Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

[bipp]

Originally Posted by AHall

Do the bearings have to be replaced every 50-60k miles after the first replacement? Is the problem poor bearings or an engine prone to excessive bearing wear?

in short:

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

There is no long term concern with BE or any other replacement rod bearing with the proper clearances. It's considered a one-time need. The main bearings in the engine will fail before new rod bearings will.

in longer terms:
https://bebearings.com/Overview.html provides a lot of good resources on why S65 bearings fail. the OEM bearing clearance (and potentially any aftermarket bearing such as VAC that maintains the same clearance, though that's up to debate) causes this issue.

to summarize,

Why do the motors Blow with rod bearing failure?

BMW designed the S65 and S85 with approximately half the industry standard oil clearance. This is a trendy move among some auto manufacturers to increase gas mileage and increase horsepower. But when they do it, like in the Toyota Prius, the auto manufacturer also specifies a very thin oil to match the very small oil clearance. BMW dropped the ball here and is using very small oil clearance and very thick 10W60 oil. Many consider this its own recipe for disaster. But here's what is believed to be happening in the S65 and S85 engines.

Engines with clearance too small, couple with oil too thick, leads to premature rod-bearing related engine failures. With clearance too small and oil too thick, the lubrication around the bearing is marginal. Some metal-to-metal contact is made between the bearings and rod journal. The oil and rod bearings overheat. Some bearings seize on the crankshaft, while others will "spin" and cause a crankshaft failure. Here's the recipe how it can happen.

Tolerance Stacking

Every manufactured part has a manufacturing tolerance range that goes along with it. The parts are supposed to match the specification, but manufacturing variances will lead to these tolerance differences. When one part is on its outside tolerance, it's probably no big deal. When two parts are at the opposite of their tolerance limits, it can lead to catastophic failure as I will show.

Oil clearance is affected by three different parts, each having their own tolerance. Each of these specifications and tolerances were either specified by BMW, or measured in the field using multiple example components to build a database of component tolerance.

Connecting rod big end bore: 2.20474 [-0.00000, +0.00050] inch. That means the connecting rod big end can vary between 2.2047 - 2.2052. Nominal size would be 2.2049 inch.
Crankshaft connecting rod journal: 2.20465 [-0.00010, +0.00030] inch. That means the connecting rod journal diameter can vary between 2.0464 - 2.0468 inch.
Connecting rod bearing: 0.07850 [-.00015, +0.00015] inch. That means the connecting rod bearing thickness can vary between 0.07835 - 0.07865 inch.

The bearing clearance is calculated as the difference between the (connecting rod big end bore, two times the bearing thickness, and the connecting rod journal diameter. This is typically measured with a bore gauge when the bearings are assembled in the connecting rod, and size of the connecting rod journal is subtracted from the value found on the bore gauge.

omitted - look at measurements in original link

At miniumum stack up, the S65/S85 engine will last a very long time, even using the very thick 10W60 oil specified by BMW.

It is believed at maximum stack up, coupled with thick 10W60 oil leads to premature engine failures. These are the engines believed to blow with 25000 miles or less. A few engines have blow with 6000 miles or less; and one engine blew with only 1500 miles. The solution to this problem is increased bearing clearance.

[Obioban]

... but, by increasing the clearance at the rod bearings, you're reducing oil pressure at the main bearings, potentially causing them to fail sooner. So, while the rod bearing life is increased by increasing clearance, engine life may not be-- and the part that is now failing is much harder to replace periodically (main bearing replacement is an engine out job).

After much deliberation, I put new OE (updated) rod bearings in my s85. Replacing them is an afternoon job-- like my S54, I will just do that on an interval I feel comfortable with. Too much potential risk associated with increasing their clearance, IMO.

[serranot]

Originally Posted by Obioban

... but, by increasing the clearance at the rod bearings, you're reducing oil pressure at the main bearings, potentially causing them to fail sooner. So, while the rod bearing life is increased by increasing clearance, engine life may not be-- and the part that is now failing is much harder to replace periodically (main bearing replacement is an engine out job).

After much deliberation, I put new OE (updated) rod bearings in my s85. Replacing them is an afternoon job-- like my S54, I will just do that on an interval I feel comfortable with. Too much potential risk associated with increasing their clearance, IMO.

