Post here if you've had prematurely worn cam lobe(s) in your wethead

[jandhumphreyme]

Has anyone actually had to pay for repairs because of this cam wear? I don't recall any cases that were not eventually resolved at BMW's expense.

Since my cams went bad after 4,000 miles, I've been looking at various internet boards and to date I have not heard of any case's where BMW did not cover the repair, YMMV. My repair was handled by Max BMW Portsmouth in an exceptionally professional and satisfactory manner, I live 180 miles from the dealership, they sent a truck, picked up the bike, repaired, and returned it all free of charge. It was still under warranty, but the free transportation radius they offer is only about 100 miles. Time will tell if these new parts are durable, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

[lkraus]

If I read this correctly, the fault would be with the cam followers?

Yes. The DLC surface treatment is the same one used for BMW's "Maintenance Free" chain. My guess is that on the followers the diamond-like coating fractures in a way that converts it from a smooth friction-reducing surface to a very coarse abrasive. Or maybe a bit of the coating breaks loose, and the resulting edge acts like a chisel to wear away the cam. BMW has filed this bulletin with NHTSA, so while it's not a recall, BMW is not really hiding the problem either.
I don't know how many Wetheads are out there, but a very quick Google query indicates 84,500 R model bikes sold in just 2018. I think the number of abnormal wear reports collected in this thread, for 2014 to present Wetheads, is less than 20. Admittedly, those are very fuzzy numbers to draw conclusions with, but I don't see it as a huge problem so long as BMW takes care of repairs.

[robsryder]

I have a 2018 R1200RTw purchased on 25 Jan 2018. Tomorrow (Monday 25 Jan 2021) marks the end of my warranty period.

On 15 June 2020 I did the 12 k service. The cams looked ok and clearances were within spec.

On Friday 22 Jan 2021 I made an appointment with my local BMW dealer. I explained that I wanted their senior service tech to remove the valve covers and inspect the cams. I wanted a great condition, all ok report or start a warranty claim for replacement parts. I also wanted to be present at the inspection. The inspection revealed that the cams were in great condition and everything looked ok. I was present and the outcome was as I expected (hoped!). This cost just under $150, but it was worth it for me.

[alinat]

After reading some of the posts, I guess I wasn’t as lucky as some of you. After having some routine maintenance done at Kissell Motorsports in Altoona PA, it was brought to my attention that camshafts were wearing prematurely. It is a 2017 R1200RT with 17K miles. I purchased it used from Mosites Motorsports in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania the “soon to be” new BMW dealer. The cost of replacing the camshafts is $3500. Doing both sides. Through the efforts of the Service Manager Joe, BMW has decided to contribute $1800 towards the bill. Half a pie is better than no pie!

[dlong]

I've followed this issue closely across several internet forums. As far as I know, this is the first report of on out-of-warranty cam replacement costing the owner any amount. My '18 RT needed new cams at 24K miles. I checked them just before passing 36K and they looked fine. I purchased an extra year of warranty coverage when I bought the bike which should take me out another 17 months (no milage limit). I'll think about buying an additional year at that point, or maybe a Goldwing.

Or not. How many "last bike" purchases can a guy make before aging out of riding? 3 and counting for me.

[taran1900]

Indeed. The most infamous case were the Ford Pinto gas tanks that would explode in a rear-end collision. Ford actually did a "cost-benefit analysis" that showed that it would be cheaper to pay damages in the case of numerous deaths than it would be to fix all the cars. So they did nothing until enough flaming cars (not to be confused with Bloomsburg Flame Cars) got the NHTSA involved. And their analysis was forced into the public eye in a lawsuit. Corporate culture at its finest.

Ummm.... https://jalopnik.com/why-the-ford-pi...t-suck-5785674

http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/T...Pinto_Case.pdf

[PGlaves]

Ummm.... https://jalopnik.com/why-the-ford-pi...t-suck-5785674

http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/T...Pinto_Case.pdf

The point never was the number of fires. The point was the contents of the cost-benefit analysis. One lawyer's attempt at fame in the law review journal does not eliminate the callousness of the Ford analysis.

I suppose somebody at Ford needs to stop the business schools that teach about this episode as something businesses ought to avoid.

[taran1900]

The point never was the number of fires. The point was the contents of the cost-benefit analysis. One lawyer's attempt at fame in the law review journal does not eliminate the callousness of the Ford analysis.

