Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Isn't six years enough time already?

And in those six years, how many bearing sets have you seen from stock NA engines that show signs of detonation? If I'm not mistaken, the answer is: ZERO. So if six years isn't enough time to tell, then how much more time is needed before we will know? Let's say it's 10 years. After 10 years, let's say one set of bearings shows up with detonation. Is one set of bearings going to be enough for people to say "see, I told you so?" Sadly, I think for some, the answer is yes...one set of bearings after 10 years will be enough.

I see ..., and you are right in this point of vision !
Needless to say,but our bearing problem is still there and that after 92 pages of pics and talk, i know we need to talk to find a solution for this problem but damn i realy would love to hear....."this"...... is solution for the bearing problem but sadly i can't read it nowhere !
BTW...thanks for the answers and all the efforts in this horror thread
Almost forgot....did you have seen the video of # 5 on this (link to) page and what are you thinking about it ? http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...9#post15529269

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Some people have "mocked the experts" saying they don't work for BMW and don't know why BMW made these design decisions.
...
Now compare those guys with our "so-called experts." Our "so-called experts" are completely independent and don't have a vested interest in lying to you, or covering up for their parent company. When an engine fails, these "so-called experts" have to perform failure analysis on the parts, figure out what caused the failure, and devise a remedy. These "so-called experts" have multiple national and international championships behind their racing teams. This is what they do for a living. This IS their area of expertise. Yet people are very quick to dismiss them because they simply don't work for BMW.

Hopefully I'm not in the category of folk who have mocked anyone here. However, I will continue to disagree with a substantial part of your point here, especially the bold part. It might sound semantic but it really isn't. To me expertise in a highly technical engineering field such as rotating machinery, ICEs and most importantly tribology is just that - it IS engineering. Much of the expertise we have here in this thread appears to come from technicians. Now we can't (and I try not to) underestimate the value and insight from years of hands on experience. That being said it is a very different type of expertise than true engineering expertise. Unfortunately, this is still significantly lacking here...

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Hopefully I'm not in the category of folk who have mocked anyone here. However, I will continue to disagree with a substantial part of your point here, especially the bold part. It might sound semantic but it really isn't. To me expertise in a highly technical engineering field such as rotating machinery, ICEs and most importantly tribology is just that - it IS engineering. Much of the expertise we have here in this thread appears to come from technicians. Now we can't (and I try not to) underestimate the value and insight from years of hands on experience. That being said it is a very different type of expertise than true engineering expertise. Unfortunately, this is still significantly lacking here...

You can label them "just technicians without an engineering degree" if you want. But the one thing you can't take away from them is their hands on experience and knowledge with failure analysis. You don't need an engineering degree to perform failure analysis -- that's where you need real life experience. Though when you find something that doesn't make sense you may need to consult an engineer. So far, I haven't sent these guys much of anything they haven't seen before -- and they're the guys who seem to be matching the empirical evidence with plausible theories. What have the BMW guys contributed to this thread? As far as I can tell, they haven't contributed anything meaningful at all -- and what they've tried to contribute doesn't match the evidence. I'll call it the way I see it. As of now, "so-called experts without engineering degrees" : 100, "BMW experts adding more FUD than correct answers" : 0.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

20-25 years ago in the computer industry the PhD's were the most worthless engineers we had, and the self-taught guy with no degree was the best.

This is one somewhat special and narrowly focused case and is no surprise at all. Come on, computers were/are a near brand new phenomena compared to the fundamentals of mechanical engineering. As such there are near an infinite number which are in stark contrast. Let's abstract that a bit further though. What would computer programmers be up to if it was not first for the physicists working on inventing the semiconductor and the engineers who were able to harness their basic physics and build them into useful devices?

I've been lucky to work with some of the absolutely best computational engineering PhDs in the world and have been utterly in awe of their capabilities, both with formalities and with test and real world experience and validation as well. They did not live in an ivory tower of mathematics in any way shape or form. People are different, degrees are different. I'm not at all saying that to have expertise, one must have a PhD. I'm just saying that this field is incredibly rich with "devil in the details" engineering. And this is why there has been so much completely incorrect information proffered by our resident experts. Here again I'm referring to the loads and dynamics, gas pressure and inertial contributions and how these scale with rpm. This is a key part of this situation and when it is so completely misunderstood it contributes to poor conclusions. In fact your made up specification of clearance ratio divided by redline is just such an example of this. Try to find that specification anywhere in the megabytes of tribology literature...

