RE: BMW M3 (E90): PH Fleet
Discussion
greenarrow said:
Reading this article makes me pretty annoyed.
Annoyed because its yet another BMW product with potential catastrophic flaws which affect the engine and also annoyed because on the Jaguar XE thread, people were flaming JLR over their supposed awful reliability.
Obviously its a lovely car, but how do the Germans continue to shrug off this sort of story and continue to sell their cars by the bucket-load. If this was a story about a faulty Jag or Alfa we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Exactly, take a look at last years JD Power vehicle dependability study, BMW right at the bottom, but nobody seems to mention that or care. Annoyed because its yet another BMW product with potential catastrophic flaws which affect the engine and also annoyed because on the Jaguar XE thread, people were flaming JLR over their supposed awful reliability.
Obviously its a lovely car, but how do the Germans continue to shrug off this sort of story and continue to sell their cars by the bucket-load. If this was a story about a faulty Jag or Alfa we wouldn't hear the end of it.
https://europe.jdpower.com/business/press-releases...
I think people don't like to admit that their favourite brand is not the golden child
£1400 doesn't sound that bad and at least the engine doesnt need to come out.
Sort of seems unfair really, first owners of M3's tend not to be quite as diligent as later, enthusiast ones, so they batter it from cold and then some poor sod down the line gets to either get this done, or sweep their engine off the road.
Are the new bearings the same or slightly lower tolerance/different material ?
Sort of seems unfair really, first owners of M3's tend not to be quite as diligent as later, enthusiast ones, so they batter it from cold and then some poor sod down the line gets to either get this done, or sweep their engine off the road.
Are the new bearings the same or slightly lower tolerance/different material ?
Edited by J4CKO on Friday 12th April 12:35
J4CKO said:
£1400 doesn't sound that bad and at least the engine doesnt need to come out.
Sort of seems unfair really, first owners of M3's tend not to be quite as diligent as later, enthusiast ones, so they batter it from cold and then some poor sod down the line gets to either get this done, or sweep their engine off the road.
^This^Sort of seems unfair really, first owners of M3's tend not to be quite as diligent as later, enthusiast ones, so they batter it from cold and then some poor sod down the line gets to either get this done, or sweep their engine off the road.
As a Z4MR owner that has had an engine rebuild and it's going for more work I can attest to the above. Mines has been absolutely cherished while I've had it but the original owner was a complete tool and I imagine regularly ragged it to death while cold.
Hence my next car will be delivery miles. Fabulous cars with fabulous engines seem to attract folk with zero mechanical sympathy.
Rant over
Cable said:
Ares said:
The Lexus NA V8 isn't really highly tuned though is it.
Iunno, 12.3:1 compression, 480hp and 96hp per litre vs the BMW's 12.0:1 compression, 414hp and 103 per litre seems like a similar level of tune to me.More latterly the 2UR has gone to 5.0, the 'run forever' variant of that engine is 390bhp, rising to 410bhp, so c80bhp/l
Only in the LC and 'F' models has it been increased to 470bhp, 94bhp/l.
yonex said:
Ares said:
Well they seldom need an engine rebuild at 35k!!
Likely not, but you enter E90 M3 ownership knowing full well that it's not going to be a cheap car to run. This wasn't an 'engine rebuild' it was the bearings, a known issue, as are the actuators. My point is when I had mine it averaged 20 mpg, wore rear tyres at an average of 9-10K and needed the brakes sorting out. Factor in tax and insurance.....
£1400 for the bearings isn't too bad considering the running costs generally. It shouldn't happen, but it does seem a uniquely German thing to be able to get away with it, presumably because BMW (at least) look after you pretty well if it's an AUC.
It's a no brainer on these cars the minute you buy them, unless you opt to take a warranty.
Ask anyone with an advert for one of these in the classifields, and if their advert doesn't mention rod bearings and throttle actuators I assure you most of the enquiries they've had will have raised the question. They're not easy to sell in any shape or form right now (hopefully that will improve) and not having this work done will put most buyers off or at least reduce any offer price - I know I'd be looking to knock off the thick end of £2k for them combined if I was buying, so IMO it's false economy not to have them done when you buy the car.
