Class Action Lawsuit for Rod Bearing issue, LETS FINALLY DO THIS

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M3414

Talked to my attorney friend yesterday, he said no mom and pop shop law firm will take this case, its gonna take a lot of financial firepower to go after BMW, I reached out to the same attorneys that handled the n54 engines today ,left the attorney a voicemail

Agreed with your statement , because in Germany is an army of lawyers waiting !
I just know this because....I'll repeat,they are reading this forum too .
BTW...Most lawyers are afraid alone of the word BMW .

[nthretourNAFTW]

This forum is the first place people come to bitch about a problem with their car. But some of the most vocal bitches have no problem with their engine. So you'd have to ask yourself why some people are like this. The answer is simple. They are the ones with modified or tuned engines running a higher risk.

Having surveyed the forum since 2007, rarely did the interval between engine breakdown report threads was less than at least a month or two. It's not every week or every days like some bitch like to lie about. There is no doubt the internet gives a grossly overblown impression of this issue.

There are only 60 documented reported cases in this forum over the 89 months period from 2008 to today. That's an average of only 1 case every 1.5 month. Sure, those only represent reported cases in the forum so, to give a broader view i made an estimate spreadsheet.

In the first column you decide for yourself how representative the m3 forum reported cases are by giving it a guessed "reported percentage" out of the the total cases having occurred (known and unknown). Your guess should be largely guided by how many m3 owners worldwide would publish such a case in this forum (or someone connected to them would) should their engine fail.

For example if you think 30% of total e9x owners are forum members and that only 80% of those members would report such a case to the forum then your "reported percentage" number is 30% * 80% = 24%. Then in the table you can read on the third and fourth columns the extrapolated number of total cases is 240 and the extrapolated total occurrences is 0.42% (I used the known total number of produced e9x m3 worlwide: 57,559 units).

This is estimating past cases. To get past and future expected cases over the total lifetime of all e9x m3 cars you have to estimate what is the average miles of all m3 on the road as of today. Let's say it's 30k miles. If you assume a normal lifetime is 150k miles then one rough estimate would be to multiply your previous result by (150k / 30k) = 5 times. With our example this would be 0.42% * 5 = 2.1%. Note that if cars fail less after they've reach a certain mile and age then we are overestimating cases.




BUT, and this is important, remember that out of those 60 reported cases on this forum the number of modified engines (SC or tuned) is much higher than in the general m3 population on the roads. Most would agree that SC cars are at a higher risk of engine issues. The above table assumes that the proportion of modified engines in the general population is the same as in that group of failed engines. It is not ! So i made a second table, to estimate the failure occurence for non-modified engines.





This second table's has a row to account for the % of modified engines in those reported 60 cases and extrapolates the number of past cases like the first table. Back to our previous example of 24% "reported percentage". If we assume 40% of those 60 had modified engine. Our previous number drops from 0.42% to 0.25% past occurence. Multiply that by 5 =

1.25% = rough guess estimate of the odds of a non modified engine car failing over a 150k miles lifetime.

Now think about all liers giving flippant impressions that 1 out of 5 car fail (20%). All this leads me to think is that they want other m3 owners to underwrite their tuned or supercharged engine using scare tactics and disproportionately exaggerating this very minor issue.

I'm not saying the engine is 100% proof but 98.75% is actually rather good, don't you think so ? I think BMW should step up for those 1.25% and cover them 100% !
I understand that some people think that to get a corporation moving against its own profits and do the right thing calls for using unscrupulous social media scare tactics, I do not condone it but i hope many people will realize this is a far smaller issue than it is made out to be on this forum.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

This forum is the first place people come to bitch about a problem with their car. But some of the most vocal bitches have no problem with their engine. So you'd have to ask yourself why some people are like this. The answer is simple. They are the ones with modified or tuned engines running a higher risk.

