UPDATE: R12RT Head bolt failure......

[smiller]

Tom, did it go in to the point that it was the same as all the others?

[E30TECH]

In my case it was only the lower forward most stud on the right side that was protruding noticeably more (look at the picture in the thread start, it was the same stud). And to a previous question, I was able to turn it in more by double nutting it.

On the original poster's bike, it was the left side lower back stud (if I remember correctly )

 

I guess the term double nutting isn't just a title in my movie collection, eh?

[Guest]

This is a picture from the valve adjustment tutorial over on Advrider (taken by Jim Von Baden).

 

 

You can see all 4 head bolts but notice all the extra threads extending past the nut on the lowest bolt. When I first saw this on my bike I was concerned but attributed the difference to the head design.

[Tom_L]

Oops, I've been saying right forward lower stud and stupidly not thinking about how I was looking at the bike

The stud I was concerned about was the same as the failed stud, left lower rear. I seem to think it stuck out more than the other side and I did turn it in more but this may end up a, in the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, "nevermind"

[10ovr]

Just did the 600 service on my 07 RT,,Left rear lower head bolt sticking out 1" to,Did the 2 nut thing,,Went in 1/4 ".Torqued head,Seam to be fine!!Time well tell,,

[aggieengineer]

Does anyone know how this case was finally resolved?

[Ken H.]

Does anyone know how this case was finally resolved?

No, but the original described issue of the left lower rear engine head bolt being out further than the others turns out to be normal. There is a dealer bulletin out that cautions that this is not a defect on the hexheads.

[Easyrider5258 (Mark)]

I am servicing my 03/05 1200rt and have found this post on head bolts pulling out, please see images of mine, left / nearside first, right / offside second

 

 

As you can see the nearside rear lower stud is out considerbly more than any of the others, sugestions welcome !

? question, are the studs going into a "blind" hole in the block.

Are they "treadlocked" in.

I,m considering double nutting the protruding stud and trying to get it futher into the block,, Iknow 1 person has done it, anybody else ?

[notacop]

This sad story hits home. I have a '92 r100R engine in my /7 sidecar rig. I had to timesert threads on both jugs. Had a buddy with the same problem after dealer service some years ago.

Good reason to not let anyone loose with a torque wrench on your bike even the dealer. Used to be one would check the torque at valve time. Phooey! Best left alone may be better counsel! The Barel bolt gods do like being tampered with.

[lthj75]

No, but the original described issue of the left lower rear engine head bolt being out further than the others turns out to be normal. There is a dealer bulletin out that cautions that this is not a defect on the hexheads.

 

While that very well may be the case, mine was out so far it hit the head cover and pulled the threads out of the block.....I don't think that is by design.

[Ken H.]

As you can see the nearside rear lower stud is out considerbly more than any of the others, sugestions welcome !

Once again - this is normal. You can take the left cover off every hexhead in the showroom and they will all be that way.

[lthj75]

Once again - this is normal. You can take the left cover off every hexhead in the showroom and they will all be that way.

 

Agree....sticking out further than the rest is normal.....not loose like mine was. Just to clarify, my block was completely stripped.....so be sure to check if the stud is loose.

[planepaul]

So, yes, there is a service bulletin regarding the protrusion of the lower left stud. I did my own 600 mile (on a Sunday), and had to decide whether it was normal or not (I bought a early '05). I double nutted the stud, and turned it in until I felt an increase of resistance, although it did not achieve the level of the other studs. It was fairly easy to turn, giving me some reason to believe that the condition was not right. At my next dealer visit I mentioned this to a tech, who showed me the bulletin. Without being spectific, the bulletin says that engine damage can occur if the stud is turned in further than "as built". Likely the stud lives above an oil passage. I had a sick moment of adrenaline hit, and decided that if I had to do a rebuild, so be it. I also was upset (and still am) that buyers of the factory repair CD do not receive updates and/or service bulletins that indeed relate to the safety and reliability of the machine. I think such buyers have paid for it.

In short, I have put 24K+ miles on without any issues.

Paul in CA

'05 R1200RT

[rainrider]

Hi

I just came across this post for stripped engine studs. I bought a used 2006 rt from my local dealer at the start of 07. the bike had 8000km. on it when purchased. At 10000 km I took it in for service and they found a stripped engine stud,the same location as was talked obout in this post. Maybe this was a production run problen at that time. As the block was not repairable they replaced the entire lower assy. everything except cylinders,pistons and heads. Its my understanding that when bmw talks about replacing the block its complete minus the top end components. The bike now has 20000km. on it and runs great.

