Close

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 30 of 30
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,826
    Rep Points
    31,567.3
    Mentioned
    2065 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by NatAsp-M3 Click here to enlarge
    This thread is a perfect example of why I like this site. Everyone just put out their own opinion, and that's exactly what the OP wanted... and nobody got banned, LOL. Any FI kit maker that never had a problem just hasn't made enough kits.
    We don't ban over kit opinions because that is completely idiotic. What is sad is that other sites do.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,166
    Rep Points
    1,746.4
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    18


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DD GT3 RD Click here to enlarge
    stock vs stock, I think the C63 is more fun as a daily driver. Exhaust note is mean and loud for a stock system, low end torque makes it fun and very easy to drift. On the track there no question the M3 is more agile,better balanced, lighter front end with more front end grip, but the steering feel in the C63 is actually much better and great communication between the front wheels and the steering wheel, the M3 steering feels to computer assisted and falsely weighted.


    and thanks would love to know. Just been following this stuff for so long I get interested. For your info with my stage 1 kit I ran 60-130 8.8 on half bald tires and no alignment on my KW V3's. I think the car was capable of lower to mid 8's.

    thats cool man i thought about the c63 but didn't even give it a chance because once i saw my car on the lot i knew it was mine.


    yea or give infraction points
    F10 M5 : ??????
    E90 M3: 11.2 126.7 with a 1.8 60ft Street Tires, Stock Interior,DSC on

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    6333 N Dale Mabry Hwy, Tampa FL 33614
    Posts
    158
    Rep Points
    234.2
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I see what you are saying Andrew. Why didn't Active just publicly state what you stated right now to avoid all the speculation?
    Because the customer requested that no information be revealed or discussed, he had good reason as he wanted his engine covered by BMW.

    Here are some facts on that engine
    -Spark plugs had no sign of damage or pre-detonation or lean condition
    -No visible damage to piston from detonation or signs of damage that you would generally find when damage from a tune is present
    -Rod was snapped in 2 in one cylinder
    -No bent valves or damage from valves making contact with top of piston (over-rev)

    Also noted that it was a very early production M3, and that being said, there has been a significant amount of engine's in the "earlier" M3's that have had oil starvation, rod bearing failure, and other known issues. With that being said, and no evidence of a faulty tune or any damage that could possibly be caused by the supercharger kit its self, there really isn't any viable information that would lead you to think that there was an issue or problem caused by Active's product.

    Now I can agree that Active probably should have said more, since IMO its fair game after their own guys (was a shop that owned the M3) posted the initial thread that got so much attention, but they were asked specifically by the owner to not discuss or speak of his situation, and since its in the past, they have not brought attention to old news and respond officially.

    But I can comfortably stand by AA on this and say, that their kit has ALOT of quality R&D to ensure their customers make the most performance possible SAFELY!!! This kit has been pushed to the point where they feel comfortable in terms of longevity, and safety of his customers and their engines.

    Speculation is the last thing they are concerned of in their minds, as their dealers, and themselves will gladly share any information you need as a potential buyer, and ensure you get exactly what you pay for!

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,166
    Rep Points
    1,746.4
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    18


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    love this forum we talk like normal people and can find out info.
    F10 M5 : ??????
    E90 M3: 11.2 126.7 with a 1.8 60ft Street Tires, Stock Interior,DSC on

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,826
    Rep Points
    31,567.3
    Mentioned
    2065 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Andrew@lutzperformance Click here to enlarge
    Because the customer requested that no information be revealed or discussed, he had good reason as he wanted his engine covered by BMW.

    Here are some facts on that engine
    -Spark plugs had no sign of damage or pre-detonation or lean condition
    -No visible damage to piston from detonation or signs of damage that you would generally find when damage from a tune is present
    -Rod was snapped in 2 in one cylinder
    -No bent valves or damage from valves making contact with top of piston (over-rev)

    Also noted that it was a very early production M3, and that being said, there has been a significant amount of engine's in the "earlier" M3's that have had oil starvation, rod bearing failure, and other known issues. With that being said, and no evidence of a faulty tune or any damage that could possibly be caused by the supercharger kit its self, there really isn't any viable information that would lead you to think that there was an issue or problem caused by Active's product.

    Now I can agree that Active probably should have said more, since IMO its fair game after their own guys (was a shop that owned the M3) posted the initial thread that got so much attention, but they were asked specifically by the owner to not discuss or speak of his situation, and since its in the past, they have not brought attention to old news and respond officially.

    But I can comfortably stand by AA on this and say, that their kit has ALOT of quality R&D to ensure their customers make the most performance possible SAFELY!!! This kit has been pushed to the point where they feel comfortable in terms of longevity, and safety of his customers and their engines.

    Speculation is the last thing they are concerned of in their minds, as their dealers, and themselves will gladly share any information you need as a potential buyer, and ensure you get exactly what you pay for!
    I'm glad Active respected the customer but right now you have provided much more on the topic than Active ever did. All they had to do was what you did now well after the fact to simply show they were not trying to hide anything.

    There were issues with the early motors, we all know that. Rod bearing failures are one, valve spring failures are another.

    I definitely agree Active should have said more. Since they didn't, that leads to us all speculating and asking questions and their silence just acerbates the issue.

    I don't fault the AA kit at all, but I do fault how Active handled it. I know they spent a ton of time on R&D and feel comfortably it is a solid option.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •