Punctured engine block

[r0cketm0nkey]

Originally Posted by GP0256

I agree. The biggest problem is many people really drove their cars hard and any high performance engine, like the ones we have, which could potentially be driven hard, at the track, etc. are going to have failures. You are also right about it not being a safety issue! Thanks for chiming in

What? No, I'm sorry but I won't have that. Tons of Japanese engines have been driven excessively at the limit (RB26DETT, 2JZ, 3S-GTE, 4AGE, B18C5, K20A, 4G63, etc.), you don't hear them throwing rods through blocks like it's a weekly Sunday newscast. Just because it's driven hard doesn't equate itself to imminent failure.

To the OP: I'm guessing it's not a BMW or Carmax dealership. You're probably SOL and have to pay out of pocket.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by r0cketm0nkey

What? No, I'm sorry but I won't have that. Tons of Japanese engines have been driven excessively at the limit (RB26DETT, 2JZ, 3S-GTE, 4AGE, B18C5, K20A, 4G63, etc.), you don't hear them throwing rods through blocks like it's a weekly Sunday newscast. Just because it's driven hard doesn't equate itself to imminent failure.

To the OP: I'm guessing it's not a BMW or Carmax dealership. You're probably SOL and have to pay out of pocket.

This isn't a fair comparison. The Japanese engines have both lower redlines (6,800 vs 8,400) and lower compression ratios (8.5 to 1 vs 12 to 1), so you would expect fewer failures. Moreover (and yes, I am aware that forced induction effectively increases compression) turbocharged engines typically make their power peak below redline, in contrast with the S65 that reaches its peak power at 8,300 rpm.

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by IB M

The replacement bearings with updated tolerances allowing for more oil ... is that a once and done fix? Is it established at this point that the fix really does eliminate or nearly eliminate the failure risk?

That is the million dollar question. Not enough aftermarket bearings have had enough miles driven on them and inspected, to determine with any kind of certainty whether it will be a proven long term fix. Only a few aftermarket bearings have been removed from engines to see how they're wearing and they seem to have "nearly eliminated" the failure risk from what we can see so far.

I have only seen a handful of cases worldwide where engines have failed after RB replacement. Most of those were due to the original main bearings failing. I can't recall seeing any upgraded rod bearings causing an engine failure. I believe most of the industry considers upgraded bearings a permanent fix.

[shimmy23]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

That is the million dollar question. Not enough aftermarket bearings have had enough miles driven on them and inspected, to determine with any kind of certainty whether it will be a proven long term fix. Only a few aftermarket bearings have been removed from engines to see how they're wearing and they seem to have "nearly eliminated" the failure risk from what we can see so far.

I have only seen a handful of cases worldwide where engines have failed after RB replacement. Most of those were due to the original main bearings failing. I can't recall seeing any upgraded rod bearings causing an engine failure. I believe most of the industry considers upgraded bearings a permanent fix.

Haven’t you also witnessed nearly all main bearings that you’ve replaced have abnormal wear on them? I thought I remembered someone posting that

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by shimmy23

Haven’t you also witnessed nearly all main bearings that you’ve replaced have abnormal wear on them? I thought I remembered someone posting that

Yes I've posted that before. Main bearings have the same premature wear issue that the rods do. The mains just don't seem to grenade as frequently as the rod bearings do, luckily.

[R3dliner]

Originally Posted by r0cketm0nkey

What? No, I'm sorry but I won't have that. Tons of Japanese engines have been driven excessively at the limit (RB26DETT, 2JZ, 3S-GTE, 4AGE, B18C5, K20A, 4G63, etc.), you don't hear them throwing rods through blocks like it's a weekly Sunday newscast. Just because it's driven hard doesn't equate itself to imminent failure.

Not entirely true. Did you look at the STI's EJ275? They chew through RB's like hotcakes.

[k3silk]

Originally Posted by IB M

The replacement bearings with updated tolerances allowing for more oil ... is that a once and done fix? Is it established at this point that the fix really does eliminate or nearly eliminate the failure risk?

Nothing is a lifetime fix when it comes to moving parts and engine but yes after that you should be good for 100k miles which many do not drive anymore in there cars before they trade them.

[Dr. Dre]

Originally Posted by DSilk

This isn't a fair comparison. The Japanese engines have both lower redlines (6,800 vs 8,400) and lower compression ratios (8.5 to 1 vs 12 to 1), so you would expect fewer failures. Moreover (and yes, I am aware that forced induction effectively increases compression) turbocharged engines typically make their power peak below redline, in contrast with the S65 that reaches its peak power at 8,300 rpm.

