Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[aussiem3]

I have been observing the start up temp and the time it takes for the car to show the oil levels, through my performance steering V1. Despite the ambient temp being around 35 Celsius (95 Fahrenheit), the clock on the instrument cluster comes on only when the oil temp is 87 Celsius (189 Fahrenheit) and then the level shows up at 98 Celsius (208 Fahrenheit). Has anyone got a theory as to why 87? This observation is over two weeks now.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

I have been observing the start up temp and the time it takes for the car to show the oil levels, through my performance steering V1. Despite the ambient temp being around 35 Celsius (95 Fahrenheit), the clock on the instrument cluster comes on only when the oil temp is 87 Celsius (189 Fahrenheit) and then the level shows up at 98 Celsius (208 Fahrenheit). Has anyone got a theory as to why 87? This observation is over two weeks now.

I would think that 87C is the temp the ECM considers safe to use full operating RPM. I am happy with above 85C oil temp to start using higher RPM and higher load! ~98C is most likely what the ECM considers normal operating temp hence the oil reading being done at that temp!

[Cool Steel]

Okay we established bearing and connecting rod clearance is a big problem so ... maybe a dumb question:

What about contributing factors like for instance:
The oil pickup, oil galleries and lines on the engines that went boom? Could this be a contributing factor on why the oil starvation beyond the clearance?

Also
Can someone also explain they oil filter location to me. I am assuming that this is a full flow filter system ( the entire output of the pump goes through the filter) why is the oil filter in such a high location? I'm used to them down by the sump....why does the pump have to overcome gravity?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Thebrain

For someone who seems to push a lot of data to back the bearing issue, you did not answer my question. Even in general, how can a true design flaw not cause the vast majority of product to fail similarly if indeed the design flaw is as severe as is being suggested? 10 failed m3's? Out of 50k. Negligible. Most cars Benvo sees certainly has mods or has been driven hard so that explains that maybe but even then I I would like a general explanation of how a drastic design flaw does not effect thousands of m3's out of 50k m3's built?

I can only speak for myself and nobody else when I say this. I think calling the bearing clearance issue a design flaw is too strong. I've never called it that for a few reasons. Primarily, I don't like saying things I can't prove, and since I could never prove a design flaw...I wouldn't really say that. I've always said 99+% of all cars will be fine. As for the severity of the problem, I think that's up for each individual to decide.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Cool Steel

Okay we established bearing and connecting rod clearance is a big problem so ... maybe a dumb question:

What about contributing factors like for instance:
The oil pickup, oil galleries and lines on the engines that went boom? Could this be a contributing factor on why the oil starvation beyond the clearance?

Also
Can someone also explain they oil filter location to me. I am assuming that this is a full flow filter system ( the entire output of the pump goes through the filter) why is the oil filter in such a high location? I'm used to them down by the sump....why does the pump have to overcome gravity?

Yes, the full oil pump feeds the filter housing and oil cooler. I'm not sure which order. When the oil comes back into the same housing, it feeds directly to the bottom of the "V" into a cylindrical channel. The piston oil squirters get a direct feed from this channel. From there, the oil goes up to the heads and down to the crank before dropping back into the sump. The location of the filter housing is very well placed IMO.

[Cool Steel]

Originally Posted by Thebrain

For someone who seems to push a lot of data to back the bearing issue, you did not answer my question. Even in general, how can a true design flaw not cause the vast majority of product to fail similarly if indeed the design flaw is as severe as is being suggested? 10 failed m3's? Out of 50k. Negligible. Most cars Benvo sees certainly has mods or has been driven hard so that explains that maybe but even then I I would like a general explanation of how a drastic design flaw does not effect thousands of m3's out of 50k m3's built?

Playing devils advocate:

I would think that since this is a clearance issue and more related to wear overtime, that its effects on each car would be different and the time horizons different also. This would not not cause immediate damage to all cars and it is a young engine of 5.5 years old right? Will the problems increase from here on out? Plus like you mentioned 50k cars,... what if there have been many more failures that we are not aware of? BMW is certainly not advertising it. Also, there are many owners who don't know what that tapping noise is, or if its a big deal or not. They have no idea and don't even take it in for service..however the damage is taking place and perhaps the outcome is in the future? Remember, from what I have read, this would not be the first time that BMW made mistakes in their engine design. So its shouldn't be hard to believe that they did it again.

