The DISA is a classic example of something as useful as an appendix. I've had mine disconnected or working and have seen no difference in performance, gas mileage, or anything else. Allegedly it changes the tuning of the intake manifold to give better performance. Maybe you can see it on a dyno, but I can't tell any difference. And for sure it's a piece of crap that fails, breaks apart, with pieced of the plastic DISA flap going into the intake, into the engine.
VANOS I guess is OK, it's their variable valve timing.
How about their oil separator piece of crap? Instead of a conventional PVC system for crankcase vapors, they route the fumes way off the engine, to that stupid oil separator, which then trickles oil back to the engine. Only problem is that the vapors are full of water with the oil, which, when taking that trip outside the engine, cool and condense into mayonaise. That plugs up the works. Worst case when that oil separator fouls up, it winds up sucking the crankcase oil into the intake. There are videos online of hydrolocked engines, cylinders full of oil.
There are plenty of other weak spots too, eg window regulators that fail right and left, sending the glass crashing and breaking. I had 3 go, one while the car was sitting in the driveway.
Which of course has nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about.
It's more a matter of changing your tires and balancing them at home not being worth the trouble. How much time have you spent on this now?
It's not about the risk, it's about it not being worth all the trouble when you can get 4 tires mounted and balanced for $65. That's $65, not $650.
That's the M54, 6 cylinder, right? I agree, those last a long time, easily go 200K miles, but even those have problems, eg oil leaks, that you don't see in a Honda that costs half the price.
The major weakness is external, in that
It's not that it's too messy if you have to do it. But for most people, when it's the cost of tank of gas, it's just not worth the hassle.
Like I said - it is critical on the front independent suspension. Dynamic balance on the duels of a triple axle trailer is NOT going to be an issue - nor on the tandem or triple dual weeled drive axles on a tractor. A set of super singles on the front end may well be a totallt different story.
And a LOT of owners replacing front end parts prematurely due to accellereated wear - and even in a vain attempt to solve a steering shimmy that is caused by a poorly balanced tire - even though on the bubble balancer, or even road force balancer, checks out as perfectly balanced.
The ply bushings have the mixed advantage/disadvantage of being MUCH stiffer than the OEM rubber busgings. The bushings in most cars are made of the same stuff the Bimmer uses - the same stuff my 21 year old Ranger uses - and at almost 350,000km they are still original - and it is running SEVERELY oversized tires and wheels. Perhaps if the wheels were dynamically balanced the front bushings MIGHT last a bit longer???? Did you read my arguement for dynamic balancing? Did you think about it and process it? You read a lot of PDFs. Who makes the PDFs? Who writes the copy? Is their input verified? In other words, have you had ANY concrete reason to believe them - that they actually know what they are tralking about? Or is it just that they resonate with your way of thinking???
I've been right about a LOT of what I've said on this thread, by your own admission. MABEE, perhaps, I actually DO know what I'm talking about? Perhaps the guys writing the PDFs don't have the experience behind them? Not saying they DON"T know what they are talking about - just raising the (strong) possibility. Anyone can put together a fancy PDF and overnight be an "expert" in the eyes of those who read them - particularly in a VERY biased enthusiasts' users group populated trust fund kids who fancy themselves experts on their chosen toy.
Front to back rotation is always a good idea. As long as the car uses the same wheels ant tires on both ends. Rotating left to right requires demounting and remounting the tires - particularly with directional or asymetric treads. Put the rear tires on the front and drive like a boy-racer and wear the outer edges off through hard turning, particularly with the caster not set properly. You DO remember that caster has a pretty significant effect on camber on turns - right??? And if you are wearing the inside off the rear tires it just means you are not cornering hard enough to get the hind end to "step out" putting the load on the outer edge of the outside tire on the turn :}
And there are thousands who DO who should never be allowed to have a wrench in their hand, even under supervision - EVER
The other driver on the road should NOT be put at risk by those who have no mechanical understanding, and no idea of the risk involved in doing something wrong that could kill them, their family or friends, or innocent members of the public.