Bruce

[bdukes]

I have a 2006 RT that had the same problem.

 

I took it in for the 600 mile service at around 800 miles. The dealer called the next day and told me the left lower bolt was stripped when they took off the valve cover. BMW insisted on a "timesert" and told me this was all they would do.

 

That was over a year ago and I now have over 12,000 miles on the bike with no problems. Let them fix it and get on with it.

[lthj75]

As the block was not repairable they replaced the entire lower assy. everything except cylinders,pistons and heads. Its my understanding that when bmw talks about replacing the block its complete minus the top end components.

 

Same here.....timesert was the original plan.....but the damage was too extensive.

[AndyS]

So, I must have missed it somewhere as this thread has gone on for a while!

Has your bike been repaired yet?

Andy

[Easyrider5258 (Mark)]

So, I must have missed it somewhere as this thread has gone on for a while!

Has your bike been repaired yet?

Andy

 

I,ve been reassured by previous posters that the protruding stud is a normal condition and a service bulitin exits (At least with the US Dealers) stating its a normal condition, I,m still trying to get this confirmed with the dealer I purchased the bike from (Woolastons Northampton UK)********UPDATE**** Woolastons just rang and confirmed its normal, the heads where torqued at 600miles and the stud is still tight, so alls well

[lthj75]

So, I must have missed it somewhere as this thread has gone on for a while!

Has your bike been repaired yet?

Andy

 

Mine? Yet....I put 7K on it since and so far, so good!

[ScottT]

My left lower stud sticks out too. I noticed it when I did my last 12k. Don't know why I didn't before. Anyway it's not loose so I did nothing. I'm glad to read that others have noticed this too. My heads were torqued at 600 miles by BMW of Orlando in 2005. Bike now has 55k and runs like a raped ape. I would bet that the stripped stud issue is because folks messed with it when they noticed the stud sticking out. Why? Because I don't ever remember reading about studs pulling out of the original oilheads.

[lthj75]

I would bet that the stripped stud issue is because folks messed with it when they noticed the stud sticking out. Why? Because I don't ever remember reading about studs pulling out of the original oilheads.

 

Well Scott, good thing you didn't bet then! If you read through the post you would see when I took the valve cover off at 6K, the nut was completely backed out to the head cover and the stud was loose.....and that was my first time going inside. So if your theory that "people messed with it" is true, those people were certified BMW mechanics at the dealership, which is even a bigger issue.

 

For your own sake, I'd suggest being careful what you bet on in real life without researching the topic first.

[Ken H.]

Larry, we realize yours was a true failure. We're just trying to make a distinction that the left lower rear stud out somewhat compared to the other ones is not a failure. Nor the same situation you had.

[lthj75]

Larry, we realize yours was a true failure. We're just trying to make a distinction that the left lower rear stud out somewhat compared to the other ones is not a failure. Nor the same situation you had.

 

Gotcha Ken - your posts were clear....Scott's seemed to imply differently. My sitaution sucked to be honest, so yes, I may be sensitive over it. Glad its behind me....but it was a 100% legit failure (caused byu the dealer or a factory defect).

 

Thanks for clarifying Ken but I never questioned your comments!

[aggieengineer]

The reason I resurrected this thread recently is that I have the same problem. At the 12,000 mile service I found the nut and washer from the lower rear head bolt loose in the bottom of the valve cover. Attempting to snug up the nut with even the slightest torque just draws the head bolt further out of the cylinder. To be accurate, this is a crankcase failure, not really a head bolt failure. The difference in cost is considerable!

 

Long story short...warranty coverage denied by BMWNA. Why? Required maintenance was accomplished by owner and not certified technician. Appeal? None. Owners are not allowed to discuss the matter with the individual making the call. Look on page 8 of your warranty book offering arbitration and mediation through the BBB Auto Line. Guess what. The BBB does not handle motorcycle cases! Wow.

 

One of the major attractions of this bike was its simplicity and ease of maintainability. Maybe those guys who cautioned us about maintaining our own bikes will turn out to be right after all.

[majordad]

what year RT bikes does all of this involve? all of them?

