RE: BMW M3 (E90): PH Fleet
Discussion
C.MW said:
If they really nailed it, the widespread bearing issue shouldn't have come into existence in the first place. For me, this is just someting that goes to show the kind of (inadequate) attention they paid when designing the e9x gen M cars.
As for handling, it's interesting how different people prefer different characteristics, but the M3's tendancy to oversteer made it difficult for me to get it under my skin. The rear of the ISF (post MY2010) felt more tied down and I could get on the throttle sooner on corner exit.
I can’t see much in the Toyota’s favour tbh. Much softer, doesn’t ride as well and lacks the M3’s turn in and front grip, for me the best part of the car. I can’t think of a less desirable trait in any performance car than understeer, which is something the E90 shrugs off very well. As for handling, it's interesting how different people prefer different characteristics, but the M3's tendancy to oversteer made it difficult for me to get it under my skin. The rear of the ISF (post MY2010) felt more tied down and I could get on the throttle sooner on corner exit.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 14th April 01:32
yonex said:
C.MW said:
If they really nailed it, the widespread bearing issue shouldn't have come into existence in the first place. For me, this is just someting that goes to show the kind of (inadequate) attention they paid when designing the e9x gen M cars.
As for handling, it's interesting how different people prefer different characteristics, but the M3's tendancy to oversteer made it difficult for me to get it under my skin. The rear of the ISF (post MY2010) felt more tied down and I could get on the throttle sooner on corner exit.
I can’t see much in the Toyota’s favour tbh. Much softer, doesn’t ride as well and lacks the M3’s turn in and front grip, for me the best part of the car. I can’t think of a less desirable trait in any performance car than understeer, which is something the E90 shrugs off very well. As for handling, it's interesting how different people prefer different characteristics, but the M3's tendancy to oversteer made it difficult for me to get it under my skin. The rear of the ISF (post MY2010) felt more tied down and I could get on the throttle sooner on corner exit.
Edited by C.MW on Sunday 14th April 01:32
For example, with cars set up to exhibit slight understeer on corner exit, I can get back on the throttle earlier. Another example would be to take advantage of of those characteristics on corner entry and induce a bit of predictable oversteer to help get the nose towards the apex.
Almost none of the aformentioned attributes are what exactly define the M3. So to my mind, it's more of a lairy, fun performance car to play and drift with out on the street but not exactly a track focussed one. The brakes that get spongy unlike those in the IS-F & RC-F (which is heavier) after a couple of hot laps only confirm that.
Edited by C.MW on Sunday 14th April 13:16
ArmaghMan said:
Guvernator said:
10k miles for tyres? What are they made of, chocolate? I've owned quite a few performance cars previously, never had to change my tyres after 10k.
Does Miss Daisy enjoy her time with you?If you're getting 10k miles out if your tyres on a performance car sell it.
My boss's F Type kills it's rears in about 4K - entirely road use - he does like to cane it tho
Herself's Grandad has a 2008 24K mile Suzuki Splash and it's still on the original tyres (they're rock-hard and terrifying but they're original) so preservation is possible I guess
Max_Torque said:
Hmm, doesn't look like wear caused by "cold engine tightness" (what ever that is) to me:
No, to me it looks like high cycle fatigue failure of the bearing substrate as a result of repetitive peak firing load.
Look at the wear pattern.
The lower bearings (from the caps) have a nice even wear pattern around 180deg of the bearing, centred on the rod axis, show no signs of oil starvation on any bearing in any position on the crank (bearings "starve" depending on how far they are away from the oil feed to the crank, BMW V8s are cylinder numbered 1-4 down the lh bank (looking from the front) and 5-8 down the RH bank). No sign of hard debris or embedding either, so you can rule out contaminated oil etc as well. At high speed light load, the lower bearings have to take the majority of the inertia loads, but they look fine, so "overspeed" lots of high rpm light load operation is not an issue here.
The upper bearings (from the rods) show a wear distribution that is exactly in line with the crank /rod angle you would expect to occur at Pmax. The bearings 1-4 and the bearings 5-8 show the same angle, but "mirrored" because this is a v engine, with the banks 90 degrees apart . The underlying copper is the support material for the primary soft bearing top surface. It acts to provide a careful mix of strength and yet compliance / softness. Copper is chosen because it is "tough" and hence highly wear resistance, yet soft enough to be able to catch and embed any debris. However, copper work hardens, every time you load it, it gets a bit harder, and eventually it can crack. For bearing substrates, the peak firing load (peak cylinder pressure) occurs around 8 to 12 degrees after Top Dead Centre, and that load is carried, cyclically (on every firing event) by the upper bearings (and passed into the crank to make torque).
This fatigue effect happens all the time, and is primarily load and not speed dependent. Once the substrate starts to crack and degrade, the upper soft metal bearing surface (a nickel alloy for lead free bearings (see below!!)) experiences high localised stress and starts to pit and break up. That eventually destroys the ability of the bearing and journal to "surf" on a nice even oil film thickness, and results in catastrophic pick-up between those sliding parts, high friction, heating and ceasing (that then typically snaps a rod or pulls the little end out of the piston) all of which are fatal to the engine.
Now, here's the crux of the matter. A bearing is sized to carry the load it needs to carry. The wider and larger diameter it is, the more load it can carry. But, a larger bearing is not only more lossy, but also means the engine itself cannot be as compact (crank needs to get longer etc). Modern engines use very closely optimised bearing sizes, typically 50% or more smaller than those sizes we used to use for any given Pmax. And in the early 2000's there was a significant change, because Lead was banned due to health concerns. Lead is a terrificly useful material for anything that needs to carry a sliding load. It's tough, crack resistant, wear resistant , has a nice "softness" and and conformability. For the last 100 or more years it was the material of choice for bearings. But when it was banned, so called "lead free" bearings were introduced. Replacing the lead with a copper/nickel alloy was ok for the vast majority of bearings, but in-extremis, early lead free bearings simply did not match their leaded cousins for ultimate load carrying performance, and especially not when you look at fatigue cracking over time. More recent, re-formulated lead free bearings are now approaching the performance of the old leaded ones, but race engines (not subject to the same environmental regs) still run with leaded bearings for good reasons.
So, is suspect the failure shown on the PH M3 is nothing to do with being rev'd hard when cold, and everything to do with the intrinsic design of the engine (high bmep) and almost certainly being forced into using lead free bearings for the first time (the old E39 / E46 M engines, having been designed pre 2000 would both be on leaded bearings). Other manufacturers have had exactly the same failures and even had to limit the performance of some of their engines when they changed to lead free bearings in the early/mid 2000's
So, the important question for me regarding this PH M3 after it's engine bearing change is "what bearings went back in"???
Are they leaded, lead free, are they OEM ones, and did BMW up-issue the bearing part numbers at any point in the cars life of subsequently?? (a sure sign they have changed to a later and better bearing formulation once aware of the issue)
Given that these engines use ion sensing knock control and it's recommended to use super unleaded, do you think this has an influence in the PMax pressures and subsequent bearing loadings? I.e, could this be a deficiency in the knock control system's ability or calibration in relation to fuel choice?No, to me it looks like high cycle fatigue failure of the bearing substrate as a result of repetitive peak firing load.
Look at the wear pattern.
The lower bearings (from the caps) have a nice even wear pattern around 180deg of the bearing, centred on the rod axis, show no signs of oil starvation on any bearing in any position on the crank (bearings "starve" depending on how far they are away from the oil feed to the crank, BMW V8s are cylinder numbered 1-4 down the lh bank (looking from the front) and 5-8 down the RH bank). No sign of hard debris or embedding either, so you can rule out contaminated oil etc as well. At high speed light load, the lower bearings have to take the majority of the inertia loads, but they look fine, so "overspeed" lots of high rpm light load operation is not an issue here.
The upper bearings (from the rods) show a wear distribution that is exactly in line with the crank /rod angle you would expect to occur at Pmax. The bearings 1-4 and the bearings 5-8 show the same angle, but "mirrored" because this is a v engine, with the banks 90 degrees apart . The underlying copper is the support material for the primary soft bearing top surface. It acts to provide a careful mix of strength and yet compliance / softness. Copper is chosen because it is "tough" and hence highly wear resistance, yet soft enough to be able to catch and embed any debris. However, copper work hardens, every time you load it, it gets a bit harder, and eventually it can crack. For bearing substrates, the peak firing load (peak cylinder pressure) occurs around 8 to 12 degrees after Top Dead Centre, and that load is carried, cyclically (on every firing event) by the upper bearings (and passed into the crank to make torque).
