BMW M3 Forum
BMW M3 Forum BMW M3 Gallery BMW M3 Reviews BMW M3 Social Groups BMW M3 Chat M3Forum Sponsors >>
Loading


Mobile M3forum
Go Back   BMW M3 Forum.com (E30 M3 | E36 M3 | E46 M3 | E92 M3 | F80/X) > BMW M3 Discussions > E46 M3 (2001-2006)
Tire Rack Buy Winter Tires Now!
Not a member? Register Now!
Register Gallery All Albums Garage Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Calendar FAQ

E46 M3 (2001-2006) Engine: S54 - Max Hp: 333 hp at 7,900 rpm / 262 lb/ft at 4,900 rpm
Total Produced: 45,000+ - Years Produced: 2001 to 2006.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 09:04:45 PM   #21
M3_Pilot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 446
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 M3_Pilot is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewster View Post
I'd definitely agree that it's a case-by-case thing. Some scenarios likely fall down to subcontractors not meeting requirements. It's not uncommon knowledge that a good deal of parts are really the auto manufacturer saying "Hey, ATE, we need a part that does X, Y, and Z for less than $$". If you ask any "prime contractor", their opinion would be that their engineering is perfect - it's just sub-contractors not meeting requirements.

When things normal humans call "failures" after ~100,000 miles happen, I think a good deal of automotive engineers would say that's perfect - the design met requirements, no more, no less.

Specifically in regard to BMW, I think they make a good deal of assumptions on the kind of roads and conditions their product will be used on. For example, rather than saying "man, we didn't design these strut towers properly", BMW says "you're driving on rough roads that aren't what we consider normal... here's a 'rough road package' with plates to keep that from happening on your shitty non-German roads." Ditto with bearings - my understanding was that BMW first blamed owners for not warming up the car properly.
Thatís a great observation. Looking at it from an engineering perspective, itís amazing how advanced most combustion engines have become. And then to demand emissions regulations, more performance, and then longetivity - Iíd say this engine is nothing short of an engineering marvel.
__________________


2004 Jet Black/Cinnamon 6MT
Jump to top M3_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Register now and remove these ads
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 09:22:17 PM   #22
Drewster
Registered User
 
Drewster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,769
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 Drewster is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by M3_Pilot View Post
Thatís a great observation. Looking at it from an engineering perspective, itís amazing how advanced most combustion engines have become. And then to demand emissions regulations, more performance, and then longetivity - Iíd say this engine is nothing short of an engineering marvel.
Especially since the car came out in 2000, meaning the engine was probably engineered ~1998.. when many cars still used distributors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceansize View Post
Thanks for the input as I've been pondering the RACP and bearing situations and how them came to be and these responses spurred new thoughts. I work in software development. Mostly analytics, big data (I've come to hate that term), and stats but do a fair amount of work on what I suppose could be best termed OLTP. In my world the "we didn't anticipate X set of conditions" is unacceptable although it certainly happens to me more often than I care to admit. For some reason I really hadn't considered the auto industry had starting parameters of what constituted an acceptable set of driving conditions or circumstances and anything outside of that was deemed not their responsibility or at least so far outside the norm they couldn't account for it within a reasonable cost. The more I think on it the more I believe that in the world of mass production coupled with this level of engineering it is likely unavoidable to a degree.
I agree it *should* be unacceptable.. and yet, GM's C7 Z06 overheated in the hands of amateurs at standard tracks.... humans be human
Jump to top Drewster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 09:29:55 PM   #23
Volke
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 222
Reputation: 0 Volke is on a distinguished road
Location: Chicago

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceansize View Post
Thanks for the input as I've been pondering the RACP and bearing situations and how them came to be and these responses spurred new thoughts. I work in software development. Mostly analytics, big data (I've come to hate that term), and stats but do a fair amount of work on what I suppose could be best termed OLTP. In my world the "we didn't anticipate X set of conditions" is unacceptable although it certainly happens to me more often than I care to admit. For some reason I really hadn't considered the auto industry had starting parameters of what constituted an acceptable set of driving conditions or circumstances and anything outside of that was deemed not their responsibility or at least so far outside the norm they couldn't account for it within a reasonable cost. The more I think on it the more I believe that in the world of mass production coupled with this level of engineering it is likely unavoidable to a degree.
In general for hardware, unless it's aerospace or safety critical, you don't design to or test to worst case conditions. You come up with a composite application profile that represents how your average customer will use your product and design/test to that. Also, the design metrics usually allow for a certain amount of failures before the target life. For example, when building a new engine, BMW may decide they want a B10 life of 100,000 miles and a B50 life of 150,000 miles. This means that they are okay with 10% of the population failing before 100,000 miles and 50% before 150,000 miles.

