High mileage 08s report in!

[Assimilator1]

You've lost me their M3Post, you said at ~101k 95% of it's life on TWS 10w/60, but at ~111k 85% of it's life on M1 5w/50

Btw, can you guys with MT M3s do a quick little test for me?
With engine idling & warmed up & gearbox warmed up, doors & windows shut, stereo off (& no loud outside noises ), box in neutral, dip the clutch for a few seconds or so, then go back up.
Does it go quiet when you dip the clutch, & slight whirring noise when you re-engage?

You see I recently bought a 2008 M3 e92 (17/11), white, looks & sounds awesome! (it's had the 2 pipe mod). Never thought I'd be able to own a car like this!, definitely a dream car for me . (Kept my 330d e90 as my DD).
But I'm getting the noise I mentioned above, now it's either just the way they are, or it's got worn layshaft bearings . I've changed the gearbox (& diff) oil but it made no difference to the noise.

It's done 75k miles btw, original RBs, TAs replaced 2k miles ago, clutch & flywheel about 12k ago by previous owner.

[wfdeacon88]

Checking in after another oil change today. Almost to 116K miles on my E90. 70% highway miles over the last 25K miles that I've owned it. Just over a year. Been using LiquiMoly 10-60 for at least 50K miles, according to records I found before ownership. After getting through the mostly normal wear and tear items over the last 15 months (a decent chunk of normal shit all hit over last 12 months + BE RB last January), it is running like a champ. Nearly zero oil consumption between the last two 5K intervals (~1/2 at), starts and runs every morning. I still have the occasional cold start rattle, but I don't worry about it at all after Deansbimmer confirmed it's normal. Overall, engine sounds and pulls like new.

2020 probably will include new front breaks once these rotors are finished (Did rears last month), new valve covers (just a guess based on paint crackling), possibly a new alternator (some codes have popped up every now and then, but it's never not started), suspension refresh or upgrade (not sure, just getting up there), belts, and probably ICV, FBV, and *hopefully not* the other TB (just changed banck 2 last month.

[Assimilator1]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hears a cold start rattle, that was going to be a follow up question.
For those who think theirs doesn't do it, try starting it stone cold with your door & bonnet open. I'd be interested to hear if others do experience this.

Originally Posted by M3Post

The whirring noise upon clutch re-engagement could possibly be the clutch release bearing...

Hmm, whilst that's not impossible I think that's very unlikely in my experience (I'm a mechanic), for one it's quiet with the clutch down where the most load is on the thrust bearing, also it had a new clutch kit 12k miles ago so that'll include a new thrust bearing, but mainly when I put the clutch down I can hear the whirring slow down and stop (as the gearbox input & lay shafts slow down & stop).
My only hope that this isn't a problem at some point in the future is if they all do that, &/or the noise doesn't get worse. Does yours do it?
[edit] Stumbled across this post which points to it being normal for these apparently.

Heheh , no worries on the senior maths moment

[WAKman]

Just getting ready for the 110K oil change. So far, the car has been dead reliable. I keep reading horror stories about these cars, but have dodged that bullet. My theory is that these cars need to be driven regularly. Mine is a DD, and gets grumpy if I leave it sitting for a few days.

[wfdeacon88]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hears a cold start rattle, that was going to be a follow up question.
For those who think theirs doesn't do it, try starting it stone cold with your door & bonnet open. I'd be interested to hear if others do experience this.

Hmm, whilst that's not impossible I think that's very unlikely in my experience (I'm a mechanic), for one it's quiet with the clutch down where the most load is on the thrust bearing, also it had a new clutch kit 12k miles ago so that'll include a new thrust bearing, but mainly when I put the clutch down I can hear the whirring slow down and stop (as the gearbox input & lay shafts slow down & stop).
My only hope that this isn't a problem at some point in the future is if they all do that, &/or the noise doesn't get worse. Does yours do it?
[edit] Stumbled across this post which points to it being normal for these apparently.

Heheh , no worries on the senior maths moment

here's my rattle. And here's the answer I received from a trusted expert who reviewed the video. I stopped worrying months ago, it is there sometimes, and sometimes not. So I don't worry anymore.

[WAKman]

I get exactly the same rattle when I change the oil. Scary the first time--I thought I had dropped something in the oil filler neck.

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by WAKman

Just getting ready for the 110K oil change. So far, the car has been dead reliable. I keep reading horror stories about these cars, but have dodged that bullet. My theory is that these cars need to be driven regularly. Mine is a DD, and gets grumpy if I leave it sitting for a few days.

Another believer here, these cars likes regular exercise.

[Assimilator1]

It's all very well to say it should be driven daily, but that just isn't practical for me (or others) or desirable for the car in the long run. Aside from the fact that it uses nearly double the fuel of my 330d! lol, I also don't want to be clocking loads of miles on it, I plan to be keeping this car for a very long time so it's long term value matters to me. Atm, I've chosen an insurance limit of 2k miles for the 1st year, I might up that to 3k/yr on the 2nd year on.

But I take your point that sitting around for a few days allows the oil to drain back down (funny that most other cars don't suffer that though).
I am looking at what's involved in being able to crank it for a bit without it firing up to avoid the startup rattle (I've asked in another thread, but I'm thinking either remove the fuel pump relay or see if it can be done via diagnostics).

Originally Posted by wfdeacon88

here's my rattle. And here's the answer I received from a trusted expert who reviewed the video. I stopped worrying months ago, it is there sometimes, and sometimes not. So I don't worry anymore.

Good to hear, although it would've been handy if you told us who said that .
Btw, although I get that rattle on startup, I don't get that double 'clack' at the end of the rattle that's in your video.

Wakman
Yea all cars do that after an oil change, although it can be reduced if its a car that you can pre-fill the oil filter (spin on ones pointing upwards).

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by NekMinnit

I'll be honest the Rod Bearing issue does have me slightly worried as being a late model E9x I understand the Blackstone Labs Oil Test wont pick up the new material the late model bearings are coated with (as opposed to the lead that the earlier models had), I know the clearance is the same but the material changed. If anyone knows better and what to actually look for in a late model oil test it would be much appreciated.
Will probably end up just doing the rod bearings when my paranoia gets to much and I start having nightmares.
Car lives in the Aussie climate if that has got to do with anything as well.

There is a lot of mainstream false beliefs around this engine and it's even unpopular to remind people that a lot of it took shape purely empirically and has never been proven. I know as I have been near the center of that history since the inception of the E9x. I know a lot of current forum members are second owners and might not have seen how these beliefs took shape and are now accept blindly as face value.
First of which, the false belief that oil analysis is useful in predicting this engine failure. It is not. Not at all. Not the least so. The facts are cars have failed shortly after an all thumbs up regular frequent oil analysis. You have to keep reminding yourself that fear will/is widely exploited to generate business. Buying a re comforting story is all you get, then you advertise that lie to others who want to buy it too. Soon it becomes a mainstream belief and naysayers are even frowned upon. Do not waste your money on oil analysis.

Second there is zero proven correlation between bearing wear and S65 engine failure. Unlike 90% of current forum members , i followed that debate when it emerged back in 2010,11,12 etc.. Absolutely no proven correlation exist. it's purely empirical. Yes the bearing are abnormally worn, but do cars with 150k, 200k+ miles still on original bearings have worn bearings ? The answer is Yes absolutely. Did the engine fail, nope. Bottom line, the correlation is a myth. RB wear and engine failures are two separate abnormalities. it's another fear generated business, $2,000 is welcome and starting a business on customer fear is guaranteed to generate revenues.

Third, have cars with brand new bearings failed ? Yes they have. And that is the last blow to this fallacious theory of "worn RB -> engine failure". If you reason with cold logic and not fear and do not follow the flock of sheeps, or the vested business interests, you will understand that this engine sporadic and random failures can not be prevented by replacing RB.
The fact is these engine aren't perfect, they're a volume produced race car engine on the cheap (compared to exotics) and driven under certain conditions and habits SOME of them will prematurely fail. New or worn bearings appear to not make any difference in the failures. Therefore, if you are on a high mileage and been the owner of the car for at least 30k, your particular car and your driving style are safe. On the other hand if your the unlucky owner of a time bomb and you have the type of driving patterns to trigger it (and that pattern might be insufficient regular spirited driving and too much babying the car then flooring the throttle), the failure is inevitable. But it remains a less than 1.5% occurrence. Lots of wasted money on fake fixes and lies going around.

