-
Read the WELCOME ALL BMWFANATICS post.
Want to buy M3 E46
- Thread starter AndreasSA
- Start date
AndreasSA
Member
And even with the actual S65 it's still the same....
What the root cause is? Quite easy....
- around or more than 8000 rpm
- oil intervals too long
- bearings are wear and tear parts (even if BMW is denying it)
- oil pumps are also tear and wear parts (must be changed with bearings)
- bad behavior of some owner (not taking care of oil temperature)
- intensive use of the car on high rpm and loads
.......................
...............
......
What the root cause is? Quite easy....
- around or more than 8000 rpm
- oil intervals too long
- bearings are wear and tear parts (even if BMW is denying it)
- oil pumps are also tear and wear parts (must be changed with bearings)
- bad behavior of some owner (not taking care of oil temperature)
- intensive use of the car on high rpm and loads
.......................
...............
......
AndreasSA
Member
Yesterday I had a look on a quite nice CSL....
Outside conditions nearly perfect
Inside front area perfect
Inside back area several scratches
Engine area nice
Boot nice
sound of engine nice
So I made a test drive:
That car was scrap! Noises from back axle, front tyres, diff and some other noises which I never heard before....
driver was not aware of all defects and said that the car sounds the same since he got it in 2007 with 17.000km on it, actually its having 60.000 km....
it was with him only once on a race track...:nonono:
front tyres inside completely gone (camber changed in the front but not aware of it...:roflol
Driving ity only in level 5 of SMG and DSC always off on normal roads.....:bravo:
first set of tyres on the car since he got it (remember 43.000km in seven years with DSC off on level 5 always...)...:blab:
I have driven already several CSL but this one...very bad...:argh:
So guys I am still open for other offers...
Outside conditions nearly perfect
Inside front area perfect
Inside back area several scratches
Engine area nice
Boot nice
sound of engine nice
So I made a test drive:
That car was scrap! Noises from back axle, front tyres, diff and some other noises which I never heard before....
driver was not aware of all defects and said that the car sounds the same since he got it in 2007 with 17.000km on it, actually its having 60.000 km....
it was with him only once on a race track...:nonono:
front tyres inside completely gone (camber changed in the front but not aware of it...:roflol
Driving ity only in level 5 of SMG and DSC always off on normal roads.....:bravo:
first set of tyres on the car since he got it (remember 43.000km in seven years with DSC off on level 5 always...)...:blab:
I have driven already several CSL but this one...very bad...:argh:
So guys I am still open for other offers...
Crash_Nemesis
///Member
Rear noises are subframe failure and diff bushes gone.
So many of these e46's are suffering from this now.
So many of these e46's are suffering from this now.
Rommies
Active member
Just quoting the words from this website: http://www.langracing.com/finding-a-real-solution-to-the-bmw-s54-rod-bearing-failure/
Which Chris mentioned.
(For those that is to lazy to click hehe)
"When we first began looking at the S54 knowing its history of rod bearing failure we immediately noticed how small the rod bearings were compared to other engines we’d built. To be more specific, the width of them is relatively narrow compared to other engines that are designed to make that much power. When you look at the rest of the engine you see similar ideas in other areas. BMW made every attempt to eliminate friction surfaces in this engine to increase efficiency and power. This is, of course, is every automotive engineer’s goal. The expense of doing this of course can mean that engine reliability can suffer. Every engine will have a weak point at which it will fail first, or at least most commonly. For the S54 this is the rod bearing. For another engine it might be the rod or the cylinder wall, or something else. Whether its a design failure or intentional, the S54 has a very well documented history of consuming rod bearings at a rate faster than desired.
I’ll do my best to illustrate this with words but really the easiest way to explain it is by simply looking at the engine internals on an S54. Here at Lang Racing Development we have engineered racing engines for some time now, not just the S54. That experience gives us a broad perspective when we look at every engine.
To understand why the rod bearing fails on this engine you first have to understand how the bearings on the crankshaft work. The bearing is a wearable surface, i.e. softer than the material of the crankshaft and the rod itself which are both, typically 4340 steel, one of the hardest/strongest steels available. If those two were to contact each other we’d be in a world of hurt as they would wear each other out. The bearings job is to prevent that from happening. The bearing is designed to be a relatively soft metal alloy so that when it does touch the crankshaft journal it wears away, rather than wearing the crankshaft. Now ideally we keep an oil film between the journal of the crankshaft and the bearing. We choose an oil viscosity based on the bearing clearance we decided on when we assemble our engine.
When BMW built this engine they decided some numbers they thought would work really well. We found out though in 2003 that they made a mistake. They made their recall explaining that there was a problem with the rod bearings they manufactured in the early years. The explanation they gave was that the rod bearings were manufactured incorrectly resulting in too tight of a rod bearing clearance when the engines were assembled. This resulted in inadequate oil film between the crank journal and the rod bearing.
