[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

What stands out is that the supercharged motor shows far less wear than the stock car...this is surely contrary to expected as the increase in CR and HP should cause significantly higher loads on the bearings during the combustion cycle of the supercharged motor.

Originally Posted by regular guy

The supercharged motor actually had slightly lower compression than stock...not more.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
So just to be absolutely clear...at maximum supercharger boost the effective CR does not exceed that of the standard engine?

Its exactly this kind of deliberate obfuscation that devalues anything you write.

The mistake and obfuscation is all yours. BTW, when you see the word "ratio" -- it means you need to divide two numbers.

Try again: [Please confirm that] at maximum supercharger boost the EFFECTIVE CR does not exceed that of the standard engine?

That's irrelevant to bearing clearance. Do you plan on answering any of my questions about your every-twisting theory? Do you need a reminder?

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Oh and the shop started up and stopped the car every day for 2.5 months! really? If so, I hope the cats had been removed else they would be most likely shagged.

So you are saying that the car already had the cats removed?
Nevertheless the shop spent 2.5 months starting the car, driving in and out of the shop every day and then stopping it. But curiously the piston crowns don't show any indications of 75 start/stops on the rich cold start cycle.

So according to your theory, not only does the mere presense of low octane gas in a region destroy the bearings in a pattern that remarkably resembles too little bearing clearance, but +CAT/-CAT can affect bearing wear as well. That's quite a convoluted theory you've got going. Got any proof...of ANY of it?

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Am I understanding this correctly - This "ground zero" engine was not using BMW standard rods but Carillo aftermarket rods?
If so why are its bearing data/pictures even being included?

So to sum up the "ground zero engine" had a difference crankshaft, different rods and what looks like different pistons.

I can see how the bearing wear that was found, pointed you in the direction you have taken, but presenting pictures of the actual bearing wear as proof is invalid due to the use of non stock parts. You simply can't use pattern parts as proof that the oem parts are "faulty".

This thread is about clearance and bearing wear due to lack of clearance. Too little clearance is determined by the ratio (there's that word again) between journal diamter and clearance. Whether it's aftermarket crank and rods doesn't matter because they follow the same factory specifications. As such, they were designed to have the same (too little) clearance as BMW and notably had the same fate. There is no twisted logic necessary to see this, not affected by the mere presense of low octane gas in a region, the hypothesis isn't affected by CAT's, presents a very plausible explanation for <25000 mile engine failures, and doesn't keep changing to match every new obfuscation thrown at it. Don't you wish the same could be said about your theory...or theories?

Should we expect any answers from you any time soon on the many unanswered questions for your evolving theory?

Do you ever plan to circle any spots you see detonation on those pistons? What's next? Now that you're locked in to an explanation of the previous piston pictures, the new piston pictures should make your head spin trying to explain without contradicting what you said yesterday. I truly can't wait to see what comes next.