The IMS Solution and IMS Retrofit: A Complete History

Porsche sports cars have never been more collectible—and the market shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon. But even amidst this P-car frenzy, the 996 and 986 remain some of the cheapest entries into Porsche sports car ownership. There are a number of reasons for this, ranging from styling to community perception, but the biggest and most enduring stigma staining these M96-engined cars has loomed large since they were first in production over 25 years ago. 

Of course, we’re speaking of the dreaded intermediate-shaft bearing failure. Colloquially referred to as “IMS failure” or often simply “IMS,” the M96—and even the later M97—engine’s infamous proclivity to irreparably self-destruct with no warning has done significant damage to the 996 and 986’s values, respect, and general approachability. Ask some folks, and they’ll swear a cartoonish explosion of every M96/M97 is not chance, but an inevitability. 

On the other hand, many enthusiasts believe the M96/M97’s fatal flaw has been “patched” in the nearly 20 years since the last 996 left production, claiming that their prized 2003 Boxster has the “IMS fix,” and is ready to crush another 100,000 hard miles with simple oil changes. 

This is where two massive streams of misinformation and false narratives crash together in one mighty oil slick. Is it a guarantee that each and every stock M96 will turn itself into a pile of greasy scrap? Of course not. Is there a true worry-free fix to the problem? Yes—with caveats.

Let’s start at the top.

What’s the Problem? 

Roll the clock back to 1997. This is the year when the first-ever Porsche Boxsters landed on showroom floors and with it, Porsche’s first crack at water-cooling its trademark flat-six engine. Commonly referred to as the “M96,” the essential core of this water-cooled six-cylinder went on to power Boxsters, Caymans, and 911s, receiving minor updates with the M97 which was used through the 2008 model year.

With a few varietal exceptions—we’ll get to those in a bit—the M96 was a new design built from the ground up that shared little with prior air-cooled Porsche engines. What it did share was the use of an intermediate shaft driving the camshafts indirectly from the crankshaft—you can easily trace this function back to Porsches of the mid-1950s.  Their original design featured a traditional journal-type oil-fed plain bearing supporting said intermediate shaft, providing robust, reliable, and essentially problem free operation for the life of the engine.

Crucially, the M96 did away with this time-tested setup for a sealed ball-bearing, which ironically is immersed in engine oil, likely due to cost or ease of manufacturing. The problem begins with the grease seal, which is not rated for high oil temperatures, causing it to become hard and brittle. Eventually, the seal fails and oil leaks in and washes out the grease, reducing lube available to the bearing. The IMS tube, which is in essence a hollow pipe, ends up filling up with dirty oil when the engine is shut off as it is completely submerged in engine oil.

Once the permanent grease is washed out, the compromised seal prevents the exchange of fresh oil, so the bearing soon bathes only in contaminated oil, worsened by long drain intervals. Thus, the bearing wears, leading to catastrophic failure that sends metal debris coursing through the engine. If allowed to run for even a short while after this event, a true IMS failure leads to a loss of proper camshaft timing and—among other things—ruined pistons, cylinders, heads, and valve-train, which in turn cause a loss of compression and damage to any component lubricated by engine oil. 

Sometimes it’s all these outcomes, sometimes it’s just one. What’s guaranteed in this case is the need for a complete engine rebuild, full stop.

The IMS Solution and IMS Retrofit

As a large number of 996/997/986/987 owners already know, it was masterminds Charles Navarro at Chicago-based LN Engineering and Jake Raby at Georgia’s Flat 6 Innovations who developed and produced the original components and resources necessary to make this rather nasty Achilles Heel disappear either permanently or temporarily with their IMS Solution and the IMS Retrofit kit, respectively.

Nowadays, if you stick with LN’s highly proven kits, the specter of the M96/M97 IMS bearing is more of an addressable nuisance than critical flaw, with many so-addressed engines enjoying tens-of-thousands of trouble-free miles, at least as far as the IMS is concerned.