I would.t be so sure. I've known sone VERY gay guys who knew their way around the bottom of a car, and a toolbox, better than many macho redneck knuckle-draggers. And some VERY talented yet very feminine members of the fairer sex who could out-wrenh (and out-drive) over 50% of the male population.. It's got nothing to do with testosterone.
And many of us who KNOW something about tires NEVER inflate their tires to the factory recommended pressure. On my cars I almost consistently rin 6 to 8 psi over the auto manufacturer's specs - and NEVER run them at the maximum inflation pressure printed on the sidewalls. The air pressure in the 235/70 16 tires on my ranger is significantly LOWER than the pressure spec on the door sticker. Inflating them to the specified pressure would have me bouncing all over the road and needing a kidney belt simply because they are rated much higher weight-wise than the truck requires, and are significantly oversized from the factory original 195/70 14 inchers. And if your guage is not accurate to within a lot less than +/- 5psi (thats a 10PSI variance) you should throw the damned thing in the trash and spend some money on a REAL guage. Seriously.
And on MOST cars there isn't one - - -
No you won't. You'll never balance a large enough sample to draw any statistically significant conclusion
I will STRONGLY dissagree with you. A $300 Michelin tire is virtually guaranteed to be a higher quality tire than a sixty nine dollar Nexen. It has also been my experience that a better tire usually takes less weight, and requires a whole lot less rebalancinf. A quality tire, once properly mounted and balanced, should NEVER go out of balance throughout it's normal lifespan..
A cheap tire may require rebalancing several times before it fails - particularly if dynamically out of balance to start and not properly (dynamically) balanced.
The 300 dollar tire may actually make more economic sense than the sixty nine dollar tire.
But your premise is WAY off. And the materials are a large part OF the quality and where costs are very often cut. A better grade of rubber costs more. Properly mixing the rubber, and properly milling it, costs money. The actual RAW material cost of a tire is likely closer to 10% than 90. Properly BUILDING a tire is a job that requires some skill - and attention to detail. Properly curing the tire is also a critical process - which if rushed, or with any shortcuts taken, results inan inferior tire. Also, proper spot testing of the product as it comes off the line costs money. This is "quality control" - which is generally almost non-existant on many of the cheap tires. They put a warranty on the tire so if a customer realizes there is something wrong they will replace it. Replacing half of the defective tires that get through is still cheaper than implementing proper quality control - and at least half the buyers either won't realize there is anything wrong, or won't bring them back for replacement - they'll just ditch them, swear about the crappy tires/crooked tire shop to their friends, and buy more garbage with a different name on it from another tire dealer for $69.
Which, as I said, is EXACTLY what happens.
Not just might be. I live in what WAS the tire manufacturing capital of Canada. We gad BF Goodrich, Goodyear and UniRoyal (Dominion rubber origionally) building tires here in Kitchener for decades. They are all gone now. I knew lots of guys who worked in the tire plants - and several who workead at the one plant came and bought the Atlas tires (private brabded for Imperial oil - ESSO) from me at list rather than buying the manufacturer's own brand at a discount directly from the plant because they KNEW the quality control was MUCH tighter on the private brand tire. A few years later I had the same happen at the Shell station - the tire workers bought the "Shell" brand tires because theywere a better tire - buiot to a higher spec, with better quality control, than the mainline branded tire (2 different plants involved)
Also, the markings on the tire tell you exactly what plant the tires come out of - and knowing that can tell you a LOT about what kind of quality to expect.
Damned right it is at least in Canada. If it's COD it's COD, it's not Halibut - and knowingly mislabling foodstuffs in particular gets you into some real BAD Jiu Jiu.
It's sure not Haddock or Hallibut. Labeling a higher quality or priced fish as a lower one won't LIKELY get you in trouble - but selling an inferiour product as a better poroduct will if you get caught - as well it should.