Theoretically, maybe, but BE also posted the oil pressure with their bearings, and it drops about 3 psi at the most, not really a concern. The oil pump can compensate to some degree for the increased clearance.

All things considered, there have been no reports of main bearing failure as a consequence of this issue but plenty due to rod bearing failures. I disagree with your risk assessment but to each his/her own.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by serranot

Theoretically, maybe, but BE also posted the oil pressure with their bearings, and it drops about 3 psi at the most, not really a concern. The oil pump can compensate to some degree for the increased clearance.

All things considered, there have been no reports of main bearing failure as a consequence of this issue but plenty due to rod bearing failures. I disagree with your risk assessment but to each his/her own.

I don't agree with this statement-- if you look at threads with main bearing failure, a shockingly large proportion of them have increased clearance rod bearings. IMO disproportionately many to the quantity of cars running increased clearance rod bearings.

The measured 4% pressure loss was before the bearings. As pointed out by IamFODI earlier in the thread, "we should remember that, for the aforementioned reasons, this means a pressure loss of at least that much everywhere else in the system – likely more at the source of the pressure loss (i.e. the rod bearings) and adjacent parts (e.g. the mains)."

If nothing else, if increasing the clearance addressed the issue without consequence, why would BMW have not updated the factory parts by now? Super easy fix, and BMW does rolling fixes to address failure modes all the time, including after cars go out of production.

[AHall]

Could this not have been addressed by using a thinner oil to compensate for the smaller clearance?

[IamFODI]

Originally Posted by AHall

Could this not have been addressed by using a thinner oil to compensate for the smaller clearance?

People have tried that. To date, there's no clear evidence that it helps or hurts.

Does seem like a hell of a gamble, though. The S65 is one of an insignificantly small percentage of engines that call for one single, solitary oil in one viscosity. Virtually all other cars call for oil that meets a certain spec, e.g. BMW LL-01, API SN, MB 229.5, Porsche A40, etc. And for most specs, there are many oils that meet it, often in multiple viscosities, and any of them will work. No such thing for the S65. And while BMW has seemingly had no qualms about back-speccing newer, thinner oils for old engines, the S65 has been exempt. It's one of only three engines that they have insisted for 15-20+ years cannot possibly be consolidated with anything else in their lineup in terms of oil spec, including other M cars. Hard to imagine there's no technical reason for that.

[Gtownwes]

2008 E93 M3 6sp with 91k miles. Newly acquired so not sure about maintenance history. Definite wear on uppers along with some odd scoring on #1.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Obioban

... but, by increasing the clearance at the rod bearings, you're reducing oil pressure at the main bearings, potentially causing them to fail sooner. So, while the rod bearing life is increased by increasing clearance, engine life may not be-- and the part that is now failing is much harder to replace periodically (main bearing replacement is an engine out job).

After much deliberation, I put new OE (updated) rod bearings in my s85. Replacing them is an afternoon job-- like my S54, I will just do that on an interval I feel comfortable with. Too much potential risk associated with increasing their clearance, IMO.

Here's the most simple advice we give people. If you don't believe there's a bearing clearance problem, then don't change your bearings...PERIOD. If you do believe there's a bearing clearance problem, then do change your bearings, but DON'T use OEM clearance bearings or any aftermarket bearing with OEM clearances.

Originally Posted by Obioban

I don't agree with this statement-- if you look at threads with main bearing failure, a shockingly large proportion of them have increased clearance rod bearings. IMO disproportionately many to the quantity of cars running increased clearance rod bearings.

Show me the data. I've been involved with this since the beginning, and this is the first time I've read this. I'd love to see the data to back it up, but I'm going to guess that it doesn't exist, and here's why. There's still about an 20:1 ratio of rod bearing failures to main bearing failures. Of those, the overwhelming number of main bearing failures have come from supercharged engines that put extra load on the nose of the crank. So, here's the data I want to see:
1. Collect all of the data for main bearing failures without rod bearings replaced.
2. Collect all of the data for main bearing failures with rod bearings replaced.
3. Remove all instances of supercharged engines.
4. Show us the data.

The measured 4% pressure loss was before the bearings. As pointed out by IamFODI earlier in the thread, "we should remember that, for the aforementioned reasons, this means a pressure loss of at least that much everywhere else in the system – likely more at the source of the pressure loss (i.e. the rod bearings) and adjacent parts (e.g. the mains)."