Initially, it was only Porsche service departments who were aware of the problem—though it wasn’t quite clear what the problem even was. Unfortunate owners of a new car that suffered an IMS failure only knew their engine was kaput, and that the warranty ensured it was fixed on Porsche’s dime. One dealer from that era estimated they installed between 20 and 30 engines a month at the peak, with new crate engines costing just $5,000 from the factory on core exchange. At that time, if an engine showed sign of existing or impending failure, in went a fresh, updated motor, without confirmation from Porsche as to what was happening with these engines, leaving shops in the dark and owners frustrated.

However, “updated” is a rather strong term. To this day, there isn’t a part number for the IMS bearing from Porsche, implying it was never intended to a serviceable wear item. There were tacit attempts to assuage the problem that ultimately made it worse; from 1997 to 1999, M96s found in Carreras and Boxsters utilized a dual-row 5204-series ball bearing that was phased out beginning in 2000 for the single-row 6204-series ball bearing.

From 2000 to 2001, it’s a coin-toss if your car has a dual- or single-row from the factory, and from 2002 and on, M96s all packed a single-row bearing, effectively cutting the load-capacity in half, resulting in the highest failure rates for any of the factory IMS bearings. 

2005-2006 saw the implementation of a larger, stronger non-serviceable 6305-series ball bearing, arguably the sole bit of engineering admission from Porsche that the IMS bearing was problematic. Every engine made in after the 2006 model year, including replacement engines, to the present date use this larger sealed bearing. However, this bearing requires a complete teardown to replace if and when it fails.

Again, outside of the official legal settlement, Porsche never issued an official specific acknowledgement of the M96/M97 IMS issue. Curiously, a branded IMS bearing kit was offered by Porsche for a very brief period of time back in 2017, before mysteriously disappearing from the catalog entirely shortly thereafter, but not before relevant parties could get their hands on one.

As it turns out, the Porsche bearing kit with its hybrid-ceramic configuration is very much in line with the bearing chose by LN for its Retrofit kit. According to Raby and Navarro, the discontinued kit uses the same style of sintered ceramic balls with steel races, and looks to be of rather high quality. Much like the obfuscation of the IMS problem back when the M96 was still in production, there has been no word on why the Porsche kit was removed from the market or that it even existed. Raby’s theory is that it was never intended for release in the first place and is the result of internal miscommunication, as this “fix” could spur further litigation forcing Porsche to replace bearings in affected cars at its own cost. Navarro similarly believes that this kit was developed in case Porsche was forced to replace IMS bearings as part of the settlement, as date codes on the kit components suggest it was developed and manufactured many years earlier, possibly during their litigation.

With all of this, it’s crucial that owners, buyers, and interested parties make no assumptions about which bearing is in their M96 outside of a few model year ranges. If your car went in for an engine replacement from a dealer, there’s no guarantee the new crate motor has the same bearing configuration as the original failed unit. If you’re interested in addressing your IMS, it’s suggested you have your car inspected by a Porsche specialist or preferably at one of the fifty-plus LN Engineering/Flat 6 Innovations-endorsed/trained shops around the U.S to determine which bearing you have and what your replacement options are.

But What Is The Solution?

LN Engineering offers two primary paths of IMS bearing assuagement. The most popular and affordable option is the IMS Retrofit kit, which is a direct-fit replacement for the OEM unit with a hybridized bearing consisting of steel structure and races containing sintered silicon nitride ceramic balls or a cylindrical roller bearing. Unlike the OEM bearing, the Retrofit uses an open bearing—since the IMS shaft is either submerged or partially submerged in engine oil, this provides an ample supply of fresh oil to lubricate and cool the bearing.

Beyond significant material improvements, each Retrofit bearing significantly raises the load-bearing capacity when compared to the factory single-row bearing. Case in point: cars with single-row bearings can now be updated with LN’s patented dual-row ceramic-hybrid or roller-bearing IMS Retrofit kit.

