Initial Results from HPFP Poll

tkbr0wn · 10-17-2009, 11:43 PM

That just doesn't make any sense to me. You are saying that a company like CPe with nowhere near the resources as BMW has reverse engineered the problem and "fixed" it with a simple upgraded pump? To me, if it were this simple, BMW would have already done it and delivered the pump and the problem would be solved. Obviously this isnt the case becuase people are having multiple failures even after receiving BMW's newer pump.

If BMW is instituting "the formula" then I would suspect the fix is a much bigger change than just an upgraded fuel pump.

adrean8j · 10-18-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zed 2.0

I don't think anybody but CPe has claimed to know exactly what the problem is. And they reverse engineered the issue so they could sell an upgraded pump. I'm sure they consider it a trade secret and aren't going to go around telling people what the fix is.

The "trade secret" thing does not make sense to me either. Because as consumers and just being concerned about our expensive modes of transportation that if someone really "knew" then share the friggin' info....I mean honestly why would/should it be this HUGE trade secret??? I honestly do not think it serves any purpose and not telling us is just paranoia...take it or leave it.

imported_mega · 10-18-2009, 08:38 AM

look at the schematic for this pump, it's relatively simple and there are not that many parts, bmw knows exactly why it's failing, it must be cheaper for them to take the PR hit than it is to redesign and recall the part

zbladejr · 10-18-2009, 09:06 AM

This is very interesting. From a business/legal perspective, I would suggest that if BMW 'knew' the solution and the problem is 'known' to potentially result in fatality from an accident, then BMW would have a responsibility to recall every N54 engine. Now that would be expensive.

Does CpE have a solution or are they just trying to make money off a modified part?

What's the big deal with creating a pump that is less likely to fail by spending more on it and installing it (CpE)? From an engineering perspective, this seems pretty straight forward.

My 135i is a April 08 build, has 12K miles on it, gets driven like it should (no tiptoeing, no slogging) and has no issues. What does that say? Nothing. Not statistically significant.

Doing a non-blind poll of less than 40 is not either. Sorry, the poll is interesting but we cannot infer any outcomes. It is inherently a flawed design. Main reason - not an unbiased sample of the population (of 135i's). Secondary (and less important) reason - not a large enough sample.

So, what's the value of the survey post? Lots. We continue to put pressure on BMW to stop screwing around - ensuring that when one of ours fails (and some will), we get less hassle for a fix (even though warranty is extended) if we've done mods after powertrain warranty runs out.

The drawback? Folks think that HPFP failures are common; and, caused by gas. The data is just simply not there.....yet.

Citizen Z · 10-18-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkbr0wn

That just doesn't make any sense to me. You are saying that a company like CPe with nowhere near the resources as BMW has reverse engineered the problem and "fixed" it with a simple upgraded pump? To me, if it were this simple, BMW would have already done it and delivered the pump and the problem would be solved. Obviously this isnt the case becuase people are having multiple failures even after receiving BMW's newer pump.

If BMW is instituting "the formula" then I would suspect the fix is a much bigger change than just an upgraded fuel pump.

See, thats where you'd be wrong. There are tons of examples of small companies figuring out a problem and selling it the the big companies. BMW is big, but when you figure it has a dedicated design team for each vehicle, you may wind up with as few as three people working on the HPFP. Its not like the entire weight of the company is working on this issue. My experience in large organizations has taught me a business will only divert resources from other projects to fix an issue when they will experience a net loss because of the issue. Or when the shit hits the fan in the mainstream media.

tkbr0wn · 10-18-2009, 03:51 PM

How can you call my opinion wrong? I have just as many "facts" to back up my opinions as you do. ZERO. You have no clue what BMW is or is not doing behind the scenes just as I have no clue. I'm all for healthy debate and I am continuing to learn, just don't turn it into a pissing match.

imported_mega · 10-18-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkbr0wn

just don't turn it into a pissing match.

I think you just tried to ?

10-17-2009, 11:43 PM	#23
tkbr0wn Major 72 Rep 1,239 Posts Drives: 2015 Cayman S Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Atlanta iTrader: (0)	That just doesn't make any sense to me. You are saying that a company like CPe with nowhere near the resources as BMW has reverse engineered the problem and "fixed" it with a simple upgraded pump? To me, if it were this simple, BMW would have already done it and delivered the pump and the problem would be solved. Obviously this isnt the case becuase people are having multiple failures even after receiving BMW's newer pump. If BMW is instituting "the formula" then I would suspect the fix is a much bigger change than just an upgraded fuel pump. __________________ ● 2015 Cayman S (Current), 2011 1M BSM #297 (Sold), 2008 135i (Sold) ●
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-18-2009, 08:38 AM	#25
imported_mega Colonel 122 Rep 2,199 Posts Drives: various bmw's Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: neverland iTrader: (0)	look at the schematic for this pump, it's relatively simple and there are not that many parts, bmw knows exactly why it's failing, it must be cheaper for them to take the PR hit than it is to redesign and recall the part __________________ You only need two tools in life - WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape. Driving e82, e72, e85, R53 Gone but not forgotten.. 1974 2002, many various 3s.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-18-2009, 09:06 AM	#26
zbladejr Second Lieutenant 6 Rep 231 Posts Drives: Join Date: Mar 2008 iTrader: (0) Garage List 2008 135i [0.00]	This is very interesting. From a business/legal perspective, I would suggest that if BMW 'knew' the solution and the problem is 'known' to potentially result in fatality from an accident, then BMW would have a responsibility to recall every N54 engine. Now that would be expensive. Does CpE have a solution or are they just trying to make money off a modified part? What's the big deal with creating a pump that is less likely to fail by spending more on it and installing it (CpE)? From an engineering perspective, this seems pretty straight forward. My 135i is a April 08 build, has 12K miles on it, gets driven like it should (no tiptoeing, no slogging) and has no issues. What does that say? Nothing. Not statistically significant. Doing a non-blind poll of less than 40 is not either. Sorry, the poll is interesting but we cannot infer any outcomes. It is inherently a flawed design. Main reason - not an unbiased sample of the population (of 135i's). Secondary (and less important) reason - not a large enough sample. So, what's the value of the survey post? Lots. We continue to put pressure on BMW to stop screwing around - ensuring that when one of ours fails (and some will), we get less hassle for a fix (even though warranty is extended) if we've done mods after powertrain warranty runs out. The drawback? Folks think that HPFP failures are common; and, caused by gas. The data is just simply not there.....yet.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-18-2009, 03:51 PM	#28
tkbr0wn Major 72 Rep 1,239 Posts Drives: 2015 Cayman S Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Atlanta iTrader: (0)	How can you call my opinion wrong? I have just as many "facts" to back up my opinions as you do. ZERO. You have no clue what BMW is or is not doing behind the scenes just as I have no clue. I'm all for healthy debate and I am continuing to learn, just don't turn it into a pissing match. __________________ ● 2015 Cayman S (Current), 2011 1M BSM #297 (Sold), 2008 135i (Sold) ●
	Appreciate 0 Quote