Blown motors, Rod Bearing failure S65 Registry.

Assimilator1 wrote

I made that clear in my clean up and categorisation of the list , (see link in my sig).

Yes, I saw it, pretty precise description.

kokuwow wrote

Hi,

This is my car and have very strange noise and i thing is rod bearing noise.

Here on two vidoes.First is outside and other i inside in the

You posted these vids in October first time, what happened since mate?

Car still in garage from octomber and i didnt start engine before inspected from some workshop.My father and some skill mechanic open the filter and say that all is clean no any debrees.
I live and work in another country and didnt have time to nothing….April i take vacancion and i have apoinment for tow truck an workshop.Crossfinger is is only with replace the bearings all is ok.

jvictormp wrote

Yes, I saw it, pretty precise description.

Cool , I don't think the op is routinely monitoring this thread anymore, and he put a link to my list there a few years ago or so.

****************

Moved SSR's customer from uncertain list to rod bearings list and moved Excers from uncertain to mains list.
Deleted besiktas from list, wasn't a blown engine!
bmwm3s65 gave a final update on his old engine, confirmed no1 mains failed.
(re-checked upto 59 of uncertain list).

MAHLE's S65/S85 replacement Rod Bearing research paper:
https://marmotorsport.com/wp-content/uploads/MAHLE-Motorsport-High-Performance-Engine-Bearings-for-the-BMW-S65-S85-Iss.-2.pdf
I can’t imagine buying S65 Rod bearings from a company that reached this conclusion regardless of the empirical evidence in the market place all over the world.
The rod bearing photo below is only an example given to illustrate the failure mode and taken thread:
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=29218232&postcount=2615
.

DrFerry wrote

MAHLE's S65/S85 replacement Rod Bearing research paper:

I can’t imagine buying S65 Rod bearings from a company that reached this conclusion regardless of the empirical evidence in the market place all over the world.
.

You get that the S65 OEM RB clearance was perfectly in line with previous M models. Making the whole tight bearing clearance story BS.

DrFerry wrote

MAHLE's S65/S85 replacement Rod Bearing research paper:
https://marmotorsport.com/wp-content/uploads/MAHLE-Motorsport-High-Performance-Engine-Bearings-for-the-BMW-S65-S85-Iss.-2.pdf
I can’t imagine buying S65 Rod bearings from a company that reached this conclusion regardless of the empirical evidence in the market place all over the world.
.

There's a consideration before that should be highlighted:

Or wouldn't that be applied to the s65/s85 bearings?

Sneaky Pete wrote

You get that the S65 OEM RB clearance was perfectly in line with previous M models. Making the whole tight bearing clearance story BS.

This might explain why other previous M models also suffered from rod bearing failures.
.
Why Do S54 Rod Bearings Fail? A Guide for BMW E46 M3 Owners
https://m3list.com/why-do-s54-rod-bearings-fail-a-guide-for-bmw-e46-m3-owners

DrFerry wrote

MAHLE's S65/S85 replacement Rod Bearing research paper:
https://marmotorsport.com/wp-content/uploads/MAHLE-Motorsport-High-Performance-Engine-Bearings-for-the-BMW-S65-S85-Iss.-2.pdf
I can’t imagine buying S65 Rod bearings from a company that reached this conclusion regardless of the empirical evidence in the market place all over the world.
.

I've not read there new report yet, but my understanding beforehand was that it was to be based on the bearings from my engine, which did not show direct metal gouging* like that shell does, is that the photo that came with that article? It looks to me like the wrong photo, and it certainly isn't one of my bearings.
*but they are missing much of the babbitt.

I was also under the understanding that they would make it clear that, that part of conclusion is based just on just my single set of shells.
Like I said though, I haven't read it yet.
[edit] Ok I've now read there article, that photo you posted is not from that article, at least the one I read just now (2-3-2024, 11:20 GMT).
If you got that photo somewhere else (you need to make that clear really, and separate it from the quoted article), that damage is not what they are talking about, they are talking about the damage shown in the photo in figure 1 (which does appear to be one of my shells, no5 upper I think, or one that has worn in an identical way).

Remember that Mahle is one of the major companies that makes bearings for a whole host of engine manufactures.