I have realized that this is not something to panic about, probability is low for now. However, everyone who actually read the research that regularguy and others did, now are no longer ignorant to this issue. We understand the clearance issue and know the symptoms. If we come across this issue we now have the ammunition and understanding to debate this with BMW.

There really is no way to confirm the actual culprit for the engine damages but there is something amiss in BMW S65 land and this clearance issue has a high probability of being the main or at least a major contributor to the problem. Those who are fighting to prove regular guy wrong are fighting the wrong person. We should all be going to BMW for answers not shooting the messenger.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Cool Steel

I have realized that this is not something to panic about, but instead all those who have read the research by regular guy etc now understand and have a better idea of what is going on inside, a high probability culprit in the clearance and know the symptoms. If we come across this issue we are no longer ignorant to this issue and we now have the ammunition and understanding to debate this with BMW when and if the time comes.

This makes me wonder the following. Suppose one of the octane guys blows his motor 50 miles after his warranty expires. The motor blew by throwing a rod out the side of the block and owner picks up the pieces and finds that the connecting rod big end is blue. Which is going to be more likely from the guy who doesn't believe that these clearances are an issue:

The guy stays silent and pays for his own motor believing that the mere presence of low octane gas in his country is the most likely cause of his blown motor and blue connecting rod.

OR

The guy goes into BMW and says "you bastards, we all know you have too little oil clearance and this is well documented and I can point you to the articles and proof. I really think you should replace my motor under a good will gesture."

BTW, I have more piston photos and the eccentricity measurements. But posting it will take some time.

[Thebrain]

well the s85 engine is almost 10 years old and the M3 engine is more than 7 years old in production.

The HPFP issue in the 335 was apparent in year 1 or 2. That was a true design flaw.

If the clearance is not a design flaw, than what do you call it? Isnt it an acceptable number of failed cars out of 50k cars that it can be explained by simply cars that fell out of spec? Every automaker has cars that have an issue or two that occurs "commonly" or atleast common enough to have multiple people posting on the internet about it.

I still continue to not believe just because you open a well running engine and find bearing wear, that is to say the engine would not have gone strong for many miles past 100k. I think most people would say a high-revving 4 L NA engine churning out 104 hp/litre that makes it past 120k miles is about as good as one can expect. We cant expect this engine to last like every other non-m bmw motor but even those have problems at some point.

To me swamp makes the most sense. BMW have been using these kind of tight clearances for a long-time. You also cant criticize their use of 10w60 compared to other cars with tight clearances because you don't know what kind of temperatures those cars ran, how high did they rev (related to engine temps being higher in higher revving engine) and more heat in general likely near the bearings that is not even communicated to engine oil tempe guage, meaning perhaps the s65 runs at a hotter temperature and even more hot near the points that experience high strain during 8400 rpm runs, which means any oil near the bearings may be hotter than another engine with the same clearance running 10w30 but running 30 degrees cooler and revving to 7k rpms for example.

I think it sounds like a very naïve statement for the experts here to make statements such as this clearance should have thinner oil and compare it to other cars which run thinner oil without having to account for typical operating temperature when pushing the car hard, which the car is designed for as well as a more accurate temperature of the oil near the bearings vs other cars with tight clearances that probably need thinner oil as its not as hot potentially. I don't know this data but nobody seems to point this out and to me its all important in the mix of trying to say bmw engineers are stupid for not knowing you cant use a heavy oil with tight clearances. I am pretty sure they get the general concepts.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Thebrain

well the s85 engine is almost 10 years old and the M3 engine is more than 7 years old in production.

The HPFP issue in the 335 was apparent in year 1 or 2. That was a true design flaw.