However, this should be treated as a wear item replaced every six years or 75,000 miles. As scary as that sounds, replacement—initial or otherwise—is now a common and thoroughly routine procedure that is often done in conjunction with a clutch/flywheel replacement, as you must expose the latter to access the bearing. Usually, if the vehicle you’re purchasing has neither the Retrofit or the Solution, it’s suggested you factor in the replacement cost into the purchasing budget. 

The IMS Solution is as the name describes—a permanent fix for all IMS woes on the M96. The concept is simple; revert from a sealed ball bearing to a tried-and-tested oil-fed plain journal bearing configuration found on all air-cooled 911 and later Mezger water-cooled 911 engines. It’s more expensive and involved than the Retrofit, but it’ll also be the last time you’ll need to think about IMS issues on your M96. 

According to LN, the Solution is the only IMS replacement on the market with a design change that is truly permanent, eliminating up to 18 individual wear parts with a single specialized bushing that rides on a hardened journal supported by a cushion of oil. Now, by the very nature of the design, a constant flow of clean oil is delivered to the Solution with no rolling elements to fail: a design that’s demonstrably robust. But how did we get to this point? After all, re-engineering a critical component of a Porsche flat-six is a tremendous undertaking, and it sure didn’t happen overnight.

The Mad Scientists

LN Engineering’s Navarro and accomplice Raby of Raby’s Aircooled Technology and Flat Six Innovations are what you would describe as problem solvers. Not for money, fame, or respect—though they’ve achieved plenty of the latter two within the Porsche community—but for the pure, simple reason of solving a problem that most say is impossible. “I honestly have no clue how much the Retrofit and Solution cost to develop, and I don’t know how much profit we’ve made. It was never and still isn’t about that,” Raby says.

But if you ask them, neither Navarro nor Raby ever expected to be at the forefront of Porsche’s water-cooled engine tech. Both hardcore air-cooled enthusiasts by passion and trade, Navarro established his career with his line of impressively durable Nikasil cylinder liners right out of college. Called “Nickies,” these liners proved enormously popular within the Volkswagen community—particularly for the Type 4 engine—and quickly spread to the greater air-cooled Porsche community, a focus progression shared with almost every leader in the Porsche aftermarket.

It wasn’t until Navarro received numerous complaints and requests from dealerships and customers regarding bore scoring and other cylinder issues plaguing the M96 that LN Engineering got involved with these water-cooled Porsche engines. That was around the time when the IMS issue was solely a dealer headache, not something that was well-known outside the halls of Porsche itself.

While helming a small booth at a Porsche event, marque legend Bruce Anderson told Navarro that he really should look into the IMS problem, as the issue was far more widespread and dire than even the forums were suggesting. Dealers were helpless, owners were furious, and since this was years before the Eisen Class Action Lawsuit, Porsche was silent.

There was no hope in sight for the M96 aside from Porsche offering replacement engines on exchange at bargain prices, ironically subsidized by Porsche for thousands less than what the parts alone cost. The seemingly endless supply of new engines from Porsche further incentivized shops not to explore the weaknesses and problems of the M96, let alone fix or hot-rod them.

Ah, there it is. An “impossible” problem. Something Raby could not resist.

R&D

Not only were Navarro and Raby the first to seriously approach this problem, but it was this insider info that slipped a foot in the door before anyone had even a remote clue of what was happening. 

Navarro quickly purchased a Boxster and sourced four M96 engines to dissect, running just $1,000 for the full set. Around the same time, Navarro looped in Georgia-based Raby for engineering; Raby was an obvious choice, as aside from the frequent collaborations between the two, it was Raby who convinced Navarro to launch LN Engineering in the first place, with the promise that Raby would be his first purchaser and mentor. Raby grabbed six engines of his own, all sourced from different dealers who sat on literal piles of them, worth little more than scrap since Porsche didn’t want the cores back.