Having surveyed the forum since 2007, rarely did the interval between engine breakdown report threads was less than at least a month or two. It's not every week or every days like some bitch like to lie about. There is no doubt the internet gives a grossly overblown impression of this issue.

There are only 60 documented reported cases in this forum over the 89 months period from 2008 to today. That's an average of only 1 case every 1.5 month. Sure, those only represent reported cases in the forum so, to give a broader view i made an estimate spreadsheet.

In the first column you decide for yourself how representative the m3 forum reported cases are by giving it a guessed "reported percentage" out of the the total cases having occurred (known and unknown). Your guess should be largely guided by how many m3 owners worldwide would publish such a case in this forum (or someone connected to them would) should their engine fail.

For example if you think 30% of total e9x owners are forum members and that only 80% of those members would report such a case to the forum then your "reported percentage" number is 30% * 80% = 24%. Then in the table you can read on the third and fourth columns the extrapolated number of total cases is 240 and the extrapolated total occurrences is 0.42% (I used the known total number of produced e9x m3 worlwide: 57,559 units).

This is estimating past cases. To get past and future expected cases over the total lifetime of all e9x m3 cars you have to estimate what is the average miles of all m3 on the road as of today. Let's say it's 30k miles. If you assume a normal lifetime is 150k miles then one rough estimate would be to multiply your previous result by (150k / 30k) = 5 times. With our example this would be 0.42% * 5 = 2.1%. Note that if cars fail less after they've reach a certain mile and age then we are overestimating cases.

Attachment 1209779


BUT, and this is important, remember that out of those 60 reported cases on this forum the number of modified engines (SC or tuned) is much higher than in the general m3 population on the roads. Most would agree that SC cars are at a higher risk of engine issues. The above table assumes that the proportion of modified engines in the general population is the same as in that group of failed engines. It is not ! So i made a second table, to estimate the failure occurence for non-modified engines.


Attachment 1209780


This second table's has a row to account for the % of modified engines in those reported 60 cases and extrapolates the number of past cases like the first table. Back to our previous example of 24% "reported percentage". If we assume 40% of those 60 had modified engine. Our previous number drops from 0.42% to 0.25% past occurence. Multiply that by 5 =

1.25% = rough guess estimate of the odds of a non modified engine car failing over a 150k miles lifetime.

Now think about all those rod bearing scare threads, and those bitches liers they give absolutely flippant impressions that 1 out of 5 car fails (20%). Just like i said, it's internet scare bullshit.

I'm not saying the engine is 100% proof but 98.75% is actually rather good, don't you think so ? I think BMW should step up for those 1.25% and cover them 100%. But i think those RB scare threads are bullshit and counter productive.

Why do I get the impression you're here to misdirect and mislead people? Please take the time to read, and respond to these points as well.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=33

And now you've popped back up just when people are talking about suing BMW. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

[Hujan]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

This forum is the first place people come to bitch about a problem with their car. But some of the most vocal bitches have no problem with their engine. So you'd have to ask yourself why some people are like this. The answer is simple. They are the ones with modified or tuned engines running a higher risk.

Having surveyed the forum since 2007, rarely did the interval between engine breakdown report threads was less than at least a month or two. It's not every week or every days like some bitch like to lie about. There is no doubt the internet gives a grossly overblown impression of this issue.

There are only 60 documented reported cases in this forum over the 89 months period from 2008 to today. That's an average of only 1 case every 1.5 month. Sure, those only represent reported cases in the forum so, to give a broader view i made an estimate spreadsheet.

In the first column you decide for yourself how representative the m3 forum reported cases are by giving it a guessed "reported percentage" out of the the total cases having occurred (known and unknown). Your guess should be largely guided by how many m3 owners worldwide would publish such a case in this forum (or someone connected to them would) should their engine fail.

For example if you think 30% of total e9x owners are forum members and that only 80% of those members would report such a case to the forum then your "reported percentage" number is 30% * 80% = 24%. Then in the table you can read on the third and fourth columns the extrapolated number of total cases is 240 and the extrapolated total occurrences is 0.42% (I used the known total number of produced e9x m3 worlwide: 57,559 units).

