BE Bearings removed at 5,130 miles

Cross posted an article by Jim Colley from another forum.

jcolley wrote

I'll write more on them later, but I know everyone was interested in seeing these when they were removed.

The owner is a local customer and was in about 8 months ago for bearing swap and some other work. This engine ran on LiquiMoly 10W-60 and had not yet had an oil change since the bearing job.

A few weeks ago after some hard runs, the car began to misfire and dropped into limp mode. While going through my normal coil/plug/ionic swap routine, the electrode on plug 7 was bent...not a good sign. I conducted a borescope camera inspection of the cylinder and there was significant marking on top of the piston and a visible piece of piston crown missing exposing a piece of the top ring. On tear down, it was remarkable. There was zero damage or scoring to the cylinder walls, minimal damage to the combustion chamber dome. The valves will be replaced, the head worked and the piston, rod, and rings replaced on that cylinder. The crank will be checked for runout as well.

As for the bearings, I pretty much expected them to look like this, but it's good to see some confirmation. There is some evidence of wear and it is fully expected, but note that with the exception of a drag mark on the upper shell of 5 due to a foreign object becoming imbedded (as design intended), there is no pronounced pattern of wear at the longitudinal center of the bearing as we see on OEM bearings that is associated with and believed to be caused by oil starvation.

This in fact, will be the first set of bearings I've ever removed from an S85 that will go back in. In fact, the owner is considering cams in the future, so it's possible I may remove this set of bearings again in 10 miles or so.

I will have to dig them off an old iPhone passed to my daughter, but I have pictures of some WPC 702/703s that came out of my own car 14k miles after changing them. They looked horrible, much like we see bearings from 40-50k mile cars.

Do I feel this is conclusive evidence that the BE Bearings are the final solution to the S85 bearing wear problems? No, however this a huge indicator that we are moving in the right direction. I can only hope the owner keeps the vehicle long enough for me to remove them again all the way up to 50miles or so.

All the more satisfying that I chose these when replacing my own.

Happy to see this. I assume he means 10k and 50k miles, not 10 and 50.

I sure hope we are able to see some more progressive findings in the future!

My be bearings go in on Thursday ftw

It's almost comical how good they look. Great info thanks. Ill be doing mine very soon

nycplumber wrote

It's almost comical how good they look. Great info thanks. Ill be doing mine very soon

^ This!

Really? We're getting excited about bearings that were installed for only 5000 miles?



Also...I'm seeing the coating starting to wear off near the parting lines already...

For the record I still think BE is a good choice, as well as VAC. I just don't think 5000 miles is anything close to getting excited about. Compared to the 40,000 mile VAC example MRF has shown.

doogee wrote

Really? We're getting excited about bearings that were installed for only 5000 miles?



Also...I'm seeing the coating starting to wear off near the parting lines already...

For the record I still think BE is a good choice, as well as VAC. I just don't think 5000 miles is anything close to getting excited about. Compared to the 40,000 mile VAC example MRF has shown.

We're any pictures ever posted without the rod bolts that cause bore distortion and extra clearance? I didn't think that was the case or at least don't remember seeing them if they were.

Green-Eggs wrote

We're any pictures ever posted without the rod bolts that cause bore distortion and extra clearance? I didn't think that was the case or at least don't remember seeing them if they were.

I’m not getting into this debate. I openly admit BE is a good choice but refuse to recommend them to friends because of poor business practice. They like to feed on the ignorance of users on the forum and this thread is a perfect example.

doogee wrote

I’m not getting into this debate. I openly admit BE is a good choice but refuse to recommend them to friends because of poor business practice. They like to feed on the ignorance of users on the forum and this thread is a perfect example.

Ha! Good thing your not getting into this debate !! Us "ignorant" users on this forum need to be kept in the dark about real information.

The bearings shown above were using OEM rod bolts torqued to OEM specifications.

BE will continue to provide fact based results using real and verified measurements. If people want to call that feeding ignorance and a bad business practice, so be it.

People will only read what they want to read or hear what they want to hear in order to validate their purchase or choice.

Notice how my observation of the worn coating at only 5000 miles has been completely ignored?

Have fun guys.

Green-Eggs wrote

There is some evidence of wear and it is fully expected, but note that with the exception of a drag mark on the upper shell of 5 due to a foreign object becoming imbedded (as design intended), there is no pronounced pattern of wear at the longitudinal center of the bearing as we see on OEM bearings that is associated with and believed to be caused by oil starvation

Actually, it wasn't ignored it was stated in my observations, albeit not explicitly at the parting line. I have my opinion as to why, but not really enough data to state a cause. I will say I'm becoming less of a fan of OEM bolts. It's extremely difficult to ensure 100% correct torque application with them every single time and when they are tightened correctly, the rod bore is not perfectly concentric.

jcolley wrote

Actually, it wasn't ignored it was stated in my observations, albeit not explicitly at the parting line. I have my opinion as to why, but not really enough data to state a cause. I will say I'm becoming less of a fan of OEM bolts. It's extremely difficult to ensure 100 correct torque application with them every single time and when they are tightened correctly, the rod bore is not perfectly concentric.

I imagine only a tiny percentage of OEM bolts are torqued correctly. When I do the DIY for forum members I insist on the BE-ARP bolt.

SYT_Shadow wrote

I imagine only a tiny percentage of OEM bolts are torqued correctly. When I do the DIY for forum members I insist on the BE-ARP bolt.

