assumes this means it can cross refer.

You know you are struggling with the engineering when you propose that Porsche – the manufacturers – know best yet can state all the wonderful benefits of a closed deck design in their technical literature about the generation 2 engines (and abandon Lokasil bores returning to the 944/968 Alusil) yet took 13 years to change while people like us immediately recognised the problem and converted engines to that now revered specification (stated as far superior by Porsche now) within minutes of looking at the first engine and long before problems emerged suggesting that may be a weakness. You never answer my questions like this as to how you can on the one hand suggest Porsche must know better than us and on the other hand fail to reconcile the clear mistakes they made before by understanding the significance of their own Gen 2 improvements.

I am a typically capable engineer with many other personal failings (that go hand in hand with that) I wish I was better at and I recognise your logic and it grates against mine (even though I am sure you are brilliant at other disciplines) – and that (together with the need to correct you when you sit as the self proclaimed authority on something) is why we clash – it will always be that way.

I do think you should desist from proclaiming yourself as the arbiter and authority on technical issues and stop arguing against those that can prove by practical example and experience that they are right – just to massage your own ego because in so doing you are misleading those with no idea who to believe or trust.

This however does not mean you are not valuable to this Forum – if you would just be a little less authoritarian and present your views as opinions and not facts.

For example I have a question you may be able to answer that I cannot. I love driving tiptronics because they enable me to left foot brake. Rushing into blind corners with unknown road surface conditions is safe if (when it all goes pear shaped) you keep the throttle where it is and feed in some left foot brake – because the fixed throttle stops the car from changing its setting on the road and the slight deceleration corrects the under-steer caused by the slip angle struggling and neatly and safely pulls the car back into line. It's a great way to drive fast and safely without using the on board system (that does much the same thing in extremes). However – my favourite car (at the moment) id a 3.8 997 C2S tiptronics – except this shuts the throttle if you put the brake on – so destroying my chosen driving style. You can do a kind of double de-clutch between the brake and throttle pedal – but it is not easy or reliable.

My question is – can this function alone be switched off?

I think your contribution to this Forum would be greatly appreciated if you could stop stepping outside your experience zone and find a little more modesty and just accept that there are some others that may know something as well.

While I appreciate the kind comments of others – I do not know everything about Porsches and am especially weak on specifications and minutia (because they are not what I deal with all day long nor what I am good at and I may more simple mistakes as I get older) - but that information is extremely valuable (and has been from you in the past) so why not let us practical, qualified and experienced engineers – that have managed to prove their capabilities (not only by solving problems but by doing what Porsche do now in the Gen 2 engine – years before to improve the Gen 1 engines – something you didn't do) provide the best engineering advice and add to the mix those things you are very good at?

Finally – it seems that as my responses clearly gradually knock down your various positions (and you then point out where we agree) you claim still that I don't recognise the main thrust of your posting from the start being about new engines. OK I can answer that one too – with my kind of logic (that I know you will not accept). I don't think anyone buying a brand new Porsche (under warranty anyway for the first 2 years in the UK) is bothered about what oil they put in it. I don't think many owners of new cars will read Internet Forums to find out what to do if they go wrong and I don't think they are bothered about the effects of 0-40 or 10-40 on the IMS bearing and who might be right or wrong about the issues.

I doubt many up to about 4 or 5 years old are particularly worried (especially if they have an extended Porsche warranty). It seems to me that it is only likely to become an issue once they reach perhaps 4 or 5 years old or older – when they start to find their way to Independents who may have different advice from the main agents and their awareness of potential failings has increased while the general financial resources are likely to be smaller and the consequences of a failure more concerning at an age and mileage when such an occurrence is more likely.

It seems to me therefore that all your 'I am the authority on IMS bearing failures" postings – are – it seems – from your own recent clarifications – aimed at people who are unlikely to read about it – unlikely to care and for whom it is probably irrelevant.

The only reasons for my postings is to correct that impression that readers unable to make an engineering decision may take (if I didn't respond) that your advice applies to all IMS shafts and bearings – that Porsche know everything and therefore don't make mistakes and we should always use their recommended oil etc etc – when actually – it seems that for older cars that is actually not your position anyway.

Baz
 
Can I suggest the mods lock this(excellent) thread now as I think we know where it's all heading.

It's been very informative but it's now lost it's "panache"/value.

This way(locked) nobody gets hurt. :thumb:
 
I agree with Wiz.

Can I have the last word?
 
Sorry, I have no more denial left - the "N" and "O" buttons have fallen off my keyboard.

I admit defeat: I now realise I have no chance of convincing you or the cults or for you or them to admit as much publicly.

I see not point in repeating ad nauseum all the points I have already made and for some reason you and they choose to ignore or deliberately or obtusely misrepresent.

My views and my reasoning are in black and white (and blue) throughout this thread and I have stated my case and you have stated yours and both are now public record.

Hopefully one or other or both may be of some use in the quest to understand our engines.

When my engine breaks I will come crying to you, but until then or until I see evidence otherwise, I will continue to follow my own conclusions.

To anyone reading my posts, I have no indemnity Insurance (unlike Baz) and in the end, however you treat your car, it is your responsibility.

... I look forward to updating this thread with my cooling stats.

In the meantime, please address all questions and concerns to Baz@Hartech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,354
Messages
1,439,461
Members
48,713
Latest member
3sp1f8
Back
Top