They were the perfect problem-focused duo to tackle this challenge. Neither acquiesces to compromise in quality, nor are interested in shortcuts for the sake of ease. Whatever emerged at the end of this project had to be seriously tough, capable of saddling additional performance, power, and stress. Beyond this, they both were already deeply entrenched within the VW and Porsche air-cooled community, and had extraordinary grasp of Porsche’s flat-six lineage. 

This ideal duo occupied distinct roles within the R&D process, with Raby’s self-admitted “mad scientist” approach to engineering tempered by Navarro’s production and manufacturing expertise. As Raby prototypes components on machines originally used for B25 production in World War II, Navarro handles the manufacturing, sales, and distribution of products co-developed by the pair out of their 17,000 square foot state of the art facility in Illinois.

Raby, at least initially, was unconvinced this was a worthwhile endeavor. The then-new water-cooled 911s were holistically rejected by hardcore air-cooled enthusiasts, and while it might be hard to believe these days, there was genuine animosity between the two communities. “I had the whole back half of my shop closed off, keeping all these water-cooled cars away from air-cooled customers in fear they would think I had crossed over to the dark side,” Raby says, with genuine gravity.

“I told him I wasn’t interested, and that I had never had a water-cooled Porsche on my property. I was strictly no H2O. Strictly!” Raby says. (those who have known Jake long enough, know his forum ID on the Pelican Parts forum was [and still is] NoH20!)  It wasn’t until he learned the general consensus was that a fix for M96’s IMS issues were considered “impossible” when he officially jumped in. From there, a business case of hot-rodded M96s soon formed as there quite literally was no one else repairing and improving the much-maligned engines at a high level at that time. Many said you couldn’t rebuild the M96 engine as they were “disposable,” much like Cadillac’s similarly self-destructive Northstar V8.

So, under the approach that whatever IMS “fix” emerged from the M96 R&D would be strictly for his own big-bore engines, Raby sourced a Boxster of his own and further core development engines During this early phase, Navarro regularly traveled to and worked at Raby’s Georgia shop for weeks at a time, on-hand for the first of many revelations that would lead to the IMS Retrofit, IMS Solution, and countless other developments for the M96 engine.

Immediately, from the very first teardown, the IMS Solution emerged. “Charles was there the very first night we took apart one of these engines,” Raby remembers. “I looked at the IMS bearing for the first time, and said ‘That makes no sense, that needs to be a plain bearing.’ And that’s when we invented it—that first night.”

Initial ideation took a few hours, but the true development period spanned years thanks to cost and real-world testing. Step zero, however, was figuring out how to cleanly extract the OEM bearing, a necessary procedure for both the Solution and Retrofit. Extraction was commonly believed to be impossible, however a tool was eventually sourced that worked, but broke after every use. Seeking a reliable solution, Raby built an initial “puller” from a mix of existing parts, including a hex nut adapter from a Porsche 914’s A/C compressor, bits and bobs from his shop’s junk pile, and “$12 worth of hardware from “The Farmer’s Exchange’” in Georgia. Subsequently, Raby and Navarro would develop all the tools required to carry out IMS bearing procedures. 

The resulting “IMS bearing puller” remains one of the most important developments of the process, allowing the OEM bearing to be removed with the engine still in place, with just the transmission and flywheel removed.

With the success of the IMS Retrofit, work on the IMS Solution continued in parallel to development of additional M96 performance and durability upgrades. The resulting plain bearing IMS conversion required an oil pressure-fed system to properly lubricate the bearing, but since there was no internal source of pressurized oil anywhere near the IMS bearing, this necessitated the development of a patented spin-on oil filter adapter that delivers just-filtered oil to the IMS.

It was not an immediate, perfect success. During testing, the duo noticed that if the plain bearing failed, the engine just became noisier, but never stopped running. Not an ideal scenario, but compared to the catastrophic damage caused by every OEM IMS bearing failure, it was a huge leap forward in the M96’s life expectancy.

