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

[Ponch1]

How does anyone really know the percentage? Are you quoting from a specific report? It is a crap shoot, therein lies the problem. BMW does not deal in transparency when it come to anything besides new unit sales records...and that's a guess on my part.

True and it's because they don't have to. Kind of like beer producers don't have to disclose nutritional info so they don't.

 

[lkraus]

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.

 

[Ponch1]

And so you know you can have this issue and not know it.

The one I got firsthand info on was a bike just came from a 12K service a few hundred miles on it the cams were flaked when they opened it to do a cam timing check. The owner who is a long time rider said he did not notice any loss in power or noise.

So this is something that can go undetected by a rider for quite some time. And the "mud" this causes is in your oil pan hopefully, and not drawn up into your motor because the filter has gone to the bypass valve because it is clogged.

Just another thing to watch for. I mean if you go back through these bikes just about every example has a "glitch" or a known issue with workarounds.

I mean drilling holes in my bell housing on my LT so if a seal went I had a chance of it draining out the hole and not contaminating my clutch. Spare FD that has been shimmed correctly boxed in case a road repair is needed. 15 RT after a initial weep from the water pump was issue free except for the left bag would throw fits going back on and locking at times. The 17.5 GS has been issue free. Not one item to fuss over or complain about on it.

BMW builds one hell of a bike for sure. My issue is they wont and dont own their issues. I mean how can you make someone pay for cam shafts when you know you have a production issue? I am surprised no one has taken them to court.

I do know the brakes got fixed in a hurry as people went and filed claims with the NTHSA the stop order came damn quick. Should not have to do these thing on a luxury product with safety issues. The company should be doing this. Same with the fork stanchion recall again NTHSA stepped in.

Again I love BMW motorcycles and think they are the top of the food chain in bikes, but the QC needs to step up, and they need to stand behind known issues in their products and stop putting it on the consumer. And as far as I am concerned even having to pay labor to fix defective parts is just crazy.

I agree, but it's a problem with business models that are always judging risk vis a vis money. As long as a problem gets beyond the warranty period and it lands on the customer, they are ok and unless the NHTSA says it's a safety issue, they won't do anything. The cracking throttle body pulleys come to mind. Don Eilengberger had an axiom about this vis a vis the fuel pump issue.

Eilenberger's Axiom

I'm betting BMW's solution will be some sort of clamp on ring, with a special tool to install it (probably an Oetker type design) allowing the dealer 30 minutes labor time to do the job (regardless of bike model..)

And I'm sure based on BMW's usual reactions to these sort of things:

1. What problem?
2. Oh, that problem. First we've heard of it.
3. You caused it
4. Your environment caused it (fuel properties usually)
5. We have no problem

Is at step #4 now... so I'm certain they've never heard of the problem in Europe.. (said with tongue firmly in cheek..) It's caused by bad US karma.


All vehicle manufacturers do this to some extent or another as they are publicly traded which has it's own ethics for success and we haven't even gotten to the idiocy of having to use magical BMW fluids to prevent such things like FD failures or cam wear. A YT channel I do like is a mechanic at a BMW dealer and says if you use their oil it won't happen...Really? W T F designs an engine that needs to use one particular oil or it will suffer premature wear? It's non-sense. The fluids have to meet a spec set by the industry. The problem as you have said is QA/QC and with that is manufacturers squeezing vendors on price, so quality suffers and they don't check. As long as it makes it past the warranty period.

 

[pglaves]

I agree, but it's a problem with business models that are always judging risk vis a vis money. As long as a problem gets beyond the warranty period and it lands on the customer, they are ok and unless the NHTSA says it's a safety issue, they won't do anything.

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.

 

[phoenixrdr]

Used RT

Well, I've certainly enjoyed reading the comments on this subject. But nevertheless I'm going to go ahead and buy the bike. I could ask the seller to take the valve covers off, and check the cam lobes, but I guess I'm enough of a gambler to not do this on a machine with only 3300 miles or so. It would be interesting to know what the percentage of bikes sold, how many had issues,with the cam lobes. One will never know the answer to this question as BMW or no other manufacture will step up to the plate and admit there mistakes, but that's how corporation's operate, what ever continent they're from. As the bottom line is about profits.

 

[danm]

True and it's because they don't have to. Kind of like beer producers don't have to disclose nutritional info so they don't.

if beer isn't nutritious, that's a far bigger issue than the occasional worn camshaft.

 

[blacque jacque shellacque]

We can check our camshafts as often as we want. Unfortunately it cannot prevent this from occurring, and by the time you are aware of it, its too late. The damage has been done. Personally I have no expectations BMW will cover this after warrant. I will continue to use BMW branded oil and filters. Those receipts and the technical bulletin advising dealers of this problem will be my evidence for small claims court if the cam followers and cam shafts fail in my R1200RS.
I love my 2017 RS, but I most likely would have kept my high mileage 2002 RS had I known of this issue.

 

[dlong]

View attachment MC-10165251-9999.pdf

This TSB would seem to indicate a problem other that faulty hardening of the cam lobes.

 

[patm]

View attachment 81925

This TSB would seem to indicate a problem other that faulty hardening of the cam lobes.

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

 

[Omega Man]

From my welding experience that includes “hard facing” wear item- the hardness of the contacting parts have to me matched so on part doesn’t beat the crap out of the other part.
In heat treating, it’s usually the surface of the part that is supposed to actually receive the treatment.
OM

 

[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]

2017 BMW R1200RT Cams

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-pinto-didnt-suck-5785674

http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

 

[pglaves]

Ummm.... https://jalopnik.com/why-the-ford-pinto-didnt-suck-5785674

http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_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.