This is estimating past cases. To get past and future expected cases over the total lifetime of all e9x m3 cars you have to estimate what is the average miles of all m3 on the road as of today. Let's say it's 30k miles. If you assume a normal lifetime is 150k miles then one rough estimate would be to multiply your previous result by (150k / 30k) = 5 times. With our example this would be 0.42% * 5 = 2.1%. Note that if cars fail less after they've reach a certain mile and age then we are overestimating cases.

Attachment 1209779


BUT, and this is important, remember that out of those 60 reported cases on this forum the number of modified engines (SC or tuned) is much higher than in the general m3 population on the roads. Most would agree that SC cars are at a higher risk of engine issues. The above table assumes that the proportion of modified engines in the general population is the same as in that group of failed engines. It is not ! So i made a second table, to estimate the failure occurence for non-modified engines.


Attachment 1209780


This second table's has a row to account for the % of modified engines in those reported 60 cases and extrapolates the number of past cases like the first table. Back to our previous example of 24% "reported percentage". If we assume 40% of those 60 had modified engine. Our previous number drops from 0.42% to 0.25% past occurence. Multiply that by 5 =

1.25% = rough guess estimate of the odds of a non modified engine car failing over a 150k miles lifetime.

Now think about all those rod bearing scare threads, and those bitches liers they give absolutely flippant impressions that 1 out of 5 car fails (20%). Just like i said, it's internet scare bullshit.

I'm not saying the engine is 100% proof but 98.75% is actually rather good, don't you think so ? I think BMW should step up for those 1.25% and cover them 100%. But i think those RB scare threads are bullshit and counter productive.

There's a couple problems with your analysis:

First, while the failure rate may be comparatively small, try to find examples of rod bearings pulled from engines that actually look good. It's even more rare than the number of blown engines. I would estimate the number of engines experiencing premature bearing wear is very high. It may be true that only a small subset of those have such accelerated wear that the engine actually fails, but the excessive wear seems very widespread.

Second, I don't think modding engines is a sufficient reason to explain the failures. N54-equipped cars are modded at least as frequently to at least the same extent as the E9x M3s, and in all reality, to much greater extent and frequency. Indeed, the entire allure of the N54 is the ease of unlocking huge power gains with simple bolt-ons or turbos. And yet, for all the other problems associated with N54s, catastrophic failures are almost completely unheard of. Why would this be the case unless there is something unique about the S65 that makes it particularly vulnerable to failures when modded?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

This forum is the first place people come to bitch about a problem with their car. But some of the most vocal bitches have no problem with their engine. So you'd have to ask yourself why some people are like this. The answer is simple. They are the ones with modified or tuned engines running a higher risk.

Actually, the real answer is much simpler than that. Read this thread for details.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838

Having surveyed the forum since 2007, rarely did the interval between engine breakdown report threads was less than at least a month or two. It's not every week or every days like some bitch like to lie about. There is no doubt the internet gives a grossly overblown impression of this issue.

Surveyed forum since 2007, but created screen name in 04/2015 just to respond to engine failures. Got it.

There are only 60 documented reported cases in this forum over the 89 months period from 2008 to today. That's an average of only 1 case every 1.5 month. Sure, those only represent reported cases in the forum so, to give a broader view i made an estimate spreadsheet.

In the first column you decide for yourself how representative the m3 forum reported cases are by giving it a guessed "reported percentage" out of the the total cases having occurred (known and unknown). Your guess should be largely guided by how many m3 owners worldwide would publish such a case in this forum (or someone connected to them would) should their engine fail.

OK, let's use your example. In your version, you assume that everybody who owns an m3 is on the forum. That's obviously a false assumption.