I'm generally not a fan of switching bolts from OEM unless the rods are out for measurement. However, I have a few engines torn down at the moment waiting for crank repair, so it may be worth the effort to buy a few bolts of OEM and ARP and take my own measurements. It would be interesting to see the same rod torqued multiple times with different sets of new OEM bolts and see the differing concentricity measurements. Repeat with the BE/ARPs and see how it goes.

Would love some hi-res photos of these, maybe it's the upload compression but the potatophone pics don't really compare well with the photos in the BE thread and elsewhere

For science, you understand

Richbot wrote

Would love some hi-res photos of these, maybe it's the upload compression but the potatophone pics don't really compare well with the photos in the BE thread and elsewhere

For science, you understand

Copy the URL of the photo, and remove "_Small" to see the high res photos.

Richbot wrote

Would love some hi-res photos of these, maybe it's the upload compression but the potatophone pics don't really compare well with the photos in the BE thread and elsewhere

For science, you understand

You have a potatophone? Now I want one too!

doogee wrote

For the record I still think BE is a good choice, as well as VAC. I just don't think 5000 miles is anything close to getting excited about. Compared to the 40,000 mile VAC example MRF has shown.

doogee wrote

I’m not getting into this debate. I openly admit BE is a good choice but refuse to recommend them to friends because of poor business practice. They like to feed on the ignorance of users on the forum and this thread is a perfect example.

Look, I understand you've got some ax to grind against BE and that you like promoting other vendors in BE threads. You've made that point before and there's really no honest point in making it over and over again in every new threads that pop up.

doogee wrote

People will only read what they want to read or hear what they want to hear in order to validate their purchase or choice.

I totally agree. I made that same point a few days ago, and some guy seemed pretty offended when I said it. Go figure.

That's why we recommend BE because they're the only ones who have taken the measurements, verified them multiple times, and posted the results for everybody to see. Nobody else has done anything like this. We prefer to keep the discussion fact-based, not just taking people for their word without anything to verify.

Notice how my observation of the worn coating at only 5000 miles has been completely ignored?

Have fun guys.

There would be no need for me to respond to your comments. BE isn't on this forum, so they wouldn't respond to it either. Neither of us are afraid of honest debate and would have no reason to offer some type of statement without having looked at, touched, and fully measured the actual rods, bolts, and bearings. I hope you can appreciate that we will continue to provide fact based results using real and verified measurements.

Green-Eggs wrote

It does however remind me of those other coated bearings with only 1500 miles on them also using OEM rod bolts that were very excessively worn already. Remember when I posted those photos a while back? Do you think I should post them again so others can see a direct comparison to these?

I can't wrap my head around the fact you're still pushing this. Once again, you're talking about an OEM coated bearing which VAC used to sell.

They now sell a bearing with extra clearance. The coating brings the bearing to near OEM spec. Maybe you just don't understand the difference, I don't know.

Once again taking advantage of users who don't have all the facts.

Quit being so biased and open your mind a little bit!

Green-Eggs wrote

Look, I understand you've got some ax to grind against BE and that you like promoting other vendors in BE threads. You've made that point before and there's really no honest point in making it over and over again in every new threads that pop up.

No "axe to grind against BE"

You're reading me wrong. I've never once said I didn't believe in BE Bearings. Ever!

I don't try to promote VAC. I like the brand and I try to defend them a little bit since their product is proven to work.

I've recommended both on many occasions.

doogee wrote

They now sell a bearing with extra clearance. The coating brings the bearing to near OEM spec. Maybe you just don't understand the difference, I don't know.

Once again taking advantage of users who don't have all the facts.

Quit being so biased and open your mind a little bit!

Most people don't call something extra clearance when it's never sold as extra clearance. I would have thought that's the type of statement that you don't like because it takes advantage of people who don't know this and don't have all the facts. You explained that a long time ago like this: "Either way, their bearings work...sooo I don't see the problem."

Yes, I know those at 1500 miles were coated factory bearings. I tried deleting that comment just so we didn't have to go down this rabbit hole. But since we're already here, I'll address it. You also know they DO still sell them and STILL ship them out. A few people have reported this recently and were pretty pissed about it because they thought they were buying the new Clevite bearings instead. But that aside...

You've mentioned those photos posted, and many (maybe even most) of those photos posted were these same coated factory bearings, not the newer Clevite ones. Go back and look at the thread to verify this yourself. That means the most obvious difference were the rod bolts between those "great looking" bearings and the crappy ones posted a while ago worn at 1500 miles. One set of bolts is known to cause bore distortion and extra clearance (measured and verified) exactly at the points where people look at them, and the OEM rod bolts typically don't. How would you explain that when it's clearly not apples to apples? Do you think that might give people a false sense of security when looking at those photos? And shouldn't the reader have the right to know the photos might not tell the whole story when there might be extra clearance caused by the bore distorting rod bolts? I think these are all really good questions and the answers are meant to inform people with measured and verified data. It's the opposite of taking advantage of their ignorance.

doogee wrote

No "axe to grind against BE"

You're reading me wrong. I've never once said I didn't believe in BE Bearings. Ever!

I'll take you at your word even though it doesn't seem like it at times, especially when you pop up in multiple threads just to poke holes in one direction and never the other.

I don't try to promote VAC. I like the brand and I try to defend them a little bit since their product is proven to work.

I'm a shop owner and I see a lot of products by lots of vendors. We clearly see things differently on this subject.

I've recommended both on many occasions.

Thanks! Likewise we have as well. We've had customers call and say they want the new Clevite bearings, but don't want extra clearance. Before BE added +025's to their inventory, we sold them the others instead. Now BE can fulfill both requests.