Blown motors, Rod Bearing failure S65 Registry.

[IIAp3x]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Do you think the answers to those questions are much different than the answers to the same questions asked of owners of other high performance cars with lower failure rates? Or are BMW M3 owners just more irresponsible and worse drivers?

The first owner of my car got it new under a 2 year lease, and I can assure you that the guy could give a shit about the warm-up procedure; not to mention that my car was also a northern US car which was not driven through the winters... I doubt he warmed up the car properly or ever cared knowing he would be giving it back to the dealer in two years... and of course my engine's bearing's grenaded at 55k miles..

How many people on M3post are the original owners? Probably a very very small percentage...

Not all of us are wealthy enough to afford a $1200-$1500 monthly car payment without making some stupid sacrifices- so we buy used M3s instead...

If you had a new M4 lease, would you really care that much about the car if you knew the maintenance was free, under warranty, and you would be trading it in for another one in two years?

[Shredicus]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I'd suggest that until we can ascertain the following facts for ALL or MOST of the failures, it's tough to say if this was BMW taking on a random risk, or simply them designing an engine that required strict adherence to operating protocol listed in her manual:

1) Were all of the cars broken in correctly (according to methods outlined in the manual)

2) Were all of the cars properly warmed up under the FACTORY cold start protocol and according to listed procedures (according to methods outlined in the manual)

3) Were all of the cars properly cooled down (no high rpm, WOT, redline pulls) within just a few miles of where the car was to be parked and turned off.

4) Were all of the cars "stock" as far as engine tunes and / or supercharging.

4) Were the cars in question Sri en as DD or left to sit for months during the winter with little activity.


To ignore these variables to me means one is not serious about understanding the problem, it's causes and BMW's level of responsibility. I also believe these variables and BMW's true lack of complete control over and the relative ignorance of mostly its customers was a CONTRIBUTING factor for abandoning the N/A, high revving, high strung engines.

Cheers,
e46e92

Huh? Thought that's really only a concern on turbo cars.

[admranger]

Originally Posted by IIAp3x

How many people on M3post are the original owners? Probably a very very small percentage...

Original owner, fwiw.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by Shredicus

Huh? Thought that's really only a concern on turbo cars.

Proving my point.

Cheers,
e46e92

[Shredicus]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Proving my point.

Cheers,
e46e92

ok...? Want to elaborate on that or just ride that wave of smug self-assurance?

[IIAp3x]

Originally Posted by admranger

Original owner, fwiw.

Definitely a rarity, but pretty cool to see that you still have the car... I am quite sure that the next owner, if there is one, will know that your car was loved...

[javarithms]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I'd suggest that until we can ascertain the following facts for ALL or MOST of the failures, it's tough to say if this was BMW taking on a random risk, or simply them designing an engine that required strict adherence to operating protocol listed in her manual:

1) Were all of the cars broken in correctly (according to methods outlined in the manual)

2) Were all of the cars properly warmed up under the FACTORY cold start protocol and according to listed procedures (according to methods outlined in the manual)

3) Were all of the cars properly cooled down (no high rpm, WOT, redline pulls) within just a few miles of where the car was to be parked and turned off.

4) Were all of the cars "stock" as far as engine tunes and / or supercharging.

4) Were the cars in question Sri en as DD or left to sit for months during the winter with little activity.


To ignore these variables to me means one is not serious about understanding the problem, it's causes and BMW's level of responsibility. I also believe these variables and BMW's true lack of complete control over and the relative ignorance of mostly its customers was a CONTRIBUTING factor for abandoning the N/A, high revving, high strung engines.

Cheers,
e46e92

No, the reason BMW moved to a smaller engine is because of strict by EU regulations. You can read all about it below but here is an important quote:

A decade ago, the European Union entered into a series of voluntary agreements with the associations of automobile manufacturers that sell vehicles in the European market to reduce CO2 tailpipe emissions. These agreements applied to each manufacturer’s new vehicle fleet, and set an industry-wide target of 140 grams CO2 per kilometre (6 l/100km or 39 mpg).

The original agreement with the European Car Manufacturers Association (ACEA) had an initial compliance date of 2008, while the Asian manufacturers (represented by South Korean and Japanese associations, KAMA and JAMA) were given until 2009 to comply.

However, automakers did not meet the voluntary target and the European Commission has now set mandatory targets.

http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/a...pe/cs_eu_0.asp

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by javarithms

No, the reason BMW moved to a smaller engine is because of strict by EU regulations. You can read all about it below but here is an important quote:



http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/a...pe/cs_eu_0.asp

I did not realize the regulations only applied to BMW.......how did Mercedes and Audi (as some examples) get exempted from the regulations?

