Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

I got mine done this week.

• 2012 LCI DCT
• 41k miles
• Owned since 2019 on 36k miles
• Warmed up and taken care of religiously by myself since 36k
• Previous owner claimed to always warm it up properly
• No idea about the owner before that
• Castrol Edge Supercar 10W60 at all times AFAIK
• On BMW's crappy servicing schedule until I bought it
• Oil changed at 36k and 39k, and then obviously all fresh at 41k with this job
• Garaged by previous owner and myself, taken out on occasions as a weekend car, but 99% of its time is spent on motorways and longer journeys, so it hasn't been doing short journeys or crawling much in traffic since about 30k on the clock

The car is in very good condition, one of the freshest examples you will find, regularly gets comments about its condition and minimal wear on interior, exterior, and the engine bay.

I went with a custom mixed and measured (and WPC treated) set of ACL bearings by Mporium (TX, USA) and BE ARP bolts. Genuinely measured by hand and mixed as a set, no random 'throwing a H and HX set together in the same box' rubbish.

We were expecting to see very little wear, but were very surprised to see the level of wear on these when they came out.

It just goes to show that you have no idea how the car has been treated in the past, and the condition of the bearings does not always reflect the overall condition of the car, nor how well you look after it.

I (and probably others) thought I was being a bit silly doing it at only 41k on a car in such good condition which I look after super well, but I just wanted to get it out of the way and to avoid the risk of them failing on me.

I'm really glad I went ahead and got them done.

Assimilator1 wrote

But you both say that ACL don't produce the specs, that isn't true, most are here in the Application guide pdf, find the part no under the applications list, then scroll down or search near the end to the Tech data listing with the relevant part no. The specs are there except for the min wall size (min shell thickness) (yes that ought to be in there!).
But ACL are quite willing to inform you of them, as they did for groovetek (and I think for me too IIRC). Btw I cleared up that confusing email here, for those interested.

In all fairness to ACL, even though they didn't publish it in the spec sheet, for the mathematically inclined, the min wall thickness can be calculated from theoretical MAX clearance. MIN shell thickness is part of the MAX clearance calculations. Bert's had this data from ACL about the same time groovtek posted it.

Many may think that measuring shells has no value. But, take a look at the actual measurements on a single set of shells that were measured. SIX of the SIXTEEN shells were outside of ACL's own spec and too thick. Using those shells means that the clearance is further reduced on an engine that already has too little clearance.
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index.php/Engine_Specs_-_S65_Rod_Bearings#ACL-H-STD_3

This is one example from one set of bearings why measuring matters. Now, apply that to 1000's of bearings and see where it leads.

TX wrote

Anyway, It appears they are made in Australia or so the label says at least. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen false advertising.

I wouldn't outsource printing the label either.

edit: since we are on DMVs I'm pretty sure Florida takes the cake along with a lot of other categories.

If "Florida Man" works at the Florida DMV, then you are truly screwed. Today I read a new "Florida Man" story about the mother of a child who showed up at a High School with boxing gloves to fight a student.

AzRiz wrote

I went with a custom mixed and measured (and WPC treated) set of ACL bearings by Mporium (TX, USA) and BE ARP bolts. Genuinely measured by hand and mixed as a set, no random 'throwing a H and HX set together in the same box' rubbish.

It's kind of funny seeing ACL shells shipped in custom foam trays made by BE Bearings that originally came with BE Bearings in them. There's nothing wrong it it...just kind of funny to see it.

We were expecting to see very little wear, but were very surprised to see the level of wear on these when they came out.

Yeah, those don't look good.

Green-Eggs wrote

It's kind of funny seeing ACL shells shipped in custom foam trays made by BE Bearings that originally came with BE Bearings in them. There's nothing wrong it it...just kind of funny to see it.

Yeah, those don't look good.

I thought those looked familiar!

2011 DCT with 37k miles

Green-Eggs wrote

This has been discussed a few times with an actual example. I'll repeat it here as best I can. One BE customer contacted Bert because his Plastigage was measuring 0.0010 inch clearance. The customer was concerned that the bearings were sized incorrectly and contacted Bert. Bert told him to stop the installation, and he would send another set of bearings overnight delivery. Bert wanted those other bearings in return. When the "bad" bearings arrived, Bert wanted to confirm the Plastigage measurements with bore-gauge + micrometer. Bert filmed the entire procedure. Just as the customer said, Bert measured 0.0012 inch on Plastigage. Then he used a bore gauge and micrometer to measure an actual 0.0026 inch clearance. Bert promised to release the video one or two years ago, but he still hasn't done it. If the video was released, I'd post a link.