My personal suspicion is that this is merely an excuse and that that the recall was actually an update to a bearing with larger clearance. BMW could never admit openly “our original engine design had too small of a rod bearing clearance and made the bearings spin”. At the time of the recall we noticed that the rod bolts/entire rod changed design as well, but of course there wouldn’t be a recall on rods themselves, that would be a full rebuild of an engine. And finally, the most vital component that couldn’t be recalled in a cost effective manner would be the crankshaft. Does the rod bearing recall solve the problem? My answer is no, and I see this time and time again that even engines that have had the rod bearing recall done fairly recently still exhibit a large amount of rod bearing wear.
Let’s get down to what I consider the main problem: when the piston is on its compression stroke and the mixture is ignited a tremendous pressure is imparted on the top of the piston, down the wrist pin, through the rod, and into the rod bearing. Some engines have trouble or weakness upwards of this chain but what the S54 does is squeeze out all the oil causing the bearing to wear on the top side. This is a simple conclusion to reach when you dissect S54′s day in and day out, the bearing wear tells the story. This situation is also what makes me a bit uneasy about the common suggestion that a coated rod bearing is a great solution on the S54. If a coated bearing is adding material to a rod bearing then, obviously, it must also be reducing the bearing clearance on the crankshaft journal. Some rod bearing treatments are designed to allow the bearing to retain oil better, which, if they do actually do that would be helpful. Still, I don’t believe that these bearings adequately address the original engine design flaw.
There are a couple ways to solve this problem, BMW tried the simplest. Increase the oil viscosity and increase the bearing clearance. This provides a higher volume of viscous oil for the combustion pressure to act upon. Does this help the problem? Definitely. Another option would be to increase oil pressure, this is one of the reasons that some people say all S54 race cars should have a dry sump oil system. This helps not so much because it prevents oil starvation but also because you are able to change gear sizes to obtain the oil pressure you desire.
To really get down to properly fixing the engine we have to go back and re-engineer it. The best way would be to make a new billet crankshaft (like we do for our stroker kits). A cheap alternative is to have the stock journal reground to accept a wider bearing. To do this we also have to choose a bearing that has a smaller diameter. Conveniently this also means that we can fix some crankshafts that have already spun bearings. We grind down the journal and widen it to accept the bearing for our new rod. For economics we choose a rod bearing that is common and easily available. This also means we have a wide variety of rods to choose from that are available in different lengths. Once we choose the rod, which can vary depending on customers preferences, we then measure the compression height we desire and order our custom piston from one of the various suppliers we use. Obviously what I’m describing takes quite a bit more thought than simply reassembling a stock engine and as such the labor cost is higher, and that might scare some people away.
I like to let them think about the cost for a new set of OEM rings, or pistons, or rods from BMW and compare those costs to the cost of some aftermarket rods/bearings/rings from aftermarket sources. Often times the quality is better and the cost is significantly less. The end result is an engine that costs very close to what an OEM rebuild would cost and ends up with lighter weight components that are fully balanced and engineered. More over some of the compromises that BMW made on their production engines don’t need to be made when building custom engines for race applications.
Some might say that its best just to replace the S54 rod bearings as part of regular maintenance, perhaps every 50k miles or so. I think this is a good suggestion but it also carries an expense and is a bandaid on a permanent problem. If a person is in the position to do a complete rebuild and intends to drive the car aggressively I think modifying the crankshaft for future reliability is a wise decision to minimize future maintenance and reduce the chances of catastrophic engine failure.
Even more so I think it makes the most sense for those in the position that their engine has already spun a bearing and has damaged a crankshaft. At this point they are left with the decision to either purchase a used crankshaft or try to repair their current one. The cost of modifying the crankshaft journal for this wider bearing is only slightly more than a standard crankshaft repair when a rod bearing has spun.
If a rebuild is in your future on an S54 I encourage you to investigate the costs of a standard rebuild and compare those costs to our rod bearing modification kit."
AndreasSA, What about this one? http://www.autotrader.co.za/used-ca...o-durban-fpa-8ad10f8844b176070144d9e31e8279a9
Which Chris mentioned.
(For those that is to lazy to click hehe)
"When we first began looking at the S54 knowing its history of rod bearing failure we immediately noticed how small the rod bearings were compared to other engines we’d built. To be more specific, the width of them is relatively narrow compared to other engines that are designed to make that much power. When you look at the rest of the engine you see similar ideas in other areas. BMW made every attempt to eliminate friction surfaces in this engine to increase efficiency and power. This is, of course, is every automotive engineer’s goal. The expense of doing this of course can mean that engine reliability can suffer. Every engine will have a weak point at which it will fail first, or at least most commonly. For the S54 this is the rod bearing. For another engine it might be the rod or the cylinder wall, or something else. Whether its a design failure or intentional, the S54 has a very well documented history of consuming rod bearings at a rate faster than desired.