Emissions / fuel economy is always a part of the equation, but so is the fact that the S65 / S85 are not idiot proof and I'm sure cost BMW a ton of money from people who simply thought it took the same type of upkeep as a 328 / 528.

Cheers,
e46e92

[IIAp3x]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I did not realize the regulations only applied to BMW.......how did Mercedes and Audi (as some examples) get exempted from the regulations?

Emissions / fuel economy is always a part of the equation, but so is the fact that the S65 / S85 are not idiot proof and I'm sure cost BMW a ton of money from people who simply thought it took the same type of upkeep as a 328 / 528.

Cheers,
e46e92

All of the big auto manufacturers in Europe were affected, not just BMW... Even Ferrari, Lambo, and Porsche are required to follow their new regulations... One of the reasons that Ferrari went turbo- sadly...

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I did not realize the regulations only applied to BMW.......how did Mercedes and Audi (as some examples) get exempted from the regulations?

Emissions / fuel economy is always a part of the equation, but so is the fact that the S65 / S85 are not idiot proof and I'm sure cost BMW a ton of money from people who simply thought it took the same type of upkeep as a 328 / 528.

Cheers,
e46e92

Haven't seen any link establishing any relationship between upkeep and bearing failure. Seems to be purely lottery based.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Haven't seen any link establishing any relationship between upkeep and bearing failure. Seems to be purely lottery based.

I haven't seen a link to any facts other than pure speculation that the failures are not related to upkeep and modding.

The hysteria on these forums is funny. What's cute are the half assed tuners and Internet engineers who are convinced they all know more than BMW ///M and that they know more and know there is an issue when from engineering standards no one has established any FACTUAL failure rates.

Up keep as a cause is at least more obvious and common sense based versus the clearance, type of oil, etc crap that are discussed and then back by some random engine maker or serviced who is somehow an expert because they happen to have some engine experience. The best is when I saw someone experienced in truck engines being quoted and revered.

Cheers,
e46e92

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by Shredicus

ok...? Want to elaborate on that or just ride that wave of smug self-assurance?

Not really.....you have hot oil, engine parts, trans, etc that can vary greatly in temp and stress depending on driving conditions. It is a great surprise to me and something I have a tough time understanding how people think blasting around and then just parking her is good for said parts rather than a cool down as liquids designed for lubrication are also cooling down and running thru said parts lubricating.

Cheers,
e46e92

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I haven't seen a link to any facts other than pure speculation that the failures are not related to upkeep and modding.

Seems like pure speculation to me that BMW owners are among the worst owners of high performance cars and causing the excessive rod bearing wear and engine failure problems only in S65 and S85 motors.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Seems like pure speculation to me that BMW owners are among the worst owners of high performance cars and causing the excessive rod bearing wear and engine failure problems only in S65 and S85 motors.

I cannot tell you how to express your opinions, that would be rude of me. However, I can say that you have unintentionally made assumptions and connected dots that are not present in my posts. So allow me to clarify:

I never said that BMW are the worst owners....its that these types of engines take EXTREME levels of care to operate long term, and most consumers, regardless of brand are absolutely clueless into what it takes to engineer these cars and what will and will not break them. The ridiculousness of a production V8 that can 1) rev to 8400 2) make power all the way to the top 3) produce a virtually flat tq curve and 4) can go 100k+ miles is really an engineering feat that Ford is somewhat accomplishing 10 years later. The problem is NO ONE, not just BMW owners, but rather the general car buying public have the knowledge or common sense to follow the manual to the exact letter AND apply common sense on things it does not mention.

I run a manufacturing firm, and you would be floored by what we have to factor in when designing and manufacturing our products......i.e., factoring in all the stupid shit people do that makes you really scratch your head.

Hopefully, this post clears up the point I have been trying to convey. Few other engines like this one out there, even if you stretch your price range to 200k+, and if you look at the other ones, you will see MUCH worse issues related to perhaps imperfect care.

Cheers,
e46e92

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Not really.....you have hot oil, engine parts, trans, etc that can vary greatly in temp and stress depending on driving conditions. It is a great surprise to me and something I have a tough time understanding how people think blasting around and then just parking her is good for said parts rather than a cool down as liquids designed for lubrication are also cooling down and running thru said parts lubricating.