I suppose somebody at Ford needs to stop the business schools that teach about this episode as something businesses ought to avoid.

You are spot on about the cost-benefit analysis. And that applies to everything thing in the auto industry, not just the Pinto. It's how the industry works. Some companies are worse than others for sure.

My point about the Pinto was, that it really was no worse than any other car Ford made when it came to the fuel tank and fires. For whatever reason the media focused on the Pinto and consequently people forgot that the cost-benefit analysis wasn't about the Pinto. It was about the industry as a whole.

[r0ckrat]

My point about the Pinto was, that it really was no worse than any other car Ford made when it came to the fuel tank and fires. For whatever reason the media focused on the Pinto and consequently people forgot that the cost-benefit analysis wasn't about the Pinto. It was about the industry as a whole.

I suspect that "any other car" did not have the fuel tank in a location where the impact would send fuel spraying into the passenger compartment. Yes, there were other vehicles with fires... But not that emptied the contents of the tank directly into the passenger compartment (especially AFTER the Pinto.) Also, the media focused on the Pinto because of the fireball lawsuit and the timing of the discovery of the CBA - they went together to paint a darker picture than just the CBA itself would have been.

[junkjohn]

On my 1965 Mustang the trunk floor is the gas tank. Many leaks in the day. My 1967 Cougar is the same also. And the fuel fill just sticks through the tail light panel with hoses. 1967 Chevy pickup it was behind the seat, you could fill the tank from the drivers seat. Hell a model A Ford it was above the dash. Pinto took the hit on that bad idea.

[dlong]

This once useful thread appears to be entering a death spiral.

[RYD1WD]

This once useful thread appears to be entering a death spiral.

What do you have against Pintos?

[motorama]

This one I saw from JVB Productions had a 1/4" of each lobe gone only the width of the follower, the original shape of the lobe was there on each end as a thin slice, and the owner said he really had not noticed a power difference?

Attachment 75034

Holy canoli.

I wonder if the wear is similar on the opposite side of the motor.

BTW I bought an '18 thinking that any bugs would have been sorted out by the end of the model run. After going through GetragHell with a '94 Oilhead, I swore off "Beta Year" BMWs.

Hopefully these failures aren't too common, but I am glad I got a comprehensive extended service agreement.

[ponch1]

Holy canoli.

I wonder if the wear is similar on the opposite side of the motor.

BTW I bought an '18 thinking that any bugs would have been sorted out by the end of the model run. After going through GetragHell with a '94 Oilhead, I swore off "Beta Year" BMWs.

Hopefully these failures aren't too common, but I am glad I got a comprehensive extended service agreement.

One YT BMW master mechanic says it's oil related. Use Advantec and nothing will every go wrong. For some reason I doubt that. If an oil meets the spec, it should be good and I've heard of failures with BMWs oil too, so there's that. It's more likely a combination of heat treatment and the path of oil lubrication. Dodge Hemi's have a similar problem and some think it's the position of the lifters, some say there are other factors. Whatever the case, they should have this bucked out already.

[taran1900]

One YT BMW master mechanic says it's oil related. Use Advantec and nothing will every go wrong. For some reason I doubt that. If an oil meets the spec, it should be good and I've heard of failures with BMWs oil too, so there's that. It's more likely a combination of heat treatment and the path of oil lubrication. Dodge Hemi's have a similar problem and some think it's the position of the lifters, some say there are other factors. Whatever the case, they should have this bucked out already.

A BMW master mechanic would be really stupid to go on record saying something like that. As you said, it's the oil specs or certified rating that matters. The owners manual says BMW recommends "Advantec Ultimate" oil which is API SN /JASO MA2. The oil actually specified by BMW is actually API SL/ JASO MA2. No where in the manual is Advantec Ultimate "Specified".

I use API SN /JASO MA2 in my 1250RT, but it's not Advantec Ultimate. I use Motul 7100 4T 5W40 which is about six bucks cheaper on Amazon than Advantec Ultimate. BMW Advantec Ultimate oil is produced by Shell. Really, if the Advantec really had some additives that the engines required, why would BMW not specify it rather than eat the cost of changing cams and cam followers? The parts alone crazy expensive.

I would not be happy paying more for Advantec Ultimate oil, but I'd shell out the extra bucks for it if BMW said I had to use it to prevent things like premature cam wear. Car makers specify specific brand types for various types of fluids all the time. Of course, that would be admitting that the cams are really substandard.