If the clearance is not a design flaw, than what do you call it? Isnt it an acceptable number of failed cars out of 50k cars that it can be explained by simply cars that fell out of spec? Every automaker has cars that have an issue or two that occurs "commonly" or atleast common enough to have multiple people posting on the internet about it.

I still continue to not believe just because you open a well running engine and find bearing wear, that is to say the engine would not have gone strong for many miles past 100k. I think most people would say a high-revving 4 L NA engine churning out 104 hp/litre that makes it past 120k miles is about as good as one can expect. We cant expect this engine to last like every other non-m bmw motor but even those have problems at some point.

To me swamp makes the most sense. BMW have been using these kind of tight clearances for a long-time. You also cant criticize their use of 10w60 compared to other cars with tight clearances because you don't know what kind of temperatures those cars ran, how high did they rev (related to engine temps being higher in higher revving engine) and more heat in general likely near the bearings that is not even communicated to engine oil tempe guage, meaning perhaps the s65 runs at a hotter temperature and even more hot near the points that experience high strain during 8400 rpm runs, which means any oil near the bearings may be hotter than another engine with the same clearance running 10w30 but running 30 degrees cooler and revving to 7k rpms for example.

I think it sounds like a very nave statement for the experts here to make statements such as this clearance should have thinner oil and compare it to other cars which run thinner oil without having to account for typical operating temperature when pushing the car hard, which the car is designed for as well as a more accurate temperature of the oil near the bearings vs other cars with tight clearances that probably need thinner oil as its not as hot potentially. I don't know this data but nobody seems to point this out and to me its all important in the mix of trying to say bmw engineers are stupid for not knowing you cant use a heavy oil with tight clearances. I am pretty sure they get the general concepts.

FYI, the S65 doesn't run excessively high oil temps and the 10W60 is not necessary.

10W60 with 0.001" of clearance is just plain stupid. All other manufacturers running tight clearances have switched to 0W20 or 5W20 oils and they are not having bearing issues...... Who is wrong? BMW or the others? On top of this the bearing manufacturers themselves are stating in their technical information that tighter clearances than 0.001" per inch of journal diameter should be paired up with lower viscosity oils!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Thebrain

If the clearance is not a design flaw, than what do you call it? Isnt it an acceptable number of failed cars out of 50k cars that it can be explained by simply cars that fell out of spec? Every automaker has cars that have an issue or two that occurs "commonly" or atleast common enough to have multiple people posting on the internet about it.

Yes, and it's called tolerance stack up. And that's exactly the hypothesis I've described in my main article.

I still continue to not believe just because you open a well running engine and find bearing wear, that is to say the engine would not have gone strong for many miles past 100k. I think most people would say a high-revving 4 L NA engine churning out 104 hp/litre that makes it past 120k miles is about as good as one can expect. We cant expect this engine to last like every other non-m bmw motor but even those have problems at some point.

To me swamp makes the most sense. BMW have been using these kind of tight clearances for a long-time. You also cant criticize their use of 10w60 compared to other cars with tight clearances because you don't know what kind of temperatures those cars ran, how high did they rev (related to engine temps being higher in higher revving engine) and more heat in general likely near the bearings that is not even communicated to engine oil tempe guage, meaning perhaps the s65 runs at a hotter temperature and even more hot near the points that experience high strain during 8400 rpm runs, which means any oil near the bearings may be hotter than another engine with the same clearance running 10w30 but running 30 degrees cooler and revving to 7k rpms for example.

I think it sounds like a very naïve statement for the experts here to make statements such as this clearance should have thinner oil and compare it to other cars which run thinner oil without having to account for typical operating temperature when pushing the car hard, which the car is designed for as well as a more accurate temperature of the oil near the bearings vs other cars with tight clearances that probably need thinner oil as its not as hot potentially. I don't know this data but nobody seems to point this out and to me its all important in the mix of trying to say bmw engineers are stupid for not knowing you cant use a heavy oil with tight clearances. I am pretty sure they get the general concepts.

By chance do you happen to drive a black M3 with about 65,000 miles? I think we may have met before.