It's actually more like a 2.5% pressure loss, and only at max RPM. I STRONGLY suggest you go read the data and research that's already been posted. Oil pressure is a static measurement of resistance; if you think about it that way, it's nearly a useless number. What you want to see is oil flow, then see how pressure changed with oil flow. Oil flow is what you really need, and too little clearance is what stops the bearings from getting proper oil flow to maintain the necessary wedge that protects the bearings from excessive wear. The data posted shows a 4x increase in oil flow at higher RPMs with an approximate 2.5% reduction in pressure. The engine has a variable rate pump, meaning it will automatically adjust flow rates to maintain oil pressure. That's why you see a 4x increase in oil flow with a negligible decrease in oil pressure.

If nothing else, if increasing the clearance addressed the issue without consequence, why would BMW have not updated the factory parts by now? Super easy fix, and BMW does rolling fixes to address failure modes all the time, including after cars go out of production.

That's been asked and answered dozens of times. Once BMW redesigns the bearings with increased clearance, that will be tantamount to admitting guilt and will trigger a class-action lawsuit that they will certainly lose as a result. In addition to damages BMW would have to pay, they would be forced to do a recall and fix every S65/S85 ever made. At $5500 cost per vehicle (probably a reasonable estimate), that would cost BMW nearly $700-million dollars. It would be far, FAR cheaper for BMW to get sued by every 500th car owner and be forced to fix the engine. So the answer really is as simple as that.

[spammysammich]

People with S54 engines are still changing rod bearings periodically and BMW has never fixed the clearance issue right?

[charliev68]

WPC with ARP 2000. 40,000 miles.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Here's the most simple advice we give people. If you don't believe there's a bearing clearance problem, then don't change your bearings...PERIOD. If you do believe there's a bearing clearance problem, then do change your bearings, but DON'T use OEM clearance bearings or any aftermarket bearing with OEM clearances.

S54s use traditional bearing clearances-- just like BE does on their increased clearance S65/S85 bearings. Are you saying S54 owners shouldn't change their rod bearings? By your logic, no bearing clearance issue, therefore no reason to change them.

If so, that would be misguided-- engine failure would result.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

here's the data I want to see:
1. Collect all of the data for main bearing failures without rod bearings replaced.
2. Collect all of the data for main bearing failures with rod bearings replaced.
3. Remove all instances of supercharged engines.
4. Show us the data.

I don't have the ability to collect that data. None of us do. The sample size on the forum is small and skewed/non representative.

If that's your criteria to move off aftermarket parts to stock parts (backwards logic, IMO), nothing is possibly going to compel you.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

That's been asked and answered dozens of times. Once BMW redesigns the bearings with increased clearance, that will be tantamount to admitting guilt and will trigger a class-action lawsuit that they will certainly lose as a result. In addition to damages BMW would have to pay, they would be forced to do a recall and fix every S65/S85 ever made. At $5500 cost per vehicle (probably a reasonable estimate), that would cost BMW nearly $700-million dollars. It would be far, FAR cheaper for BMW to get sued by every 500th car owner and be forced to fix the engine. So the answer really is as simple as that.

B.S.

BMW redesigns parts ALL the time to address failure modes, including after production ends. All car companies do. All companies that make physical products do.

As an example, the s54 vanos high pressure oil line fatigues under motion, causing it to crack and spray oil on the engine-- sometimes resulting in fire.

BMW addressed it after e46 M3 production ended, with no recall, by adding an additional fixation point. If you buy that part today, it's no longer an issue. This is something that could literally set cars on fire, and they changed it with no recall. The recall cost would also be quite cheap-- less than an hour of labor to do the job. Much cheaper recall cost, much higher consequences if the part goes bad, they still updated the part and did not feel compelled to recall. S65 Engine failure pales in comparison.

Or, more contemporarily, the S85 went through 3 major revisions over its production run to address failure modes. At no point did BMW recall earlier S85s to update parts to later versions, even though updating them "admitted guilt".

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Obioban

S54s use traditional bearing clearances-- just like BE does on their increased clearance S65/S85 bearings. Are you saying S54 owners shouldn't change their rod bearings? By your logic, no bearing clearance issue, therefore no reason to change them.

