Speaking of ware items I forgot about this. When we raced the MKI MR2 the 4age motors in them would be worn out after 32 hours of track time. The rings would need replacement. No other part would ware. In some ways it was a good compromise as you could service it keeping the block/crank and trans in the car. Also much better for the rings to ware out and not the cylinder bores.
In reply to dean1484 :
This Datsun A12 had something crazy like 400hrs on the stock bore before I went to the next over size piston.
In reply to Tom1200 :
I forgot to ask. Have you ever driven a E60 m5 manual and gone through the gears running them up to 7-8k?
alfadriver said:This thread is the definition of a word vs the consumer perception and the consumer wins despite what Webster says.
When someone I know "misused" (as most do) the word Decimate (to kill one in ten - hint: starts with deci) and showed me that Webster defines it "to completely destroy"...
Apparently, today, if enough people misuse any word, they become right.
03Panther said:alfadriver said:This thread is the definition of a word vs the consumer perception and the consumer wins despite what Webster says.
When someone I know "misused" (as most do) the word Decimate (to kill one in ten - hint: starts with deci) and showed me that Webster defines it "to completely destroy"...
Apparently, today, if enough people misuse any word, they become right.
It means "to completely destroy" in English. It's a form of punishment where one out of ten soldiers has to be killed by the other nine, in Latin.
Fun debate. I'm mostly on-board with Keith's definition of reliability vs low-maintenance, but it's easy to substitute between the two.
For example, take the BMW rod bearings. Let's leave aside the fact that it's absolutely absurd that anything thinks it's appropriate to have to replace rod bearings every 60,000 miles, and that this is an engineering failure because BMW set the red line as well as the maintenance schedule (that didn't include rod bearing replacement). Replacing rod bearings at 60,000 miles simply converts unreliability into high-maintenance. You can go as far as you want with this: Change your engine every 30,000 miles. It's not unreliable, it's just high maintenance.
As a result, high-maintenance vehicles are also often unreliable--not just because the onerous maintenance wasn't performed. It's because a manufacture prioritized something else (performance, cost) over durability and tried to achieve reliability via a maintenance schedule instead.
In reply to dean1484 :
I have driven an E60 but can't remember which trans and as it was a students car I didn't rev it that hard. The owner did and they do make a glorious sound.
Now that I can afford to pay someone for repairs I am much more tolerant of shorter intervals.
Berck said:For example, take the BMW rod bearings. Let's leave aside the fact that it's absolutely absurd that anything thinks it's appropriate to have to replace rod bearings every 60,000 miles,
FWIW, in normal street driving it's more like 100-120K than 60K
You'll need to log in to post.