Really, I worked for Toyota USA as a District Manager. The engine in the Celica GTS would rev to 9,000 rpms. People would mis-shifts and multiple engines held together past 12 and then fail the ECU would capture the engine rpms at failure. How many production engines can even rev to 10K and survive.

Are you also forgetting the Honda S2000? I don't hear about S2000 engines launching rod bearings.

[r0cketm0nkey]

Originally Posted by DSilk

This isn't a fair comparison. The Japanese engines have both lower redlines (6,800 vs 8,400) and lower compression ratios (8.5 to 1 vs 12 to 1), so you would expect fewer failures. Moreover (and yes, I am aware that forced induction effectively increases compression) turbocharged engines typically make their power peak below redline, in contrast with the S65 that reaches its peak power at 8,300 rpm.

VTEC has never kicked in for you apparently...

Nor has the less-infamous VVTL-i, for that matter.

Originally Posted by R3dliner

Not entirely true. Did you look at the STI's EJ275? They chew through RB's like hotcakes.

That's fair. Thus I never said *all* but simply referred to the myriad of examples that don't grenade itself just for being driven excessively. And let's not forget the Wankels...stupid triangles.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Dre

Really, I worked for Toyota USA as a District Manager. The engine in the Celica GTS would rev to 9,000 rpms. People would mis-shifts and multiple engines held together past 12 and then fail the ECU would capture the engine rpms at failure. How many production engines can even rev to 10K and survive.

Are you also forgetting the Honda S2000? I don't hear about S2000 engines launching rod bearings.

Honda is known for its reliability, but even the S2000 isn't immune to failure. This is from a technical service bulletin for the S2000:

8 ENGINE FAILURE IN #4 CYLINDER
A small number of owners, approximately three dozen are known, report major engine failure due to the #4 Cylinder Scoring.

One of the frustrating things about this major failure is how some customer's are treated when it does happen. For some it has become necessary to prove they were not a fault! For others, repairs were painless.

If you hear an engine noise that is very distinct and sounds like tapping. The engine will not last long after you hear the noise. You can hear the noise in the cabin, but it best noticed with the hood up, the noise will come from the bad cylinder area. If your engine makes a bad tapping sound, Honda should pull the plugs and see if all are a nice gray white or one shows black from incomplete combustion. If a plug is blackened, they should put a scope inside the spark plug holes and see if they can see some cylinder damage.

The cylinder wall scuff problem in Honda S2000 typically has shown up in the #4 cylinder. Naturally, Honda has not shared with the public what is causing the problem, assuming they know. But it's likely a piston / cylinder / lube / cooling related thing. Factors such as metallurgy, tribology, material compatibility may be the issue. Why only number 4? Something is different about what that hole experiences compared to the others.

If you're too low on oil, the first thing to give in is classically the rod bearings, followed by the mains. The top end and pistons/cylinder walls fail from the lack of lubrication much later than pressure fed bottom end bearings. In a way the bottom end bearings act like a fuse for the other stuff.

If the engine failure is due to over revving, the top end would tend to get hurt – bent valves and such. But the bottom end may survive. It certainly won't develop the cylinder wall scuff problem from an over rev.

BTW, as of March 2003 there have been at least two known engine failures which has the new 4-hole oil banjo bolt installed (which some owners felt would cure the problem)

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

but and engine dying at high speed should usually result in the driver coasting to a safe stopping place.

You just proved or reinforced the idea that it is safety issue. 520,300 airbags deployed in 1996, there are more cars today, let's say twice that. The cases of injury or death by Takata airbag is only a two digits number. That makes likelihood of injury per deployment of 0.01%. Now do you think that if one thousand M3 engines bombed and locked on the road there would be only 1 injured person (including other cars) to match or better the severity of the airbag issue ? Your wording :"usually results in the driver coasting" implies at least a majority (50%), but to help you let's say you meant 90% you still have 10% to account for which is 1000 X times higher severity than the airbag case. To put it simply if you car's engine is a 'selected' one, your likelihood of sustaining injury when it goes is higher by several order of magnitude than a takata airbag deployment.

