Take it whatever way you like but i am honestly not having a poke at you in any way other than exploring a topic that interests many & highlighting facts that are relevant as to why cam followers "randomly" fail when the potential answers are hard to ignore .MrPT wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:42 pmIt does come across that way, mate, sorry. The car was SORN indoors in 2012. The “gap”, in which 6500 miles were covered, was also after the extra Insp 1. As the car didn’t sell for a while, I had 6 weeks to learn as much as I could about these issues and, as I said, by pure luck I was able to speak to the local specialists that serviced it. I also drove to Ipswich BMW with the previous owner (who, might I also add, let me test drive it on an airfield!) to pick up a copy of the itemised invoice for the bottom end overhaul.mr wilks wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 11:55 am Not trying to be arsey , pedantic or catch you out PT but you are skating over relevant facts RE your own cars possible reason for fails , its all documented on the forum pages ,
The service history flaw being 2yrs 8 months between services , the oil filter issue being that the one on the car at point of fail was deemed incorrect due to number of vanes & the cams that went back in yours were the originals not the Schrick ones .
Old cams went back in, yep - that’s what I said. Schrick ones were purchased but returned.
Can only agree with you here.As for " i don't think track days directly cause these failures " ? Its all conjecture no matter which side of the divide you sit .
Re the Schrick , my mistake for misreading your words "The previous owner probably just needed new followers but went the Schrick route for the same reasons as Ed "
The issue of incorrect oil filter being questioned i suspect would be more relevant than either the service record or having the Eventuri fitted with regard potential low oil supply on the track visit prior to fail ?