2008 BMW X5 4.8 BMW5x30 Valvetrain Wear

[George7941]

Code:
Vehicle 2008 BMW X5 4.8l V8

Oil BMW 5w30

Miles on Oil 8000

Miles on vehicle 50000

No make up oil added





Iron 26

Cr 0

Moly 126

Al 6

Cu 4

Pb 3

Sn 2

Ti 0

Ag 0

Ni 0

Si 5

Na 71

K 4

Zn 945

Mg 18

P 840

Ba 0

Soot 0

Sulf UFM# 40

Oxid UFM# 47

Nitr UFM# 26

Visc cst 13.87

Antifreeze Neg

Fuel Dil Neg

Water Neg


This X5 developed wear in the Valvetronic system at 54K mi (4k mi after this UOA, with Mobil1 0w40 in the engine). Bmw covered parts but not labour since it was out of warranty by 4k mi. Here is the invoice from the dealer

My question is, should the UOA have not shown some indication of wear, like a high Iron number?

 

[Quattro Pete]

I suppose it depends on how large the iron particles were. Larger particles would have most likely been trapped by the oil filter and hence would have not made it to the lab sample.

Are the valves made of iron or some other material on this engine? Sorry for my ignorance here.

 

[TomYoung]

On the iron, maybe, maybe not. Large wear particles could be caught in the filter, or the wear metals could be other than iron. The UOA looks clean.

My question concerns BMW's failure to cover this repair on a low-mileage vehicle. Unless this car was subjected to severe abuse (30,000 OCI), an engine failing in this way at such low mileage is unheard of in the modern era.

 

[oggb]

The last thing we need is even more proof that UOAs are worthless.

 

[d00df00d]

To add to what has been said, there is a huge range of particle sizes that are too small to be reliably caught in the filter but also too big to be be detected by most UOAs.

What lab did the UOA?

 

[George7941]

AFAIK the valves are steel (aren't they all steel? sodium filled, sometimes but still steel). The wear was not on the valves themselves but on the intermediate shafts and eccentric levers.

Oil changed by the dealer strictly according to OLM, which averaged around 8k to 9k mi intervals.

Vehicle has not been abused or raced. It belongs to a good friend of mine and he is careful with his vehicles. He has had it since new.

The warranty was 80k km/3 yr and the mileage was exceeded by 3k km.

There is mention of this valvetronic wear in the BMW forums.

It was certainly disappointing to see this wear on such an expensive advanced engine. The old school 4.3l in my own truck has been mechanically flawless so far (I had one ignition module failure) and it has similar mileage.

 

[George7941]

The analysis was done by a Toronto lab owned by the Caterpillar dealer. They told me they do about 500 samples a day. They seem pretty professional.

 

[dparm]

UOA is not necessarily an accurate indicator of motor health. Remember that only particles within a certain size range (5-30 micron?) are detected.

 

[George7941]

Originally Posted By: dparm
UOA is not necessarily an accurate indicator of motor health. Remember that only particles within a certain size range (5-30 micron?) are detected.


If that is the case then should the UOA have not picked up the 5 to 10 micron sized particles which would escape the filter?

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: George7941
..........My question is, should the UOA have not shown some indication of wear, like a high Iron number?


You have demonstrated the inherent limitations of a $25 UOA. Sometimes they predict disaster, sometimes they don't. The fact that they do not measure total wear metals (of all sizes) and only measure metals in fluid phase (ignoring any metals in the filter or in engine deposits) is a huge shortcoming.

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: George7941
...........If that is the case then should the UOA have not picked up the 5 to 10 micron sized particles which would escape the filter?


ICP spectroscopy, typically used in routine $25 UOAs, has reduced sensitivity to particles above 5um in size, and at 10um has almost zero sensitivity, IIRC.

 

[Slick17601]

BMW's are overpriced junk and this is a prime example. There is no reason BMW should not have covered the entire bill.

 

[Autobahn88]

Originally Posted By: Slick17601
BMW's are overpriced junk and this is a prime example. There is no reason BMW should not have covered the entire bill.


Thanks for your insightful response. I am sure it really helped and informed the OP.

 

[oggb]

Originally Posted By: Slick17601
BMW's are overpriced junk and this is a prime example. There is no reason BMW should not have covered the entire bill.


There are numerous other manufacturers out there that have placed much more expensive repairs in the laps of owners just outside of the warranty period.

 

[Gene K]

Originally Posted By: Slick17601
BMW's are overpriced junk and this is a prime example. There is no reason BMW should not have covered the entire bill.


I would think that if a manufacturer intended to warranty an item past 50,000 miles the warranty would say so. As it was BMW only covered the parts out of good will.

If you expect a manufacturer to cover a cars engine for 100,000 miles then buy one with a 100,000 mile warranty.

 

[steve20]

Originally Posted By: Slick17601
BMW's are overpriced junk and this is a prime example. There is no reason BMW should not have covered the entire bill.



that was just plain rude--even if you lived in NJ that would be considered a rude comment. OP opened his heart and wallet, and in return receives your comment above. What comes around goes around dude, is about as much I can say on this board without being tapped on the shoulder by a mod.

Comments such as yours serve no useful purpose, or do you feel good after keying this load in?

OP I swear my heart jumped a beat at the labor cost--really--

But happy to see it has worked out for you

 

[SteveSRT8]

Rude indeed. But horribly accurate.

This just reinforces bad opinions of the ultimate driving machine.

 

[antonmnster]

So if this one situation exemplifies how horrible BMW is, then how bad is GM for it's LIM issues? I don't know if there's an inferiority complex going on here or what, but let's not lose perspective.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dparm
UOA is not necessarily an accurate indicator of motor health. Remember that only particles within a certain size range (5-30 micron?) are detected.


The range is nowhere near that large, IIRC it is 2-7 microns.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Originally Posted By: George7941
...........If that is the case then should the UOA have not picked up the 5 to 10 micron sized particles which would escape the filter?


ICP spectroscopy, typically used in routine $25 UOAs, has reduced sensitivity to particles above 5um in size, and at 10um has almost zero sensitivity, IIRC.


Pretty much