Cheers,
e46e92

You are probably one of those people that also think when you shut a car off it heat soaks and gets hotter

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I cannot tell you how to express your opinions, that would be rude of me. However, I can say that you have unintentionally made assumptions and connected dots that are not present in my posts. So allow me to clarify:

I never said that BMW are the worst owners....its that these types of engines take EXTREME levels of care to operate long term, and most consumers, regardless of brand are absolutely clueless into what it takes to engineer these cars and what will and will not break them. The ridiculousness of a production V8 that can 1) rev to 8400 2) make power all the way to the top 3) produce a virtually flat tq curve and 4) can go 100k+ miles is really an engineering feat that Ford is somewhat accomplishing 10 years later. The problem is NO ONE, not just BMW owners, but rather the general car buying public have the knowledge or common sense to follow the manual to the exact letter AND apply common sense on things it does not mention.

I run a manufacturing firm, and you would be floored by what we have to factor in when designing and manufacturing our products......i.e., factoring in all the stupid shit people do that makes you really scratch your head.

Hopefully, this post clears up the point I have been trying to convey. Few other engines like this one out there, even if you stretch your price range to 200k+, and if you look at the other ones, you will see MUCH worse issues related to perhaps imperfect care.

Cheers,
e46e92

I think that would be more compelling if something was wearing out, but it seems much more like a lottery based failure.. and one that is is occurring equally to track rats and garage queens. And I can think of one engine with higher specific hp, higher specific torque, a flatter torque curve, higher piston speeds, and a longer crank (harder on bearings): The S54. The S54 certainly does wear out bearings (and does so faster with more redline use), but that's the expected failure mode. It's the lottery aspect of the s65/s85 that is so strange. I also wouldn't think that new owner behavior was overly different between the two engines.

[pbonsalb]

S85 have the same trouble. If abuse is the issue, then M5 owners are as abusive as M3 owners. I just don't buy that. Many have looked for a simple explanation, and though everyone is entitled their own opinion, I am not sure there is one right anwser. Some say the bearings have tight tolerances, some like killerfish deny the problem exists, some say it is the driver, some say it is because the car is modded, some say it is because the engines rev high, some say it is ethanol in the gas, some say BMW's specified oil change intervals were too long, etc.

The S65 and S85 are not the only high revving engines in the world. Honda had one in the S2000, Audi had one in the S5 and some other models, Porsche has one in the GT version of the 911, Lamborghini and Ferrari have them. Ford has one now in the GT350R but it is too early to tell how they will hold up. There are probably some others, but they do not all seem to have the same failure rates and owners of all of them are a representative sampling of owners of high performance cars.

I cannot agree that BMW E9x M3 and E60 M5 owners are the problem. To me, it is more likely something in the motor that is more failure prone than it should be, which leaves the bearings as the most likely culprit.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

S85 have the same trouble.

But at a much higher failure rate it seems.

[Mr. Liu]

Originally Posted by IIAp3x

Definitely a rarity, but pretty cool to see that you still have the car... I am quite sure that the next owner, if there is one, will know that your car was loved...

Don't think its that rare man. Original owner here ED delivery 2010 August.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

But at a much higher failure rate it seems.

Longer crank is harder on bearings.

[aus]

How about you dig up one of the MANY old threads discussing possible causes of these MINUSCULE engine failures and sh!t in those threads.
I'd like to try to keep this one for blown engines for my own enjoyment since I KNOW there can't possibly be ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE of a bearing issue in the S65.


And original owner of my second E92 here.
.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I'd suggest that until we can ascertain the following facts for ALL or MOST of the failures, it's tough to say if this was BMW taking on a random risk, or simply them designing an engine that required strict adherence to operating protocol listed in her manual:

1) Were all of the cars broken in correctly (according to methods outlined in the manual)

2) Were all of the cars properly warmed up under the FACTORY cold start protocol and according to listed procedures (according to methods outlined in the manual)

3) Were all of the cars properly cooled down (no high rpm, WOT, redline pulls) within just a few miles of where the car was to be parked and turned off.

4) Were all of the cars "stock" as far as engine tunes and / or supercharging.

4) Were the cars in question Sri en as DD or left to sit for months during the winter with little activity.


To ignore these variables to me means one is not serious about understanding the problem, it's causes and BMW's level of responsibility. I also believe these variables and BMW's true lack of complete control over and the relative ignorance of mostly its customers was a CONTRIBUTING factor for abandoning the N/A, high revving, high strung engines.

Cheers,
e46e92

I did open my post with, "being generous"...