Roadfly.com         Roadfly Home | Features | Car Review Videos | Car Reviews | Cars For Sale | Used Car Parts Classifieds | Forum | Car Review Archives | Forum Archives Index



PDA



metalman
07-08-2003, 11:45 PM
http://www.sts.sae.org/servicetech/july-2001/tech-tidbits-01.pdf

JR*M3
07-09-2003, 12:00 AM

atyclb
07-09-2003, 12:12 AM
<br>


<img src="http://www.**********.com/forums/images/smilies/blah.gif"> <img src="http://www.**********.com/forums/images/smilies/blah.gif"> <img src="http://www.**********.com/forums/images/smilies/blah.gif">

StoneWalk
07-09-2003, 01:02 AM
BMW switched over to 10w60 in mid 2001, perhaps days after this was released. The switch was intended to fix their bearing troubles which were already being detected despite them thinking they'd fixed it back 6 to 9 months earlier in the prototypes.

Sad part is, the oil appears to have never been the problem. BMW was so convinced that this was a high speed running and/or overrev issue that they tripled the cost of the oil in the car to get higher top end viscocity to go after that dimension. In reality, the bearing trouble was about contamination, bad oil pumps, and incorrect bearing tolerances, none of which are likely to be helped by thicker oil at high temps.

It would be really fun to read a true insiders summary ala "what made the space shuttle go boom" from someone at the heart of the S54 motor program in Germany. Of course such a person will never be allowed to talk by the lawyers, but it would be interesting to get the gory details and compare them in time against what was being said to the public (i.e. All failed motors were overreved by the driver)
<br>
StoneWalk, Ventura California
<img src="http://members.roadfly.com/stonewalk/M3lagunaSeca2a.jpg">


Roadfly Home | Car Reviews | Forum Archives Index