I’ll do my best to illustrate this with words but really the easiest way to explain it is by simply looking at the engine internals on an S54. Here at Lang Racing Development we have engineered racing engines for some time now, not just the S54. That experience gives us a broad perspective when we look at every engine.
To understand why the rod bearing fails on this engine you first have to understand how the bearings on the crankshaft work. The bearing is a wearable surface, i.e. softer than the material of the crankshaft and the rod itself which are both, typically 4340 steel, one of the hardest/strongest steels available. If those two were to contact each other we’d be in a world of hurt as they would wear each other out. The bearings job is to prevent that from happening. The bearing is designed to be a relatively soft metal alloy so that when it does touch the crankshaft journal it wears away, rather than wearing the crankshaft. Now ideally we keep an oil film between the journal of the crankshaft and the bearing. We choose an oil viscosity based on the bearing clearance we decided on when we assemble our engine.
When BMW built this engine they decided some numbers they thought would work really well. We found out though in 2003 that they made a mistake. They made their recall explaining that there was a problem with the rod bearings they manufactured in the early years. The explanation they gave was that the rod bearings were manufactured incorrectly resulting in too tight of a rod bearing clearance when the engines were assembled. This resulted in inadequate oil film between the crank journal and the rod bearing.
My personal suspicion is that this is merely an excuse and that that the recall was actually an update to a bearing with larger clearance. BMW could never admit openly “our original engine design had too small of a rod bearing clearance and made the bearings spin”. At the time of the recall we noticed that the rod bolts/entire rod changed design as well, but of course there wouldn’t be a recall on rods themselves, that would be a full rebuild of an engine. And finally, the most vital component that couldn’t be recalled in a cost effective manner would be the crankshaft. Does the rod bearing recall solve the problem? My answer is no, and I see this time and time again that even engines that have had the rod bearing recall done fairly recently still exhibit a large amount of rod bearing wear.
Let’s get down to what I consider the main problem: when the piston is on its compression stroke and the mixture is ignited a tremendous pressure is imparted on the top of the piston, down the wrist pin, through the rod, and into the rod bearing. Some engines have trouble or weakness upwards of this chain but what the S54 does is squeeze out all the oil causing the bearing to wear on the top side. This is a simple conclusion to reach when you dissect S54′s day in and day out, the bearing wear tells the story. This situation is also what makes me a bit uneasy about the common suggestion that a coated rod bearing is a great solution on the S54. If a coated bearing is adding material to a rod bearing then, obviously, it must also be reducing the bearing clearance on the crankshaft journal. Some rod bearing treatments are designed to allow the bearing to retain oil better, which, if they do actually do that would be helpful. Still, I don’t believe that these bearings adequately address the original engine design flaw.
There are a couple ways to solve this problem, BMW tried the simplest. Increase the oil viscosity and increase the bearing clearance. This provides a higher volume of viscous oil for the combustion pressure to act upon. Does this help the problem? Definitely. Another option would be to increase oil pressure, this is one of the reasons that some people say all S54 race cars should have a dry sump oil system. This helps not so much because it prevents oil starvation but also because you are able to change gear sizes to obtain the oil pressure you desire.
To really get down to properly fixing the engine we have to go back and re-engineer it. The best way would be to make a new billet crankshaft (like we do for our stroker kits). A cheap alternative is to have the stock journal reground to accept a wider bearing. To do this we also have to choose a bearing that has a smaller diameter. Conveniently this also means that we can fix some crankshafts that have already spun bearings. We grind down the journal and widen it to accept the bearing for our new rod. For economics we choose a rod bearing that is common and easily available. This also means we have a wide variety of rods to choose from that are available in different lengths. Once we choose the rod, which can vary depending on customers preferences, we then measure the compression height we desire and order our custom piston from one of the various suppliers we use. Obviously what I’m describing takes quite a bit more thought than simply reassembling a stock engine and as such the labor cost is higher, and that might scare some people away.
I like to let them think about the cost for a new set of OEM rings, or pistons, or rods from BMW and compare those costs to the cost of some aftermarket rods/bearings/rings from aftermarket sources. Often times the quality is better and the cost is significantly less. The end result is an engine that costs very close to what an OEM rebuild would cost and ends up with lighter weight components that are fully balanced and engineered. More over some of the compromises that BMW made on their production engines don’t need to be made when building custom engines for race applications.
