Supercharged e90 M3 Failure

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by mattgold

So Jordan,

Do you believe this is an issue with the AA SC Kit or a failing of a system in the S65 (bearings, lubrication)?

Thoughts?

From the very first post:

Originally Posted by MPoweredAuto

I explained that I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary while driving and he suggested I see if the connecting rod will rotate freely on the crankshaft. We found that the connecting rod would spin freely around the block, thus ruling out a bearing or oil failure.

[BMRLVR]

Everyone needs to realize that not every over rev causes bent valves. The fact that the S65 has a Valvetrain built to handle 8400 RPM in totally stock form tells you it is stout. Also realize that BMW has engineered a safety margin into the valvetrain with regards to max RPM. No manufacturer will sell an engine that runs a redline set at the max engine speed that the engine can handle, that is only common sense, they sell these things with a 4 year 50000 mile warranty.

It is quite a common occurrence to see broken rods and thrown rods from over revs, in fact it is the most common reason for connecting rod/rod hardware failure.

In an over rev situation where a person "money shifts" a car a few things are usually happening. The driver is accelerating hard and usually at or very close to redline. The driver is also usually rushing to get the shift off as fast as he can, which is usually the reason he mis-shifts in the first place, combine this with the fact that when driving like this he is also pretty well side stepping the clutch.

Think about the scenario I just mentioned with regards to the drivers inputs and imagine the forces this will place on the engine. From the point that the clutch even starts to engage, the engine is being accelerated by the drive wheels on a car that is traveling about say 40MPH faster than max RPM. This all takes place in milliseconds and the mass of the vehicle in motion is so great at these speeds the engine don't have a chance. It basically then comes down to the weakest link in the chain as to where that energy goes, (newtons law of the conversation of energy proves that it has to go somewhere). Since the rods are the weakest link in the S65 (and most engines for that matter) that is where the energy went in this case.

All of you guys have to understand, the forces that are transferred to the parts in situations like this are in hundreds of thousands of PSI in some cases. I am not at all surprised that a rod failed if in fact the car was inflicted to a "money shift"!

I would like to see the head off of the failed engine though, it would be nice to see if there were any bent valves! If indeed it was money shifted and no valves were bent it would say something for the quality of the Valvetrain components in the S65.

***I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors, I posted this from my iPhone!

[Jaypod]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

***I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors, I posted this from my iPhone!

That's no excuse Jaime!

Thanks for the info.

[SflBimmer8484]

Jordan,

The data we posted was from the ecu you sent us right after your engine failure. It was not altered in anyway shape or form. The Shadow Memory was posted for everyone to see and read.

To get back on topic why exactly do you think our Active Supercharger kit made your engine fail? You are a shop owner yourself I have yet to hear any proof or data to why its our fault.

[MPoweredAuto]

And for the record, I have not seen the video of another s65 s/c failure. So nit jumping on any bandwagon.

[MPoweredAuto]

Originally Posted by Andrew@ActiveAutowerke

Jordan,

The data we posted was from the ecu you sent us right after your engine failure. It was not altered in anyway shape or form. The Shadow Memory was posted for everyone to see and read.

To get back on topic why exactly do you think our Active Supercharger kit made your engine fail? You are a shop owner yourself I have yet to hear any proof or data to why its our fault.

There is no indication of bent valves, and for the last time I didn't mis shift. I feel that your kit+tune pushed it past it's safe operating limit and if your R&D was extensive enough, you may have known not to push it to that extreme.

I answered your question, now I have one for you:

For whatever reason, have ANY other Active Autowerke supercharged e9x M3's had engine failures at this point besides mine?

Thank you 'Andrew'

[sales@ESSTuning]

I have no interest trying to speculate what might have happened to the OP's motor but I do want to bring some information and first hand experience into this thread. There seems to be a lot of bad information being posted about what this motor can or cannot handle when it comes to RPM's and forced induction. We have proven with close to 350 supercharged S65 M3's worldwide that you can run the stock RPM limit in this car with boost without a problem. We have run many NA and supercharged M3's at 8600 RPM over the years with no issues. During our in house durability testing on our supercharger kits we have run and still run 8800 RPM. BMW also long term durability tested the S65 motor at 8800 RPM. We have never seen a documented case of a money shift causing damage to this motor. I cannot see any scenario where 8700 RPM would cause catastrophic damage to the S65. If this was the case companies like us and Dinan would never run 8600 RPM on this motor with NA tuning as the safety margin would be far too thin.

The S65 uses a custom hybrid solid / hydraulic lifter with stiff springs designed for high RPM. You would need to achieve close to 10000 RPM in this motor to get close to the point where you would encounter piston to valve conflict. On older motors that use standard hydraulic lifters and soft springs or motors that were designed for lower RPM's maybe but not the S65. The S65 much like the S54 have been very good motors to add boost to and have been very reliable when tuned properly and safety margin is made a top priority. These motors were designed by BMW to make high RPM power and that is exactly how we use them.

