• Active Autowerke already blows E92 M3 S65 V8 Motor with their Supercharger kit?

      It seems that the Active Autowerke supercharger for the E92 M3 has already claimed a motor. We were suprised to learn of this since AA took so much time to come to market and did extensive testing. The vehicle in question has meth in addition to 93 octane so we don't feel this was a fueling issue. If the motor blew with meth as a safety on top of 93 octane it leaves either the tune as the issue or a defect in the motor. Additionally, Active changes the plugs on the motor to colder heat range HKS plugs. Take a look at the shots of the plugs to see that they may have played a part in the motor blowing. The factory plugs are an intricate part of the knock control systeml.

      The car itself was a dealer demo car. People beat the crap out of these cars so keep that in mind. I would never buy a demo, you should never buy a demo. There is a reason customers are encouraged to "test" on demos. The motor only had 25,000 miles.

      Here are pictures of the installed AA SC:



      And the aftermath:

      Plug from failed cylinder:





      Compared to plugs in other cylinders:







      Bottom of car:







      Top end:



      Water in intake manifold:



      Pieces from the motor:



      We will have more as we find out more but it seems there is going to be some explaining to do. Will be interesting to see if the failure was mechanical or the tune itself. For those with Active SC's, we advise you to monitor the situation closely.
      This article was originally published in forum thread: Active Autowerke already blows E92 M3 S65 V8 Motor? started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 75 Comments
      1. NatAsp-M3's Avatar
        NatAsp-M3 -
        Who owned this shop car anyway? Somebody must know these guys. And if this incident happened a while ago as they say, wouldn't we have a diagnosis yet? I smell something fishy, LOL. I need a 'band-aid," too ... for my nose!

        Thread disappearance... seriously? Yeah, we're not going to take notice of that. Morons.
      1. Monster135's Avatar
        Monster135 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Look, it is almost an impossible uphill battle but the point is to not let BMW off the hook for their defects just because you are modded.

        Additionally, people should not expect BMW to cover their asses. You have to pay to play. If BMW is at fault here, I fully expect them to pay. If they aren't, I fully expect the owner to pay as he should take personal responsibility and accountability for his actions.
        Perfectly said. It makes me sick when people people try to get their cars warrantied because of their own $#@! ups. "Oh we blew the motor? No problem we'll return it back to stock and get it warrantied!" That's bs! Passing the buck directly effects others. When factory defects arise (i.e. HFFP) we get $#@!ed with because BMW is sick and tired of covering everyone and in turn they become less and less lenient with modded cars. If AA's kit is responsible, then AA should repair the motor or sort it out with the owner, if the car had a factory defect i.e. poor engine build (which is highly likely) then it should fall on BMW.

        It's too early to tell what caused it, but being a tester car I doubt it was in the greatest condition when AA received it.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by NatAsp-M3 Click here to enlarge
        And if this incident happened a while ago as they say, wouldn't we have a diagnosis yet? I smell something fishy, LOL. I need a 'band-aid," too ... for my nose!

        Thread disappearance... seriously? Yeah, we're not going to take notice of that. Morons.
        This whole thing just seems weird and now all of a sudden threads are disappearing about it, wtf is going on?
      1. ccsykes's Avatar
        ccsykes -
        Actually the guy is right in a certain way depending on how you view what he is saying.

        Yes, we all know you can run meth in a street car. I'm having a stage 3 HPF kit installed, so yes I not only want, but plan to use meth. However, while using meth I am adding an extra level of potential risks. Those risks include electrical failure to the pump, pump failure, line failure, electronic component failure etc.. If a car is properly tuned using a proper mechanical cooling method such as inter-cooling or after-cooling your risks for potential failure are dramatically dropped. Any failure within that system would work within the safety parameters of the engine management system.

        When you loose meth at WOT on a boosted high horsepower application you run a great risk of destroying your motor despite any fail safes you may install. Because HPF uses a stand alone EMS, they can offer slightly better fail safes than a F/I car using the DME. For example the HPF "beep" we have heard so much about. However, even a "beep" won't stop a catastrophic event.

        So that brings me to the conclusion, is methanol bad for a "street car".. well depending on your definition of a "street" car. Too me, a "street" car is one that will provide dependable, comfortable transportation for a adequate length of time. A 600 HP, boosted, methanol injected car is not going to meet that definition.