Here's my version. 5% of total m3 owners on this forum at any given time. Let's be liberal and say 25% of those would actually report their failure on the forum. There are 60 reported forum failures. Normalizing those 60 failures across the 5% of m3 owners on the forum gets you to 1200 failures. Normalizing those 1200 failures to the 25% who would actually report them gets you to 4800 failures (60 / (0.05 * 0.25) = 4800). Using your 57559 total production units gets you to 8.3% total failure rate. That's pretty crappy.

I don't necessarily disagree with your other points (except 150k miles being normal), so I didn't quote or comment on them.

Now think about all those rod bearing scare threads, and those bitches liers they give absolutely flippant impressions that 1 out of 5 car fails (20%). Just like i said, it's internet scare bullshit.

There's only one or two people on the forum like that. So it's unfair to say all of the threads are like that and itself is a misrepresentation of what they post. If you think you can support your "1 out of 5 car fails" comment with examples, I'd like to see it.

I'm not saying the engine is 100% proof but 98.75% is actually rather good, don't you think so ? I think BMW should step up for those 1.25% and cover them 100%. But i think those RB scare threads are bullshit and counter productive.

Actually, even 98.75% would be pretty crappy IMO. Should be 99.75% or less IMO. But using your own technique and using more realistic data, the failure rate would be closer to 8.3%. You still think that's pretty good?

But if you think the "RB scare threads are bullshit and counter productive" then explain what's bullshit about them, and what's counter productive about them. Don't do what you're accusing others of doing. Back it up with examples so we can at least hear why you say that. I may agree with you in the end, or I may not. But don't assume we all know what you are talking about without some examples behind it.

[nthretourNAFTW]

Originally Posted by Hujan

There's a couple problems with your analysis:

First, while the failure rate may be comparatively small, try to find examples of rod bearings pulled from engines that actually look good. It's even more rare than the number of blown engines. I would estimate the number of engines experiencing premature bearing wear is very high. It may be true that only a small subset of those have such accelerated wear that the engine actually fails, but the excessive wear seems very widespread.

Second, I don't think modding engines is a sufficient reason to explain the failures. N54-equipped cars are modded at least as frequently to at least the same extent as the E9x M3s, and in all reality, to much greater extent and frequency. Indeed, the entire allure of the N54 is the ease of unlocking huge power gains with simple bolt-ons or turbos. And yet, for all the other problems associated with N54s, catastrophic failures are almost completely unheard of. Why would this be the case unless there is something unique about the S65 that makes it particularly vulnerable to failures when modded?

Bearing wear is not a separate aggravating issue, it is connected. It does not changes the outcome of my analysis. The observed median miles of failed engine did not show a high miles bias, it was widespread which validates my approach to scale up by car lifetime.

Whether of not engine modification is detrimental to engine's life expectancy doesn't change anything in my analysis. I only took those cases out so as not to mix them with non modified engines odds.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

This forum is the first place people come to bitch about a problem with their car. But some of the most vocal bitches have no problem with their engine. So you'd have to ask yourself why some people are like this. The answer is simple. They are the ones with modified or tuned engines running a higher risk.

....

Now think about all liers giving flippant impressions that 1 out of 5 car fail (20%). All this leads me to think is that they want other m3 owners to underwrite their tuned or supercharged engine using scare tactics and disproportionately exaggerating this very minor issue.

The irony here is that there are only one or two people who are in every thread saying the sky is falling, and they are actually very polite individuals. But there are far more people on the other side criticizing them in every thread, even threads they have not posted in. They are rude, vitriolic, and more numerous than the sky is falling people.

If your point is that you don't like people who are one-issue-posters and are giving other forum members false impressions, I'm wondering why you haven't criticized the other side for even worse behavior and more egregious examples of the things you are protesting above?

[avol3xo]

I bet those who would be more interested in pursuing this would be the attorneys of 3rd party warranty companies that have had to pay for these repairs. If they pushed hard enough maybe BMW would take some action.