[mattgold]

I haven't heard of another AA failing and only heard of two other SC'd E9X's failing. I don't think boost, or anyone's SC kit in particular can be to blame.

I have 4000 miles on my 08 E92 AA SC Stage 2 +meth (which predates your install by a couple months). No issues, lots of heavy track use, plenty of hard street driving.

Obviously I'm interested on a personal level if it was in fact the AA SC that caused the issue, but at this point I'm not convinced. I see it as; 'your motor failed and it happened to have a supercharger'. I don't see a causational relationship.

I'm trying to think what could explain it... If you say you didn't misshift, ok, I'll take you at your word. After all, since shadow memory doesn't record time/date, just highest recorded measurement, potentially you could have hit the 8705RPM post-AA reflash, pre-AA SC. Not necessarily at the time of the motor popping (correct me if I'm wrong).

However, if you were under 'moderate' acceleration, I would assume that means the SC isn't making a ton of boost, therefore detonation doesn't seem to be the explanation. If it was detonation that did the motor in, sure I could see where the SC was the culprit. Did pistons show signs of detonation?

If it was a 'Cylinder 5' / bearing issue, that just seems more bad luck than anything. However, are you sure the motor didn't exhibit these traits post-tear down? If you're 100% able to rule this out, I don't know where to go from here.

Failed injector? Failed fuel delivery elsewhere? Spark plugs were fine, right?

P.S. Where is the blown motor now?

[IFX]

roman does the s54 have hydraulic lifters?

older motor thats why i ask.. Even though you said both the s54 and s65 are solid motors.

[Raptor251]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

I have no interest trying to speculate what might have happened to the OP's motor but I do want to bring some information and first hand experience into this thread. There seems to be a lot of bad information being posted about what this motor can or cannot handle when it comes to RPM's and forced induction. We have proven with close to 350 supercharged S65 M3's worldwide that you can run the stock RPM limit in this car with boost without a problem. We have run many NA and supercharged M3's at 8600 RPM over the years with no issues. During our in house durability testing on our supercharger kits we have run and still run 8800 RPM. BMW also long term durability tested the S65 motor at 8800 RPM. We have never seen a documented case of a money shift causing damage to this motor. I cannot see any scenario where 8700 RPM would cause catastrophic damage to the S65. If this was the case companies like us and Dinan would never run 8600 RPM on this motor with NA tuning as the safety margin would be far too thin.

The S65 uses solid lifters with stiff springs. You would need to achieve close to 10000 RPM in this motor to get close to the point where you would encounter piston to valve conflict. On older motors that use hydraulic lifters and soft springs or motors that were designed for lower RPM's maybe but not the S65. The S65 much like the S54 have been very good motors to add boost to and have been very reliable when tuned properly and safety margin is made a top priority. These motors were designed by BMW to make high RPM power and that is exactly how we use them.

This is why I will be an ESS fanboy for life! I think AA is very confused and the easy way out is to blame the customer. Like Roman stated the engine would need to reach 10,000 RPM before piston to valve contact would occur. So to say the customer had a money shift and over revved the motor is BS IMO.(the shadow memory proved the max revs didnt even make it to 8800) After all he only over revved the car a couple hundred RPMs at its peak. By no means do I think I know what happened but I think its safe to say we can rule out a money shift.

At this point I couldn't be more curious as to what happened as I am getting ready to put a $15k hole in my bank account for a blower!

[sales@ESSTuning]

Originally Posted by IFX

roman does the s54 have hydraulic lifters?

older motor thats why i ask.. Even though you said both the s54 and s65 are solid motors.

S54 also uses solid lifter design not hydraulic.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by IFX

roman does the s54 have hydraulic lifters?

older motor thats why i ask.. Even though you said both the s54 and s65 are solid motors.

s54 has solid lifters, evidenced by the need to have the valves adjusted per manufacturer spec.

I have a lot to say - but I'm going to reserve any judgement until I get a read from the OP's car.

Roman, thanks for posting. Although I agree with you to a certain extent, it's unlikely that a tuning issue would send "one" piston shooting out of the block.

I do not think that 8,700 would cause catastrophic failure as long as there was enough fueling up there. Keep in mind that the readout showed roughly 1300kg/h at the MAP sensor with 36% throttle opening - Given that my car was hitting 1200kg/hr naturally aspirated at the same RPM with 100% opening, it might be safe to say that the OP's car was in boost at 8,700 RPM. This however, is not completely conclusive, just wanted to mention it.

[sales@ESSTuning]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

s54 has solid lifters, evidenced by the need to have the valves adjusted per manufacturer spec.

I have a lot to say - but I'm going to reserve any judgement until I get a read from the OP's car.

Roman, thanks for posting. Although I agree with you to a certain extent, it's unlikely that a tuning issue would send "one" piston shooting out of the block.