If so, that would be misguided-- engine failure would result.

I'd love to see the data to support that also.

I don't have the ability to collect that data. None of us do. The sample size on the forum is small and skewed/non representative.

Reminder, you said you had data, and you said there was "a shockingly large proportion of them have increased clearance rod bearings" (your words). Show us the data that supports your comments whether or not you remove supercharged engines or not.

If that's your criteria to move off aftermarket parts to stock parts (backwards logic, IMO), nothing is possibly going to compel you.

I'm not sure what that means.

B.S.

BMW redesigns parts ALL the time to address failure modes, including after production ends. All car companies do. All companies that make physical products do.

As an example, the s54 vanos high pressure oil line fatigues under motion, causing it to crack and spray oil on the engine-- sometimes resulting in fire.

About 10 years ago, a guy with S65 threw a rod bearing. He hit a wall. He's paralyzed and was (at the time) suing BMW.

BMW addressed it after e46 M3 production ended, with no recall, by adding an additional fixation point. If you buy that part today, it's no longer an issue. This is something that could literally set cars on fire, and they changed it with no recall. The recall cost would also be quite cheap-- less than an hour of labor to do the job. Much cheaper recall cost, much higher consequences if the part goes bad, they still updated the part and did not feel compelled to recall. S65 Engine failure pales in comparison.

Or, more contemporarily, the S85 went through 3 major revisions over its production run to address failure modes. At no point did BMW recall earlier S85s to update parts to later versions, even though updating them "admitted guilt".

I see where you're coming from and those are some good points, but I think this situation doesn't fit. In the case of rod bearing clearance, BMW was already fighting two class action lawsuits for bearing clearance related failures. I stand by the comment that changing the bearing design at that point would be tantamount to an instant loss in the courts and a forced recall. Furthermore in support of my comment, at least two years after the S65 left production, BMW was quietly replacing engines long out of warranty for rod bearing failures -- calling them "goodwill" replacements for vehicles which could demonstrate meticulous service records.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I'd love to see the data to support that also.

Data that S54s spin rod bearings, left unchanged? I'm pretty sure even instagram knows that's a regular S54 failure mode.

e46 M3 "big 3" that everyone talks about needing to be addressed when you buy one-- subframe, vanos, rod bearings.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=e46+m3+big+3

Rod bearings, which have traditional clearances on the S54, should be treated as a wear item-- or your engine will fail. S54 doesn't have as many of the "lottery" (early mileage) failures of the s65/s85, but they wear pretty linearly with time spent at high RPM. On my hard driven, routinely tracked e46 M3 coupe I replace them at 100,000 mile intervals. On my only street, sometime kid carrying M3 wagon, I was comfortable with 200,000 mile intervals.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Reminder, you said you had data, and you said there was "a shockingly large proportion of them have increased clearance rod bearings" (your words). Show us the data that supports your comments whether or not you remove supercharged engines or not.

I meant, open a main bearing failure thread, look what rod bearings they're running-- most of the time these days, they are running increased clearance rod bearings. Far out of proportion to the percent of cars running increased clearance rod bearings overall, IMO.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I'm not sure what that means.

I meant, in the absence of data, the default position should be stock. Aftermarket is the position that needs to be justified-- not stock.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

About 10 years ago, a guy with S65 threw a rod bearing. He hit a wall. He's paralyzed and was (at the time) suing BMW.

I see where you're coming from and those are some good points, but I think this situation doesn't fit. In the case of rod bearing clearance, BMW was already fighting two class action lawsuits for bearing clearance related failures. I stand by the comment that changing the bearing design at that point would be tantamount to an instant loss in the courts and a forced recall. Furthermore in support of my comment, at least two years after the S65 left production, BMW was quietly replacing engines long out of warranty for rod bearing failures -- calling them "goodwill" replacements for vehicles which could demonstrate meticulous service records.

I don't think anything about any of this is unique to this rod bearing situation-- just part of the life of being a car maker.

1,350,000 people are killed in cars every year. People will sue over anything they think they can make a buck on, and cars are complex (many, MANY possible failure points) and dangerous. Death and litigation are just another Tuesday for car makers.

[Assimilator1]

Originally Posted by Reddevils7

These are more close ups. Again, done at 19,9xx miles. I'm the second owner. The code shows they're 088/089 so these are pre lci bearings with less clearance, correct me if I'm wrong. Car build date 10/09. The last few pics are of bearings I thought had more wear as it looked like there were 2 different layers present

Not caught up with the thread yet, but in case this hasn't already been picked up, there's no difference in the nominal bearing clearance between the early (088/089 lead/copper bearings) and the later tin/alu/copper bearings (I forget there number). But the latter ones in general suffer less wear (although still not to normal levels).
For the earlier type bearings, your ones weren't too bad (but not right still), I don't think I can see any copper?

Originally Posted by Obioban

... but, by increasing the clearance at the rod bearings, you're reducing oil pressure at the main bearings, potentially causing them to fail sooner. So, while the rod bearing life is increased by increasing clearance, engine life may not be-- and the part that is now failing is much harder to replace periodically (main bearing replacement is an engine out job).

After much deliberation, I put new OE (updated) rod bearings in my s85. Replacing them is an afternoon job-- like my S54, I will just do that on an interval I feel comfortable with. Too much potential risk associated with increasing their clearance, IMO.

Like serranot said, no not really, because the pump compensates for the increased flow, and only a few PSI are lost, so not significant.

Originally Posted by Obioban

I don't agree with this statement-- if you look at threads with main bearing failure, a shockingly large proportion of them have increased clearance rod bearings. IMO disproportionately many to the quantity of cars running increased clearance rod bearings.

Not that I've seen, where do you see that??

Originally Posted by IamFODI

Thanks, guys. Think I fixed the pic.

........

The measured pressure loss definitely isn't large. But saying it's not "significant" implies that it has no meaningful effect, and we don't know that yet.

From BE bearings wiki

Oil Pressure: Oil pressure does seem to decrease slightly with BE Bearings. This is most likely due to the extra clearance. But the amount of decrease is between 2-3 PSI, over a 70+ PSI average. Assuming the 73 PSI average, a 3 PSI pressure drop is equal to 4% of the total. Whether it was the 5%, 30%, or 50% throttle input, the results were all the same: a 2-3 PSI drop over a 73 PSI average. This is proof positive that the S65 variable displacement oil pump is doing its job.

I say a 4% drop in oil pressure is insignificant because the oil pressure is still above the min control oil pressure stated by BMW for the S65 (I have confirmed this on BMW's AIR site), which is 4 bar.

************************************************** ******************************

Regarding BMW and recalls, the point about the VANOS pipe for the e46s, that is a cheap fix for a high risk of serious harm to people in the car (i.e catching fire). So perhaps not a very good example.
Replacing engines would be a very expensive recall, and whilst blown engines certainly can catch fire (but not too likely I think) and have caused accidents, I think the risk is lower than the above example (as far as a fire goes).
Countering that, BMW have and are engaged in a massive recall for checking &/or replacing EGR coolers for 100s of thousands of there diesels going back 10yrs or so (I think that's just UK figures too!), and with some cars having 3 recalls and 2 EGR cooler replacements! They have to replace so many that the factories can't keep up with supply! So as a result they are only (at the moment) calling in cars to be checked, and only replacing ones which are showing signs of leaking. This must be costing them vast amounts of money, so I don't get why BMW doesn't have a recall for the S65s (unless they're already spending too much on current and recent recalls! e.g e9x battery cables and fan plugs!).
BMW state the EGR cooler leak problem does carry a very small risk of fire, and in the 9 months I've been at BMW I'm not aware of one having caught fire brought to our dealer. We have replaced a good number that have leaked though.
So as to why BMW haven't sorted the S65s, I'm lost! lol

[Assimilator1]

Originally Posted by charliev68

WPC with ARP 2000. 40,000 miles.

Nearly missed this amongst the discussion, they look like they're in very good condition!
Have you (or anyone) posted these bearing photos before?
Do you know what bearings they are? OEM?

[charliev68]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Nearly missed this amongst the discussion, they look like they're in very good condition!
Have you (or anyone) posted these bearing photos before?
Do you know what bearings they are? OEM?

Yes, very minimal wear! Looks even better in real life, the photo shows shadows that look like wear, but is actually not.
First time, never been posted before.
Oem bearings with WPC Treatment, over 40k miles.