EDIT: On top of B10 lifes, they may also say they only want a 90% confidence interval when determining how many samples they need to test and for how long to verify that the design meets the requirements.
__________________
Peter
Mechanical Engineer

Last edited by Volke; Tue, Jun-19-2018 at 09:40:13 PM.
Jump to top Volke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 10:18:43 PM   #24
Texaz3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 691
Reputation: 0 Texaz3 is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewster View Post
Especially since the car came out in 2000, meaning the engine was probably engineered ~1998.. when many cars still used distributors.
Came out on a 2006 model, so a bit later than 2000. Still.
Jump to top Texaz3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Jun-20-2018, 12:04:07 AM   #25
mrgizmo04
Registered User
 
mrgizmo04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,860
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 mrgizmo04 is on a distinguished road
Location: Menlo Park

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
In general for hardware, unless it's aerospace or safety critical, you don't design to or test to worst case conditions. You come up with a composite application profile that represents how your average customer will use your product and design/test to that. Also, the design metrics usually allow for a certain amount of failures before the target life. For example, when building a new engine, BMW may decide they want a B10 life of 100,000 miles and a B50 life of 150,000 miles. This means that they are okay with 10% of the population failing before 100,000 miles and 50% before 150,000 miles.

EDIT: On top of B10 lifes, they may also say they only want a 90% confidence interval when determining how many samples they need to test and for how long to verify that the design meets the requirements.
You hit the key in your edit...confidence interval. There is an inherent measure built in accepting that some will fail, otherwise like you said, you would have to model and test to worst.

I think finite element has become pretty popular in auto industry in mid 80s, so I'm not sure where the disconnect happened with some failures on these cars, but budgets and timelines always put pressure.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
__________________
'85 528e 164k miles (sold)
'05 M3 6MT coupe

All DIY: 330 ZHP steering rack, diffsonline 4.1 diff with rem polish, E60 short shifter lever, AKG black diff bushings/subframe bushings, Rogue rtab, WPC rod bearings, Beyer driveshaft, full SS (SS stepped V1, catted S1, resonated S2, SS sport), Sachs clutch/flywheel, rear main, VANOS bullet proofing with anti-rattle, valve adjustment, cooling refresh, Ohlins R&T/Swift 448f 672r/GC street tops and camber plates, AFD E85 Proflex kit.
Jump to top mrgizmo04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Jun-20-2018, 01:47:25 PM   #26
Kcalhoun27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 281
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 Kcalhoun27 is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

In aerospace at least, the old saying is that its built to run, not to be fixed. So in a perfect world, the object is just operated. You try to build it with the thought in mind that it will fail and should have some failsafe to that end, but its kind of unreasonable to run a motor for 50000 hours just to see what might happen. Not to say that high hour testing isnt done. Eat a bird on takeoff and all those parameters are out the window, because even though they did BASH testing, you cant do that at every hour mark. And you cant account for secondary issues that arise and cause catastrophic damage.

I think the same could be said for the engines. Driving styles are so varied, drive times are varied. Would a car with almost entirely highway miles at 65mph have the same type of wear as a car that is tracked? Of course not. But what about someone who only does short trips? Or maybe you drive twice a month, but you go romping everytime. The variation is just impossible to account for, so they do their best to simulate failure in many arenas.

Like stated, i think this engine is a marvel, and even with the failures we know about, they did a great job. Likewise, the racp should have been fixed from e36-46, but even if they had reinforced it heavily, the power jump from the s52 to the 54 was enough that it might not have mattered

Just my 0.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jump to top Kcalhoun27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Jun-20-2018, 01:51:21 PM   #27
Obioban
Moderator
 
Obioban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 35,501
In the garage:
Reputation: 54 Obioban has a spectacular aura about
Location: SE PA

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kcalhoun27 View Post
In aerospace at least, the old saying is that its built to run, not to be fixed. So in a perfect world, the object is just operated. You try to build it with the thought in mind that it will fail and should have some failsafe to that end, but its kind of unreasonable to run a motor for 50000 hours just to see what might happen. Not to say that high hour testing isnt done. Eat a bird on takeoff and all those parameters are out the window, because even though they did BASH testing, you cant do that at every hour mark. And you cant account for secondary issues that arise and cause catastrophic damage.