[bobbybob]

The reason I resurrected this thread recently is that I have the same problem. At the 12,000 mile service I found the nut and washer from the lower rear head bolt loose in the bottom of the valve cover. Attempting to snug up the nut with even the slightest torque just draws the head bolt further out of the cylinder. To be accurate, this is a crankcase failure, not really a head bolt failure. The difference in cost is considerable!

 

Long story short...warranty coverage denied by BMWNA. Why? Required maintenance was accomplished by owner and not certified technician. Appeal? None. Owners are not allowed to discuss the matter with the individual making the call. Look on page 8 of your warranty book offering arbitration and mediation through the BBB Auto Line. Guess what. The BBB does not handle motorcycle cases! Wow.

 

One of the major attractions of this bike was its simplicity and ease of maintainability. Maybe those guys who cautioned us about maintaining our own bikes will turn out to be right after all.

 

Sarmand, did the dealer or anyone explain their reasoning, i.e. "we are certain that your torquing the head bolts caused this failure" or something to that effect? What was their evidence that this caused it? Has this same failure happened to others who had the bolts torqued by the dealer? I believe it has. And if it has, that is evidence that this failure is probably a mfg. defect. If the circumstantial evidence points toward a defect, I would be filing a law suit to have the repairs covered.

[lthj75]

The reason I resurrected this thread recently is that I have the same problem. At the 12,000 mile service I found the nut and washer from the lower rear head bolt loose in the bottom of the valve cover. Attempting to snug up the nut with even the slightest torque just draws the head bolt further out of the cylinder. To be accurate, this is a crankcase failure, not really a head bolt failure. The difference in cost is considerable!

 

Long story short...warranty coverage denied by BMWNA. Why? Required maintenance was accomplished by owner and not certified technician. Appeal? None. Owners are not allowed to discuss the matter with the individual making the call. Look on page 8 of your warranty book offering arbitration and mediation through the BBB Auto Line. Guess what. The BBB does not handle motorcycle cases! Wow.

 

One of the major attractions of this bike was its simplicity and ease of maintainability. Maybe those guys who cautioned us about maintaining our own bikes will turn out to be right after all.

 

Dude....I had the SAME issue, SAME bolt. The case failed. Time to lawyer up!

 

My RT is a 2006.

[aggieengineer]

You are, of course, completely correct. I've started the process with the Texas Attorney General's office and have an attorney with whom I'll be proceeding with action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This may take up to two years, and carries some cost, but a precedent needs to be established. Conscientious owners should not be afraid to maintain their own motorcycles.

 

In the meantime, I've begun disassembly to ascertain the damage to the crankcase. I'm fully prepared to spend the $3500 to purchase a "short engine" if there is significant damage. In any case, it will be repaired correctly in spite of the absence of manufacturer support. Heck, maybe because of the absence of manufacturer support!

 

In the meantime, I'll probably pick up an FJR. The R1200RT is a beautifully conceived machine, but the execution has not been very successful in my estimation. As an engineer and 30+ year motorcyclist, I love every single thing about the bike except the reliability. I'm on my second final drive by the way. I sincerely hope I'm the spike in the curve and that few others have to deal with the same problems.

[bobbybob]

You are, of course, completely correct. I've started the process with the Texas Attorney General's office and have an attorney with whom I'll be proceeding with action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This may take up to two years, and carries some cost, but a precedent needs to be established. Conscientious owners should not be afraid to maintain their own motorcycles.

 

In the meantime, I've begun disassembly to ascertain the damage to the crankcase. I'm fully prepared to spend the $3500 to purchase a "short engine" if there is significant damage. In any case, it will be repaired correctly in spite of the absence of manufacturer support. Heck, maybe because of the absence of manufacturer support!

 

In the meantime, I'll probably pick up an FJR. The R1200RT is a beautifully conceived machine, but the execution has not been very successful in my estimation. As an engineer and 30+ year motorcyclist, I love every single thing about the bike except the reliability. I'm on my second final drive by the way. I sincerely hope I'm the spike in the curve and that few others have to deal with the same problems.

 

Good on ya! And PLEASE---explain how this pertains to "deceptive practices" etc. That's a new angle I had not thought about.

 

Hell, if that Pitts in your avatar is yours, spending $3500 for a short block is chump change! Been there, done that--new Milennium cyls for an O-320 in my recent past. Ouch!!

[E30TECH]

You are, of course, completely correct. I've started the process with the Texas Attorney General's office and have an attorney with whom I'll be proceeding with action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This may take up to two years, and carries some cost, but a precedent needs to be established. Conscientious owners should not be afraid to maintain their own motorcycles.