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by B767capt

Here is a copy and paste from Troy over on the M5board. He sells used S85's and usually puts new bearings in them so he's always looking for supply. This ought to stir the pot.





don't sell them because I would have to mark it up to sell the parts I guess ~ but I am more than happy to help you with finding the parts you need. The list of parts needed is actually really simple, although the 702/703 bearings are on back order as of last Wednesday. I bought the remaining 55 bearing shell sets in the country or so I was told that...lol. Some were from a cali dealer, Vegas dealer, and another set from somewhere in Miami. ;-)

I was told BMW is going to be changing the 702/703 and moving to yet another bearing part # within the next few months, so they are not really focusing on replenishing the inventory in the USA with the current bearings. We shall see soon enough.

Interesting indeed.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

In fact your made up specification of clearance ratio divided by redline is just such an example of this. Try to find that specification anywhere in the megabytes of tribology literature...

Don't lose sight of the fact that I was responding to questions by people who were asking for something exactly like that. It's a bit unfair to fault me for giving people what they wanted and then saying I made it up out of thin air.

BTW, I had regrets writing those comments about the PhD's, so I removed them already.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Needless to say,but our bearing problem is still there and that after 92 pages of pics and talk, i know we need to talk to find a solution for this problem but damn i realy would love to hear....."this"...... is solution for the bearing problem but sadly i can't read it nowhere !

If this 92 page thread convinced me of anything, it is that there is NO bearing problem. The rate of engine failure is so low that I think there is NO justification for drawing any conclusion apart from the fact that you should follow BMW's service protocol so as not to void your warranty. If you choose to mod, you personally absorb the risk of engine failure but that is true for all engines made by all companies.

If there is a single person who still advocates that the S65 engine has a bearing problem, the onus is on that person to provide a shred of evidence that such a claim is true.

Pat

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

If this 92 page thread convinced me of anything, it is that there is NO bearing problem. The rate of engine failure is so low that I think there is NO justification for drawing any conclusion apart from the fact that you should follow BMW's service protocol so as not to void your warranty. If you choose to mod, you personally absorb the risk of engine failure but that is true for all engines made by all companies.

If there is a single person who still advocates that the S65 engine has a bearing problem, the onus is on that person to provide a shred of evidence that such a claim is true.

Pat

Bearings that look like the ones pictured in this thread from street driven cars is a problem, plain and simple.

If I pulled apart an engine with low hours/mileage on it and the bearing shells looked like these, the engine would get completely torn down and clearances measured before it ever went back together! Our reliability engineers would want measurements, photos and old parts for analysis, no questions asked.

You all can think what you want to think, but bearing shells worn through to the copper with under 50k miles is definitely an issue!

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Bearings that look like the ones pictured in this thread from street driven cars is a problem, plain and simple.

If I pulled apart an engine with low hours/mileage on it and the bearing shells looked like these, the engine would get completely torn down and clearances measured before it ever went back together! Our reliability engineers would want measurements, photos and old parts for analysis, no questions asked.

You all can think what you want to think, but bearing shells worn through to the copper with under 50k miles is definitely an issue!

20 failed, non-supercharged engines out of 60,000 built, over 6 years of production. That's what we have been able to determine. Are there more? Probably. But even if there were 10 times as many blown engines due to bearing problems, that is still less than one 1/2 of one percent of all engines.

You can say what you want about bearings, I'm just looking at the failure count.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

If this 92 page thread convinced me of anything, it is that there is NO bearing problem. The rate of engine failure is so low that I think there is NO justification for drawing any conclusion apart from the fact that you should follow BMW's service protocol so as not to void your warranty. If you choose to mod, you personally absorb the risk of engine failure but that is true for all engines made by all companies.

If there is a single person who still advocates that the S65 engine has a bearing problem, the onus is on that person to provide a shred of evidence that such a claim is true.

I think your statement is a bit too strong, even for me, perhaps "skeptic #1"...

The wealth of modded cars is surely somewhat of a confounding factor.

What has convinced me that there is no SERIOUS problem is mostly the data over in the thread started by SFP on the failure rates, with help from you and me both to try to account for incomplete reporting.

That being said, I certainly believe kawasaki00 when he stated (another thread) that the norm for tear downs for medium mileage and reasonably highly modified Vettes (supercharged IIRC) is bearings that they will look NEW.

BMW, along with many other OEMs have very consciously chosen to run somewhat tight clearances. These clearances are also appear to be very tightly tolerance controlled as they must be. I'm confident that we are getting some benefits from this choice but some small number are also suffering.

This really is a conundrum we have on our hands.

As I've stated multiple times, we really need someone to do a real test here, but without having custom bearings there is no way to do any such testing...

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I think your statement is a bit too strong, even for me, perhaps "skeptic #1"...

The wealth of modded cars is surely somewhat of a confounding factor.

What has convinced me that there is no SERIOUS problem is mostly the data over in the thread started by SFP on the failure rates, with help from you and me both to try to account for incomplete reporting.

That being said, I certainly believe kawasaki00 when he stated (another thread) that the norm for tear downs for medium mileage and reasonably highly modified Vettes (supercharged IIRC) is bearings that they will look NEW.

BMW, along with many other OEMs have very consciously chosen to run somewhat tight clearances. These clearances are also appear to be very tightly tolerance controlled as they must be. I'm confident that we are getting some benefits from this choice but some small number are also suffering.

This really is a conundrum we have on our hands.

As I've stated multiple times, we really need someone to do a real test here, but without having custom bearings there is no way to do any such testing...

To be honest, I am gunning for your #1 skeptic title. Seriously though, I was thinking about all the data we have so far and I think it doesn't amount to very much.

(1) There aren't more than a handful of bearing sets which have been examined AND whose engines have known provenance (meaning no mods or sc). Maybe 10 sets, tops. I think even fewer. I don't disagree with our experts here who look at the bearings and say they represent abnormal wear. But I also don't think you can look at 10 sets, with potentially questionable provenance, and conclude very much about a population of 60,000. See my supercharger comment below.

(2) There aren't very many known failures with known provenance. It is potentially conceivable that every single forum reported failure had engine mods. We just don't know. We also don't know oil change frequency of failed engines, whether they ran very low at times, whether they used bad gas, etc.

(3) There aren't very many failures, period. Look at it this way. According to a forum sticky I found, more than 20 people have installed an ESS supercharger. Using exactly the same logic, can we say that we have a supercharger problem? That most M3s will be supercharged? No, that would be ridiculous.

(4) We don't know what typical engine failure rates are for hi-perf engines. Even if, as I said, the failure rate was 10x what we have found, would that be abnormal? There is literally nobody I would trust to answer this specific question besides a factory engineer. What was the failure rate for the Mercedes M157 engine? The LS7? The Honda S2000 engine?

In fact the only thing which still gives me pause is the potential for our forum samples to represent a much smaller overall sample than we estimate. I am waiting for the day the number of forum reported failures swells from 20 to 120, like with the E46. I'd be singing a much different tune then.

Pat

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

BMW, along with many other OEMs have very consciously chosen to run somewhat tight clearances. These clearances are also appear to be very tightly tolerance controlled as they must be. I'm confident that we are getting some benefits from this choice but some small number are also suffering.

The other OEM's running tight tolerances aren't running 10W60. So far, I haven't seen any examples of tight tolerances running that thick oil. In this thread, we've examined maybe 6-12 non-BMW engines with tight tolerances. Without exception, they were running 0W30 to 0W40 oils (with 5W30 being in between). We've heard example of some engines also running 10W60, but nobody has been able to produce their clearance data so far. So for the record, the only examples of tight tolerances we can verify are all running thinner oils than BMW.

BTW, you can add the Toyota Prius to the list of engines with tight tolerances. According to my Toyota SA (can I trust him?), the Prius engine runs 0.0008 inch clearance (on unknown journal diameter). That engine runs on 0W20 oil.