        I'll be the first guy to tell you, my car is not a street car.. it's a highly modified high performance car that just happens to be legal to drive on the street.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        Those risks include electrical failure to the pump, pump failure, line failure, electronic component failure etc.. If a car is properly tuned using a proper mechanical cooling method such as inter-cooling or after-cooling your risks for potential failure are dramatically dropped. Any failure within that system would work within the safety parameters of the engine management system.
        He mentions none of that, simply makes an incorrect generalization. Frankly, many of the kits have the safeties you mentioned built in, yet he just ignores that.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        cause HPF uses a stand alone EMS, they can offer slightly better fail safes than a F/I car using the DME.
        I don't know about that, it would depend on application. For the S54, definitely.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        it's a highly modified high performance car that just happens to be legal to drive on the street.
        Many people running meth happen to run it on cars that meet your definition. Frankly, most people in the BMW community, including the person you quoted, are way behind on the topic of meth. Diesel performance communities seem to be way more up to date on the topic for example and would laugh someone like that right off the forum.
      1. ccsykes's Avatar
        ccsykes -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        He mentions none of that, simply makes an incorrect generalization. Frankly, many of the kits have the safeties you mentioned built in, yet he is just ignores that.
        Well I agree that the poster "BMRLVR" did a poor job of stating his position, however I though the arguments made by "Pencilgeek" were quite objective.

        I would have to say I disagree though about meth safeties. With the exception of HPF's in which the EMS controls the methanol, none of the other F/I kits for our car have truly adequate fail safes. They have fail safes yes, but not adequate to totally prevent the potential for a catastrophic event.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        With the exception of HPF's in which the EMS controls the methanol, none of the other F/I kits for our car have truly adequate fail safes. They have fail safes yes, but not adequate to totally prevent the potential for a catastrophic event.
        You are looking at the forced induction kit itself for the safeties but I was referring to the meth kits themselves.
      1. ccsykes's Avatar
        ccsykes -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I don't know about that, it would depend on application. For the S54, definitely.
        Oh one last thing.. what AA uses isn't technically a "methanol" system. It was designed to lower IAT's in order to make more power. That is technically a water injection system. The proper mix is 51% water to 49% methanol. Methanol is used to aide in atomization since the methanol will pretty much evaporate instantly.

        So if we really want to start getting technical, the only "meth" system I am aware of is HPF's which uses it as a source of fuel.

        The purpose of either system is not the same.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        Oh one last thing.. what AA uses isn't technically a "methanol" system. It was designed to lower IAT's in order to make more power. That is technically a water injection system. The proper mix is 51% water to 49% methanol. Methanol is used to aide in atomization since the methanol will pretty much evaporate instantly.
        Exactly, I mentioned this earlier. There is a big difference between injecting it to cool the charge and using it as fuel. That is yet another thing our friend over on the other site overlooked.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        So if we really want to start getting technical, the only "meth" system I am aware of is HPF's which uses it as a source of fuel.
        Absolutely, exactly as I stated earlier. There is a difference, and it is a shame some people aren't even paying attention to it and grouping all "meth" together.
      1. ccsykes's Avatar
        ccsykes -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You are looking at the forced induction kit itself for the safeties but I was referring to the meth kits themselves.
        I'm only aware of one "meth" kit that provides anything beyond a "go/no-go" fail safe. The rest simply say "no pressure = activate bov". You could wire the fail safe into the engine's ignition, or maybe the fuel pump, but you still are not going to be able to drop boost.

        As I mentioned above though, on a "water/meth" system.. it's not really a "methanol" system at that point, it's just water injection.

        I think the problem here is the interpretation of the term "methanol system".. Only HPF uses a methanol system fwiw.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        I think the problem here is the interpretation of the term "methanol system".. Only HPF uses a methanol system fwiw.
        That is part of the problem, but several do have "meth" options which seems to have confused people into grouping them all as the same thing.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        I'm only aware of one "meth" kit that provides anything beyond a "go/no-go" fail safe. The rest simply say "no pressure = activate bov". You could wire the fail safe into the engine's ignition, or maybe the fuel pump, but you still are not going to be able to drop boost.
        If you are using it as fuel this could be a problem. If you are just injecting it to cool the charge turning it off isn't going to harm the motor as the motor doesn't need meth as a fuel source. What more do you need than a flow sensor and a controller that can sense flow interruptions as well as meth level?

        Dropping boost may be something that is possible with the piggybacks, I'm really not sure. Don't see why this couldn't be done or perhaps it has been.
      1. ccsykes's Avatar
        ccsykes -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        That is part of the problem, but several do have "meth" options which seems to have confused people into grouping them all as the same thing.
        I think confusion in definition is just the issue here. A "methanol system" is not exactly reliable for a "street" car however a "water injection" system is. As you stated, whether the water is being injected to cool the intake charge or not will not damage the motor as the fuel enrichment takes its cues from AIT's.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_i..._%28engines%29

        A "methanol" system would however cause a motor to blow if it had a failure.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What more do you need than a flow sensor and a controller that can sense flow interruptions as well as meth level?
        The way I understand it, methanol fail safes work on a go/no go trigger. They utilize basically a flow meter, if the flow is not adequate, they will trigger a a circuit to close, or open. Mosts systems work in conjunction with an electric BOV that will dump boost should there be a problem. Since our kits don't use that kind of BOV, I guess one could have the trigger kill ignition, but I'm unaware of anyone who has set this up.

        In any case at WOT, once pressure loss occurs, a fail safe may not react quickly enough to save a motor. These things happen faster than you can blink an eye.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
        In any case at WOT, once pressure loss occurs, a fail safe may not react quickly enough to save a motor. These things happen faster than you can blink an eye.
        I was reading that some of the controllers do have CAN communication abilities. I see no reason why the controller and a tune could not be made to work together and programmed to reduce boost or throttle in case of any sort of warning, meth level, flow, etc.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I was reading that some of the controllers do have CAN communication abilities. I see no reason why the controller and a tune could not be made to work together and programmed to reduce boost or throttle in case of any sort of warning, meth level, flow, etc.
        For starters, there's more than one CAN bus in the car. So you'd have to tap into the right one. Then the ECU would have to be programmed with the ability to look for this specific CAN message, and that would require you to actually write the ECU software, not modify a few tables at fixed known locations and call yourself a tuner. Basically you're talking about designing and writing the entire ECU operating system from scratch in order to give it this one capability. And that's even assuming that the ECU even has a spare I/O you can use to trigger the BOV. I'm willing to bet there is a spare I/O, as most designs like this always add a few spare I/O's into the system. The trouble is finding the spare I/Os. But you're still screwed because you're either going to need to get the original ECU source code from BMW (no fricking way) and the compiler to compile it (no fricking way), or you're going to need to write your own ECU operating system from scratch (no fricking way either). It would be a nice if BMW actually put a table into the ECU that had entry structures in them that had input CAN message == OUTPUT I/O ACTION. But that's just dreaming and I'm sure no such structure even exists (and has spare entry locations) -- and without the DAMOS you'll never find it anyways. So enough of this hypothetical talk about what some other car can do, or some other car did once in some other far away land call "meth tweakers." Talk about what's possible in this specific car. It's ashamed because the Aquamist sounds like a very nice system...but there's just very little chance you can use it the way it you're describing.

        There...that's my one post for the month.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        For starters, there's more than one CAN bus in the car. So you'd have to tap into the right one. Then the ECU would have to be programmed with the ability to look for this specific CAN message, and that would require you to actually write the ECU software, not modify a few tables at fixed known locations and call yourself a tuner. Basically you're talking about designing and writing the entire ECU operating system from scratch in order to give it this one capability. And that's even assuming that the ECU even has a spare I/O you can use to trigger the BOV. I'm willing to bet there is a spare I/O, as most designs like this always add a few spare I/O's into the system. The trouble is finding the spare I/Os. But you're still screwed because you're either going to need to get the original ECU source code from BMW (no fricking way) and the compiler to compile it (no fricking way), or you're going to need to write your own ECU operating system from scratch (no fricking way either). It would be a nice if BMW actually put a table into the ECU that had entry structures in them that had input CAN message == OUTPUT I/O ACTION. But that's just dreaming and I'm sure no such structure even exists (and has spare entry locations) -- and without the DAMOS you'll never find it anyways. So enough of this hypothetical talk about what some other car can do, or some other car did once in some other far away land call "meth tweakers." Talk about what's possible in this specific car. It's ashamed because the Aquamist sounds like a very nice system...but there's just very little chance you can use it the way it you're describing.

        There...that's my one post for the month.
        Huh? The ECU would not have to be programmed, essentially this would be interacting with a piggy since when talking about adjusting boost based on flow we are already talking about an N54 application. There is already a controller that does this, nothing had to be re-written on the ECU. You once again go way too far into left field as if you are trying to prove you know something that has no application.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Huh? The ECU would not have to be programmed, essentially this would be interacting with a piggy since when talking about adjusting boost based on flow we are already talking about an N54 application. There is already a controller that does this, nothing had to be re-written on the ECU. You once again go way too far into left field as if you are trying to prove you know something that has no application.
        My explanation is perfectly valid for the context and my interpretation of your comments. You wanted a CAN message to interract with the "tune" and (I assume meth) controller...but you offered no explaination how that would occur -- presumably because you do not know how that would occur. So I explained exactly how it would occur both from a software and hardware perspective. I covered all of the bases and explained exactly what would be required from the hardware design and software design to make that work. I do this every day for a living on nearly identical microcontroller systems with hundreds of I/Os and very similar software designs with hysterisis loops (exactly what an ECU does and how it operates). But for some reason using my expertise to explain how it actually works in real life is over the top.

        Look, if that's not what you meant, then by all means explain what you meant, and explain how this "tune" interracts with the CAN bus and this "controller" to cut boost (on the S65, not anything else). No need to go over the top -- as you say -- by attacking people for trying to help others who are interested in learning.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        My explanation is perfectly valid for the context and my interpretation of your comments. You wanted a CAN message to interract with the "tune" and (I assume meth) controller...but you offered no explaination how that would occur -- presumably because you do not know how that would occur.
        I'm not even sure why you are complicating things, this seems to be the pattern for you. This isn't complex, the discussion centered around safety with meth and the difference that HPF with their standalones (on a turbo application, ever heard of HPF?) can reduce boost through the standalone. On the N54, another turbo application where meth is popular (although usually injected to cool the charge), predominantly has piggy back tuning and some of those piggy backs have CAN access. Ok? So, some meth controllers already have CAN access and can change injection based on boost. What part of this aren't you getting?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        I do this every day for a living on nearly identical microcontroller systems with hundreds of I/Os and very similar software designs with hysterisis loops (exactly what an ECU does and how it operates). But for some reason using my expertise to explain how it actually works in real life is over the top.
        PG, you are middle management of a small group of people at Nvidia. You don't program anything and you can input/output whatever you the hell you want, I don't understand your proclivity for making things needlessly complex and going off on tangents in some odd desire to share knowledge that isn't applicable.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PencilGeek Click here to enlarge
        then you you explain it. But don't use the N54 as an example because it's irrelevant. We're talking the S65 and MSS60.
        Uh, no, actually, we have discussed the S54, N54, and S65 all in this thread. Come on, keep up.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm not even sure why you are complicating things, this seems to be the pattern for you. This isn't complex, the discussion centered around safety with meth and the difference that HPF with their standalones (on a turbo application, ever heard of HPF?) can reduce boost through the standalone. On the N54, another turbo application where meth is popular (although usually injected to cool the charge), predominantly has piggy back tuning and some of those piggy backs have CAN access. Ok? So, some meth controllers already have CAN access and can change injection based on boost. What part of this aren't you getting?
        Nobody disputes this can work with a standalone ECU. I'll be happy to leave if you want to insult me while helping others try to understand.

        PG, you are middle management of a small group of people at Nvidia. You don't program anything and you can input/output whatever you the hell you want, I don't understand your proclivity for making things needlessly complex and going off on tangents in some odd desire to share knowledge that isn't applicable.
        More insults. And of course you were dead wrong too. I still design and write very complex software on a daily basis. Today was no exception.

        Uh, no, actually, we have discussed the S54, N54, and S65 all in this thread. Come on, keep up.
        Nobody disputes this works on a stand-alone ECU. And yes, I read this entire thread before making any comments at all. To me, the context was clearly S65. I'd still like to hear your explaination of how this is supposed to work on the S65 and MSS60. You still haven't answered that...but you have twice offered insults instead. I'd still like to know what you meant -- without the insults. How will this CAN message interract with the ECU ("tune") and interract with the meth controller to cut boost in case of some type of meth failure on the S65 and MSS60? Just explain it without getting all bent out of shape. If you don't know...just say it.
      1. PencilGeek's Avatar
        PencilGeek -
        Sorry, but I'm outta here for now. Maybe I'll be back in a couple of weeks to check on your progress. I have a bunch of software to write tonight (actually true).
      1. GT3's Avatar
        GT3 -
        Classic...

        I didn't read any of it though...