[pbonsalb]

A new theory from a non-expert — don’t worry about bearings worn through all the sacrificial layers to copper. However, I do agree the percentage of engine failures is probably in the 1% range and would go further and say the percentage of replaced bearings is in the 10% range. That means 90% of cars are driving on their original bearings 6 years after production ended and 11 years after the first one was made. The odds are with you if you don’t want to do anything. But I have been following the rod bearing issue as long as the guy above and have a different opinion — these rod bearings wear prematurely and those who are risk adverse should change them. The risk is replacing a failed engine engine for $10k or more. I spent $500 changing my rod bearings myself in 2014 when my extended warranty expired and plan to do it again. I recommend the extra clearance bearings sold by BE, VAC and ACL. Insufficient clearance is the most widely supported theory to explain the premature bearing wear and engine failures.

[donnyblaze1]

Checking in at almost 104k on my 08 E90 6MT slicktop. Original RBs and clutch are still going strong. Other than fluids, I've only had a few minor repairs recently...ground cable, one of the rear window regulators, windshield moulding, all 4 rotors/pads, and valve cover gaskets.

Count me as part of the "drive it often" school of thought. Mine pulls an almost DD workload (probably 3 days a week of bonafide commuting duties), and it definitely gets temperamental if it's not driven for an extended period.

[Assimilator1]

Interesting comments guys....

Rajmun340
I don't claim you are wrong, but some of your comments are also unproven.
e.g Bottom line, the correlation is a myth - unproven, unless you have evidence to back you up? In fact the opposite is likely to be true, failed engines often have badly worn or seized big end bearings, right? (excluding ones that have ran out of oil, dropped/broken a con rod bolt or rod etc). I'm not talking about modest wear on bearings that have been pre-emptively changed btw.
Also the clearances are unusually tight by general engineering standards, right? So those points would strongly indicate that it is a big end bearing problem, maybe not so much worn initially but over tight (+ relatively thick oil & probably not being warmed up properly), but you are right it isn't proven.
But what would your counter theory be that best matches the data?

The facts are cars have failed shortly after an all thumbs up regular frequent oil analysis
I have heard that before, I would be interested to read those reports, got any links? (I'm thinking of doing the oil analysis route, but not confident in it at this stage .....)

Third, have cars with brand new bearings failed ? Yes they have.
Including ones with greater clearances?

(and that pattern might be insufficient regular spirited driving and too much babying the car then flooring the throttle
Straight out dis-agree with you on this one, that won't be an issue unless the engine isn't warmed up enough. Unless you have proof to the contrary? Or at least a credible explanation?

[wfdeacon88]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

There is a lot of mainstream false beliefs around this engine and it's even unpopular to remind people that a lot of it took shape purely empirically and has never been proven. I know as I have been near the center of that history since the inception of the E9x. I know a lot of current forum members are second owners and might not have seen how these beliefs took shape and are now accept blindly as face value.
First of which, the false belief that oil analysis is useful in predicting this engine failure. It is not. Not at all. Not the least so. The facts are cars have failed shortly after an all thumbs up regular frequent oil analysis. You have to keep reminding yourself that fear will/is widely exploited to generate business. Buying a re comforting story is all you get, then you advertise that lie to others who want to buy it too. Soon it becomes a mainstream belief and naysayers are even frowned upon. Do not waste your money on oil analysis.

Second there is zero proven correlation between bearing wear and S65 engine failure. Unlike 90% of current forum members , i followed that debate when it emerged back in 2010,11,12 etc.. Absolutely no proven correlation exist. it's purely empirical. Yes the bearing are abnormally worn, but do cars with 150k, 200k+ miles still on original bearings have worn bearings ? The answer is Yes absolutely. Did the engine fail, nope. Bottom line, the correlation is a myth. RB wear and engine failures are two separate abnormalities. it's another fear generated business, $2,000 is welcome and starting a business on customer fear is guaranteed to generate revenues.

Third, have cars with brand new bearings failed ? Yes they have. And that is the last blow to this fallacious theory of "worn RB -> engine failure". If you reason with cold logic and not fear and do not follow the flock of sheeps, or the vested business interests, you will understand that this engine sporadic and random failures can not be prevented by replacing RB.
The fact is these engine aren't perfect, they're a volume produced race car engine on the cheap (compared to exotics) and driven under certain conditions and habits SOME of them will prematurely fail. New or worn bearings appear to not make any difference in the failures. Therefore, if you are on a high mileage and been the owner of the car for at least 30k, your particular car and your driving style are safe. On the other hand if your the unlucky owner of a time bomb and you have the type of driving patterns to trigger it (and that pattern might be insufficient regular spirited driving and too much babying the car then flooring the throttle), the failure is inevitable. But it remains a less than 1.5% occurrence. Lots of wasted money on fake fixes and lies going around.

Huh? Too many things so absurd here that it's not even worth nothing them all...

"RB wear and engine failures are two separate abnormalities."

So when the RB wear goes down to the copper (on older style bearings), and we see a spun bearing and engine failure, that worn bearing had absolutely nothing to do with it? Your logic makes no sense. Why don't you just not do your bearings and quit talking about it.

[Ab28]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

Second there is zero proven correlation between bearing wear and S65 engine failure. Unlike 90% of current forum members , i followed that debate when it emerged back in 2010,11,12 etc.. Absolutely no proven correlation exist. it's purely empirical. Yes the bearing are abnormally worn, but do cars with 150k, 200k+ miles still on original bearings have worn bearings ? The answer is Yes absolutely. Did the engine fail, nope. Bottom line, the correlation is a myth. RB wear and engine failures are two separate abnormalities. it's another fear generated business, $2,000 is welcome and starting a business on customer fear is guaranteed to generate revenues.

You must be kidding...to say that S65 engine failure and bearing wear are two separate things is probably the most incorrect bit of information I have read on this forum.

The engines are failing from bearing wear!

[wfdeacon88]

Originally Posted by M3Post

Over the years, the start-up rattle noise at the very end of your video above (and reposted below) has been discussed on various M3Post threads. What I recall is that the clack/rattle sound in the video IS either:

A) The alternator clutch engaging (because The E90 series M3 has an alternator with the ability via its clutch to be disconnected at wide open throttle [WOT])

B) The Air Conditioner compressor clutch

Hope this helps. Search an yea shall find.

Oh I searched for MONTHS and months and found numerous threads that led to literally no concrete conclusions. Your points are noted and if it ever gets worse (recently it's been less than 20% of the time), I will check those two things. but right now, I think it's all good unless I missed something.

[Agua305x]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hears a cold start rattle, that was going to be a follow up question.
For those who think theirs doesn't do it, try starting it stone cold with your door & bonnet open. I'd be interested to hear if others do experience this.

Hmm, whilst that's not impossible I think that's very unlikely in my experience (I'm a mechanic), for one it's quiet with the clutch down where the most load is on the thrust bearing, also it had a new clutch kit 12k miles ago so that'll include a new thrust bearing, but mainly when I put the clutch down I can hear the whirring slow down and stop (as the gearbox input & lay shafts slow down & stop).
My only hope that this isn't a problem at some point in the future is if they all do that, &/or the noise doesn't get worse. Does yours do it?
[edit] Stumbled across this post which points to it being normal for these apparently.

Heheh , no worries on the senior maths moment

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hears a cold start rattle, that was going to be a follow up question.
For those who think theirs doesn't do it, try starting it stone cold with your door & bonnet open. I'd be interested to hear if others do experience this.

Hmm, whilst that's not impossible I think that's very unlikely in my experience (I'm a mechanic), for one it's quiet with the clutch down where the most load is on the thrust bearing, also it had a new clutch kit 12k miles ago so that'll include a new thrust bearing, but mainly when I put the clutch down I can hear the whirring slow down and stop (as the gearbox input & lay shafts slow down & stop).
My only hope that this isn't a problem at some point in the future is if they all do that, &/or the noise doesn't get worse. Does yours do it?
[edit] Stumbled across this post which points to it being normal for these apparently.

Heheh , no worries on the senior maths moment

My car has always made that noise and goes away when pressing the clutch, even after installing a brand new clutch and flywheel (not for that reason) it used to bother me, not anymore.

My car also has the rattle noise on startup, but for me I know is the exhaust. I have an aftermarket unit, It rattles a little during warm up and it goes away after a few seconds. No bid deal for me either.

[Eja144]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Btw, can you guys with MT M3s do a quick little test for me?
With engine idling & warmed up & gearbox warmed up, doors & windows shut, stereo off (& no loud outside noises ), box in neutral, dip the clutch for a few seconds or so, then go back up.
Does it go quiet when you dip the clutch, & slight whirring noise when you re-engage?

My E90 6MT makes the whirring noise. Noticed it about a week after I bought the car while sitting at the red light. Sounds like something rotating in an elliptical pattern behind the stereo area of the dash. I thought maybe something to do with the flywheel, but I'm not a mechanic and that's probably way off.

At any rate, I read a few threads stating it's normal for these cars and decided not to worry about it.

[pbonsalb]

08 transmit a little more gearbox noise.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by wfdeacon88

"RB wear and engine failures are two separate abnormalities."

So when the RB wear goes down to the copper (on older style bearings), and we see a spun bearing and engine failure, that worn bearing had absolutely nothing to do with it? Your logic makes no sense. Why don't you just not do your bearings and quit talking about it.

You have not understood the logical argument. Your bias is emotionally motivated either by fear of mechanical failure or the money you wasted on RBs replacement. It's called the sunk cost cognitive bias. Let me guess, you bought a used M3 and wasted $2,000+ on RB replacement after blindly accepting the RB theory for face value. Naturally you hate logic that indicates this to you. I understand, i really do. However, I am following unbridled logic and pointing to the lack of proof and the irrational, empirical and emotionally driven argument that underline the S65 RB theory. I saw it take shape from the beginning. Don't get emotionally loaded, stick to logic. Let me ask you the following logic question :

So, when a finely running 150k -200k miles S65 engine was taken apart and the bearings looked very worn, the bearings had nothing to do with the engine never failing ?

Finding worn bearings in a destroyed engine is not proof itself. It's called : available cause heuristic bias. There are many other factors/causes to consider in engine failures. An analogy is best employed here to distance yourself from the emotional financial bias you have. Suppose a fatal disease causes among other symptoms a skin condition and internal organ deterioration, the latter being fatal in 1% of cases. Some people are found dead covered with the skin condition. Somebody conjectures that the skin condition caused their death due to inflammation. A smart business man finds a cream that treats the skin condition, however unbeknownst to them (or even the businessman) it does not heal the disease. People start buying the expensive cream in droves. Somebody says the cream is useless for curing the disease and receives an emotional/biased angry response from people who invested in the expensive cream and don't want their fear re-ignited. But here they find a dead person who was known to have been using the cream. The logical implication of that finding are ignored, having sold their mind to a supposed solution suppressing fear is more important to them than logic. This is the working placebo myth.

Back to the S65. There are cases of people that replaced RBs and their engine still failed a few thousand miles later. Logic dictates that the occurrence of such counter-proof invalidates the theory that RB are the cause of S65 engine failures. There are several such cases, attributing it to bad re-assembly work alone is not possible. Also, there are forgotten cases of very low mileage M3s failures (still being broken in) back in the early years.

I invite you to analyze your own statement : "Why don't you just not do your bearings and quit talking about it". It is summoning fear to ignore logic and give in to irrationality. It would be illogical for me to accept a disproved theory even if it is popular and mainstream. This is groupthink cognitive bias and can even turn to group pressure conforming.

I am saying, worn bearing can destroy engines but destroyed engines are not at all necessarily caused by worn bearings. A flawed engine design can cause worn bearings as a symptom, yet be very tolerant of it and not spin it long before the main cause blows the engine. There is evidence of this with 150k - 200k engines running strong on worn factory bearings. The flawed engine design however can cause the failure without the bearing being worn. This has been the case with replaced bearings engines failures + very low miles engine failures.

Of course there is merit in replacing worn bearings. But to motivate it or advertise it as a fix for blown s65, given the known history of s65 failures, is illogical.

At least you have not sunken to ad-hominem (attacking your opponent in an attempt to undermine their argument) and I hope you don't think that i have in any way, I apologize if you think i have, it is not my intent. Ad Hominem answers or with hints of it lack merit. I shall not reply but will report them. Let's keep it civilized we are all M3 owners.

When taking position against a majority / groupthink cognitive bias, answers of logical fallacies and cognitive biases are to be expected.

[Eja144]

I dunno man. Bearings worn to the copper + copper in the oil filter + rod knock + dead motor seems like probable cause to me. Maybe not empirical by scientific standards, but ya know, if it tastes and smells like shit, well...