Or take a chance and wait until the next oil service is due and have it taken care of at the same time. You'll be paying £200 just for the oil at your local stealer, so that's 15% off the job cost if you look at it that way.
That said, with a simple exhaust mod they are incredible cars, and while lacking the low end torque of the current gen they are very capable if driven properly, and come with the added character you get with a high revving N/A V8. I wouldn't change mine now.
Ask anyone with an advert for one of these in the classifields, and if their advert doesn't mention rod bearings and throttle actuators I assure you most of the enquiries they've had will have raised the question. They're not easy to sell in any shape or form right now (hopefully that will improve) and not having this work done will put most buyers off or at least reduce any offer price - I know I'd be looking to knock off the thick end of £2k for them combined if I was buying, so IMO it's false economy not to have them done when you buy the car.
Or take a chance and wait until the next oil service is due and have it taken care of at the same time. You'll be paying £200 just for the oil at your local stealer, so that's 15% off the job cost if you look at it that way.
That said, with a simple exhaust mod they are incredible cars, and while lacking the low end torque of the current gen they are very capable if driven properly, and come with the added character you get with a high revving N/A V8. I wouldn't change mine now.
Ares said:
J4CKO said:
£1400 doesn't sound that bad and at least the engine doesnt need to come out.
Indeed, so many tales of Porsches etc where semi-routine engine work starts at £3k. And Ferrari where is starts at £5-figures.Edited by J4CKO on Friday 12th April 12:35
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)
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)
PS, some lead free bearing info here for info (for the engine geeks like me... ;-) )
FederalMogal_LeadFreeBearings
FederalMogal_LeadFreeBearings
The Ferret said:
It's a no brainer on these cars the minute you buy them, unless you opt to take a warranty.
Ask anyone with an advert for one of these in the classifields, and if their advert doesn't mention rod bearings and throttle actuators I assure you most of the enquiries they've had will have raised the question. They're not easy to sell in any shape or form right now (hopefully that will improve) and not having this work done will put most buyers off or at least reduce any offer price - I know I'd be looking to knock off the thick end of £2k for them combined if I was buying, so IMO it's false economy not to have them done when you buy the car.
Or take a chance and wait until the next oil service is due and have it taken care of at the same time. You'll be paying £200 just for the oil at your local stealer, so that's 15% off the job cost if you look at it that way.
That said, with a simple exhaust mod they are incredible cars, and while lacking the low end torque of the current gen they are very capable if driven properly, and come with the added character you get with a high revving N/A V8. I wouldn't change mine now.
Exactly. This, and the V10 M5 are the most exotic of the M-cars, and the care/expensive/attitude to match.Ask anyone with an advert for one of these in the classifields, and if their advert doesn't mention rod bearings and throttle actuators I assure you most of the enquiries they've had will have raised the question. They're not easy to sell in any shape or form right now (hopefully that will improve) and not having this work done will put most buyers off or at least reduce any offer price - I know I'd be looking to knock off the thick end of £2k for them combined if I was buying, so IMO it's false economy not to have them done when you buy the car.
Or take a chance and wait until the next oil service is due and have it taken care of at the same time. You'll be paying £200 just for the oil at your local stealer, so that's 15% off the job cost if you look at it that way.
That said, with a simple exhaust mod they are incredible cars, and while lacking the low end torque of the current gen they are very capable if driven properly, and come with the added character you get with a high revving N/A V8. I wouldn't change mine now.
So many great cars have some issue - IMS/RMS on Porsches, The timing chain on older RS4/S4's, Gearboxes on S8's, Rust on any 2000's Mercedes, rear subframe mounts on E46 M3's, complex electrical/computer issues on almost any performance car from 2002, untraceable electrical leakage, etc. etc... I believe Corvette based LS engines are pretty solid??
The money spent on the preventative maintenance bearing change seems reasonable given the performance and peace of mind it gives. I'd happily have one of these.
The money spent on the preventative maintenance bearing change seems reasonable given the performance and peace of mind it gives. I'd happily have one of these.
