Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

I disagree this thread and the basis for almost everything being said is wrong.

Green-Eggs wrote

All the data and measurements you could imagine are here...including answers to just about every one of your questions.
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838



It's not hard to run a dry sump designed by another company. It's much harder to design your own dry sump like Van Dyne has done on many occasions.



All of my points still stand too.

If you're aware of the site and all your points still stand, does that include the ones about King being the OEM supplier for BMW and Plastigage being a good way to measure clearance?

The problem I get is that there really is tons of actual data -- which you say doesn't exist -- then you make wild accusations with no data or anything to back them up.

You cant put a micrometer on the crank and a bore guage in the rod bore when doing a bearing job. There is no room. Pladtiguage is widely used, even by oems, and a clearance of the claimed .00135" is going to be drastically obvious with even plastiguage as compared to the more realistic actual clearance of .0018". Plastiguage will quickly tell any amateur doing this job if they are landing in the actual nominal range of .0015-.0018". I'm well aware there are more accurate ways to measure things. If you want to blame clearance for excessive wear, why wouldn't you advocate for people to get a "before" measurement before touching anything. You're going to he really disappointed if you go into a class action with nothing but ficitcious wiki numbers as your proof BMW botched clearances. That's my point.

Green-Eggs wrote

[*]I think every statistic you quoted was wrong. N54 has a near-perfect 0.001 inch clearance per journal-inch diameter ratio, whereas S65 has a horrible 0.0006 ratio.

They both have been measured to be between .0015"-.0018" on 2" journals. You cant determine what bmws nominal clearance was by deducing min/max limits from published crank and rod specs and then averaging them... which is what the wikki data trys to do. You yourself point out in the other thread that the actual clearance target and tolerances for rod bearings are not published. I actually thought this thread and that one are the same 100 page threads but apparently there was a need for two of them.

I'm done
Un-subscribed

330indy wrote

I'm done
Un-subscribed

Wise move!

bbnks2 wrote

You cant put a micrometer on the crank and a bore guage in the rod bore when doing a bearing job. There is no room. Pladtiguage is widely used, even by oems, and a clearance of the claimed .00135" is going to be drastically obvious with even plastiguage as compared to the more realistic actual clearance of .0018". Plastiguage will quickly tell any amateur doing this job if they are landing in the actual nominal range of .0015-.0018".

There are times when Plastigage will say 0.0008 when bore/micrometer will say 0.0025. Take another strip of plastigage and do the same thing again on the same journal, and get different results. I've seen it happen.

Yes of course you can't stick a bore gauge on the rod big end with it in the engine -- we all know that. That reality doesn't change the fact that Plastigage is unreliable. Although I will agree Plastigage is better than nothing. My point is that it's not reliable.

I'm well aware there are more accurate ways to measure things. If you want to blame clearance for excessive wear, why wouldn't you advocate for people to get a "before" measurement before touching anything. You're going to he really disappointed if you go into a class action with nothing but ficitcious wiki numbers as your proof BMW botched clearances. That's my point.

Huh? I have no idea what that means, don't care. Moving on.

bbnks2 wrote

They both have been measured to be between .0015"-.0018" on 2" journals.

Clearances and journal diameters are different enough that the clearance ratios go from sub-standard on S65 to perfectly normal on N54.

You cant determine what bmws nominal clearance was by deducing min/max limits from published crank and rod specs and then averaging them... which is what the wikki data trys to do.

If you're familiar with reading TIS, journals are often given in nominal, with +x,-y where nominal is given first and +/- are given for variance. So you know what nominal is. Also from reading TIS, you would notice that the tolerance spread from BMW is consistent among many generations of engines, so you can infer what the tolerance spread of the S65 rod journal without it being published. The same holds true for the nominal journal diameter. You'll notice from TIS that no matter what the journal diameter is, generally speaking all engines for many generations have the same nominal value around that journal size. So again, even in the absence of this data from BMW, it can be inferred from looking at TIS for a dozen other engines. Even though Dinan provided the journal sizes for 120 journals and came before anybody figured out these inferences, the Dinan sizes confirmed that the inferences are correct. So journal sizes and tolerance spreads are not an unknown.

Next, on to clearances in the absence of specs from BMW. That's even easier than you think because we know the rod big end bore specs because BMW published them. So we know the tolerance spread on those. We also know the tolerance spread from Clevite-77 bearings because those are published numbers which match the BE blueprint. BMW gets the same tolerance spread as BE because they both used the same Clevite-77 bearings process. The nominal bearing shell thickness is literally right in the middle of the tolerance spread -- which makes a perfect normal distribution curve. So yes, you can use an average here because the nominal thickness is exactly in the middle of the normal distribution curve.

The rest is very simple math to calculate the clearance spread. It's very easy if you have the numbers -- and in this case we have all of the numbers and there are no more mysteries surrounding them.