 

In the meantime, I've begun disassembly to ascertain the damage to the crankcase. I'm fully prepared to spend the $3500 to purchase a "short engine" if there is significant damage. In any case, it will be repaired correctly in spite of the absence of manufacturer support. Heck, maybe because of the absence of manufacturer support!

 

In the meantime, I'll probably pick up an FJR. The R1200RT is a beautifully conceived machine, but the execution has not been very successful in my estimation. As an engineer and 30+ year motorcyclist, I love every single thing about the bike except the reliability. I'm on my second final drive by the way. I sincerely hope I'm the spike in the curve and that few others have to deal with the same problems.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

 

(a) Section 102© prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer’s use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.

(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102© prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such parts.

© No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, ‘‘This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,’’ and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 © ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused

 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200716

[bobbybob]

You are, of course, completely correct. I've started the process with the Texas Attorney General's office and have an attorney with whom I'll be proceeding with action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This may take up to two years, and carries some cost, but a precedent needs to be established. Conscientious owners should not be afraid to maintain their own motorcycles.

 

In the meantime, I've begun disassembly to ascertain the damage to the crankcase. I'm fully prepared to spend the $3500 to purchase a "short engine" if there is significant damage. In any case, it will be repaired correctly in spite of the absence of manufacturer support. Heck, maybe because of the absence of manufacturer support!

 

In the meantime, I'll probably pick up an FJR. The R1200RT is a beautifully conceived machine, but the execution has not been very successful in my estimation. As an engineer and 30+ year motorcyclist, I love every single thing about the bike except the reliability. I'm on my second final drive by the way. I sincerely hope I'm the spike in the curve and that few others have to deal with the same problems.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

 

(a) Section 102© prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer’s use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.

(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102© prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such parts.

© No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, ‘‘This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,’’ and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 © ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused

 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200716

 

Thanks E30--it's pretty straight-forward isn't it? The mfgr. must prove that the owner caused the problem in order to deny warranty services. And with the other documented (at least it appears to be) similar instances when the *dealer* did the maintainence, I would think that would be a difficult case for BMW to prove. My guess is, it will never make it to court--BMW will cave as soon as the papers are served!

[E30TECH]

I hope you are right about them caving. BMW is known for this BS - even with their cars. I have had 4 BMW cages and have dealt with several dealers. Every time is was a PITA. Mainly from them trying to rip me off (eg charging me $2K more than the written quote - which they never got).

 

I will not go to one NJ BMW motorcycle dealer due to their attitude towards another BMW rider here on the forum. I dont think I will buy another BMW product due to their handling of warranty claims.

 

I love my RT, but I seriously doubt that I will buy another.

 

Good luck with your case. I think you should try to get a few million for the hassle

[bobbybob]

<<"Good luck with your case. I think you should try to get a few million for the hassle

 

Thats what is so damned annoying about this--BMWNA *knows* what the law is but choses to make up their own as they go. They have American lawyers on their staff. So, yes--sue for "punitive" as well as actual damages, definitely. The actual damages for the repair, the punitive for putting you thru this. BMW needs to have a "precedent" in their recent memory so they won't be so quick to deny warranty service again.

 

[aggieengineer]

An update- BMWNA called about the denial of warranty coverage due to owner maintenance. It's true. Since they can't verify the quality of outside maintenance, warranty coverage of a manufacturing defect (the second one on this bike) isn't available. Unbelievable. I'll have the bike back together at my own expense by next week. It'll be auctioned off when done. We'll be filing suit against BMW within a few days.

 

For 35 years since my first motorcycle ride I've waited to own a BMW. To say this has been a disappointment is an understatement. It's been a nightmare. I would suggest that owners have all the required maintenance done at the dealership during the warranty period, but I can't forget my dealer's service tech cross-threading three of the six screws when installing the cylinder head guards, or attempting to remove the brake disc from the final drive by heating the mounting bracket with a torch instead of using a torx bit! Your choice - quality maintenance or a warranty.

 

Good luck to all. My BMW days are sadly over. I also cancelled the purchase of a Z-4 for the wife. We're getting an Acura instead. I am, however, really enjoying the FJR I recently bought!

[E30TECH]

I have to say that I respect your stance on this. I think the decision BMW made is total BS. It really is a shame as BMW makes a great product (I have owned 4 BMW cages, 1 RT).

 

Good luck with the suit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigAdv]

This may be the rub for you.