Sometimes I think people are just trying too hard to look the other way. That's how we get guys who believe a BMW service adviser making comments he has absolutely no expertise to make after having seen absolutely no data to back up what he says.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

To be honest, I am gunning for your #1 skeptic title. Seriously though, I was thinking about all the data we have so far and I think it doesn't amount to very much.

(1) There aren't more than a handful of bearing sets which have been examined AND whose engines have known provenance (meaning no mods or sc). Maybe 10 sets, tops. I think even fewer. I don't disagree with our experts here who look at the bearings and say they represent abnormal wear. But I also don't think you can look at 10 sets, with potentially questionable provenance, and conclude very much about a population of 60,000. See my supercharger comment below.

(2) There aren't very many known failures with known provenance. It is potentially conceivable that every single forum reported failure had engine mods. We just don't know. We also don't know oil change frequency of failed engines, whether they ran very low at times, whether they used bad gas, etc.

(3) There aren't very many failures, period. Look at it this way. According to a forum sticky I found, more than 20 people have installed an ESS supercharger. Using exactly the same logic, can we say that we have a supercharger problem? That most M3s will be supercharged? No, that would be ridiculous.

(4) We don't know what typical engine failure rates are for hi-perf engines. Even if, as I said, the failure rate was 10x what we have found, would that be abnormal? There is literally nobody I would trust to answer this specific question besides a factory engineer. What was the failure rate for the Mercedes M157 engine? The LS7? The Honda S2000 engine?

In fact the only thing which still gives me pause is the potential for our forum samples to represent a much smaller overall sample than we estimate. I am waiting for the day the number of forum reported failures swells from 20 to 120, like with the E46. I'd be singing a much different tune then.

Pat

I'm the #1 skeptic in the other direction.

I'm always going to look at comments made by BMW SA's with a jaundiced eye -- both in assuming they are completely unqualified to make the types of comments we've seen posted here, and are just trying to CYA. Swamp may be a skeptic and even though he thinks I'm off my rocker calling this journal clearance ratio an industry common best practice, in spite of being asked many times, he's yet to provide any examples that say otherwise. While at the same time, I can give you (literally) 10+ pages of google search results that all say the same thing, some including book citations to back it up.

So call me the #1 skeptic of the skeptics.

Like I said, sometimes I think people are just trying too hard to look the other way because there's a very dark side to reality that they may not want to face. I know you're a data guy, so I know where you're coming from. But I don't have that benefit of knowing most other people posting here.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I'm the #1 skeptic in the other direction.

I'm always going to look at comments made by BMW SA's with a jaundiced eye -- both in assuming they are completely unqualified to make the types of comments we've seen posted here, and are just trying to CYA. Swamp may be a skeptic and even though he thinks I'm off my rocker calling this journal clearance ratio an industry common best practice, in spite of being asked many times, he's yet to provide any examples that say otherwise. While at the same time, I can give you (literally) 10+ pages of google search results that all say the same thing, some including book citations to back it up.

So call me the #1 skeptic of the skeptics.

Like I said, sometimes I think people are just trying too hard to look the other way.

RG, you are quoting me but referring to Swamp and to SAs? I have never mentioned an SA in these discussions. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Pat

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

RG, you are quoting me but referring to Swamp and to SAs? I have never mentioned an SA in these discussions. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Pat

I guess I was trying to say I know where you're coming from...but I don't know where others are coming from. And yes there was some extra stuff in there not related to you at all. Sorry if it was a bit awkward and meandering way of making that point.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

(4) We don't know what typical engine failure rates are for hi-perf engines. Even if, as I said, the failure rate was 10x what we have found, would that be abnormal? There is literally nobody I would trust to answer this specific question besides a factory engineer. What was the failure rate for the Mercedes M157 engine? The LS7? The Honda S2000 engine?

Sorry to quote myself but I found these interesting articles:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...ngine-failures
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ty-survey.html

As of 2013, engine failure rates for
Honda: 0.29%
Toyota: 0.58%
Mercedes: 0.84%
Volvo: 0.90%
Jaguar: 0.98%
Lexus: 1.0%
Fiat: 1.17%
Ford: 1.25%
Nissan: 1.32%
...
BMW: 2.2%
MINI: 2.5%
Audi: 3.7%

So this looks like a failure rate of 0.5% is actually pretty good. So looking just at the data on this forum, since we're at 1/10 of that, you'd have to conclude the S65 is one of the most reliable engines available.