A quick note on that failure. Raby notes this was the first and only time an iteration of the IMS Solution prototype failed, a direct result of an incompatibility in the materials recommended to them by a metallurgist consulting on the project. A bushing made from the suggested novel material failed at hour 32 of testing, allowing them to test a built-in failsafe that prevents the bearing from seizing, and subsequently from catastrophic engine destruction. This allowed for an observation of a worst case scenario that has yet to happen since, thanks to the discovery of a more robust bushing material that has been in use since that test. 

The IMS Solution underwent five distinct stages of development and prototyping before the product was finalized, though the core concept was never altered. It was a game of incremental changes and improvements, such as changing the size and location of an oil hole, or exploring alternative material choices and surface treatments including Diamond-Like Carbon (DLC) coating on the surface of the flange journal.

Torture tests were up next. A wrecked Boxster with a purpose-built test engine was pushed out into the back of the shop, complete with their latest iteration of the nascent IMS Solution and a sump’s worth of thin, crappy 0w20 oil—way thinner than anyone would ever knowingly use. The car was left to idle 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the wicked heat and humidity of Georgia’s intense summer sun, strained further by the purposeful removal of any fans on the radiators, now with nothing more than a yard sprinkler to cool them down. It turns out it takes 10 gallons of fuel for an M96 to idle for a day straight—and it idled for 22 days, non-stop, with the oil pressure light flickering during most of that testing.

Several mules were fitted with Solutions, and there was no rest for these poor Boxsters. According to Raby, his mule 986 was the shop whipping horse, with torturous dyno over-revs, on-road bang-shifting shenanigans, and tons of track-time at circuits like Road Atlanta. Anyone who was in attendance at the latter could take hot laps around the track. Navarro’s Boxster mule was also fitted with a rebuilt M96 from a 996 Carrera and subjected to similar testing, with the duo aiming for maximum abuse. Teardowns ensued, noting any fresh wear.

Since wear is highest for any engine at start-up, start-up wear was of primary concern. The perma-idling mule was soon back together, now with an employee’s son behind the wheel—out for summer break—paid to ignition-cycle the bedraggled Boxster until told to stop. With 30-second intervals taken between each cycle, the engine was started-and-stopped around 5,200 times, wearing out two ignition switches in the process.

The engine survived and so did the IMS Solution, so naturally the next step was to bolt it all back together for a monumental road trip; starting in Georgia, Raby picked up Navarro in Chicago, then buzzed up to Alberta to teach a technical seminar, returning back the way they came. Well into the Canadian boonies, the duo hit a massive frost heave in the middle of nowhere and cracked the sump plate. Miraculously, vacuum applied by the air-oil-separator to the crankcase kept the oil from leaking out of the engine and allowed for a two-hour drive to a shop in Calgary, where the sump plate was replaced and allowed the duo to complete the remainder of their trip—a trip covering a whopping 8,800-miles, 107 of which were done on dirt roads. The trip was not kind to the Boxster, requiring extensive repairs to the suspension, bodywork, and paint, but it served its purpose well.

The IMS Solution was ready.

Retrofit

Prior to the Solution and the Retrofit, shops and enthusiasts alike were desperate for a plug-and-play option for fixing their ticking time bombs. There was no recourse for those in a position where the original bearing was failing but had not failed, and with no path for just the bearing replacement, the only two options were to disassemble the engine and fit an entirely new intermediate shaft from Porsche, or swap in a fresh, complete crate engine.

In the absence of a factory option, Navarro and Raby prototyped a kit that could be used to “retrofit” a new bearing in place of the original. While not a permanent fix, the Retrofit greatly reduced the chance of failure if the owner adhered to the replacement schedule and installed the kit as part of scheduled maintenance. Gone was the problematic sealed conventional ball bearing; based on their highly successful use of ceramic lifters in pushrod Volkswagen and Porsche engines, the two chose to use sintered silicon nitride “ceramic” balls in their custom hybrid ball bearings. 