Some might say that its best just to replace the S54 rod bearings as part of regular maintenance, perhaps every 50k miles or so. I think this is a good suggestion but it also carries an expense and is a bandaid on a permanent problem. If a person is in the position to do a complete rebuild and intends to drive the car aggressively I think modifying the crankshaft for future reliability is a wise decision to minimize future maintenance and reduce the chances of catastrophic engine failure.
Even more so I think it makes the most sense for those in the position that their engine has already spun a bearing and has damaged a crankshaft. At this point they are left with the decision to either purchase a used crankshaft or try to repair their current one. The cost of modifying the crankshaft journal for this wider bearing is only slightly more than a standard crankshaft repair when a rod bearing has spun.
If a rebuild is in your future on an S54 I encourage you to investigate the costs of a standard rebuild and compare those costs to our rod bearing modification kit."
AndreasSA, What about this one? http://www.autotrader.co.za/used-ca...o-durban-fpa-8ad10f8844b176070144d9e31e8279a9
AndreasSA
Member
@Rommies: I know this article...its quite good but there also not right completely and I know guys in Germany which followed their ideas...which also ended up in a horrible engine collapse!
There is nothing wrong with the design, you only need to replace the bearings early enough to avoid the collapse....that means you should do that at about 100.000km....if the car was used in a normal way of course...often race tracks and high rpm ends up in 60.000km...its like changing brake pads in the end...:idea:
By the way...the actual M3 E9x is suffering with the same problem....
My everage consumption with the M3e46 conv. was a bit below 12 ltr/100km...
Its ok, but wrong colour, rims and place ...(Durban)
There is nothing wrong with the design, you only need to replace the bearings early enough to avoid the collapse....that means you should do that at about 100.000km....if the car was used in a normal way of course...often race tracks and high rpm ends up in 60.000km...its like changing brake pads in the end...:idea:
By the way...the actual M3 E9x is suffering with the same problem....
My everage consumption with the M3e46 conv. was a bit below 12 ltr/100km...
Rommies said:
Its ok, but wrong colour, rims and place ...(Durban)
Crash_Nemesis
///Member
Ya, lucky I changed my bearings. Also get around 12l per 100km. That's mixed city and very little highway. I don't go on e-tolled highways.
Crash_Nemesis
///Member
Code 1 refers to new cars
Code 2 is a second-hand car
Code 3 is a car that is not in it's original state and has been written-off by an insurance company.
Code 2 is a second-hand car
Code 3 is a car that is not in it's original state and has been written-off by an insurance company.
RAArmstrong
///Member
Anything Code 3... Walk away...
AndreasSA
Member
Crash_Nemesis said:
What is the year of built? There are huge differences within 2004 and 2005 because they changed the exhaust gas specifications in germany at that time...
Thanks for the answers regarding coding of cars...so you are right, Code 3 is a no go...
I like this forum!!!:ty:
Crash_Nemesis
///Member
I have a 2001 M3. But engine is completely rebuilt. Nothing inside is stock. All internals from Vac Motorsports in USA or HorsePowerFreaks.
Engine is blueprinted.
Glad you like the forum. :thumbs:
Engine is blueprinted.
Glad you like the forum. :thumbs:
AndreasSA
Member
I ahd already some M's so I know what I get...especially with a CSL...but I will also have close look on the normal M3...price is less than half of it...and I am frequently in Germany to get the right parts there that I like...
Are there proper carbon intake systems available in SA? For which price?
Are there proper carbon intake systems available in SA? For which price?
Daaf Vader
New member
Not that I know of, but if you find one let us know.
On the other hand there is always other options with that beautiful S54 in :idea:
On the other hand there is always other options with that beautiful S54 in :idea:
Crash_Nemesis
///Member
Burgy from project shift can get intakes and he does the required software needed. He also does Alpha N software, which the M3 CSL uses, this will give the most gains.
Burgy was building a local version of the CSL airbox. The first prototype was used on my car and it sounded amazing. Car felt like it had sharper response too. The intake was then modified and moved over to Billybobs car, who I believe still has a version of the intake on it with Alpha N software and apparently he had some gains with the intake and software.
I am not too sure what has become of this intake since. No idea if Burgy is still making it or not, but last I heard it was supposed to be cheaper to make it here than buying one overseas and importing.
Here is a video from last year Feb with the intake on my car - Watch in 720p
[align=center][video=youtube]
Burgy was building a local version of the CSL airbox. The first prototype was used on my car and it sounded amazing. Car felt like it had sharper response too. The intake was then modified and moved over to Billybobs car, who I believe still has a version of the intake on it with Alpha N software and apparently he had some gains with the intake and software.
I am not too sure what has become of this intake since. No idea if Burgy is still making it or not, but last I heard it was supposed to be cheaper to make it here than buying one overseas and importing.
Here is a video from last year Feb with the intake on my car - Watch in 720p
[align=center][video=youtube]