I get the impression you only read the first few pages of the M3 post wiki where the discoveries were still in their infancy. I say that because the info you quote only comes from those first few pages, and nothing really from the last pages. If you read all 100's of pages, you would have seen how the process progressed and was fine tuned until there were no longer any mysteries. The latest numbers aren't reflected on this forum in its own wiki because that page can no longer get updated. But they do appear offsite at a place you said you've already read.

If you want to know how they're calculated, I'm sure I can get Bert to write up the formulas. They're not secret or anything -- same ones Clevite uses on their blueprints -- and the numbers he gives you will match the BE blueprints.

You yourself point out in the other thread that the actual clearance target and tolerances for rod bearings are not published. I actually thought this thread and that one are the same 100 page threads but apparently there was a need for two of them.

That's OK, but now you know the numbers are no longer a mystery. If they were a mystery, I don't think companies like King and ACL wouldn't be making any S65 rod bearings.

Green-Eggs has incredible patience.

Green-Eggs wrote

There are times when Plastigage will say 0.0008 when bore/micrometer will say 0.0025. Take another strip of plastigage and do the same thing again on the same journal, and get different results. I've seen it happen.

Yes of course you can't stick a bore gauge on the rod big end with it in the engine -- we all know that. That reality doesn't change the fact that Plastigage is unreliable. Although I will agree Plastigage is better than nothing. My point is that it's not reliable.



Huh? I have no idea what that means, don't care. Moving on.



Clearances and journal diameters are different enough that the clearance ratios go from sub-standard on S65 to perfectly normal on N54.



If you're familiar with reading TIS, journals are often given in nominal, with +x,-y where nominal is given first and +/- are given for variance. So you know what nominal is. Also from reading TIS, you would notice that the tolerance spread from BMW is consistent among many generations of engines, so you can infer what the tolerance spread of the S65 rod journal without it being published. The same holds true for the nominal journal diameter. You'll notice from TIS that no matter what the journal diameter is, generally speaking all engines for many generations have the same nominal value around that journal size. So again, even in the absence of this data from BMW, it can be inferred from looking at TIS for a dozen other engines. Even though Dinan provided the journal sizes for 120 journals and came before anybody figured out these inferences, the Dinan sizes confirmed that the inferences are correct. So journal sizes and tolerance spreads are not an unknown.

Next, on to clearances in the absence of specs from BMW. That's even easier than you think because we know the rod big end bore specs because BMW published them. So we know the tolerance spread on those. We also know the tolerance spread from Clevite-77 bearings because those are published numbers which match the BE blueprint. BMW gets the same tolerance spread as BE because they both used the same Clevite-77 bearings process. The nominal bearing shell thickness is literally right in the middle of the tolerance spread -- which makes a perfect normal distribution curve. So yes, you can use an average here because the nominal thickness is exactly in the middle of the normal distribution curve.

The rest is very simple math to calculate the clearance spread. It's very easy if you have the numbers -- and in this case we have all of the numbers and there are no more mysteries surrounding them.

I get the impression you only read the first few pages of the M3 post wiki where the discoveries were still in their infancy. I say that because the info you quote only comes from those first few pages, and nothing really from the last pages. If you read all 100's of pages, you would have seen how the process progressed and was fine tuned until there were no longer any mysteries. The latest numbers aren't reflected on this forum in its own wiki because that page can no longer get updated. But they do appear offsite at a place you said you've already read.

If you want to know how they're calculated, I'm sure I can get Bert to write up the formulas. They're not secret or anything -- same ones Clevite uses on their blueprints -- and the numbers he gives you will match the BE blueprints.



That's OK, but now you know the numbers are no longer a mystery. If they were a mystery, I don't think companies like King and ACL wouldn't be making any S65 rod bearings.

I grabbed those numbers as an example from the S65 wiki. You can cross reference them yourself. Your comment "you're just looking at old outdated numbers" not only proves my point that these threads, especially BE's website, are one big ever-evolving contradiction, but it's also just an excuse and skirts addressing my actual reply. Literally the entire basis for the wiki is deduced numbers that were never provided by TIS as claimed. The data of "actual" measurements all contains asterisk next to it that it's based of these deduced numbers. While the numbers give you a good starting point, you're missing my point that they really are not factual. If this data was fact then actual bearing clearances wouldn't constantly measure outside of the given ranges. Something that just gets excused away and then never followed up on... or maybe the way many of these measurements are begin done is simply not how engines are built and much of it is pretty meaningless to the actual engines in service. Numbers mainly used to drive sales for aftermarket bearings.