And the chickens are coming home to roost their too. I hope you end up spending your last days in one of those hell-hols iof you were aware of malpractice and did not report it.
Got nothing to do with the age, and if you can't tell the difference, and which one is wrong, you should NOT be balancing tires or doing any safety related work on a car. Like an aquaintance of mine - a British bloke who fancies himself a mechanic, an expert on "foreign" cars, and an "aircraft (ultralight) mechanic" I wouldn't let him work on a kid's tricycle. Some of the boners he's pulled, I cannot for the life of me figure out how he's survived into his upper 50s or early sixties. He's got more lives than Felix the cat!!! - and 90% of his "boners" have bean related to his mechanical ineptitude.
Can't tell him anything though!!
If their linear speed is 50mph at 60mph vehicle speed (because not being on the outsde circumference, but on therim) their "muzzle velocity" when they fly off under centrifical force may well approach
120 feet per second. At 700 revs per mile and 60MPH the tire (235-70 16) is doing 700RPM (do the math) and with a 16 inch rim that comes out to a rotational g-force of about 112 Gs - so a 2 ounce weight exerts a force equivalent to 14 lbs accelerating the weight away from the rim - adding to the rotational velocity. Not quite a bullet - but getting close.
It's what you don't know you don't know that bites your ass - - -
You call that bulletproof? I call it a flipp'n disaster. Even a crappy 3.0 liter MitsuShitty is a better engine. The only problem they had was valve guides. Guides that got loose and fell ot. Guides that wore out. Guides that wore then carboned up and stuck. Just about anything that could go wronf with a valve guide. Other than that the piles of scrap were pretty well bullet proof. Virtually never saw a bottom end go out - or even a piston. Compare that to the Vauxhall 2200 and 2300 cc slant fours. Other than popping the diaphragms out of the Stromberg 175 carbs, or lighting them on gire because GM techs couldn't get their heads around the concept of hydraulic dampers on carburetors, those things were bulletproof. Perhaps not having enough power to hurt themselves helped, but even highly boosted in the Panther,Lima (with very close to 180HP in "stock" form) stood up VERY well. A 225 Mopar six - now THAT was bulletproof. A 283 Chevy wasn't far behind. But ANY Bimmer???? Not even their inline 6 turbo diesel.
And why the heck would you take it to a "quick change"???
Some people's time is worth more to them than the savings of changing their own oil rather than taking it to the "dealer" (now that is a novel idea, isn'y it) for service.. Not to mention the mess of changing the oil, particularly on a CI engine.
You're mixed up as usual. Here you're replying to Frank.
And here you're replying to me. So the answer to that is:
Because it's quick, inexpensive and it's worked fine for me. For many years I had a corporate car and that's where I had to take it, Jiffy Lube or similar. No problems.
You can take your car to the dealer to get hosed if you like. I'm with Frank on doing most repairs that the dealer will screw you royally for yourself if you choose. An example is a brake job. Take the car to the dealer and they will tell you that you need not only new pads, but new rotors. Then bill you at BMW prices for all. You wind up with a $1000 bill, instead of $50 for pads and DIY. And that's just most dealers, then there are the special ones that are totally crooked. I can tell you some great stories about that kind.
So, what does Clare recommend? Govt regulation so that you have to prove that you have training, are certified, to work on your own car? Can you provide us some examples of the horrific results of the millions of guys who work on their own cars? And I suppose there have been no horrific results ever from incompetent work done at a dealer, right? How about all those dealers and GM that let people drive around in cars, getting killed, that they knew had defective ignition locks?
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:24:40 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca advised:
I'm aware that static balance isn't the entire balance story; however I asked a few shops the same question I asked you, and *all* said that there is no reason to dynamically balance if the car doesn't vibrate.
I certainly know the argument for dynamic balancing. I've read everything I can on the subject.
It's the same argument, in many ways, used for precision in nuclear ballistic missiles.
You mistake me for most people. I'm not at all like most people. I change my mind when I am presented with valid new arguments.
However, if all I hear are the same arguments that I've long ago processed, then there is nothing new added to the equation.
The arguments against doing a job are almost always extremely obvious.
Anyone who has never done the job is usually incapable of adding a new argument to the equation. They just don't know enough to be of any value.
You do know (pretty much) what you're talking about. So do I since I've done the job twice now. When I do the job fifteen times, I'll know more.
My plan is simple: a. Change these tires b. Change the next set of tires c. Change the set after that.
If at that point I want to pay $100 for someone else to mount and balance my tires, then I'll at least make an educated decision at that time.
I understand the arguments that BMW uses for not rotating. And I understand the arguments for one-side-only rotation. However, I rotate as I see fit.
Sometimes, I get lazy myself, and I don't rotate. It's what happens in real life.
Yup. Luckily, unmounting and remounting tires is easily done at home.
Speaking of caster, I'm still working on that darn equation of measuring camber to calculate caster. It's boggling my mind, but I'm working on it.
I have an entire thread on just that alone in the Toyota forums. They're far more helpful than the people here, by the way, for the most part.
They have boy racers too; but at least they have a few people there who know how to measure camber at an inboard and outboard angle, and then how to subsequently calculate the caster.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:28:40 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:
What you say makes sense.
What makes sense is that you (a) can get your tires mounted and balanced for a good price, and that (b) you don't want to screw around with doing it yourself, particularly if (c) there is an x-percent (1%?) risk of having to do the dynamic balancing anyway.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why you're telling us what everyone knows? There's no added value telling us that you, and 9,999 out of 1,000 people who have the same attitude as you do, know nothing about mounting and balancing tires at home (having never done it).
Only 1 out of 1,000 people can add value to this thread.
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:35:40 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:
I agree with Trader that anyone is welcome to take their car to the dealer for an oil change, but, they must be willing to pay through the nose for the privilege of the free loaner car for the duration.
Mine is $200 an hour and they charge double the price for parts so, it's never gonna be inexpensive to get work done at the stealer. A simple brake job can cost easily four digits (don't ask me how anyone can justify that though).
Yup. I don't think a four-wheel brake job is ever less than four digits at a bimmer stealer whereas I can easily do the job for less than a hundred, and that's using FF Textar/Jurid OEM pads (or Axis or PBR or Akebono aftermarket FF or GG pads), new solid Brembo or ATE rotors, ATE blue ersatz DOT4 brake fluid, etc. (yes, I know that a brake-fluid bleed isn't part of a normal brake job).
Me too. I pity people who take their cars in for service who don't know how to do the job themselves because they can so easily be screwed.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:12:18 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:
I'm with you that BMW overly complicated an intake manifold with a DISA valve designed to moderate the harmonics; but what BMW did to make the whole thing a mess was to design a $200 flap valve that was doomed to be eventually ingested (wreaking havoc in the cylinders).
Worse, there is only a single manufacturer of DISA valves on the planet, so, we're stuck buying new and then redesigning it ourselves (which is what everyone is forced to do).
The problem with disconnecting the DISA components is that the flap valve will just flap around, perhaps destroying itself in that process, which may cause an ingestion into the engine anyway.
I don't disagree with you that the DISA is probably meaningless on the dyno but my problem with the DISA is the risk of engine ingestion of the pin that holds the flap valve in place.
The real problem is the pin but either way, having chunks of a valve bouncing around in the cylinders is a prescription for disaster.
The VANOS is problematic as it is often assumed that the VANOS gaskets are made of the wrong material (buna) hence they fail in the hot-oil environment and they cause the valve timing to go off.
Valve timing on my bimmer is important not only for the intake valves but the exhaust valves are the EGR system (there is no separate EGR) so it screws around with both intake and exhaust valves if the VANOS isn't working well.
Yup. The V8 uses an OSV while the I6 uses the CCV but they're both the worst designed PCV systems in the world. I can't disagree with you.
Plus they're both miserable to work on.
I've seen everything there is to see with CCV/OSV and I can't disagree with you in the least. Dumb system.
Mine is modified with the cold-weather hoses (which were a bitch to get in place since they're thicker) and I drilled holes in my oil dipstick guide tube along the outside wall to prevent the concentric rings from gumming up.
Why BMW can't even design a reliable PCV system is beyond my feeble comprehension.
I don't think there was ever an E38 or E39 or E46 (early years) that didn't have the window regulators fail multiple times. Most of the time what happens is the extremely tightly strung cable slips off the too-small too-cheap too-brittle plastic rollers at the top two corners of the window regulators.
Only URO has redesigned the regulator with beefier rollers. Some people have machined their own rollers out of metal while others tried nylon rollers but the fit is problematic.
In the rear, the crimped on lead base for the trolleys falls off the cable for heaven's sake.
Why Dorman can't design a window regulator for BMW that doesn't fail in a few years is beyond my comprehension.
I spent 10 years in college and graduate school. Are you saying that spending time learning is a waste of time?
You keep repeating what everyone knew at the outset of this thread, and, which means that you don't know *how* to do the job.
That's fine. Almost nobody knows how to do the job. In fact, nobody here knew the answer to some of the questions I asked that I now know the answer to.
But you repeating that you've never done the job yourself and that you don't know the answer to the questions, doesn't answer the questions.
Yes. I have the M54. It's the same engine as the earlier E46. It's bulletproof.
That you know the M54 designation is an indication that you know what you're talking about, as do I.
The weakness of the M54 is really the external systems kill it, such as the cooling system which, when it blows, can take out the thin wall between the #3 cylinder by cracking it (plenty of welded it, but that's a big job).
Other than the cooling system taking out the #3 cylinder, the DISA valve pin ingestion is the only other mortal threat to the M54 engine.
There are idiosyncratic sources of oil leaks, particularly from the oil level sensor and the buna valve cover gasket, but they are generally slow leaks which can be nursed for a long while.
The difference here is that there are two kinds of people who won't do a job.
a. Those who have done it, and, b. Those who have never done it.
While both may decided not to do a job, those who have done it know so much more than those who don't that it isn't funny.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:53:21 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca advised:
All fibs have an element of truth. Scrod is whatever fish you want it to be within reason.
Nobody is going to jail for labeling half a fish scrod just like nobody is going to jail for mounting and balancing tires incorrectly.
That's the main difference between me and everyone else. I can easily be told a different opinion. I will take it in, and decide for myself if that different opinion warrants me changine mine.
If the opinion is backed up with valid data, then I'll just change my mind. It's that easy for me to have a different opinion.
But if that opinion is not backed up with any facts, or, if it's backed up by facts that I've already taken into account (e.g., everything that Trader said), then it's not going to change my mind simply because no new information was brought to the table.
Nobody who hasn't done their own tires will have any information that we don't already know.
Which is why I asked the question in the first place.
So far, *very few* people have added anything that we all didn't know before this thread was started - but some did - which is why the thread has value to the next person who reads this.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:42:43 -0600, My 2 Cents advised:
I don't know if any lost weights for my wheels, but, I haven't been looking (plus my wheel has the weights on the inside where they can't easily be seen).
What I love about your advice (and that from Clare) is that you've actually done the job so you have advice that is helpful.
I plan on following your advice, which is that I am hammering the weights on. I don't have the weights yet (they're on order) so I may have to do the job with stickons as the car didn't arrive today (maybe tomorrow).
Now that is an interesting method! If that works, that's amazing! It's certainly an idea for an emergency when stickon weights aren't available!
Thanks for the admonishment to clear the rotors and calipers.