The reason Plastigage is "good enough for BMW" is because there isn't anything else without disassembling the engine. BMW, like BE, just wants the sanity check to show due diligence. It doesn't mean the measurements are accurate -- or even close to accurate. As we saw in this case, they weren't even close.

Interesting, race engine builder PapadakisRacing postedshowing that plastigauge was accurate (within the measuring gauge limitations).
If he ever releases that video I'd be interested to see it.
I was wondering if his customer had used plastigauge wrong, but if Bert got the same results that kinda rules that out! Very odd.
Btw, FWIW Suzuki recommend to use it to choose the correct main bearings for the 1.6 Swift Sport.

Must have missed your earlier, my bad.

Green-Eggs wrote

In all fairness to ACL, even though they didn't publish it in the spec sheet, for the mathematically inclined, the min wall thickness can be calculated from theoretical MAX clearance. MIN shell thickness is part of the MAX clearance calculations. Bert's had this data from ACL about the same time groovtek posted it.

Many may think that measuring shells has no value. But, take a look at the actual measurements on a single set of shells that were measured. SIX of the SIXTEEN shells were outside of ACL's own spec and too thick. Using those shells means that the clearance is further reduced on an engine that already has too little clearance.
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index.php/Engine_Specs_-_S65_Rod_Bearings#ACL-H-STD_3

This is one example from one set of bearings why measuring matters. Now, apply that to 1000's of bearings and see where it leads.

Makes me doubly glad I had Mporium/Deansbimmer measure them!

Re ACL min thickness, ah yea! Of course! lol

AzRiz
Good to see you've got yours done
Now believe it or not, I'd like one of your old shells! The most worn one (no7?) lol. I want to perform a little experiment on it. Unless you want to perform the experiment? If you do, we can sort it out over FB.
Btw, good quality photos of your old shells

daijc wrote

2011 DCT with 37k miles

Just curious as to why you changed them so early. Tracking the car? Seems like quite a few wait until the 100k mark.

100k miles? Hmm, that seems rather long, especially for the earlier bearings that's really risky! Perhaps not as much for the LCI bearings, but even so, I don't think I'd leave it that long .....
Did you see AzRiz's LCI bearings with 41k miles? They're quite worn.

DL335D wrote

Just curious as to why you changed them so early. Tracking the car? Seems like quite a few wait until the 100k mark.

Assimilator1 wrote

100k miles? Hmm, that seems rather long, especially for the earlier bearings that's really risky! Perhaps not as much for the LCI bearings, but even so, I don't think I'd leave it that long .....
Did you see AzRiz's LCI bearings with 41k miles? They're quite worn.

100k is fine for high revving cars that 'do not have rod bearing issues', like the S54 for example.

To do that in a S65 is not a good idea. But again, like before, opinions differ and some think there is no issue at all. I am not among those people

Both my S65s showed abnormal rod bearing wear, one with 30k and the other with 36k

SYT_Shadow wrote

DL335D wrote

Just curious as to why you changed them so early. Tracking the car? Seems like quite a few wait until the 100k mark.

Assimilator1 wrote

100k miles? Hmm, that seems rather long, especially for the earlier bearings that's really risky! Perhaps not as much for the LCI bearings, but even so, I don't think I'd leave it that long .....
Did you see AzRiz's LCI bearings with 41k miles? They're quite worn.

100k is fine for high revving cars that 'do not have rod bearing issues', like the S54 for example.

To do that in a S65 is not a good idea. But again, like before, opinions differ and some think there is no issue at all. I am not among those people

Both my S65s showed abnormal rod bearing wear, one with 30k and the other with 36k

Me too. Changed at ~ 27k miles. Maybe it was 30k. But early by most standards.

SYT_Shadow wrote

100k is fine for high revving cars that 'do not have rod bearing issues', like the S54 for example.

To do that in a S65 is not a good idea. But again, like before, opinions differ and some think there is no issue at all. I am not among those people

Both my S65s showed abnormal rod bearing wear, one with 30k and the other with 36k

Agreed, sorry I should have said S65, but that's what I was referring to.

Wish I could find more photos of S2000 engine's stripped down! (and not where lubrication has failed).

DL335D wrote

Just curious as to why you changed them so early. Tracking the car? Seems like quite a few wait until the 100k mark.