[Dean//m]

I'm down

[BobS]

Regular guy had a great point with that "surveyed forum since 2007" with a join date of 2015 lol.

At first I didn't believe it...but I do agree there is a bearing wear issue. It seems to effect some cars worse than others but I haven't seen anyone pull thier bearings and have them look good. I plan to swap mine in a month, I'm interested to see what they look like.

There are cars in the 100k+ mile range still on original bearings so there shouldn't be mass hysteria... but people do need to be aware. This is definitly something that we as consumers should not be worried about with a company as well respected as BMW.

[Hujan]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

Bearing wear is not a separate aggravating issue, it is connected. It does not changes the outcome of my analysis. The observed median miles of failed engine did not show a high miles bias, it was widespread which validates my approach to scale up by car lifetime.

Whether of not engine modification is detrimental to engine's life expectancy doesn't change anything in my analysis. I only took those cases out so as not to mix them with non modified engines odds.

I agree that bearing wear and engine failures are connected. If so, consider what that means: Few engines fail, but many many more have abnormal/accelerated bearing wear. If this is true, then it confirms that there is a problem with most every engine, but that the problem is only bad enough to manifest as such in the few extremely unlucky individuals who suffer engine failure. It basically disproves your entire post.

Regarding engine modification, you seem to suggest that this is the trigger for engine failures and that if you take that out, then the number of engines failing is virtually nonexistent. My response is to point out that engine modification does not beget failure in other BMW engines. Thus, if modification does result in failure on the S65 it would, again, seem to be because it exaggerates an underlying flaw with the S65 that is apparently not present in other BMW engines (at least other than the S54 and S85). Again, it would seem to disprove your entire post.

[nthretourNAFTW]

Your post brought nothing more to my brief analysis, neither did it invalidate anything. You started by a calumny attempt (that's classy), followed by taking a wild and completely unrealistic guess of only 1.25% (0.25 * 0.05) out of all occurrences having been reported on this forum.

On your allegation that i was unfairly representing scare tactic exaggerations in this forum. I'll respond to that. Finally you think rather arrogantly that you can take a condescending approach on me. You simply do not have the depth and analytical skills (as shown in your RB thread) for me to take you seriously any further.

"In your version, you assume that everybody who owns an m3 is on the forum. That's obviously a false assumption."
Absolutely not, I didn't make that assumption at all, much the contrary. Which goes to show you understood nothing of a simple and brief analysis.

Search this thread, you'll find one of those scare propagating guys saying an engine fail is reported daily on the forum. 89 months since m3 release = 2670 days. Let's first take your ridiculous 1.25% guess of reported percentage to normalize his scare number. 2670 / 0.0125 = 213,600 cars failed (LOL, there should be zero m3 left). Ok then use my more realistic guess number of 24% reported percentage. 2670 / 0.24 = 11,125 cars which would be 1 out of 5 cars produced.

Forgive me if i will not take further comments from you seriously, as it's mostly a waste of time.

Originally Posted by regular guy

previous post.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

Your post brought nothing more to my brief analysis, neither did it invalidate anything. You started by a calumny attempt (that's classy), followed by taking a wild and completely unrealistic guess of only 1.25% (0.25 * 0.05) out of all occurrences having been reported on this forum.

On your allegation that i was unfairly representing scare tactic exaggerations in this forum. I'll respond to that. Finally you think rather arrogantly that you can take a condescending approach on me. You simply do not have the depth and analytical skills (as shown in your RB thread) for me to take you seriously any further.

"In your version, you assume that everybody who owns an m3 is on the forum. That's obviously a false assumption."
Absolutely not, I didn't make that assumption at all, much the contrary. Which goes to show you understood nothing of a simple and brief analysis.