I would think you probably do get some slightly better performance on the dyno with the DISA that may help you're specs look a tad better. I just think it makes no noticeable difference in driving. I can't tell any difference.
I've heard all that too. I recently replaced the vanos piston seals because I was going after an external oil leak, wasn't sure if it was just the valve cover gasket or perhaps the seal between the vanos unit and the head. So, I took the vanos off to replace that gasket and did the internal seals while it was off. I'd say the pistons were not super tight, but those seals were not totally shot either. And those were the originals. And again the car was showing no signs of vanos trouble before, I noticed no difference after, etc.
Yet I've had most of the gearheads at Xoutpost defend it as a wonderful thing. They claim it makes the BMW engine more environmentally friendly, even though all the other car manufacturers who don't use it obviously meet all current emissions.
In theory I guess it extracts more oil vapor from the gasses than a conventional system. But the problem is it doesn't work right and gums up with mayo.
Bingo. Yet at xoutpost, those denier will tell you that you must be slamming the doors. Funny, I only had one other window regulator go on a car, with
40 years of driving. That was on my MB, when I had gone through a car wash, then opened the window right after when it was 15 outside. It was frozen, wouldn't move, so the regulator broke.
I'd say it is when the purpose is to do something that even you concede can be done better at a shop for not more than the cost of a tank of gas.
I've told you several time now that I was mounting tires at a gas station when I was 12. I know what it takes, how much trouble it is if you don't have the right equipment, how much easier it is to break the bead with an air driven machine.
Try reading what I wrote.
I guess it depends on what you mean by bulletproof. You've outlined just some of the serious defects. Sure, they don't result in the engine being destroyed, but I wouldn't call an engine where so many oil seals leak, that has the DISA problems, etc bulletproof. I have a friend who has been through 3 Honda CRVs, putting 200K plus miles on all of them. No oil leaks, no DISA, no oil separator, etc. He's had zero engine trouble. No that I'd call bulletproof. Those CRVs, the AC seems to be the weak spot.
The BMW and similar owners actually look at paying that as a badge of honor. They think it costs so much more because the BMW is the ultimate driving machine. So, they roll in and say "Thank you Sir, may I have another?"
IMO, the best investment you can make with any car is to get a good code reader. That alone can help you figure out if the dealer or shop is BSing, you. They have ones now that work now with a smartphone. I don't have one of those, but for the BMW, I have the BMW software that the dealers run.
I guess I'm telling you that because you couldn't accept my simple original comment that dynamic balancing is superior and will be needed on at least some tires. That was all I said to start with. And it seems like everyone agrees with that.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 07:10:18 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:
Nobody needed to tell me that dynamic balancing is more accurate than static balancing for the tires that need it so the fact that we all agree means it only needs to be said once, and that's it (since there is no argument about it).
My premise is what needs to be tested, which is that a wheel that doesn't vibrate is balanced so well, that dynamic balancing won't add any value.
I *read* (but no proof was supplied) that someone said that an imperceptible vibration would cause damage to suspension components, which could happen (anything can happen) but I also read numerous times that tires should be balanced every 3,000 miles (e.g., Goodyear PDF) so there is a *lot* of unbalanced systems out there if that's really true.
So, like a CSV has to separate the oil from the water, I am forced to separate the bullshit from the reality.
Fact is, my premise has not been prove nor disproven that a tire statically balanced that doesn't cause vibration, is balanced well.
I did check that very same hypothesis with *all* the tire shops, and all concurred (you can take my word on that because I have no problem admitting when/if I'm wrong).
Anyway, if someone can show *proof* that a wheel that doesn't cause perceptible vibration is actually harming the car somehow, and that dynamic balance would prevent that harm, I'm all ears because I'm here to learn (but I'm not here for unsubstantiated bullshit).
I'm never afraid to admit if/when I'm wrong, nor if/when I make a mistake; but I'm not like most people here who think they know more than they actually do, and who spout cliches as sophistic proof of their knowledge.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.