Edit: found the BMW figures. Yikes.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by B767capt

Here is a copy and paste from Troy over on the M5board. He sells used S85's and usually puts new bearings in them so he's always looking for supply. This ought to stir the pot.





don't sell them because I would have to mark it up to sell the parts I guess ~ but I am more than happy to help you with finding the parts you need. The list of parts needed is actually really simple, although the 702/703 bearings are on back order as of last Wednesday. I bought the remaining 55 bearing shell sets in the country or so I was told that...lol. Some were from a cali dealer, Vegas dealer, and another set from somewhere in Miami. ;-)

I was told BMW is going to be changing the 702/703 and moving to yet another bearing part # within the next few months, so they are not really focusing on replenishing the inventory in the USA with the current bearings. We shall see soon enough.

Can you provide a link so I can see this in context?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

Sorry to quote myself but I found these interesting articles:
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ure-rates.html
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...ngine-failures

As of 2013, engine failure rates for
Honda: 0.29%
Toyota: 0.58%
Mercedes: 0.84%
Volvo: 0.90%
Jaguar: 0.98%
...
MINI: 2.5%
Audi: 3.7%

BMW was mentioned as being in the bottom (worst) third but no numbers given.

So this looks like a failure rate of 0.5% is actually pretty good. So looking just at the data on this forum, since we're at 1/10 of that, you'd have to conclude the S65 is one of the most reliable engines available.

Oh dear!

I would be mortified of a 2.5% engine failure rate by a BMW owned company. And I would assume the fruit probably doesn't fall too far from the tree.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Oh dear!

I would be mortified of a 2.5% engine failure rate by a BMW owned company. And I would assume the fruit probably doesn't fall too far from the tree.

I found the BMW figure: 2.2%. So BMW engines, in general, are 10 times more likely to fail than Honda engines

Pat

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

Sorry to quote myself but I found these interesting articles:
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ure-rates.html
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...ngine-failures

As of 2013, engine failure rates for
Honda: 0.29%
Toyota: 0.58%
Mercedes: 0.84%
Volvo: 0.90%
Jaguar: 0.98%
...
MINI: 2.5%
Audi: 3.7%

BMW was mentioned as being in the bottom (worst) third but no numbers given.

So this looks like a failure rate of 0.5% is actually pretty good. So looking just at the data on this forum, since we're at 1/10 of that, you'd have to conclude the S65 is one of the most reliable engines available.

I think the two articles are one in the same because the former references the latter as the source. I looked for links to the actual data and couldn't find any. Since the article came from the UK, I was wondering if this was a UK only poll, or world-wide. At the very least, it looks to be EU if not UK centric (lack of US autos on the list). I will venture to guess their high octane gas in the EU/UK must be causing engine failures and leading BMW to be 7th from the bottom of the list for engine reliability. Maybe they need to switch to low octane gas like the US so they can get the higher reliability from BMW that we see on this forum.

I loved the main article title.

German cars 'among worst for engine failures'

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

I found the BMW figure: 2.2%. So BMW engines, in general, are 10 times more likely to fail than Honda engines

Pat

There's another shock. Engines documented with proper clearance and/or thinner oils are more reliable than BMW. 2.2% is horrible. Guess I was right: the fruit doesn't fall too far from the tree with BMW and Mini. It must be the high octane gas in the EU and UK that is causing this high rate of failure. According to the data on this forum, we don't see that high rate here in the US on the same engines with lower octane gas. It's gotta be the gas...what else could it be?

BTW, can you post the link to the raw data, or whatever you found?

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by regular guy

2.2% is horrible. It must be the high octane gas in the EU and UK that is causing this high rate of failure. According to the data on this forum, we don't see that high rate here in the US on the same engines with lower octane gas.

Originally Posted by regular guy

BTW, can you post the link to the raw data, or whatever you found?

I edited my previous post to add a bunch of info. Here is a better link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ty-survey.html

It has the 10 best and the 10 worst.

Pat