It is all a probability curve, that is the problem. Some will last 200K miles fine because they stacked the lucky way with small journals, large big end bores and thin shells. In this case, clearance is pretty good at 0.00103"/" - not quite ideal, but very decent.

Others stack the unlucky way with larger journals, small big end bores and thick shells. If this is the case, the clearance can be as little as 0.00029"/" given the data available here. No engine, let alone a high revving, high specific output V8, will survive long with 0.00029"/" of bearing clearance. This is why some people pull bearings at low mileage that look like garbage. This is also why some factory engines have grenaded at less than 10K miles.

The LCI bearings have a little less variance based on the collected data but there is still a statistical probability your engine is too tight. Mileage has absolutely nothing to do with this - only the random act of assembly.

And there is ZERO way to know where you sit unless you look... Even then, you cannot actually measure the rod big ends (without a full tear-down). So, you might as well just change the bearings with something that targets a proper nominal clearance (0.00115"/") and guarantees that you will have at minimum 0.00088"/" given the worst possible case of big journals and small big end bores.

Cheers,

DL335D wrote

daijc wrote

2011 DCT with 37k miles

Just curious as to why you changed them so early. Tracking the car? Seems like quite a few wait until the 100k mark.

I use my car mostly for track so might as well change them for peace of mind.

Assimilator1 wrote

Interesting info, pity the photo is blurred though . Have they sent any better ones?

Bert posted all of them on FB in the S65 rod bearing group. Hopefully I can get these cross-posted later today.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/252361005418459/permalink/780550639266157/

Green-Eggs wrote

Bert posted all of them on FB in the S65 rod bearing group. Hopefully I can get these cross-posted later today.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/252361005418459/permalink/780550639266157/

That post turned into a sh*t show...sad.

Yep. I joined Facebook just so I could see the bearing pictures.. I read about half the replies and said why did I join Facebook???

Denny347 wrote

That post turned into a sh*t show...sad.

TX wrote

Yep. I joined Facebook just so I could see the bearing pictures.. I read about half the replies and said why did I join Facebook???

It was a travesty. Pictures coming soon.

Cut-paste from FB Thread, with a minor alteration:

1000hp S65 with BE Bearings after 4000 hard racing miles.

This engine has 830whp, which is approximately 1000hp at the crank. It's mostly a dedicated race car which rarely drives on the streets. It has approximately 4000 miles on these bearings.

All of them appear to look perfect except #7 upper. #7 upper is just barely starting to wear through the PTFE coating. The PTFE is a non-friction top coating, especially important for boundary conditions and start/stop engines. The bearing itself is completely untouched in this photo.

Another thing to note about #7 and it's a bit technical in nature. #7 is the only cylinder in the S65 which fires sequentially after another cylinder. This means there isn't an exhaust cycle or an opposite bank cylinder ignition in between #8 ignition and #7. #7 fires immediately after #8. That's why #7 accumulates heat more than any other cylinder, and is the most often to blow a hole in the block -- especially on supercharged engines. In a cross-plane V8, there's no way to avoid one cylinder from sequential firing. In Chevy's, I believe it's the #2 cylinder. In the S65, it's #7. In a flat-plane crank engine, no cylinders fire sequentially.

Green-Eggs wrote

Denny347 wrote

That post turned into a sh*t show...sad.

TX wrote

Yep. I joined Facebook just so I could see the bearing pictures.. I read about half the replies and said why did I join Facebook???

It was a travesty. Pictures coming soon.

That insults all travesties:)

Facebook is silly.

Yep, the 1 time I posted anything major to the UK M3 FB page about rod bearings, I had some dumb idiots say that showing copper is normal! Lmao, funny how they didn't reply when I posted a load of links to the bearing manufacturers talking about bearing construction.

Green-eggs
Great pics, thanks , I'll add that to my aftermarket good bearings list.

Btw, 1000hp!!?? wow! Is that twin turbo'd?
(PS, I don't know why that smilie is called confused, it isn't that).

2008 M3 (my personal car). DIY'd the RB's thanks to Danny's thread. I performed this service December of 2019 when my car had 120xxx miles. Replaced the old shells with ACL HX and used ARP hardware.

I dropped the cylinder 6 upper shell because I am clumsy, so that is why it has weird scratches. Otherwise the old bearings seemed okay to me. 10k miles later and my car seems happy with the ACL HX bearings, I've done a track day and some high speed runs on a closed circuit. Most recent Blackstone Analysis came back clean.