One thing though, I utterly disagree with this statement of there's though - "bronze exposure does not mean the
bearings are worn-out,...", from what I remember from way back at college learning agricultural engineering and then later with motor vehicles, to more importantly what I've read by the bearing manufactures more recently, that statement of theirs is completely wrong. I'll need to dig out there guides again and then ask PaulGros about this.

jvictormp wrote

There's a consideration before that should be highlighted:

Or wouldn't that be applied to the s65/s85 bearings?

Not the S85, as I believe they finished production before the lead bearings were phased out.
It is relevant though to S65s from about 2010 on, which had the tin/alu/copper bearings, it could well be that those bearings aren't as superficially worn (when pulled) as some of us (including me) thought.
Additionally, with the the recent updates I've done to my blown engine list in this thread, it shows their are many more of the later bearing type that have seized vs the earlier type (although absolute numbers are still small. Look under the main bearing failure lists).

**************
Moved radiantm3 & JShow to likely mains failure list.
Corrected grantwoodOK's listing mis labelled under luvyrteeth.
Added 11 to lists from the UK m3cutters list updates.
(note to self, un-determined list all rechecked, relevant PMs/thread bumps done).

Assimilator1 wrote

I've not read there new report yet, but my understanding beforehand was that it was to be based on the bearings from my engine, which did not show direct metal gouging* like that shell does, is that the photo that came with that article? It looks to me like the wrong photo, and it certainly isn't one of my bearings. *but they are missing much of the babbitt. I was also under the understanding that they would make it clear that, that part of conclusion is based just on just my single set of shells. Like I said though, I haven't read it yet. [edit] Ok I've now read there article, that photo you posted is not from that article, at least the one I read just now (2-3-2024, 11:20 GMT). If you got that photo somewhere else (you need to make that clear really, and separate it from the quoted article), that damage is not what they are talking about, they are talking about the damage shown in the photo in figure 1 (which does appear to be one of my shells, no5 upper I think, or one that has worn in an identical way). Remember that Mahle is one of the major companies that makes bearings for a whole host of engine manufactures.

The rod bearing photo is only an example given to illustrate the failure mode and taken from this very same thread here: https://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=29218232&postcount=2615

How is (was) anybody to know the MAHLE report conclusion is based on your set of shells? Including me? I don't care much if MAHLE makes bearings for engine makers. However, for clarity I will edit my post and link to the source of the photo. I don't have to do this. I am doing this only because you asked. PS: The possessive case of the personal pronoun is spelled 'their' and not 'there' - as in 'their new report'.

Assimilator1 wrote

I've not read there new report yet, but my understanding beforehand was that it was to be based on the bearings from my engine, which did not show direct metal gouging* like that shell does, is that the photo that came with that article? It looks to me like the wrong photo, and it certainly isn't one of my bearings.
*but they are missing much of the babbitt.

I was also under the understanding that they would make it clear that, that part of conclusion is based just on just my single set of shells.
Like I said though, I haven't read it yet.
[edit] Ok I've now read there article, that photo you posted is not from that article, at least the one I read just now (2-3-2024, 11:20 GMT).
If you got that photo somewhere else (you need to make that clear really, and separate it from the quoted article), that damage is not what they are talking about, they are talking about the damage shown in the photo in figure 1 (which does appear to be one of my shells, no5 upper I think, or one that has worn in an identical way).

Remember that Mahle is one of the major companies that makes bearings for a whole host of engine manufactures.

One thing though, I utterly disagree with this statement of there's though - "bronze exposure does not mean the
bearings are worn-out,...", from what I remember from way back at college learning agricultural engineering and then later with motor vehicles, to more importantly what I've read by the bearing manufactures more recently, that statement of there is completely wrong. I'll need to dig out there guides again and then ask PaulGros about this.



Not the S85, as I believe they finished production before the lead bearings were phased out.
It is relevant though to S65s from about 2010 on, which had the tin/alu/copper bearings, it could well be that those bearings aren't as superficially worn (when pulled) as some of us (including me) thought.
Additionally, with the the recent updates I've done to my blown engine list in this thread, it shows their are many more of the later bearing type that have seized vs the earlier type (although absolute numbers are still small. Look under the main bearing failure lists).

**************
Moved radiantm3 & JShow to likely mains failure list.
Corrected grantwoodOK's listing mis labelled under luvyrteeth.
(note to self, un-determined list all rechecked, relevant PMs/thread bumps done).