Search this thread, you'll find one of those scare propagating guys saying an engine fail is reported daily on the forum. 89 months since m3 release = 2670 days. Let's first take your ridiculous 1.25% guess of reported percentage to normalize his scare number. 2670 / 0.0125 = 213,600 cars failed (LOL, there should be zero m3 left). Ok then use my more realistic guess number of 24% reported percentage. 2670 / 0.24 = 11,125 cars which would be 1 out of 5 cars produced.

Forgive me if i will not take further comments from you seriously, as it's mostly a waste of time.

Can you please post your nonsense somewhere else. This is the 3rd engine that BMW has had a DESIGN FLAW in that leads to rod bearing failures. The owners of these M cars should not be having to worry if BMW will goodwill them an engine once the warranty is up because they failed to properly design the engine. In addition, spontanously throwing a rod through the block, which is what ultimately happens if not shut down could cause a serious accident if it happens at high speeds or in the middle of a high speed turn.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by chris719

Can you please post your nonsense somewhere else. This is the 3rd engine that BMW has had a DESIGN FLAW in that leads to rod bearing failures. The owners of these M cars should not be having to worry if BMW will goodwill them an engine once the warranty is up because they failed to properly design the engine. In addition, spontanously throwing a rod through the block, which is what ultimately happens if not shut down could cause a serious accident if it happens at high speeds or in the middle of a high speed turn.

Exactly ! => http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1127039

[nthretourNAFTW]

Originally Posted by Hujan

I agree that bearing wear and engine failures are connected. If so, consider what that means: Few engines fail, but many many more have abnormal/accelerated bearing wear. If this is true, then it confirms that there is a problem with most every engine, but that the problem is only bad enough to manifest as such in the few extremely unlucky individuals who suffer engine failure. It basically disproves your entire post.

Regarding engine modification, you seem to suggest that this is the trigger for engine failures and that if you take that out, then the number of engines failing is virtually nonexistent. My response is to point out that engine modification does not beget failure in other BMW engines. Thus, if modification does result in failure on the S65 it would, again, seem to be because it exaggerates an underlying flaw with the S65 that is apparently not present in other BMW engines (at least other than the S54 and S85). Again, it would seem to disprove your entire post.

I really don't need to answer your post since you disprove yourself by making inference on false premises of what i said. My brief analysis was concerned with broken engine occurrences. Nothing you wrote about bearing wear disproves anything I wrote except you are making unsubstantiated statements from a bearing wear angle.

The rest of your post is an insignificant mix of (I quote you) : "seem..virtually..if..would..seem.. apparently.. would.. seem".

Nothing to add to that. Thanks.

[bigjae1976]

There was that subframe class action lawsuit for the E46 subframe/rear floor which included M3s and non-Ms. The problem was that the rear suspension had to be entirely stock which ruled out quite a few people. There was a way around it if you could get by with repairing and reinforcing by paying up front and then getting reimbursed. If the cracks were so bad where the floor had to be replaced...you were screwed if you had coilovers, poly bushings, etc.

If there is a class action suit to replace S65s...how many would qualify? I'm sure things like software, pulleys, intakes, and ANY modification would rule you out. Dinan? Probably would disqualify you. Not unless you reverse or hide the mod. Might be difficult unless you plan for the engine to blow up. Especially with a software flash. You'll likely be at BMW dealership to get the work done...not much wiggle room.

I think going for the extended warranty on all engines would maybe include a larger class and be better? Non-lawyer here but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night (seriously).

[aus]

Extended warranty to 120,000 miles on the motor and throttle actuators would be good for me.

And Holiday Inns are luxurious at most tracks in SoCal.
.

[THE-FN-MAN]

Sign me up! I have an 08 with only 25,000 miles and I don't want anything bad to happen to her!

[MFL]

Yes, let's strategize about class action lawsuits on a public forum.

That'll catch them by surprise...

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by MFL

Yes, let's strategize about class action lawsuits on a public forum.

That'll catch them by surprise...