[Assimilator1]

Originally Posted by charliev68

Yes, very minimal wear! Looks even better in real life, the photo shows shadows that look like wear, but is actually not.
First time, never been posted before.
Oem bearings with WPC Treatment, over 40k miles.

Interesting, and thank you, I'll add that to my 'good bearings pulled' list.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

...

I say a 4% drop in oil pressure is insignificant because the oil pressure is still above the min control oil pressure stated by BMW for the S65 (I have confirmed this on BMW's AIR site), which is 4 bar.
...

I noticed that after I mentioned the oil flow increase and minimal pressure drop, that part of the conversation died and was omitted from other responses. This might be the reason. These graphs shows what happens to oil pressure and oil flow with OEM and BE Bearings. It would be really hard to look at these graphs and argue that a "drop" in oil pressure with BE Bearings has any significance. It would be equally hard to argue that the substantial increase in oil flow is not highly beneficial.

5% throttle: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/images...rottle_BEB.jpg
30% throttle: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/images...rottle_BEB.jpg
50% throttle: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/images...rottle_BEB.jpg

[f1recracker]

Rod bearings serviced at 41k miles at Bimtech / Mashimarho earlier this year in Seattle WA. Car is pre-LCI 09-2009 build date.

[e92dud]

Originally Posted by f1recracker

Rod bearings serviced at 41k miles at Bimtech / Mashimarho earlier this year in Seattle WA. Car is pre-LCI 09-2009 build date.

It’s wild to me how much wear these cars have at 40k miles, my ls2s bearings had zero wear at 120k miles with 8 owners and I didn’t baby it.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I noticed that after I mentioned the oil flow increase and minimal pressure drop, that part of the conversation died and was omitted from other responses. This might be the reason. These graphs shows what happens to oil pressure and oil flow with OEM and BE Bearings. It would be really hard to look at these graphs and argue that a "drop" in oil pressure with BE Bearings has any significance. It would be equally hard to argue that the substantial increase in oil flow is not highly beneficial.

5% throttle: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/images...rottle_BEB.jpg
30% throttle: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/images...rottle_BEB.jpg
50% throttle: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/images...rottle_BEB.jpg

I dropped it because we don't have any data at all on what's happening to oil pressure/flow at the main bearings, and without that we can't have a meaningful conversation.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Regarding BMW and recalls, the point about the VANOS pipe for the e46s, that is a cheap fix for a high risk of serious harm to people in the car (i.e catching fire). So perhaps not a very good example.
Replacing engines would be a very expensive recall, and whilst blown engines certainly can catch fire (but not too likely I think) and have caused accidents, I think the risk is lower than the above example (as far as a fire goes).
Countering that, BMW have and are engaged in a massive recall for checking &/or replacing EGR coolers for 100s of thousands of there diesels going back 10yrs or so (I think that's just UK figures too!), and with some cars having 3 recalls and 2 EGR cooler replacements! They have to replace so many that the factories can't keep up with supply! So as a result they are only (at the moment) calling in cars to be checked, and only replacing ones which are showing signs of leaking. This must be costing them vast amounts of money, so I don't get why BMW doesn't have a recall for the S65s (unless they're already spending too much on current and recent recalls! e.g e9x battery cables and fan plugs!).
BMW state the EGR cooler leak problem does carry a very small risk of fire, and in the 9 months I've been at BMW I'm not aware of one having caught fire brought to our dealer. We have replaced a good number that have leaked though.
So as to why BMW haven't sorted the S65s, I'm lost! lol

EGR must be recalled because it's emissions related. They have no choice. Not related to them updating the part or not-- is the emissions systems aren't hitting targets, they will be fixed. Cars have had to reduce horsepower (significantly) after sale if they can't do it, or entire lines of cars purchased back (VW's dieselgate).

The high pressure oil line is a good example BECAUSE how easy/cheap it would be for BMW to recall/fix. Green Egg's point was that they won't "fix" the rod bearings because if they did so it would be admitting fault and they'd have to recall/replace all engines. My point is that they would/do not-- and gave an example of a more significant failure more that would cost them order(s) of magnitude less to recall/replace, and they still chose not to. Nothing about fixing a design forces a recall, and they elect not to even when it would cost them nothing.