BE's website is a mess of incorrect numbers and misleading information about rod bearing material. That is what primarily I was referring to in my original post. But they are peddling bearings so can't really blame them for inflating the issue and trying to make their bearings look as good as possible can you... If you want to turn that into an argument about the wikki page go for it, but my OP was a much broader picture of the contradictory information posted in many places and then regurgitated here next to picture of what some would consider to be perfectly normal looking bearings. Some of these posters even stating such along side their pictures.

pbonsalb wrote

It’s often entertaining when a new guy does a quick read of some of the available information and shares the results of his analysis. Hopefully one day one of these guys will come up with something that has not already been debated, but that did not happen today.

lol

it's like daylight savings time - predictable, utter bullshit on average twice a year

2009 M3 DCT @ 70,993mi

Anybody else see this yet? BE bearings supposedly pulled with >87K miles.

Thoughts? Is this guy for real?

*Edit Removed YouTube link*

BlackM3Comp wrote

Anybody else see this yet? BE bearings supposedly pulled with >87K miles.


Thoughts? Is this guy for real?

I watched it. Seems like most of the video was bitching about the shop stealing his actuator.

Then how to increase your credit rating.

IIRC he did not show the backing of the shell. It would be nice to see exactly what these bearings are. Also, those bearings did not look stellar.

Here is hoping he shares some more info!!

This guy seems like a fraud. I watched a couple of his other videos. His timeline on the car based on what he said in another video means he bought the car 7.5 years ago. BE bearings were not around at that time. I’m gonna remove the video from my post, don’t wanna give this guy any more views unless evidence proves it’s factual information...

Scharbag wrote

I watched it. Seems like most of the video was bitching about the shop stealing his actuator.

Then how to increase your credit rating.

IIRC he did not show the backing of the shell. It would be nice to see exactly what these bearings are. Also, those bearings did not look stellar.

Here is hoping he shares some more info!!

Just watched this. Quite interesting to see what he judge as "no wear", seems by picture at least to align farly well with quite a few other shells coming out, i.e. not worn down by any means but certainly touched by the crank. I'm refering to the argument that there should be no contact what so ever, which increased clearance (incl BE) is claimed to make sure of.

The comments that the guy have owned the M3 since before BE started production also spikes curiousity, but of another sort.

Lets see if we get some clarifying comments.

Cheers

Ps. Watched a March 2016 video where he is at 130K miles and apparently bought it with 82K, so a few years back from there seems to end up prior BE shipping start.

Helmsman wrote

Scharbag wrote

I watched it. Seems like most of the video was bitching about the shop stealing his actuator.

Then how to increase your credit rating.

IIRC he did not show the backing of the shell. It would be nice to see exactly what these bearings are. Also, those bearings did not look stellar.

Here is hoping he shares some more info!!

Just watched this. Quite interesting to see what he judge as "no wear", seems by picture at least to align farly well with quite a few other shells coming out, i.e. not worn down by any means but certainly touched by the crank. I'm refering to the argument that there should be no contact what so ever, which increased clearance (incl BE) is claimed to make sure of.

The comments that the guy have owned the M3 since before BE started production also spikes curiousity, but of another sort.

Lets see if we get some clarifying comments.

Cheers

Ps. Watched a March 2016 video where he is at 130K miles and apparently bought it with 82K, so a few years back from there seems to end up prior BE shipping start.

Good catch on the 2016 info.

Here is hoping we can get some real info here.

Cheers,

Scharbag wrote

Good catch on the 2016 info.

Here is hoping we can get some real info here.

Cheers,

Read a reply on YT, apparently he changed his mind on the manufacturer to being Clevite. Seems like logical then, possibly with a question mark on the coating but maybe Clevite dud that already 9y ago (which he said he bought at)

Helmsman wrote

Scharbag wrote

Good catch on the 2016 info.

Here is hoping we can get some real info here.

Cheers,

Read a reply on YT, apparently he changed his mind on the manufacturer to being Clevite. Seems like logical then, possibly with a question mark on the coating but maybe Clevite dud that already 9y ago (which he said he bought at)

Wait, so these are it are not BE bearings?

No, they were not BE. I don’t think he did that on purpose, he was clearly misinformed and not knowledgeable about BE bearings. At the same time, I think it’s irresponsible of him to initially make that statement without doing some research.

BlackM3Comp wrote

No, they were not BE. I don’t think he did that on purpose, he was clearly misinformed and not knowledgeable about BE bearings. At the same time, I think it’s irresponsible of him to initially make that statement without doing some research.

Yup.

And now he is on facebook saying that the 702/703 bearings that were put back into the car are not OE for 2008...

While technically true, they are OE for later models. And if he was worried about them, why put OE bearings back in?

Oh well, logic and reason have no place in Themis world any longer.

Scharbag wrote

Yup.

And now he is on facebook saying that the 702/703 bearings that were put back into the car are not OE for 2008...

While technically true, they are OE for later models. And if he was worried about them, why put OE bearings back in?

Oh well, logic and reason have no place in Themis world any longer.

Further updates on YT. Owner has had the car for 9 years and never changed his own bearings. That means the bearings he showed were OEM Clevite, not BE.

2012 M3 DCT SC @ 55,545