# 67 on this page .

[mjposner]

Spoke to my class action guy today. He said $100k easy and no hybrid allowed, so lawyer has to front all costs and risks to get possible reward. Let's say 5% failure rate. Out of those 1/2 are in warranty and 1/2 out, leaving 2.5% affected. If half mod then only 1.25% are potentially class eligible. I suggest someone start a web site to track this issue to see if a large deep pocket firm might be interested. We are too small to take on this risk. Assuming 25k installed, and 1,000 engines to replace, that is 25 million in claims.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

Your post brought nothing more to my brief analysis, neither did it invalidate anything. You started by a calumny attempt (that's classy), followed by taking a wild and completely unrealistic guess of only 1.25% (0.25 * 0.05) out of all occurrences having been reported on this forum.

I notice you like to accuse lots of people of being liars and slanderer's (that's classy). But I've also noticed you never give any examples for anything you say.

Some people, like yourself started with the false assumption that there is 100% M3 owner forum membership. But when you actually dive deeper into the numbers of active members, remove the inactive members, remove the people who have since sold their m3, and remove all E30, E36, E46, and Fxx M3 owners, the actual number of E92 M3 owners is much closer to 5% than your assumption of 100%. As a guy who's been here since 2007 and followed this issue so closely, I'm sure you remember this discussion many months ago.

On your allegation that i was unfairly representing scare tactic exaggerations in this forum. I'll respond to that. Finally you think rather arrogantly that you can take a condescending approach on me. You simply do not have the depth and analytical skills (as shown in your RB thread) for me to take you seriously any further.

I thought you said you were going to respond to it. Instead, what you did was a standard Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing somebody else to cover up your own tactics. Are you an acolyte of Saul Alinsky's and his Rules for Radicals? These tactics are making it painfully obvious your presence here isn't by accident: you make it rather obvious you were sent here to misinform.

My RB thread has been up for more than a year. If you think you've found a flaw in any of the measurements or way it's been presented, then I don't see what's stopping you from pointing it out. So far, you haven't provided any substantial contributions to the forum or the understanding of this problem. And what little you have produced has been flawed as already pointed out by multiple people. So if you've got examples of the flaws in my work, then feel free to go over there and point them out. I can't wait.

"In your version, you assume that everybody who owns an m3 is on the forum. That's obviously a false assumption."
Absolutely not, I didn't make that assumption at all, much the contrary. Which goes to show you understood nothing of a simple and brief analysis.

Show me where your first table of estimated failure rate takes anything less than 100% m3 owner forum membership into account. Your columns are: 1) reported % on m3forum (sic, it's m3post, not m3forum); 2) m3forum (sic) reported cases; 3) extrapolated total number of cases; 4) extrapolated % of total m3's. You missed: Total % of E9x m3 owners on the forum. Without that missing piece, your calculations are fatally flawed to assume 100%. It's simple math.

Search this thread, you'll find one of those scare propagating guys saying an engine fail is reported daily on the forum. 89 months since m3 release = 2670 days. Let's first take your ridiculous 1.25% guess of reported percentage to normalize his scare number. 2670 / 0.0125 = 213,600 cars failed (LOL, there should be zero m3 left). Ok then use my more realistic guess number of 24% reported percentage. 2670 / 0.24 = 11,125 cars which would be 1 out of 5 cars produced.

I see what you're doing. You're assuming his comment (which I disagree with) goes back to the beginning of m3 production, instead of starting at some point in time and going forward. I'll take you at your word that you're smarter than all of us and knew this without me pointing it out. That would mean you're intentionally and dishonestly manipulating the data to prove your point.

Forgive me if i will not take further comments from you seriously, as it's mostly a waste of time.

Do you always give up this easily? If you have something to prove, then prove it instead of running away. Let's start with your posts a few weeks ago. Where's your data for that? So far I haven't seen any data from you that isn't either flawed or intentionally manipulated. Nobody's going to take you seriously unless you can back it up with data, instead of rhetoric and vitriol.