[MFL]

I still have yet to see anyone post pictures of their rod bearings in perfect condition...

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

We are up to 45 pages and we can't seem to agree on the cause nor are we close to a solution.

We are all wasting our time, including me, just adding fuel to an argument that's not going any where in a hurry. But it is all good and interesting reading and shows the kind of expertise, knowledge and experience we have on this board. My 2c.

It is a great read, who knew there was so much to learn about rod bearings?
And it seems such a persuasive argument:
High S85 rod bearing wear/failure rate and a high S65 rod bearing wear/failure rate. What would be more logical than to blame the rod bearing clearance...Add in lots of theory and pictures and its a done deal. There was some dissent based on the thought that BMW simply couldn't be that stupid but the steamroller had a good head of steam and most everyone else was onboard including me.
That was until Yellow Snow asked a key question which nearly passed by unnoticed. "What could account for the fact that there are there no reported failures in the UK"? And after some thought I tentatively suggested fuel.
So there you go...this whole low octane/detonation nonsense is down to Snow.
Unless of course it turns out to be right in which case I'm claiming full bragging rights and that Snow bloke had nothing to do with it.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by jcolley

Is there something different about the fuel between the UK and the rest of the EU? There have been numerous problems in Germany and one of the M5Board members changes bearings in 2 cars/weekend on average. He's the one who really brought it to our attention in the S85 community.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...tures-s85.html

Sorry I've only just got round to reading that link (past the first page).
I speed read (so I may have missed some detail) the thread and I have to admit to thinking the German OP is a bit sketchy. Pictures of an S85 engine stood on a wooden pallet and on bricks in a farm shed is not inspiring confidence. The rate that he asserts he is repairing S85/65s would indicate several hundreds (or even thousands) of failures worldwide. And of course it should be noted that his "friend" who is fixing 2 engines a week apparently works for BMW and it can be assumed that the engines he is receiving are those returned to BMW on an exchange basis for units replaced in the field (worldwide). That as well would indicate 100 S85 engines being replaced every year.
Does that fit with what you know?...because when I keyworld search for S85 engine failures, apart from this guy I don't find very many at all.
Of the engines failures that you can be absolutely certain of, do you have an idea of how many come from outside the USA?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Reading the piston would be a bit difficult without knowing how the car was ran right before it was shut off. Idling for extended periods/a cold start with full enrichment just before the engine was torn down can cloud the reading on the piston. From the photos I have seen, no pistons pictured show signs of detonation, and the resolution of the photos was pretty good. An up close examination of the parts would be nice to confirm this, but I suspect the same conclusion would be drawn.

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the deposits on the piston crown look (to me) more permanent than that which you might expect from a cold start or idling. I would have thought that the way the area free of carbon blends into the heavier areas of deposits in the centre of the crown indicates poor combustion.
And lastly the rough surface appearance of the deposits on all the pistons gives the impression of being subject to micro pitting.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

The Confirmed Results:[/SIZE]
We confirmed the following results with the used bearings (same bearings removed from the engine with the same crankshaft). Keep in mind, these are the exact bearings that came out of this engine. This is what the clearance measured on the running engine with 30,000 miles.



Notice Cylinder #3 and Cylinder #4. These two are at the opposite ends of the clearance spectrum. As a verification process, we swapped the bearings between these two rods, retorqued them to factory specifications, and took the measurements again. This would guarantee whether or not we had an anomaly with rod journal bore, or bearing thickness. Our measurements after swapping the bearings showed the same exact values and proved the rod bearing bore and not bearing thickness was causing these clearance variances.

In our next test, we replaced the Cylinder #4 rod with a brand new factory bearing. We re-torqued and remeasured. Then using our measurements, generated this table of clearances as if all cylinders had new bearings.



Still using Crank #1, next we tested Carrillo connecting rods and another set of used bearings. This test is much less scientific than the previous one, but it provides a good cross reference to see if the Carrillo's have a similar bore size variance as the factory connecting rods. Since the Carrillo rod bolts are different, we made sure to follow the Carrillo torque specifications and use the exact thread/head lubricant they recommended.



For completeness and redundancy, here's the same measurements with Crankshaft #2.

As a matter of interest. Take a look at the crank sizes from Reg Guys first page post.

Two used cranks from random cars which could have possibly been manufactured over a few years span and both with different mileages

Biggest journal is 2.04660" and smallest being 2.04650. (exactly the same size as the S85 crank that I measured myself). That's an incredible standard of engineering. Just one tenth of a thou! (.0001") difference!

If anyone is doubting BMW tolerance stack ups, take a look at the figures as an indication of the BMW M engineering standards

I also note that the Carillo rods are tighter than OEM.

[SenorFunkyPants]

From page 1 of this thread.
Compare this set of bearings.....

1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8

With this set of bearings:



Set 1 is from a supercharged S65 stroker motor after after 24,000 miles.
Set 2: is from a stock 2008 S65 engine with 30000 Miles.

Both sets show upper bearing wear caused during the combustion cycle.
What stands out is that the supercharged motor shows far less wear than the stock car...this is surely contrary to expected as the increase in CR and HP should cause significantly higher loads on the bearings during the combustion cycle of the supercharged motor.

[Cool Steel]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

FYI, the S65 doesn't run excessively high oil temps and the 10W60 is not necessary.

10W60 with 0.001" of clearance is just plain stupid. All other manufacturers running tight clearances have switched to 0W20 or 5W20 oils and they are not having bearing issues...... Who is wrong? BMW or the others? On top of this the bearing manufacturers themselves are stating in their technical information that tighter clearances than 0.001" per inch of journal diameter should be paired up with lower viscosity oils!

If you don't want to believe guys with real world experience like this ^ than you can believe BMW:

http://biser3a.com/cars/audi-and-bmw...failures-rate/

The difference? BMW is profit oriented, guys on this forum are simply showing the facts. No profit motivation...

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/05/b...astrophic-eng/

Cmon BMW is not perfect by any means....I think everyone is fighting the data because they cant believe that BMW would screw up like this. Well it appears they have and do.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

From page 1 of this thread.
Compare this set of bearings.....



With this set of bearings:



Set 1 is from a supercharged S65 stroker motor after after 24,000 miles.
Set 2: is from a stock 2008 S65 engine with 30000 Miles.

Both sets show upper bearing wear caused during the combustion cycle.
What stands out is that the supercharged motor shows far less wear than the stock car...this is surely contrary to expected as the increase in CR and HP should cause significantly higher loads on the bearings during the combustion cycle of the supercharged motor.

Unfortunately the bearings on the supercharged motor been discarded, and the data recording the individual journal sizes before they were machined has been lost. But I say this with absolute certainty about that motor: it never saw anything less than 91 octane...EVER!

[Thebrain]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

FYI, the S65 doesn't run excessively high oil temps and the 10W60 is not necessary.

10W60 with 0.001" of clearance is just plain stupid. All other manufacturers running tight clearances have switched to 0W20 or 5W20 oils and they are not having bearing issues...... Who is wrong? BMW or the others? On top of this the bearing manufacturers themselves are stating in their technical information that tighter clearances than 0.001" per inch of journal diameter should be paired up with lower viscosity oils!

So bmw engineers on the last 3 most epic M cars were "just plain stupid" Don't you think you lose credibility with statements like that? Reading the thread don't you work on diesel tractor engines? Low revving turbo diesel engines with no spark plugs at all, yet you are an expert on a high spinning, NA gasoline engines with spark plugs, therefore not sure how you are an expert at reading plugs as well as noted earlier in the thread I saw your comment.

I for one think that the e46 m3, e60 m5 and e92 m3 were the 3 best or 3 of the best ever performance sedans in history, so if that means bmw engineers are "Just plain stupid" than so be it. If being not stupid and being "plain smart" mean you fix diesel tractors, than I would rather be stupid and a bmw engineer.

To each his own argument I guess but credibility really suffers from this poster.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

From page 1 of this thread.
Compare this set of bearings.....



With this set of bearings:



Set 1 is from a supercharged S65 stroker motor after after 24,000 miles.
Set 2: is from a stock 2008 S65 engine with 30000 Miles.

Both sets show upper bearing wear caused during the combustion cycle.
What stands out is that the supercharged motor shows far less wear than the stock car...this is surely contrary to expected as the increase in CR and HP should cause significantly higher loads on the bearings during the combustion cycle of the supercharged motor.

The Engine from the SC'ed car has Carillo H-Beam rods in it and I am quite sure that is the reason the bearings are in so much better shape than the stock engine. I have noticed this before but didn't want to add another issue to this thread.

Honestly though, in my opinion the OEM fractured rods big end bore is not staying round under load. In some other bearing photos there are signs of the rod bore not being round....... the one that sticks out in my mind is the one that everyone was jumping on that looked the worse out of the set but had the highest clearance. Couple the distortion of the big end bore with the tight clearance and it gets even worse. I think any person wanting to properly address the issue with their S65 should put a better rod in the car along with adjusting the clearances to something a bit more sensible.

The S65 is a great engine and the design of the crank, block, and heads is beautiful but there are just a few things that need to be addressed. I will be having a Stroker built for my car and every weak point of the engine will be addressed: clearances will be adjusted, Carillo H-Beam rods used, upgraded valve springs installed, and, some schrick cams will be put in for a bit of extra power! The whole process with photos of the parts and measurements will be posted on here. I would love to build it myself but unfortunately no one close to my area has the equipment to bore an Alusil block....... Since shipping the block to Dinan and back for machine work would be a little bit of a task, Van Dyne engineering will be building my engine with Dinan doing the machine work and regular guy overseeing the entire project for me. Also, since my engine will have fairly low mileage on it Regular guy will be measuring and taking photos of my old parts. I can assure you guys that my car always got 91 octane or higher and was always completely warmed up before any high RPM or load was placed on it and it seen TWS until about 16000 Miles when I changed to M1 0W40...... I am extremely curious to see the conditions of my bearings when the engine is disassembled.

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

The Engine from the SC'ed car has Carillo H-Beam rods in it and I am quite sure that is the reason the bearings are in so much better shape than the stock engine. I have noticed this before but didn't want to add another issue to this thread.

Honestly though, in my opinion the OEM fractured rods big end bore is not staying round under load. In some other bearing photos there are signs of the rod bore not being round....... the one that sticks out in my mind is the one that everyone was jumping on that looked the worse out of the set but had the highest clearance. Couple the distortion of the big end bore with the tight clearance and it gets even worse. I think any person wanting to properly address the issue with their S65 should put a better rod in the car along with adjusting the clearances to something a bit more sensible.

The S65 is a great engine and the design of the crank, block, and heads is beautiful but there are just a few things that need to be addressed. I will be having a Stroker built for my car and every weak point of the engine will be addressed: clearances will be adjusted, Carillo H-Beam rods used, upgraded valve springs installed, and, some schrick cams will be put in for a bit of extra power! The whole process with photos of the parts and measurements will be posted on here. I would love to build it myself but unfortunately no one close to my area has the equipment to bore an Alusil block....... Since shipping the block to Dinan and back for machine work would be a little bit of a task, Van Dyne engineering will be building my engine with Dinan doing the machine work and regular guy overseeing the entire project for me. Also, since my engine will have fairly low mileage on it Regular guy will be measuring and taking photos of my old parts. I can assure you guys that my car always got 91 octane or higher and was always completely warmed up before any high RPM or load was placed on it and it seen TWS until about 16000 Miles when I changed to M1 0W40...... I am extremely curious to see the conditions of my bearings when the engine is disassembled.

Keep us updated

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Unfortunately the bearings on the supercharged motor been discarded, and the data recording the individual journal sizes before they were machined has been lost. But I say this with absolute certainty about that motor: it never saw anything less than 91 octane...EVER!

So the supercharged motor running with much higher bearing loads but displaying far less bearing wear (than the standard motor), coincidentally never used low octane fuel.
Seems like you have come over to the dark side without even realising.