Originally Posted by 400Eric

I'm not forgetting that the 2.3 and 2.5 M102s have a bigger, heavier piston but it wouldn't be an issue if people didn't wind the pee out of them.

I agree with everything you said in your post except for three things:
1) It's RPM not RPMs. You are counting the revolutions per minute not minutes.
2) It's engine not motor.
3)There are some exceptions as to what makes rods fail. Here are the rods from a mid 12 second turbo Volvo:


We are still trying to figure out why all 4 of the rods from this engine are bent and yet the stock, cast pistons are fine. Whatever was strong enough to hurt the rods should have hurt the pistons too. Honestly, I'd love to have a bright, sharp, insightful kid like you weigh in on the topic over there on the Volvo site: http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=204800&page=2

So the 2.5 16v also has 149mm rods? It's funny how ALL MB con rods seem to be either 145mm or 149mm long.
Regards, Eric