Of course this does not account for the probability of engine blow up versus airbag deployments so let's get into that now. Still in 1996 there were 74.6 million airbags on the road. So the probability of deployment was 520,300/74.6M = 0.7 %. Ok, now let's look at engine blow up probability we do not have official numbers but between 0.1% and 1%+. Then multiply probability of occurence by probability of injury for both and the result is that engine blow up 0.001 * 0.1 = 0.01 % are a much more severe safety issue than takata airbag 0.007 * 0.001 = 0.0007 % by several orders of magnitude. Conclusion the engine issue is a much more severe safety issue to the owner of the vehicle.

So why is nothing done ? Only economics of cost of injury liability not public safety can provide an answer (which means Bmw is already loosing that argument). 33,000 M3 owner's safety matters less than millions driving cars with airbags. But it remains that the safety of any given owner exposed to the M3 issue is much more at risk than the safety of any owner of a car with a takata airbag and from that only Bmw would loose this argument.

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

You just proved or reinforced the idea that it is safety issue...

But did I? I think it's a pretty far fetched notion to assert that failing engines could result in deaths in even a fractional number compared to the Takata situation. If it were even a remotely feasible notion, the courts and media would be flooded with it. Right now we have one RB suit which seems to be fighting for traction as it is. Feel free to post evidence otherwise, but I haven't heard of one death as a result of bearing failures. Less than a handful of engines locking up that resulted in even an injury of any kind.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I hope BMW steps up to deal with the whole issue. I just don't see the use in letting it sour my enjoyment of the car, or shouting from a soapbox negative conjecture and assumed statistics.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

But did I? I think it's a pretty far fetched notion to assert that failing engines could result in deaths in even a fractional number compared to the Takata situation. If it were even a remotely feasible notion, the courts and media would be flooded with it. Right now we have one RB suit which seems to be fighting for traction as it is. Feel free to post evidence otherwise, but I haven't heard of one death as a result of bearing failures. Less than a handful of engines locking up that resulted in even an injury of any kind.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I hope BMW steps up to deal with the whole issue. I just don't see the use in letting it sour my enjoyment of the car, or shouting from a soapbox negative conjecture and assumed statistics.

i think we are all in the same team on this subject and I understand you are playing devil's advocate motivated by ownership investment ( i used to do that too). Negative conjecture ? Not really, i made the odds based on factual numbers clear do you think that if ten thousands M3 engine failed there would be only one injury (not death) because that is what it woud take to be a less severe safety issue than airbags for the owner. Period. I see you responding with hand waving and sidetracking, so it's all said.

[xander_g]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

You just proved or reinforced the idea that it is safety issue. 520,300 airbags deployed in 1996, there are more cars today, let's say twice that. The cases of injury or death by Takata airbag is only a two digits number. That makes likelihood of injury per deployment of 0.01%. Now do you think that if one thousand M3 engines bombed and locked on the road there would be only 1 injured person (including other cars) to match or better the severity of the airbag issue ? Your wording :"usually results in the driver coasting" implies at least a majority (50%), but to help you let's say you meant 90% you still have 10% to account for which is 1000 X times higher severity than the airbag case. To put it simply if you car's engine is a 'selected' one, your likelihood of sustaining injury when it goes is higher by several order of magnitude than a takata airbag deployment.

Of course this does not account for the probability of engine blow up versus airbag deployments so let's get into that now. Still in 1996 there were 74.6 million airbags on the road. So the probability of deployment was 520,300/74.6M = 0.7 %. Ok, now let's look at engine blow up probability we do not have official numbers but between 0.1% and 1%+. Then multiply probability of occurence by probability of injury for both and the result is that engine blow up 0.001 * 0.1 = 0.01 % are a much more severe safety issue than takata airbag 0.007 * 0.001 = 0.0007 % by several orders of magnitude. Conclusion the engine issue is a much more severe safety issue to the owner of the vehicle.

So why is nothing done ? Only economics of cost of injury liability not public safety can provide an answer (which means Bmw is already loosing that argument). 33,000 M3 owner's safety matters less than millions driving cars with airbags. But it remains that the safety of any given owner exposed to the M3 issue is much more at risk than the safety of any owner of a car with a takata airbag and from that only Bmw would loose this argument.

You must apply the formula

[Dr. Dre]

Originally Posted by DSilk

Honda is known for its reliability, but even the S2000 isn't immune to failure. This is from a technical service bulletin for the S2000:

8 ENGINE FAILURE IN #4 CYLINDER
A small number of owners, approximately three dozen are known, report major engine failure due to the #4 Cylinder Scoring.

One of the frustrating things about this major failure is how some customer's are treated when it does happen. For some it has become necessary to prove they were not a fault! For others, repairs were painless.