Dealers, shops, and owners now could drive their 911s and Boxsters with (semi) impunity, with catastrophic engine failure no longer an inevitability. However, as most of these kits are sold through independent resellers, it’s usually not known who is purchasing and installing these products; this was no good, as parts are only as good as their installers. LN Engineering and Flat 6 Innovations began the long process of building their “Certified Installer” network across the U.S., all of which hand-picked from the attendees of Raby’s M9X engine classes.

To be a Certified Installer, a shop must share the duo’s work ethics and extreme attention to detail, extending to carrying out the pre-qualification procedure developed by Raby before any IMS installation. Installers are also required to participate in continuing education and have resources available to them that other shops might not necessarily have. Although using a Certified Installer is not required, doing so ensures the shop doing the work is qualified and under Raby’s constant scrutiny and watchful eye.

Community Response

Naturally, the initial community response was that of skepticism and backlash. Prior to the settlement of the class action lawsuit against Porsche in 2013, the automaker never officially acknowledged there actually was a problem. Without a factory procedure to remove the bearing or any replacement component from Porsche, most believed that there was no way this could be a real problem, and there’s no chance these two guys can do what they claimed. 

It’s an impossible problem, remember? General knowledge on the IMS subject was far, far lower than it is now, and accusations were made claiming LN Engineering and Flat 6 Innovations fabricated the problem in order to get rich, and/or that their team was arrogant to believe they could have engineered a solution better than Porsche had for the intermediate shaft.

Since many of the cars in question–especially those with the updated M97-generation engine—were still under warranty, the problem was swept under the rug with engine replacement. And since there’s never been a part number for the OEM bearing— just the entire IMS assembly itself—there was no component to reference. No part, no problem.

It wasn’t until after the settlement and resolution of the 2013 class action lawsuit that we got some hard data. Based on published figures, Porsche admitted up to 8% of cars were affected by IMS issues under warranty, but that was more than ten years ago. How many failed out of warranty and were not included in these figures? How many cars failed since then? How many will continue to fail as these cars continue to age? As of 2024, how many have failed in total? 

It’s impossible to know for sure. There are too many factors at play and it’s likely that not even Porsche truly knows. Too many cars had their engines replaced wholesale—occasionally multiple times over—or were scrapped entirely. And, consider how many IMS failures went unreported, and how tiny the percentage of Porsche owners that actually engage with forums really is, where most of the issues surfaced. Also consider that Raby believes that no engine that ever passed through his or Navarro’s shop that suffered from a failure were ever accounted for by the class action suit, were Raby or Navarro were ever contacted by either side before or after the suit.

Should I replace my IMS bearing? 

Good news for owners of a 996- and 997-generation Turbo, GT2, or GT3: your cars are wholly unaffected by IMS issues. As all of these variants arrived with a flat-six derived from the legendary Mezger engine lineage with an IMS shaft supported by plain journal bearings right from the factory—the same solution that a “mad scientist” in rural Georgia applied to the M96. Likewise, 2009 and later sports car models don’t even have an intermediate shaft, so no need to worry there. Drive on! 

If, however, you have a 996-generation (1999-2005) Carrera, Carrera 4, Carrera 4S, or Targa, or a 986-generation Boxster from between 1997-2004, an IMS Solution or Retrofit is suggested. 997- and 987-generation cars are trickier to figure out; with the introduction of the M97 engine in 2005, the larger OEM IMS bearing became truly non-serviceable outside of dropping the engine and splitting the case to access the component. That being said, the IMS failure incidence of M97 engines is substantially less than the preceding M96, and short of letting sleeping dogs lie, worried owners can simply pop-off the grease seal on the OEM bearing to allow the transfer of fresh oil in and out of the bearing.

