It magically disappeared Eric.

I guess it's okay to have a hundred repetitive threads regarding tires but a thread that can possibly affect every M156 owner gets removed/moved.

That is very strange. Not like that thread was heading south on us. Why would IB censor somthing that could potentially be a big issue? There is always the site that is mentioned in the autoblog and Motor Trend article.

And now?

Well, then then maybe we should just focus on the tires and make sure they don't have any design flaws. I'll start a thread poll to see how many members have had their stock Contis/Pirellis blow out on them, possibly due to incompatible rubber & rim materials.

It's disappointing...especially since most threads here are worthless..

My guess would be a call from someones legal department (MB maybe) requesting its removal. As others have said, the thread was not heading south, there was no flaming occurring. It was actually quite civil for the type of thread it was.

My guess is that the other thread pointed to another forum which this forum didn't want to send traffic too. We call that good "link bait" in the webmaster world. Also if you go in the W11 forum there is a thread about it still which doesn't link to the other forum.

https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/...8-defects.html

I understand not wanting generic posts pointing to another forum as link bait.. but there are always exceptions. I believe in this case, there should have been an exception as it could be a potential issue for many of us.

That said, just because the other threat links to a different site, which ultimately links back to the original site, traffic is still being driven there.

Also, the mods could have just removed the link and told the people reading the thread to google it, or link to one of the other sites that links back to the original thread. there was no need to completely remove the thread.

Good stuff Eric.

Agreed.

Possibly.

Makes sense. The link could have been easily removed and the thread left
open for a civil discussion.

Honestly, a discussion regarding the M156 motor should not be in the W211 section in my opinion.

Regardless of why it was removed.

Here is a good post by Weistec and their take on the issue/non-issue.

The fact that MB is a paying advertiser on this forum as well as many other IB forums might have a little something to do with it. More of the usuall over here, some things never change do they?

I thought the same at first, but then was confused by the threads on the topic that still seem to be up and running in the W211 forum.

just wanted to say thanks to Weistec and Petro for posting that info. good to know. i of course put 0/40 in mine at 6k miles and then a year later took it to the dealer where i ASSUME 5/40 was put in. i have yet to hear any loud ticking. i can hear very little at idle but nothing loud or obvious. i hope im ok. mine is an 09 btw. i dont know the build date off hand but im thinking it was built in 08.

I must admit Weistec's post did make me feel a bit better.

A follow up post by Weistec:
Just to rebut Weistec's post a very well known and respected tuner(MHP) has seen the problem first hand that is cited in the lawsuit in about 50%
of the vehicles he has inspected.

Come on now, although what you posted is accurate it sounds terrible. Why not post some actual numbers? Your post of "50% of the vehicles inspected" sounds like a HUGE epedemic when in reality we are talking about 4 cars (to date). MHP has been into 8 M156 motors and seen some level of "premature wear" on 4 of them. Weistec has been inside more than 8 M156 motors and seen ZERO "premature wear issues" on any of them. Let's not make this sound worse than it is.

As a C63 owner the last thing I want is for this alleged problem to be accurate because if it is, it means I'm driving a time bomb.

50% does sound like a huge number and I agree 4 out of a total of 8 cars is a far cry from an epidemic. Just wanted to post a rebuttal to Weistec's post stating the problem is "exaggerated". MHP has seen the defect with his own eyes. I didn't want people to think this was some frivolous lawsuit and instead it may have some validity.

In my opinon, I think the issue is overblown.

It disappeared because it had a link to a competitor site.

lol if that was the reason they could've just deleted that post.

subscribed

How about the mod named "splinter" just restore the original thread sans the link in question. There was some useful info there...

Also, it should be noted, that the vehicles being worked on in a tuners care (regardless of whether it is MHP or Weistec, or whoever else), have probably been driven significantly harder then many of the other M156 engines on the road, and the owners are looking for increased performance.

Driving hard will most definitely hasten wear and tear on any vehicle, which would be why a tuner may see the problems before a dealer would....

So, to the best knowledge of this community, how many total cars/engines are we aware of that had issues with the engine?