This fatigue effect happens all the time, and is primarily load and not speed dependent. Once the substrate starts to crack and degrade, the upper soft metal bearing surface (a nickel alloy for lead free bearings (see below!!)) experiences high localised stress and starts to pit and break up. That eventually destroys the ability of the bearing and journal to "surf" on a nice even oil film thickness, and results in catastrophic pick-up between those sliding parts, high friction, heating and ceasing (that then typically snaps a rod or pulls the little end out of the piston) all of which are fatal to the engine.
Now, here's the crux of the matter. A bearing is sized to carry the load it needs to carry. The wider and larger diameter it is, the more load it can carry. But, a larger bearing is not only more lossy, but also means the engine itself cannot be as compact (crank needs to get longer etc). Modern engines use very closely optimised bearing sizes, typically 50% or more smaller than those sizes we used to use for any given Pmax. And in the early 2000's there was a significant change, because Lead was banned due to health concerns. Lead is a terrificly useful material for anything that needs to carry a sliding load. It's tough, crack resistant, wear resistant , has a nice "softness" and and conformability. For the last 100 or more years it was the material of choice for bearings. But when it was banned, so called "lead free" bearings were introduced. Replacing the lead with a copper/nickel alloy was ok for the vast majority of bearings, but in-extremis, early lead free bearings simply did not match their leaded cousins for ultimate load carrying performance, and especially not when you look at fatigue cracking over time. More recent, re-formulated lead free bearings are now approaching the performance of the old leaded ones, but race engines (not subject to the same environmental regs) still run with leaded bearings for good reasons.
So, is suspect the failure shown on the PH M3 is nothing to do with being rev'd hard when cold, and everything to do with the intrinsic design of the engine (high bmep) and almost certainly being forced into using lead free bearings for the first time (the old E39 / E46 M engines, having been designed pre 2000 would both be on leaded bearings). Other manufacturers have had exactly the same failures and even had to limit the performance of some of their engines when they changed to lead free bearings in the early/mid 2000's
So, the important question for me regarding this PH M3 after it's engine bearing change is "what bearings went back in"???
Are they leaded, lead free, are they OEM ones, and did BMW up-issue the bearing part numbers at any point in the cars life of subsequently?? (a sure sign they have changed to a later and better bearing formulation once aware of the issue)
I’m going from memory with what I say here as it was about 3.5 years
Ago I looked into getting an E90 M3 saloon.
From memory there were around 3 crank weight revisions and at least two different
Bearing part numbers (superseded)
The last revision iirc was around 2010.
At the time the difference between an early 08 car and an lci or later 2010+
Car was over 6k. I simply couldn’t justify spending an extra 6k on a second hand
//M car just-in-the-hope that I avoided bearing issues.
I also did a lot of reading up and it seems the static bearing/crank clearance is
Super small. Experienced engine builders have commented just how tight these
Clearances are from factory. That coupled with the lack of wonderful lead did not
Help matters.
Lastly and this is my opinion, Bmw were extremely naive.
They made an assumption every onwner would diligently warm their S65 up
Carefully without extending it too far.
Big mistake.
This is the PCP generation we’re talking about.
I don’t know many people who do pcp and intended on keeping a vehicle for say
5-10 years (eg long term), hence a lot of vehicles on the road driven with almost
Hire car sympathy as in 24/36 months they will be binned off for the latest greatest
Model or newest number plate.
It would be very interesting to hear from a one owner S65 driver who carefully
Warms his engine through, I bet that car would have no dodgy oil sample values.
It’s such a shame as the E90 series M3 is a fantastic car albeit one with
A bearing shaped elephant in the room.
Ago I looked into getting an E90 M3 saloon.
From memory there were around 3 crank weight revisions and at least two different
Bearing part numbers (superseded)
The last revision iirc was around 2010.
At the time the difference between an early 08 car and an lci or later 2010+
Car was over 6k. I simply couldn’t justify spending an extra 6k on a second hand
//M car just-in-the-hope that I avoided bearing issues.
I also did a lot of reading up and it seems the static bearing/crank clearance is
Super small. Experienced engine builders have commented just how tight these
Clearances are from factory. That coupled with the lack of wonderful lead did not
Help matters.
Lastly and this is my opinion, Bmw were extremely naive.
They made an assumption every onwner would diligently warm their S65 up
Carefully without extending it too far.
Big mistake.
This is the PCP generation we’re talking about.
I don’t know many people who do pcp and intended on keeping a vehicle for say
5-10 years (eg long term), hence a lot of vehicles on the road driven with almost
Hire car sympathy as in 24/36 months they will be binned off for the latest greatest
Model or newest number plate.
It would be very interesting to hear from a one owner S65 driver who carefully
Warms his engine through, I bet that car would have no dodgy oil sample values.
It’s such a shame as the E90 series M3 is a fantastic car albeit one with
A bearing shaped elephant in the room.
3795mpower said:
It would be very interesting to hear from a one owner S65 driver who carefully
Warms his engine through, I bet that car would have no dodgy oil sample values.
If you trawl the forums, especially in the US, you will find one-owner cars (which according to the owners were warmed up sympathetically) which still suffered bearing failure. Of course there's the possibility that a) they are not telling the truth b) don't know how to warm up a car or c) someone else thrashed the car in their ownership.Warms his engine through, I bet that car would have no dodgy oil sample values.
As you say if the specified clearance is small anyway (half industry standard?), it's likely that some cars will deviate either way through the manufacturing process of crank / bearing, some cars will have an even smaller clearance (and thus more susceptible to oil starvation) and some will be nearer the industry norm. Overlap this with the differing levels of neglect from their owners then this would explain the huge variance of outcomes.
Just to check .. on the subject of warming up, I keep the engine under 3k rpm and moderate throttle until the temperature gauge is a quarter, then I open it up a bit more keeping it under 4.5k rpm, then hit 6kpm when the temperature gauge is in the middle. Only after a couple of cycles (maybe a few minutes) of 3-6k rpm to ensure the engine is properly hot did I take it to redline. This is what i've done with every car from a EP3 Civic Type-R to a Mk3 MX-5. Is this satisfactory - or was i meant to nurse it like a twin-supercharged methanol-injected Merlin V12 at the point of detonation?
The science of bearings if you have some reading time :- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Edited by fido on Tuesday 16th April 11:50
3795mpower said:
I’m going from memory with what I say here as it was about 3.5 years
Ago I looked into getting an E90 M3 saloon.
From memory there were around 3 crank weight revisions and at least two different
Bearing part numbers (superseded)
The last revision iirc was around 2010.
At the time the difference between an early 08 car and an lci or later 2010+
Car was over 6k. I simply couldn’t justify spending an extra 6k on a second hand
//M car just-in-the-hope that I avoided bearing issues.
I also did a lot of reading up and it seems the static bearing/crank clearance is
Super small. Experienced engine builders have commented just how tight these
Clearances are from factory. That coupled with the lack of wonderful lead did not
Help matters.
Lastly and this is my opinion, Bmw were extremely naive.
They made an assumption every onwner would diligently warm their S65 up
Carefully without extending it too far.
Big mistake.
This is the PCP generation we’re talking about.
I don’t know many people who do pcp and intended on keeping a vehicle for say
5-10 years (eg long term), hence a lot of vehicles on the road driven with almost
Hire car sympathy as in 24/36 months they will be binned off for the latest greatest
Model or newest number plate.
It would be very interesting to hear from a one owner S65 driver who carefully
Warms his engine through, I bet that car would have no dodgy oil sample values.
It’s such a shame as the E90 series M3 is a fantastic car albeit one with
A bearing shaped elephant in the room.
As i said a few pages ago, the bearing picture put up by PH does NOT show bearings damaged from being "too tight" or from being "over reved from cold). Unless the engine uses aluminium rods (and very few do outside of race cars) then the co-efficients of expansion are similar and hence bearing clearance is not highly dependent upon temperature and bearings that have a hydrodynamic oil retention issue do not wear as shown in the bearings pictured.Ago I looked into getting an E90 M3 saloon.
From memory there were around 3 crank weight revisions and at least two different
Bearing part numbers (superseded)
The last revision iirc was around 2010.
At the time the difference between an early 08 car and an lci or later 2010+
Car was over 6k. I simply couldn’t justify spending an extra 6k on a second hand
//M car just-in-the-hope that I avoided bearing issues.
I also did a lot of reading up and it seems the static bearing/crank clearance is
Super small. Experienced engine builders have commented just how tight these
Clearances are from factory. That coupled with the lack of wonderful lead did not
Help matters.
Lastly and this is my opinion, Bmw were extremely naive.
They made an assumption every onwner would diligently warm their S65 up
Carefully without extending it too far.
Big mistake.
This is the PCP generation we’re talking about.
I don’t know many people who do pcp and intended on keeping a vehicle for say
5-10 years (eg long term), hence a lot of vehicles on the road driven with almost
Hire car sympathy as in 24/36 months they will be binned off for the latest greatest
Model or newest number plate.
It would be very interesting to hear from a one owner S65 driver who carefully
Warms his engine through, I bet that car would have no dodgy oil sample values.
It’s such a shame as the E90 series M3 is a fantastic car albeit one with
A bearing shaped elephant in the room.
i'd put a fair chunk on money on "reving it from cold" being a massive red herring.........
So change them once and never have to worry again might be a bit of a fallacy, unless the bearings you are putting in are of a better quality?
Have Evolve confirmed whether they put uprated bearings in or given their take on why this happens? If they've done hundreds, it would be interesting to get their views. If they aren't uprated bearings, have they had any customers who have had this work done come back again for a second go?
Have Evolve confirmed whether they put uprated bearings in or given their take on why this happens? If they've done hundreds, it would be interesting to get their views. If they aren't uprated bearings, have they had any customers who have had this work done come back again for a second go?
Evolve posted a good video about this a few months ago (apologies if its been mentioned already)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzwmryKu9A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzwmryKu9A
OliTE90 said:
As a fellow E90 M3 owner, I was very happy to see one has joined the PH fleet. It looks like a great buy, congratulations! On balance, I still love mine after 2 years, but it didn’t work out for me as an everyday driver. It’s now only used for weekend drives and trackdays and I stored it over the last winter. It’s a 2012 model year with 58k miles and I’ve chosen to roll the dice with bearings and actuators for now. The brakes have been the worst part for me. I upgraded the pads, hoses and fluid and still suffered fade after a few 70% laps on track. I’ve invested in a front BBK now, so fingers crossed that works. Keep the updates coming, I look forward to the next instalment. PS Were you tempted by one of the gorgeous Eventuri intakes? It’s on my wish list for sure.
Why did it not work out as a daily out of curiosity? I didn't realise how unreliable the engine was when I had mine back in 2013. I only did 10k miles in it though before I sold it...I had a lucky escape by the look of things.
It does make you wonder if BMW knew how poor the engine was...because they didn't put the engine into anything else.
It does make you wonder if BMW knew how poor the engine was...because they didn't put the engine into anything else.
cerb4.5lee said:
I didn't realise how unreliable the engine was when I had mine back in 2013. I only did 10k miles in it though before I sold it...I had a lucky escape by the look of things.
It does make you wonder if BMW knew how poor the engine was...because they didn't put the engine into anything else.
The engine isn’t poor ? Not sure we’re you get that from . And as with all cars they’ve moved over to small capacity turbo rubbish now . It does make you wonder if BMW knew how poor the engine was...because they didn't put the engine into anything else.
Weekendrebuild said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I didn't realise how unreliable the engine was when I had mine back in 2013. I only did 10k miles in it though before I sold it...I had a lucky escape by the look of things.
It does make you wonder if BMW knew how poor the engine was...because they didn't put the engine into anything else.
The engine isn’t poor ? Not sure we’re you get that from . And as with all cars they’ve moved over to small capacity turbo rubbish now . It does make you wonder if BMW knew how poor the engine was...because they didn't put the engine into anything else.
That same car you sold will be happily running around still, bearings in tact, not on fire and being enjoyed by its current owner. There is nothing 'poor' about the engine, nor unreliable. They didn't put it in anything else, because there was no other model to put it in and emissions targets killed it off for the next gen M3.
cerb4.5lee said:
I didn't realise how unreliable the engine was when I had mine back in 2013. I only did 10k miles in it though before I sold it...I had a lucky escape by the look of things.
You were lucky not to win the German lottery.I'm awaiting BMW Dealer to see if they can improve on the £12,000 engine rebuild (yes that's the cost of a bottom-end rebuild) that the warranty company has agreed to. You'd think BMW would at least partially admit to screwing up and put their hand in their pockets? With hindsight I would have got bearings done at the next oil change, if not straight after the purchase - but I didn't genuinely expect it to go at such low miles. Even my previous car (a Subaru WRX 2.5 with chocolate pistons) didn't let me down so badly. If they BMW don't chip in for a new engine i will keep the car (also get the brakes updated) but won't ever buy a new or AUC BMW again - they just lost out on a M140 or Z4 which would have been next on list.
Edited by fido on Thursday 18th April 10:25
Guvernator said:
There have been some great highly strung engines which are reliable, Honda having many notable examples. It is more than possible IF you don't cut corners.
Cant think of many high revving V8 mass production cars since the no lead legislation on 2011.....care to share them?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff