///M Running In Service at 3,357 Miles

[srhutch]

Saw this advertised and first thought the seller had typed it wrong but no

When I bought the car I phoned BMW Chiswick to ask for advice on the late running in service. They confirmed that the running in service was done at 3357 which is not a problem and that the owner at the time would have had to pay for this rather then get it for free.
(I also had my mechanic throughly check over the engine)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180855108585&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:GB:1123

 

[JaEdBa]

i don't think it's that big a deal, and lots of very experienced bmw mechanics agree.

if someone can explain what the actual manifestation of this occurance is (i know that they use a coarser grade of oil) then i'd be interested to know.

having said that, i'd want a lot knocked off for it....

 

[shortfuse 2]

its not good to leave the running in oils in for to long lets hope no long term damage .i was told if it hadnt been done at correct mileage not to touch it but to walk away, .and bm dont want to no if it was done late

 

[srhutch]

I turned down a lovely Ruby Black ///M because of the running in service not having been done at 1,200 miles actually done at 2,400.

BMW wouldn't warranty these cars with this service missed trading them out, surely that says something.

 

[JaEdBa]

a fair few csls have been sold auc with it done v late.

 

[mmm-five]

That's not what all the buying dealers/independents/forums say.

Not sure how mechanic going to check for wear-related issues due to the late running-in service? He'd have to strip the diff/gearbox/engine to check, and that's a very labour intensive job that anyone is unlikely to spend £2k+ doing it for the sake of it.

Considering he does everything to the schedule, but yearly at a minimum - he seems to have left the brake fluid change about 6 months late, and the inspection 1 should have been done by the end of 2009 (sticking to the 2 year limit) - although that might have been down to the previous owner! That car seems to have a habit of 'slightly' missing it's milestones

It looks nice enough - even if it's a bit 'monochrome' for me (grey with black interior) - and it's got a part-time roof

I'm sure there are enough out there with the running-in service & other services (oil/inspection/brake) done on time for a similar price, so why risk it?

 

[mmm-five]

a fair few csls have been sold auc with it done v late.

A BMW dealer will happily sell you a car under AUC that does not pass the AUC spec (due to wheels, tyres, brake pads, modifications, etc.), but will probably tell you it's your concern if/when you have a problem later down the line.

I'm also not sure what sort of problems it would cause, and it might not have any long-term effect.

But let me pose you a simple question: If you have the choice of 2 cars (A & B), identical except for the late servicing on 'B', which would you chose?

If there's not even a shred of worry in the back of your mind, then you'd pick whichever had the the best/friendliest seller or the one closest to you. But I bet 99.99% of the members on here would pick 'A'.

 

[original guvnor]

I know it would be a big no-no for me but when thinking about it, if the owner had maintained the running in procedure for those 3,000-odd miles would it really matter (ie kept it below a certain RPM)?

 

[tomscott]

Very bad sign wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Maybe not a problem now, but at higher mileage most probably

 

[srhutch]

a fair few csls have been sold auc with it done v late.

A BMW dealer will happily sell you a car under AUC that does not pass the AUC spec (due to wheels, tyres, brake pads, modifications, etc.), but will probably tell you it's your concern if/when you have a problem later down the line.

Exactly, AUC means diddly squat.

 

[Darren Slone]

I'm pretty sure that my manual says you can go 600 miles over for the running in service, going from my deteriorating memory, could be wrong though!!

 

[andysat]

I know it would be a big no-no for me but when thinking about it, if the owner had maintained the running in procedure for those 3,000-odd miles would it really matter (ie kept it below a certain RPM)?

True,but is there any way of telling this?

 

[srhutch]

I know it would be a big no-no for me but when thinking about it, if the owner had maintained the running in procedure for those 3,000-odd miles would it really matter (ie kept it below a certain RPM)?

True,but is there any way of telling this?

Don't forget they had a running in oil, this was in for 3 x longer than it should have been, it has to make a difference.

 

[mmm-five]

I know the running-in procedure I followed (suggested by the dealer, and modified/lengthened by my ///M specialist just to make sure) when I had my new engine (similar to when I had my VR6 engine modified), and it was the most boring week in my life.

• No more than 50% throttle or 3500rpm for 250 miles
• No more than 75% throttle or 5000rpm for 500 miles
• No more than 90% throttle or 7000rpm for 1000 miles
• No lower than 2000rpm in 3rd/4th/5th/6th for 1000 miles (to avoid straining/labouring anything)
• No static revs for extended periods (i.e. use the gears to vary the revs for the same road speed)

I did manage to do my 1200 miles in a week though

 

[JaEdBa]

Very bad sign wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Maybe not a problem now, but at higher mileage most probably

i reckon it'd be the other way round - you're just accelerating the wear in the engine prematurely, all it does is 'bed down' the moving parts for a bit longer. the chances are it's the equivalent of adding 20k to the mileage, the other issue is, if the first owner couldn't be arsed to undertake a free first service, did they observe any other etiquette reserved for cars of this ilk?

the only circumstances under which i'd buy one is cheap for a track-day car, but otherwise my concern would be with the economics of trying to sell it on, not what might happen to it in the meantime.

there's been loads written about it on the M3 forums and the general consensus is don't touch it.

 

[original guvnor]

I know it would be a big no-no for me but when thinking about it, if the owner had maintained the running in procedure for those 3,000-odd miles would it really matter (ie kept it below a certain RPM)?

True,but is there any way of telling this?

Don't forget they had a running in oil, this was in for 3 x longer than it should have been, it has to make a difference.

Oh I agree Andy - just theorising really. I certainly wouldn't be interested in a car that had left it that late.

srhutch - depends what sort of oil is used in the running in period I suppose - it might just be a coarser oil that breaks down more readily at higher rpm, which is presumably one of the reasons you need it changed once the running-in period is over. If the 1200 mile rpm limits had been maintained would it matter?

 

[original guvnor]

Interesting discussion about this on Pistonheads...

http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=181&t=684374&nmt=E46%20M3%20running-in%20service%20-%20how%20late%20is%20too%20late%20

 

[andysat]

Interesting discussion about this on Pistonheads...

http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=181&t=684374&nmt=E46%20M3%20running-in%20service%20-%20how%20late%20is%20too%20late%20

-Just been reading this-i didnt realise you could cause more damage by changing the oil too frequently

 

[pvr]

srhutch, why are you looking at M''s again ... you know you will buy mine one day so you just have to be patient

 

[duckson]

Considering he does everything to the schedule, but yearly at a minimum - he seems to have left the brake fluid change about 6 months late, and the inspection 1 should have been done by the end of 2009 (sticking to the 2 year limit)

Arent the Inspections only done when the SI tells you to? Otherwise if it hits the 2yr limit you just change the oil+filter.

Or do you mean, which i suspect, the oil service -> inspection 1 in this case is 2yrs 3.5 months?