I think the same could be said for the engines. Driving styles are so varied, drive times are varied. Would a car with almost entirely highway miles at 65mph have the same type of wear as a car that is tracked? Of course not. But what about someone who only does short trips? Or maybe you drive twice a month, but you go romping everytime. The variation is just impossible to account for, so they do their best to simulate failure in many arenas.

Like stated, i think this engine is a marvel, and even with the failures we know about, they did a great job. Likewise, the racp should have been fixed from e36-46, but even if they had reinforced it heavily, the power jump from the s52 to the 54 was enough that it might not have mattered

Just my 0.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They actually did fix the subframe failure between the e36 and e46. On the e36, it's the subframe itself that fails. On the e46, it's the mount points the subframe attaches to that fails.

Totally fixed!

I, too, find the s54 remarkably reliable for what it is and the variety of conditions it's subjected to.
__________________

Current Cars: 2005 IR/IR M3, 2001 LMB/blk M5, 03 530i, 04 M3 wagon, and some boring stuff
Past cars: 04 M3, 96 M3, S50B32 e36 M3 CM race car
Jump to top Obioban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Jun-20-2018, 02:12:58 PM   #28
Drewster
Registered User
 
Drewster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,769
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 Drewster is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
I, too, find the s54 remarkably reliable for what it is and the variety of conditions it's subjected to.
Remarkably reliable... with a hint of irony. I've actually lost a main coolant hose on track, and the engine didn't start to overheat until I got back to the pits. That was the first time I thought "damn.. what an engine". If she loses one little VANOS tab, though... :
Jump to top Drewster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Jun-20-2018, 02:20:06 PM   #29
Kcalhoun27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 281
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 Kcalhoun27 is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
They actually did fix the subframe failure between the e36 and e46. On the e36, it's the subframe itself that fails. On the e46, it's the mount points the subframe attaches to that fails.

Totally fixed!

I, too, find the s54 remarkably reliable for what it is and the variety of conditions it's subjected to.


Lol, when youre right, youre right.

Despite their failing to fully fix the issue, im still impressed. I still love the car. Even counting the things they got wrong, they still got so much more right. If rod bearings being routine maintenance is the price for admission, im in.

Everytime i drive this car, my only regret is waiting so damn long to buy one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jump to top Kcalhoun27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Jun-20-2018, 06:07:07 PM   #30
nowanker
"He's no wanker!"
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 874
Reputation: 0 nowanker is on a distinguished road
Location: Mountain View, SF bay area

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
In general for hardware, unless it's aerospace or safety critical, you don't design to or test to worst case conditions. You come up with a composite application profile that represents how your average customer will use your product and design/test to that. Also, the design metrics usually allow for a certain amount of failures before the target life. For example, when building a new engine, BMW may decide they want a B10 life of 100,000 miles and a B50 life of 150,000 miles. This means that they are okay with 10% of the population failing before 100,000 miles and 50% before 150,000 miles.

EDIT: On top of B10 lifes, they may also say they only want a 90% confidence interval when determining how many samples they need to test and for how long to verify that the design meets the requirements.
I'm sure every manufacturer has a room full of actuarials (right term?) crunching data to determine the most profitable Manufacturing Cost/Warranty Repair Cost ratios.
Marketing probably adds their input on Acceptable Failure Rate/Brand Tarnishment ratio.
That paper (what I could understand of it!) was some impressive engineering, and without a doubt, BMW can make excellent engines. But just because the engineers have done their homework on how to make the best part is no guaranty at all that those parts are going into production.
And unforseen things do happen (M-Clunk? Sudden Exploding S54 Syndrome?), Then I guess corporate decides whether to own up and either make repairs, blame the owner, or just tap-dance around it.
Jump to top nowanker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:26:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
M3Forum.com and M3forum.net is in no way sponsored, endorsed or affiliated by or with BMW NA / BMW AG or any of it's subsidiaries or vendors.
BMW and M3 (E90 M3 | E92 M3 | E93 M3 | E46 M3 | E36 M3 | E30 M3) are registered trademarks of BMW AG.
M3Forum Terms of Service
Copyright ©1999-2017 M3Forum.com
Discussing A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock in the E46 M3 (2001-2006) Forum - Engine: S54 - Max Hp: 333 hp at 7,900 rpm / 262 lb/ft at 4,900 rpm
Total Produced: 45,000+ - Years Produced: 2001 to 2006. at BMW M3 Forum.com (E30 M3 | E36 M3 | E46 M3 | E92 M3 | F80/X)