 

'This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused'

 

Just sayin,

 

Earl

[ScottT]

This is perfect example of why I have the dealer I purchased the bike from perform the 600 mile service. With that service done by a certified BMW dealer they do not have a leg to stand on if the stud comes out. Why? Because the 600 mile service is the only time the head bolts are torqued. If it does not come out then when the torque procedure is done I do not see how it can later on. It's quite a lot of torque applied. If the stud has backed out the dealer did not perform the head torque as specified. If the the stud pulls out because the threads are stripped it is defect in the block. If this happens to the dealer while doing the service, well there's no doubt the thing was hosed. If it happens while you are doing it and you do it right, it's still hosed. But, the dealer and BMW have no clue as to whether you are competent enough to perform the maintenance. Unless you actually film yourself doing the service, how can BMW really know what you did?

 

BTW, I just did my 60k service. That stud is still sticking out more than the others and is still nice and tight. I'm not going to deny that there have been real issues with the studs coming out of the engine blocks. However, I also know that not everyone in the world (this board included) is always honest when it comes to matters such as these. I have no doubt that there are at least a few owners out there who noticed the stud sticking out to far and took it upon themselves to "fix" it. That is get that thing in there as far as the others. It is they who should have done their "research" before doing the "fixing".

[aggieengineer]

The lower rear head bolt is screwed into a short blind hole at the bottom of a larger drilled-out oil passage. It is not a very robust design, but one thing is certain - all of the available threads should be used. My head bolt was only screwed in 5/8" in a hole that was threaded to 7/8". So it could have gone in an additional 40%. I provided closeup pictures to BMW showing this. It has been suggested that double-nutting this bolt and screwing it further into the case can block an oil passage. This in simply false...at least with the right cylinder.

 

 

It seems clear to me that there was not sufficient thread engagement to prevent an eventual failure. I've been an engineer long enough to just cringe when I see something like this.

[Mike T]

This is sad. It seems that BMWNA's number one mission is to save money on warranty claims and customer satisfaction is secondary. It also seems that BMWNA treats the dealers like crap on warranty claims and I suspect the dealer often ends up eating some of the warranty repair costs. It is clear that you are dealing with two different companies (the Dealer and BMWNA) and you are stuck in the middle.

 

I've had two warranty claims and both time I was told by the dealer that they'll tear into the bike but it's at my risk if BMWNA decides this isn't covered under warranty. I've never run into this with any of the cars I've owned when it comes to warranty work. A bumper to bumper warranty should be just that. Sure you need to do the regular maintenance. Most BMW riders are obsessed about doing proper maintenance (especially if they are DIY'ers.) So this shouldn't be an issue on deciding warranty claim work. (I own a small business and when a customer returns one of my products I do whatever it takes to make thing right for them even if I suspect the customer is at fault.)

 

In one warranty case my cruise control malfunctioned and I was without the bike for six weeks in the Summer waiting for a part from Germany. BMWNA would not pay for a loaner or pay the dealer to re-assemble the bike so it could ridden during that time. It was suggested by BMWNA that I pay the 9 hrs labor myself if I wanted to ride my bike while we waited for the part to come in. Eventually the part came in and has been fine since. At least the only thing it costs me was being without a bike for six weeks.

 

In the other case it was a failure on a friends R1200GS where the clutch splines had failed. I had to take the bike apart myself to prove to the dealer that this was really a warranty claim since BMWNA refused the claim on the first inquiry. The dealer eventually went to bat for us and (after I put the bike back together) did the work although BMWNA refused to replace the gearbox input shaft which several folks on this board agreed needed to be replaced or the problem will return (after the bike is out of warranty). So this chapter isn't quite over yet.

 

So in sum, I have looked at FJRs in moments of frustration but have not jumped ship just yet. I fully understand and respect riders that have had to deal with warranty issues for doing so.

 

The BMW company really needs to review how they are structured and what their internal measurement systems are if they care about having satisfied customers.

[BucksTherapy]

This may be the rub for you.

 

'This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused'

 

Just sayin,

 

Earl

 

There is a subtle but significant distinction. The onus is on the warrantor to proove the damage was caused by the unauthorized service.

 

I think this could be difficult for BMW to proove particularly if a couple of others who have had exactly the same issue weree to provide a statement.

 

I don't know about your jurisdiction but small claims may be a way to speed the process.

 

Good Luck and keep us aprised. We may need your statement!