I do not think that 8,700 would cause catastrophic failure as long as there was enough fueling up there. Keep in mind that the readout showed roughly 1300kg/h at the MAP sensor with 36% throttle opening - Given that my car was hitting 1200kg/hr naturally aspirated at the same RPM with 100% opening, it might be safe to say that the OP's car was in boost at 8,700 RPM. This however, is not completely conclusive, just wanted to mention it.

Fuel would have no effect whatsoever on a mechanical over rev.

[JDM3]

This is why I chose ESS....

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

Fuel would have no effect whatsoever on a mechanical over rev.

I never said that it did. Not sure why you inferred that from what I said.

We've already established that 8,700 is not "really" a mechanical overrev (in terms of pistons/valve contact).

I was referring to fueling at 8,700 under boost, as it will require proper fueling at that RPM under boost to avoid detonation. (which is why I referred to his relative throttle opening vs the calculated airflow reading based off the MAP sensor)

If the injectors are running out at 8,400, then going to 8,700 poses a major issue. Not saying this is the case, as I don't know what injectors/fuel pump AA uses. Point is that if there was not enough fueling on top, due to hardware constraints or software tuning, catastrophic failure is almost expected.

Also, you mentioned that DINAN would not run 8,600 on NA if it was not safe. I agree with you, but have to disagree that this means it's OK to run 8,600 under boost. Two completely different scenarios. The relationship between NA and boosted is not that clear, although it reasonable to assume your S/C kits run fine at 8,600 with proper tuning.

OP: Can you give us a better timeline in terms of Mileage? When did you purchase the car (how many miles)? When did you get the AA tune? How long did you run that tune for? When did you get the supercharger? How many miles did you run that for? At what mileage did this failure occur? What mileage is on the car now? Some of these questions may have been answered, but they will help in determining if this was money shift related.

I also want to point out the difference betweeen accelerating to 8,700 RPM vs throwing it in the wrong gear under full boost and forcing the engine up there. Two different things. One is much more of a shock to the motor. BMRLVR's explaination a few posts back was quite good. In this case without any valvetrain interference, the most stress would most likely be placed on the connecting rods/bearings if in fact the motor was quickly accelerated to 8,700 due to a mis-shift. Think of it as delta time between the RPM you were at versus the RPM it ended up reaching. The quicker that happens, the more stress and energy it took to get there.

Mike

Edit: OP - I want to see the work order from the BMW dealer where they denied coverage. This will add credibility to your case (in my book) for reasons I can't publically discuss at the moment.

[chris s]

When i read AA's response i was a believer....then i read jordan's response and he sounds pretty believable and convincing as well. Then i asked myself...who has the most at stake here? Jordan is already out a significant amount of money out of pocket...and AA has zero obligation to cover any other costs, regardless of what some here think the 'right' thing to do would be. So...from that, i draw my own conclusions for now and await results from Mike's findings.

[Raptor251]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

Fuel would have no effect whatsoever on a mechanical over rev.

You took the words right out of my mouth...lets see the tops of the pistons...was there any detonation???

[Raptor251]

Originally Posted by chris s

When i read AA's response i was a believer....then i read jordan's response and he sounds pretty believable and convincing as well. Then i asked myself...who has the most at stake here? Jordan is already out a significant amount of money out of pocket...and AA has zero obligation to cover any other costs, regardless of what some here think the 'right' thing to do would be. So...from that, i draw my own conclusions for now and await results from Mike's findings.

+1000

[kitw]

whooops nevermind!

[S65V8]

...continues...

[tibra1]

Originally Posted by SROC5

...continues...

Do you expect any less..?..like people who smoke their whole lives then sue the tobacco company when they get cancer..someone always needs to be vilified in situations like this..

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

I have no interest trying to speculate what might have happened to the OP's motor but I do want to bring some information and first hand experience into this thread. There seems to be a lot of bad information being posted about what this motor can or cannot handle when it comes to RPM's and forced induction. We have proven with close to 350 supercharged S65 M3's worldwide that you can run the stock RPM limit in this car with boost without a problem. We have run many NA and supercharged M3's at 8600 RPM over the years with no issues. During our in house durability testing on our supercharger kits we have run and still run 8800 RPM. BMW also long term durability tested the S65 motor at 8800 RPM. We have never seen a documented case of a money shift causing damage to this motor. I cannot see any scenario where 8700 RPM would cause catastrophic damage to the S65. If this was the case companies like us and Dinan would never run 8600 RPM on this motor with NA tuning as the safety margin would be far too thin.

The S65 uses solid lifters with stiff springs. You would need to achieve close to 10000 RPM in this motor to get close to the point where you would encounter piston to valve conflict. On older motors that use hydraulic lifters and soft springs or motors that were designed for lower RPM's maybe but not the S65. The S65 much like the S54 have been very good motors to add boost to and have been very reliable when tuned properly and safety margin is made a top priority. These motors were designed by BMW to make high RPM power and that is exactly how we use them.

It's hard to argue with success.