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)
What a fantastic and well written post, thank you! 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)
Unfortunately I'm nowhere near technical enough to respond in a meaningful way - but I'll reach out to Evolve to see what they say. From memory they said the wear pattern on the old bearings in my car were inline with what they see on most of the cars they replace them on, but don't hold me to that!
Thanks again,
JD
James Drake said:
What a fantastic and well written post, thank you!
Unfortunately I'm nowhere near technical enough to respond in a meaningful way - but I'll reach out to Evolve to see what they say. From memory they said the wear pattern on the old bearings in my car were inline with what they see on most of the cars they replace them on, but don't hold me to that!
Thanks again,
JD
Which would therefore suggest that if Evolve are replacing bearings as preventative maintenance, then it's nothing to do with how the car has been driven and is just standard wear for the mileage on OE bearings. And if they have fitted the same OE bearings, they'll be due for replacement in another 30k. Which is a bit crap.Unfortunately I'm nowhere near technical enough to respond in a meaningful way - but I'll reach out to Evolve to see what they say. From memory they said the wear pattern on the old bearings in my car were inline with what they see on most of the cars they replace them on, but don't hold me to that!
Thanks again,
JD
TEKNOPUG said:
James Drake said:
What a fantastic and well written post, thank you!
Unfortunately I'm nowhere near technical enough to respond in a meaningful way - but I'll reach out to Evolve to see what they say. From memory they said the wear pattern on the old bearings in my car were inline with what they see on most of the cars they replace them on, but don't hold me to that!
Thanks again,
JD
Which would therefore suggest that if Evolve are replacing bearings as preventative maintenance, then it's nothing to do with how the car has been driven and is just standard wear for the mileage on OE bearings. And if they have fitted the same OE bearings, they'll be due for replacement in another 30k. Which is a bit crap.Unfortunately I'm nowhere near technical enough to respond in a meaningful way - but I'll reach out to Evolve to see what they say. From memory they said the wear pattern on the old bearings in my car were inline with what they see on most of the cars they replace them on, but don't hold me to that!
Thanks again,
JD
Ironically one of the most reliable engines I've had was a rotary haha
^Interesting stuff.
But that doesn't explain why some engines fail at 20k (like mine did) and some are still running after 150k?
Also if the size/width of the bearing shell is a primary factor then surely supercharged engines or stroked S65s which are subject to proportionally higher BMEP would have signficantly increased failure rates? (I don't know if they do, neither have I heard about problems with the 4.4 version of the S65 .. )
But that doesn't explain why some engines fail at 20k (like mine did) and some are still running after 150k?
Also if the size/width of the bearing shell is a primary factor then surely supercharged engines or stroked S65s which are subject to proportionally higher BMEP would have signficantly increased failure rates? (I don't know if they do, neither have I heard about problems with the 4.4 version of the S65 .. )
Cable said:
Iunno, 12.3:1 compression, 480hp and 96hp per litre vs the BMW's 12.0:1 compression, 414hp and 103 per litre seems like a similar level of tune to me.
the ISF of similar vintage is 5L though with 417bhp @6600rpm bit different from 4L 420bhp @8000+
no arguments the lexus is better put together however - other than the well known throttle actuators and bearings the e92 is pretty solid, at least the faults are known and a wise purchase can be made
greenarrow said:
Reading this article makes me pretty annoyed.
Annoyed because its yet another BMW product with potential catastrophic flaws which affect the engine and also annoyed because on the Jaguar XE thread, people were flaming JLR over their supposed awful reliability.
Obviously its a lovely car, but how do the Germans continue to shrug off this sort of story and continue to sell their cars by the bucket-load. If this was a story about a faulty Jag or Alfa we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Indeed. It’s a similar story with Ford and the last Focus RS.Annoyed because its yet another BMW product with potential catastrophic flaws which affect the engine and also annoyed because on the Jaguar XE thread, people were flaming JLR over their supposed awful reliability.
Obviously its a lovely car, but how do the Germans continue to shrug off this sort of story and continue to sell their cars by the bucket-load. If this was a story about a faulty Jag or Alfa we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff