[adhrp]

Originally Posted by Slick_FThirty

I just don't understand why that would be the case if the lawsuit has already concluded with a completely different result.

Exactly. I am wondering whether the mechanic was given notice to expect an onslaught of vehicles with TC replacement jobs due to the recent lawsuit and he is confusing that with a new recall. That said, his use of the term 'recall' is curious.

[T_Filbert]

I did not read all 49 pages here...

but I read quite a few. I've known about the potential timing chain issue for the last 6 months or so, since we've only had the car for a little over a year. Bought it from my grandma--2015 328i turbo 4 cylinder. When we bought it from her in late 2019, it only had 16000 miles on it. I might be at 20k on mileage now.

I've heard that 2015 was the cut-off year. Is there a known hard date when BMW implemented a design fix, and everything after that is safe?

Read several comments about auto start/stop making things worse. Is that just based on 'feels' and perpetuated by auto-enthusiasts who crave the performance side of vehicle ownership, and tend to scoff at anything "economy" or "energy efficient"? What is the scientific explanation on how frequent starting/stopping is harder on a timing chain?

Are most dealerships shying away from submitting any kind of warranty claim on replacements, or are most of them offering to replace it free of charge to the owner, even if the chain is still within spec?

[Slick_FThirty]

Originally Posted by adhrp

Exactly. I am wondering whether the mechanic was given notice to expect an onslaught of vehicles with TC replacement jobs due to the recent lawsuit and he is confusing that with a new recall. That said, his use of the term 'recall' is curious.

Agreed, he probably was referring to something like that.

BMW is very stubborn (see the lawsuit) with this issue and is completely oblivious, with my conversations as well. They are very much a corporation with profits as their primary/only agenda that lacks satisfactory customer service. A shame really. For them to do a recall, in my opinion, the NHTSA would have to force them as part of a safety issue. But engine issues unfortunately don't often fall in this category, unlike fire issues, air bags etc.

[dave14x28]

Originally Posted by adhrp

Exactly. I am wondering whether the mechanic was given notice to expect an onslaught of vehicles with TC replacement jobs due to the recent lawsuit and he is confusing that with a new recall. That said, his use of the term 'recall' is curious.

...and if a recall does materialize, will it be for the N20/N26? Who knows... there have been other BMW engines with "over-optimized" timing chain designs, so hard to guess right now.

Andreas ("bmwtechnician") has posted lotsa good stuff on his blog, I'll assume this is good info as well, but time will tell...

[dave14x28]

Originally Posted by T_Filbert

I've heard that 2015 was the cut-off year. Is there a known hard date when BMW implemented a design fix, and everything after that is safe?

According to the Technical Service Bulletin SI B11 03 17 (available @ NHTSA), it's for production dates prior to 3/2013.

Having said that, my xDrive X1 has a 3/2013 production date but did not have all the newest parts in regards to the timing chain & oil pump drive module. It does now because I just had the service done.

For example, by comparing old & new parts I know my guide between the cams changed p/n, and the timing chain tensioner changed (on 8/15/2016 according to another site here: https://www.bimmerfest.com/attachmen...ed-pdf.808944/). More on that below.

Here's a link noting that the timing chain p/n changed on 1/2015: https://rightfootdown.com/automotive...nents-n26-too/

Originally Posted by T_Filbert

Read several comments about auto start/stop making things worse. Is that just based on 'feels' and perpetuated by auto-enthusiasts who crave the performance side of vehicle ownership, and tend to scoff at anything "economy" or "energy efficient"? What is the scientific explanation on how frequent starting/stopping is harder on a timing chain?

I didn't like the AS/S feature. But fortunately for me the 1st owner of my car (or the dealer that offered it CPO) didn't either, as it had been "coded" to remember that it had been disabled with the cabin button, rather than reset to "on" every time, which apparently was the factory setting. Makes sense to me that it's harder on some parts of the motor.

But I think the proof for me was that prior to getting the service done, my timing chain was sometimes (but not always) noticeably loose as observed through the oil fill cap. This tells me that the tensioner wasn't able to fight the forces from the camshafts and keep the chain tight at every shutdown, which means that some startups were happening with a loose chain. Not enough to throw timing codes AFAIK, but still.... If AS/S were on, that would have been more starts with a loose chain, more shock loading, more wear, etc.

After the service, I did some reverse engineering on my old tensioner and was surprised to realize that the spring force (about 15 lbs at mid-range) is more than the additional force from the pressurized oil (about 11 lbs at the average oil pressure of 3 bar).

And guess what? The new tensioner introduced in 8/2016 reportedly has a much stiffer spring. Hmmmmm.... coincidence? Nope.

Originally Posted by T_Filbert

Are most dealerships shying away from submitting any kind of warranty claim on replacements, or are most of them offering to replace it free of charge to the owner, even if the chain is still within spec?

There seems to be quite a range of experience being reported - some people getting great support from their dealer and some getting ignored.

[adhrp]

Originally Posted by dave14x28

...and if a recall does materialize, will it be for the N20/N26? Who knows... there have been other BMW engines with "over-optimized" timing chain designs, so hard to guess right now.