Yes the bearing picture is one of yours, I asked they specifically use one of them as a "real life" example. The information is not just from your bearings, however. They have more historic examples showing the exact same issue in their internal database. It's a fair assumption these are from OEM reports / inspections as MAHLE have never sold the bearing in the aftermarket. They also have utilised the extensive testing data they have available from the OEM development. Again, this cannot be disclosed as it will be covered by a non disclosure agreement with BMW.

The assumption of bronze being exposed = failure would be accurate in bearings using a nickel barrier layer (dam). The assumption by many was that this is the case with the OEM bearings. For the 088 / 089 bearings it is not correct, they have no nickel barrier. Here’s a quote (granted not a technical paper, but easier to digest!) from https://www.highpowermedia.com/Archive/lead-free-bearings

Combining lead with indium or copper (to add strength), however, made it possible to accept high peak loads; the loads would be reacted by the presence of the oil film, but if this broke down then any friction generated would melt the lead, taking heat away from the area, and the molten lead would be smeared to a position elsewhere in the bearing, giving up its heat back to the lubricant flowing past and re-solidifying. The result would be a redistribution of the load (I think this is a typo and should read LEAD) in the bearing, a situation often referred to as ‘bedding-in’. Under such conditions the presence of lead was ideal, for not only did it make the bearing shape eventually conform to that required, it also made seizure of the journal most unlikely, even under the most adverse conditions.


Both lead / tin and led / indium overlays recover in this way. Now, here's the difference. Bearings without the nickel barrier (dam) will potentially show copper in this situation. Bearings with a nickel barrier (dam) will not as the melting point of nickel is approx. 1,400 degrees C vs lead approx. 320 degrees C, Indium approx. 150 degrees C and Tin approx. 230 degrees C

So for the bearings with a nickel barrier to "show copper" there needs to be an abrasive environment, which is normally catastrophic or temperatures over 1,400 degrees - but then you would have a bigger problem :-)

So basically no nickel barrier will show bronze (copper) and bearings with a nickel barrier (dam) will show nickel which is a similar colour to the overlay (with a hint of yellow / gold). Both bearings are "worn" the same, one is obvious, the other isn't.

In short, in any analysis the bearing construction & material needs to be considered as all materials will present differently. For example, I understand the darkening of the overlay material on the Glyco bearings is in line with how Glyco expect the material to react.

if your data is accurate on seizures (I'm not questioning, I just haven't analysed it). It also supports the conclusion. Copper showing on bearings with no nickel barrier are preferential to bearings with overlay damage exposing nickel due to the tribological properties of each material.

As side note with the mention of agriculture college, I've got a sample bearing on my desk from an agri application that doesn't use overlay, just steel backing and bronze. I've also took seminars at motor vehicle & agri colleges - wasn't my most enjoyable experience with some of the students!

DrFerry wrote

The rod bearing photo is only an example given to illustrate the failure mode and taken from this very same thread here: https://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=29218232&postcount=2615

How is (was) anybody to know the MAHLE report conclusion is based on your set of shells? Including me? I don't care much if MAHLE makes bearings for engine makers. However, for clarity I will edit my post and link to the source of the photo. I don't have to do this. I am doing this only because you asked. PS: The possessive case of the personal pronoun is spelled 'their' and not 'there' - as in 'their new report'.

I always get there and their mixed up! Lol, thanks for the correction .

No one would know that they are my shells, that wasn't the main point (I just mentioned that as a point of interest), the main point was that you posted a pic of a shell with very different damage to the photo of (my) shell in their report, but the way you inserted it into your post made it look very much like it was in their report. So hence their discussion is of (my) shell that was wiped, not scored like the one in the photo you provided.
Thanks for correcting that, it was just misleading, that's why I asked.

DrFerry wrote

This might explain why other previous M models also suffered from rod bearing failures.
.
Why Do S54 Rod Bearings Fail? A Guide for BMW E46 M3 Owners
https://m3list.com/why-do-s54-rod-bearings-fail-a-guide-for-bmw-e46-m3-owners

My understanding is that BMW recalled all these vehicles and the solution was new bearings and a change to 10w/60 oil spec which gives a greater oil film thickness, in particular at high engine speeds. I'm sure I've got the original BMW bulletin somewhere...

So why wasn't this action also done for the S65 if it is the same?

As a side note, has any legal action ever been taken in the US regarding this? Not wishing to stereotype, but isn't this the sort of thing lawyers would be all over? Its a genuine question, being in the UK legal action is somewhat different to my understanding (which could be wrong!) of how it is in the US.

jvictormp wrote

There's a consideration before that should be highlighted:

Or wouldn't that be applied to the s65/s85 bearings?

It doesn't apply to the early OEM bearings as they have no nickel barrier layer due to the material / construction i.e. no tin in the overlay.

It does apply to other aftermarket bearings (maybe not King SV material upper bearing, but certainly King CP material lower bearing) and the later OE bearings. You can make the assumption that if the overlay contains tin, there will be a nickel barrier (dam)

Sneaky Pete wrote

You get that the S65 OEM RB clearance was perfectly in line with previous M models. Making the whole tight bearing clearance story BS.

it's raining in the UK - what's that got to do with BMW bearings?

It means the car work I'd planned to do can't happen and instead I'm compiling often repeated claims and facts (with references) on the subject of S65 / S85 bearings :-)

It's fair to say there is more BS than fact on this subject.

PaulGros
I follow you about the nickel barrier with the tin bearings, and that 'grinding' through the high meting point nickel would give catastrophic damage long before you hit copper, I wasn't arguing that.
What I do strongly disagree with though is this statement by Mahle :-

Therefore, under the most extreme operating regimes the lead-bronze substrate may
eventually become exposed. On lead-indium bearings, the greenish-grey copper-
indium intermetallic will initially appear followed by the copper colour of the lead-
bronze substrate, both have excellent tribological properties and will arrest the wear
whilst allowing continued safe operation. So, bronze exposure does not mean the
bearings are worn-out....

That is wrong, this is what I was referring to from my ancient days at college, lol, and reading articles from the bearing manufactures over the past few years, I have a sneaking feeling that includes Mahle too!
But I'm not sure offhand and I will need to read through the articles/guides again.
I get what you're saying that copper has a lower melting point than nickel, but I know I've read that copper (I mean bronze really) is much harder than lead and is prone to galling, leading onto seizure (or spinning, like the photo that DrFerry posted).
So a bearing that has copper exposed (at least significantly), is worn out!
Of course now I'm going to have to find those articles that proves my point , I'll be back on that sometime soon.

Interesting that you have a bearing that has no babbit, just the bronze, is that by chance a very old bearing? Presumeably the risk of those picking up was higher, and that's why they added lead etc later on?
Re seminars at agric and MV colleges, yea I bet they weren't the easiest! lol. Did you ever go to Rycotewood college or Guildford Tech?

Assimilator1 wrote

PaulGros
I follow you about the nickel barrier with the tin bearings, and that 'grinding' through the high meting point nickel would give catastrophic damage long before you hit copper, I wasn't arguing that.
What I do strongly disagree with though is this statement by Mahle :-

Therefore, under the most extreme operating regimes the lead-bronze substrate may
eventually become exposed. On lead-indium bearings, the greenish-grey copper-
indium intermetallic will initially appear followed by the copper colour of the lead-
bronze substrate, both have excellent tribological properties and will arrest the wear
whilst allowing continued safe operation. So, bronze exposure does not mean the
bearings are worn-out....

That is wrong, this is what I was referring to from my ancient days at college, lol, and reading articles from the bearing manufactures over the past few years, I have a sneaking feeling that includes Mahle too!
But I'm not sure offhand and I will need to read through the articles/guides again.
I get what you're saying that copper has a lower melting point than nickel, but I know I've read that copper (I mean bronze really) is much harder than lead and is prone to galling, leading onto seizure (or spinning, like the photo that DrFerry posted).
So a bearing that has copper exposed (at least significantly), is worn out!
Of course now I'm going to have to find those articles that proves my point , I'll be back on that sometime soon.

Interesting that you have a bearing that has no babbit, just the bronze, is that by chance a very old bearing? Presumeably the risk of those picking up was higher, and that's why they added lead etc later on?
Re seminars at agric and MV colleges, yea I bet they weren't the easiest! lol. Did you ever go to Rycotewood college or Guildford Tech?

For sure, I would NEVER reuse a bearing that had bronze (copper) exposed.

Bronze is bearing material with good tribological properties (small end bushes and thrust washers for example). The overlay gives more soft phase properties to the bearing to improve embeddability, lead based overlays also give the opportunity for the oil film to recover in marginal lubrication situations preventing failure. It does this, as referenced by melting and moving heat away from the area.

There are many failure mode publications - MAHLE, KS, Federal Mogul etc. When reading them please remember one point. Only two companies utilise lead indium overlay, Glacier Vandervell & Daido. Most publications are written and document lead tin copper bearings.

Have a search for articles on lead indium overlay, there are some out there that you don't have to for. The main use originally was for high performance aero and race engines. Cost implications mean it was only ever specified in high performance production engines. A few that spring to mind are the RS Cosworth, Ford BDA (same bearing used in the DFV Formula One Engine!) and many Ferrari engines. I'm sure there are more, I just can't remember them :-)

And yes, the bearing with no overlay is an old agri application - possibly Perkins? I'm not even sure why I have it! Maybe an old sample I've used when talking about engine technology developments in a previous life :-)

Sneaky Pete wrote

You get that the S65 OEM RB clearance was perfectly in line with previous M models. Making the whole tight bearing clearance story BS.

DrFerry wrote

This might explain why other previous M models also suffered from rod bearing failures.

I was thinking more that the S65 engine has a pretty standard rod bearing clearance, the same as generations of previous M engines, in line with other manufacturers and the famous Clevite white paper.

Once you realise that the tight clearance theory is false then all the supporting data that followed it cannot be trusted either.
You might wonder why the idea was pressed forward so strongly in the first place...for that you just have to follow the money.

Its not that the fitting of extra clearance bearings is risk free either. Extra clearance allows oil to flow out of the rod bearings much more easily, this affects oil pressure, specifically the oil pressure upstream at the main bearings.
It may be just coincidental that main bearing failures became much more prevalent after the increased clearance bearings came onto the market but I suspect that it is not.

Sneaky Pete wrote

I was thinking more that the S65 engine has a pretty standard rod bearing clearance, the same as generations of previous M engines, in line with other manufacturers and the famous Clevite white paper.

Once you realise that the tight clearance theory is false then all the supporting data that followed it cannot be trusted either.
You might wonder why the idea was pressed forward so strongly in the first place...for that you just have to follow the money.

Its not that the fitting of extra clearance bearings is risk free either. Extra clearance allows oil to flow out of the rod bearings much more easily, this affects oil pressure, specifically the oil pressure upstream at the main bearings.
It may be just coincidental that main bearing failures became much more prevalent after the increased clearance bearings came onto the market but I suspect that it is not.

As the S65 uses a variable oil pump I would suspect that this would not be an issue. My bigger concerns would be that larger clearances increase oil film pressure and also increase the possibility of cavitation damage to the overlay.

I'm referring here specifically to extra clearance over the same manufacturers standard parts, Clevite / ACL HX bearings for example. I think it has already been established that pretty much all aftermarket parts are in the same ball park for clearances when production tolerances are considered. All are specifying a marginally larger clearance to OE BMW. This is to be expected as all aftermarket parts are a single grade (V's OEM 2 grades) so it would be normal to adjust clearances marginally to ensure the single grade part stays within specification.

In short, ANY of the available solutions will work. So choose based on material spec, price, availability favourite brand etc. based on your own research. Ultimately these are the differences between available parts, not clearance specs.

PaulGros wrote

As the S65 uses a variable oil pump I would suspect that this would not be an issue..

In simple terms sure...but even BE admitted that fitting their extra clearance bearings has an negative effect on oil pressure.
How much the increased flow out of the rod bearings might affect the service life of the upstream main bearings would not be something that is especially easy to measure given the complexities of fluid dynamics.
Anecdotal reports of increasing numbers of main bearing failures since the extra clearance bearings came onto the market does paint a slightly worrying picture.
How much that ought to concern anyone I guess depends on how risk averse they are.

Sneaky Pete wrote

Anecdotal reports of increasing numbers of main bearing failures since the extra clearance bearings came onto the market does paint a slightly worrying picture.
How much that ought to concern anyone I guess depends on how risk averse they are.

Fairly regular on the forums and haven't seen much about mains failing and even less where after market RBs where installed. I'd appreciate your guidance/links to these Pete.

Helmsman wrote

Fairly regular on the forums and haven't seen much about mains failing and even less where after market RBs where installed. I'd appreciate your guidance/links to these Pete.

Assimilator1 has a list of engine failures but waiting on them being sorted and categorised hopefully on a spreadsheet.
In the period to the beginning of 2016 there were zero USA cars noted with main bearing failure in the list of failures I curated...noting I had no motive to conceal any main bearing failures there just weren't any reported.
A quick check of the current list of failures puts the count at ~27.