To be clear, I don't think anyone is claiming rod bearings are the ONLY reason S65s grenade, just the most common.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

Back to the S65. There are cases of people that replaced RBs and their engine still failed a few thousand miles later. Logic dictates that the occurrence of such counter-proof invalidates the theory that RB are the cause of S65 engine failures. There are several such cases, attributing it to bad re-assembly work alone is not possible.

I agree there are only several cases of engines with replaced rod bearings failing out of the thousands of engines with replaced rod bearings, and in those several cases, the problem was something else.

I disagree with your claim that insufficient rod bearing clearance had not caused excessive rod bearing wear and, in hundreds of cases, engine failures.

[akkando]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

You have not understood the logical argument. Your bias is emotionally motivated either by fear of mechanical failure or the money you wasted on RBs replacement. It's called the sunk cost cognitive bias. Let me guess, you bought a used M3 and wasted $2,000+ on RB replacement after blindly accepting the RB theory for face value. Naturally you hate logic that indicates this to you. I understand, i really do. However, I am following unbridled logic and pointing to the lack of proof and the irrational, empirical and emotionally driven argument that underline the S65 RB theory. I saw it take shape from the beginning. Don't get emotionally loaded, stick to logic. Let me ask you the following logic question :

So, when a finely running 150k -200k miles S65 engine was taken apart and the bearings looked very worn, the bearings had nothing to do with the engine never failing ?

Finding worn bearings in a destroyed engine is not proof itself. It's called : available cause heuristic bias. There are many other factors/causes to consider in engine failures. An analogy is best employed here to distance yourself from the emotional financial bias you have. Suppose a fatal disease causes among other symptoms a skin condition and internal organ deterioration, the latter being fatal in 1% of cases. Some people are found dead covered with the skin condition. Somebody conjectures that the skin condition caused their death due to inflammation. A smart business man finds a cream that treats the skin condition, however unbeknownst to them (or even the businessman) it does not heal the disease. People start buying the expensive cream in droves. Somebody says the cream is useless for curing the disease and receives an emotional/biased angry response from people who invested in the expensive cream and don't want their fear re-ignited. But here they find a dead person who was known to have been using the cream. The logical implication of that finding are ignored, having sold their mind to a supposed solution suppressing fear is more important to them than logic. This is the working placebo myth.

Back to the S65. There are cases of people that replaced RBs and their engine still failed a few thousand miles later. Logic dictates that the occurrence of such counter-proof invalidates the theory that RB are the cause of S65 engine failures. There are several such cases, attributing it to bad re-assembly work alone is not possible. Also, there are forgotten cases of very low mileage M3s failures (still being broken in) back in the early years.

I invite you to analyze your own statement : "Why don't you just not do your bearings and quit talking about it". It is summoning fear to ignore logic and give in to irrationality. It would be illogical for me to accept a disproved theory even if it is popular and mainstream. This is groupthink cognitive bias and can even turn to group pressure conforming.

I am saying, worn bearing can destroy engines but destroyed engines are not at all necessarily caused by worn bearings. A flawed engine design can cause worn bearings as a symptom, yet be very tolerant of it and not spin it long before the main cause blows the engine. There is evidence of this with 150k - 200k engines running strong on worn factory bearings. The flawed engine design however can cause the failure without the bearing being worn. This has been the case with replaced bearings engines failures + very low miles engine failures.

Of course there is merit in replacing worn bearings. But to motivate it or advertise it as a fix for blown s65, given the known history of s65 failures, is illogical.

At least you have not sunken to ad-hominem (attacking your opponent in an attempt to undermine their argument) and I hope you don't think that i have in any way, I apologize if you think i have, it is not my intent. Ad Hominem answers or with hints of it lack merit. I shall not reply but will report them. Let's keep it civilized we are all M3 owners.

When taking position against a majority / groupthink cognitive bias, answers of logical fallacies and cognitive biases are to be expected.

Bearings replaced with new oem bearings still would have tolerances that are arguably dangerous for such a high strung engine running such thick oil.

Not a lot of failures with increased tolerance bearings.

There's not a good competing theory. Your theory about thin walls and vibrations doesn't yet seem to be convincing many people.


I wish internal information from BMW would leak out. Surely they would have done an investigation or at least the engineers would have discussed it after blown engines turned up, so I'm sure they either know the cause or have a theory.