If you hear an engine noise that is very distinct and sounds like tapping. The engine will not last long after you hear the noise. You can hear the noise in the cabin, but it best noticed with the hood up, the noise will come from the bad cylinder area. If your engine makes a bad tapping sound, Honda should pull the plugs and see if all are a nice gray white or one shows black from incomplete combustion. If a plug is blackened, they should put a scope inside the spark plug holes and see if they can see some cylinder damage.

The cylinder wall scuff problem in Honda S2000 typically has shown up in the #4 cylinder. Naturally, Honda has not shared with the public what is causing the problem, assuming they know. But it's likely a piston / cylinder / lube / cooling related thing. Factors such as metallurgy, tribology, material compatibility may be the issue. Why only number 4? Something is different about what that hole experiences compared to the others.

If you're too low on oil, the first thing to give in is classically the rod bearings, followed by the mains. The top end and pistons/cylinder walls fail from the lack of lubrication much later than pressure fed bottom end bearings. In a way the bottom end bearings act like a fuse for the other stuff.

If the engine failure is due to over revving, the top end would tend to get hurt – bent valves and such. But the bottom end may survive. It certainly won't develop the cylinder wall scuff problem from an over rev.

BTW, as of March 2003 there have been at least two known engine failures which has the new 4-hole oil banjo bolt installed (which some owners felt would cure the problem)

Your comeback is 36 engine failures

[carenthuziast]

No pictures?

[tlow98]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

It is not without reason. BMW is putting generic engines in the M4. Their added cost for making an S55 engine over a regular 3/4 series engine is very small since it is the same 3.0L block with minor modifications. The turbo comes from Mitsubishi.

Well, yes and no. Everything is engineered to a cost point. The S65 is lightly improved S85 with two cylinders lopped off. Could it have been better if it weren't the basis for two engines serving two different purposes? For sure.

The rods on the S65 are quite the cost-cutting measure on the S65, as well.

It's all relative.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by tlow98

Well, yes and no. Everything is engineered to a cost point. The S65 is lightly improved S85 with two cylinders lopped off. Could it have been better if it weren't the basis for two engines serving two different purposes? For sure.

The rods on the S65 are quite the cost-cutting measure on the S65, as well.

It's all relative.

It was no improvment, all the changes were driven by a more confined space to fit inside the M3 compared to the E60 M5. They could not keep the dry sump for that reason, got rid of the high pressure pump for the VANOS (a good riddance but it was probably still motivated by available *******.
I do not consider the S55 to be an M engine in the same sense as preceding M cars.

[carenthuziast]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

It was no improvment, all the changes were driven by a more confined space to fit inside the M3 compared to the E60 M5. They could not keep the dry sump for that reason, got rid of the high pressure pump for the VANOS (a good riddance but it was probably still motivated by available *******.
I do not consider the S55 to be an M engine in the same sense as preceding M cars.

Does the S85 have bearing issues as well?

It's tough to believe that 100% of E9X's have or will eventually have rod bearing issues.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by carenthuziast

Does the S85 have bearing issues as well?

It's tough to believe that 100% of E9X's have or will eventually have rod bearing issues.

Yes it does, but I have not followed the M5 forums for a long while so i can not give a quantifiable answer. Same engine internal parts too. There is an empirical theory that if your engine passes 125k-150k miles it's probably not going to be affected.

[r0cketm0nkey]

Originally Posted by carenthuziast

It's tough to believe that 100% of E9X's have or will eventually have rod bearing issues.

I wouldn't say 100%...there are some whose bearings still look very good at six digit miles. But my opinion is, if you're going to keep the car for that long anyway, just do it and go to sleep better for it.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Rajmun340

It was no improvment, all the changes were driven by a more confined space to fit inside the M3 compared to the E60 M5. They could not keep the dry sump for that reason, got rid of the high pressure pump for the VANOS (a good riddance but it was probably still motivated by available *******.
I do not consider the S55 to be an M engine in the same sense as preceding M cars.

Correct. The V10 in the M5 was initially developed for use in the Sauber-BMW team's F1 race car, and the V8 that powers our M3s had 2 cylinders lopped off for size and weight considerations. Was cost-effectiveness part of the equation? There is no doubt that is cost less to lop off 2 cylinders from a thoroughly developed race engine than to produce a clean sheet V8 meeting BMW M's requirements. The inline 6 in the e46 M3 was producing as much power as it could reliably produce without FI, and the M division was all about high revs and high specific output with power at the top end, which meant that more cylinders were needed.