Andreas ("bmwtechnician") has posted lotsa good stuff on his blog, I'll assume this is good info as well, but time will tell...

Yes, good point re: whether it will be for the N20/26 or some other engines, but I have not heard much about TC issues on other current engines. I'd like for the recall to be true, but one wonders why BMW would suddenly initiate such a recall after it just settled a rather protracted class action lawsuit with quite favorable terms for itself.

[DarkF30]

Originally Posted by dave14x28

any truth to this rumor?

Where was this from? Can you link it?

[frazervalley]

It’s on bmwtechnician.com

There is a link on the right side of the page.

[Slap_You7]

Does 2017 320i have the same G20 engine?

[F30lolz]

Originally Posted by Slap_You7

Does 2017 320i have the same G20 engine?

You have the n20 motor and given that it’s a 2017, it’s safe to say you have the updated parts, therefore, you’re safe.

[DarkF30]

Wow a recall would be amazing, I'm out of the window for repair but havnt had any issues yet. This would definitely ease my fears of long term ownership

[dave14x28]

Originally Posted by Heel328

Here are a few screenshots from the borescope video.
I was trying to look at the areas arrowed in the diagram photo, and didn't notice anything obviously wrong.

I think that the first place that "abnormal" wear starts to show up is in the first photo, but unfortunately you can't see it without taking it apart.

IMO, the chain (if properly tensioned) should not be touching the guide at this location; it should only start touching the guide just at the point where it unwraps off of the intake cam sprocket and the guide curvature changes from concave to convex.

So to me, contact here at the tip, in the concave section, means loose chain, even if only for a brief moment.

Severe chain looseness allows the chain to push so hard on the guide that it begins to break the guide-to-guide attachment points, or in an extreme case it breaks the guide itself, as in the 2nd photo.

You can also see the same wear pattern (but much more severe) in the concave section of the guide in that 2nd photo.

[Pauloxxi]

I was able to use my borescope and took some pictures.
It is hard to identify early problems with this instrument, when we don't know what to look for.
It would be great if someone has experience with this tool and can share some hints on how and what to check.

[sjbender]

Well a recall would frustrate me since I sold the car as-is with a blown engine last year, lol.

The court case is in the appeals process right now, it in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. The most recent pacer entry was notice of appearance from the laywers.

[dave14x28]

Originally Posted by Pauloxxi

I was able to use my borescope and took some pictures.
It is hard to identify early problems with this instrument, when we don't know what to look for.
It would be great if someone has experience with this tool and can share some hints on how and what to check.

Yes, I had tried the same approach and just could not get good line of sight to the thinnest sections that tend to crack (where the descending guide clips into the upper cam-to-cam guide and to the ascending tensioner guide).

All I accomplished was that I couldn't see anything obviously broken or out of place - not very confidence-inspiring.

Side note - I bought the BWM chain elongation checking tool. Other than observing a loose chain, I think this is the best bet at "measuring" something semi-useful. It threads into the block in place of the tensioner and you rotate the crank in the normal direction SLOWLY BY HAND (well, by wrench). The plunger that pushes on the tensioning guide also sticks out of the head, and as long as it sticks out, the chain and guide wear is apparently "within spec". If the plunger sinks below the surface of the head, the plunger has gone inwards too far meaning the chain and/or guides have worn too much.

Comparing to my old tensioner, the "elongation limit" established by this tool is only about 0.34" from full tensioner extension, or a little over one link's length. I have no idea what a "normal" new chain & guides is supposed to measure at, but some day soon I plan to check it since I just had mine replaced and I'd like a "day 1" reference point for the next 90k+ miles (I hope).

BTW in comparison to my old (early 2013) tensioner, it's got about 3x the spring force. I don't think the new tensioner is quite as stiff as 3x, but whatever. I would need to get my hands on a new one and measure it to be sure.


Gonna step WAY out on a limb here and say - if you don't see a loose chain, and you don't hear "the noise", and you don't see anything out of place via borescope, and you feel other risk factors (OCI, mileage, driving style, etc.) are low for you, you **COULD** take a calculated risk and just buy the updated tensioner and the elongation tool, check the elongation of your current setup, and if it looks acceptable, just put the new tensioner in and re-check the elongation yearly or whatever you like.

Why?

I suspect (just my hunch) that the broken guides are not the root cause, rather they are just the victim of a weak tensioner design. If the tensioner did a better job keeping the chain tight on the sprockets where it's supposed to be (especially the intake cam sprocket), we might not be having this conversation.

The risk of this approach? a) I could be missing something important. b) You would still have old guides and old chain installed, and those part designs have since been "upgraded" though I'm not exactly sure in what ways. The old parts may wear faster than before with the stronger tensioner installed.

For me, I thought my risk factors were low, but yet I had a loose chain. So I opted for repair rather than gamble that merely a new tensioner would get me another 90k mi.

[dave14x28]

Originally Posted by dave14x28

I don't think the new tensioner is quite as stiff as 3x, but whatever. I would need to get my hands on a new one and measure it to be sure.

Confirmed - checked a new one, and the new tensioner indeed has twice the spring force of the previous version. Guessing the tool is even stiffer only to help make the measurement process more reliable.

[dave14x28]

Originally Posted by sjbender

Full docket text:

***Civil Case Terminated. See [159] Final Order and Judgment. (qa, ) Modified on 3/24/2021 (qa, ).


Looks like it will go on longer now with the appeals case in third circuit... this case number is 0:2021cv01491

Claims submission period has been extended yet again, to May 30th now.

If they keep kicking the can down the road, pretty soon we'll be in June and might find out if bmwmechanic is right about an official recall...

[dave14x28]

SURPRISE!! claims submission period extended (again), to June 30th. Great that there's more time for others to file, but a bummer that no claims will be processed until some time after the submission period closes. Oh well, on the bright side, maybe there will be a recall and better reimbursments?

[sjbender]

Here is why the claims are not being processed... looks like they will be soon. There was one objector that took it to appeals that will be paid $10,000 to settle his comlaint.

Appeal Case No.21-1491 DECLARATION OF GARY S. GRAIFMAN IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PARTIAL REMAND TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT District Court Civ. Action No.: 2-17-cv-07386 (SDW)(CLW) 5/25/2021

GARY S GRAIFMAN, under the penalties of perjury, hereby declares as follows:
1. I am one of the Co-Lead Counsel in this class action litigated in the Court below by Plaintiffs/Appellees1 , which received Final Approval of the class action settlement on February 16, 2021 [Doc. Entry 159] and make this declaration in support of the unopposed motion for remand to the district court for the purpose of approving a settlement agreement to resolve the objection in the pending appeal in Case Number 21-1491 (the “Appeal”), filed respectively by an objector, Charles H. Federman (hereinafter “Objector/Appellant”). The parties seek to obtain the district court approval for the settlement with Objector/Appellant as a prelude to the formal dismissal of the within Appeal.

2. This case involved a claimed defect in the timing chain systems of various models and model year BMW vehicles. As noted above, after the class action settlement received final approval, Objector/Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on March 15, 2021 [Doc. Entry 162]. Objector/Appellant owned a settlement class vehicle which experienced a timing chain failure. See Objection of Charles Federman, Doc. Entry 115- 6, Exh. F. Objector/Appellant did not meet the requirements to participate in the settlement benefits because he donated his class vehicle rather than pay for the timing chain and engine repair, but challenged the class notice process which he argued could have better notified him of the settlement and elected instead to pay for a covered repair.

3. To date, there have been approximately 12,000 claims filed by class members who are waiting for payments, but whose distribution of class benefits are being delayed pending resolution of this Appeal. After discussion among the parties, including counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendant and the Objector/Appellant, an individual settlement with the Objector/Appellant was reached involving a reimbursement to Appellant/Objector for some of the expenses which he incurred in procuring a replacement vehicle and reimbursement of legal fees and costs. The total amount of the settlement is $10,000. The resolution is in the best interests of the class.

4. After reaching a resolution with the Objector/Appellant, the parties initially made a motion for an indicative ruling before the district court, which was filed on May 5, 2021 [Doc. Entry 169]. On May 12, 2021, the district court entered an indicative order that it would grant the motion for approval of the settlement with Objector/Appellant if the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remands for that purpose [Doc. Entry 175].

5. If this motion for partial remand is granted by the Court, the parties will expeditiously move for approval of the settlement with the Objector/Appellant before the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5)(B)(i)-(ii). Upon approval by the district court, Objector/Appellant will then file a dismissal of the Appeal pending before this Court, resulting in final disposition thereof.

[dave14x28]

thanks for the info, I appreciate you continuing to provide updates!

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by sjbender

3. To date, there have been approximately 12,000 claims filed by class members who are waiting for payments, but whose distribution of class benefits are being delayed pending resolution of this Appeal. After discussion among the parties, including counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendant and the Objector/Appellant, an individual settlement with the Objector/Appellant was reached involving a reimbursement to Appellant/Objector for some of the expenses which he incurred in procuring a replacement vehicle and reimbursement of legal fees and costs. The total amount of the settlement is $10,000. The resolution is in the best interests of the class.

Wow 12000 claims out of 575000 Class Members are 2%. If we assume 2014 and 2015 are trouble free, then the pool should reduce by 50%, which in term implies a failure rate of 4%(known to date) .... that is not too comforting.

[Billfitz]

Originally Posted by dave14x28

Confirmed - checked a new one, and the new tensioner indeed has twice the spring force of the previous version. Guessing the tool is even stiffer only to help make the measurement process more reliable.

The tool would be stiffer because its intent is to measure the maximum chain deflection. Putting that same pressure on the chain constantly while the engine's running would likely be as bad as not enough pressure. But I don't see BMW making the new tensioner stiffer than the old if it wasn't an improvement. Since the new tensioner is backwards compatible with the old, and with the old chain, I'd be inclined to make that change.