Back to the M96. A common misconception is “if it hasn’t failed yet, it won’t fail at all.” Not true in the slightest; there are no reliable indicators as to if a car is on the brink of IMS failure, or if the OEM IMS is still in a healthy state. Mileage—high or low—is not a reliable litmus test, either. Although there are a few cars out there with over 200,000 miles on the original bearing, LN Engineering and Flat 6 Innovations has seen cars with under 10,000 miles pop, to cars with grenaded OEM IMS bearings well above 100,000 miles on the clock. If you haven’t installed either the IMS Retrofit or the IMS Solution, your car is at risk—simple as that. 

And when it goes, you’re likely not going to have any forewarning. Navarro notes there are countless instances of folks who said their car was running perfectly fine, until it stalled at a light, and would not restart. Even these seemingly innocuous failures almost always require an engine rebuild due to the wear material that would be spread through the engine. 

For this, Raby pulled on his experience as a helicopter technician during his time in the Marines to develop the IMS Guardian, where metal shavings from a failing bearing would stick to a magnet and complete an electrical circuit that triggered a lit switch and an audible warning. This would forewarn the driver of an impending IMS bearing failure, which comes on with little to no warning, especially with models fitted with a single row bearing.

A clever bit of engineering, but Raby admits that even if someone pulled over and shut the engine off when the alarm was trigged, the engine might still need a rebuild to properly correct the problem. Invariably, although many were able to save their engines, some used this “advanced warning” to offload their car and make the failing IMS someone else’s problem, often without disclosing the issue. The product has since been discontinued, but it shows the breadth of LN and Flat 6 Innovation’s experience in the IMS game and great lengths the two have gone through the improve the reputation of the M96 engine.

Should I get the IMS Solution or the IMS Retrofit? 

It depends. Both kits offer peace of mind, but it is imperative and bears repeating that the Retrofit is treated as a wear item and replaced every six years or 75,000 miles, whatever comes first, whereas the IMS Solution is a one-and-done fix. As to which Retrofit kit is the one to get, you will need to determine which engine is in your car and which bearing it needs, if it is serviceable. You also can also choose between a ceramic hybrid or cylindrical roller bearing as LN offers both types, but it gets tricky. Some model years—like 2000 and 2001—can have either a single or dual row bearing, and some 2005 might have the larger bearing that can’t be replaced. If your engine is not original, it will have whatever bearing was being used by Porsche in that year.

If you’re one of those do-it-yourselfers, LN Engineering has you covered. Aside from selling all kits directly to anyone, a free tool rental program and exhaustive technical resources means you shouldn’t have any trouble doing the job if you are mechanically inclined. Surprisingly, Navarro says more DIYers opt for the more involved IMS Solution than the Retrofit.

This is quite the polar change for what was once considered a dire problem with an unavoidable death sentence. Thanks to an expansive collection of tech articles, classes, webinars, videos, and in-depth instructions created by Flat 6 Innovations and LN Engineering, working on your Porsche’s M96 engine should be a non-issue for any competent home mechanic with access to basic tools and a Durametric set-up.

Raby and Navarro both suggest that if you plan on keeping your M96-powered car for a long, long time, opt for the IMS Solution. However, it’s best you start with a solid car and plan on addressing the M96’s laundry list of other well-documented weak points, including the rear-main seal, air-oil separator, water pump, and thermostat. Don’t chase problems as they arise—knock them out before they even surface. It would be well worth your time to have the cylinders bore scoped, as there is no point to addressing the IMS bearing or any of the other weak points if you have bore-scoring. 

To keep up on the latest developments, it’s best to sign up for LN Engineering’s newsletter and follow both LN and Flat 6 Innovation on Facebook and YouTube. The Raby and Navarro team are constantly putting out valuable information for anyone who owns a Porsche. Between the two, they have put out hundreds of hours of video content and a treasure trove of technical articles that are all available free of charge.

The post The IMS Solution and IMS Retrofit: A Complete History appeared first on The Drive.