Rod bearings at 41k miles, pics inside

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

I'm just glad the clearances on the new bearings are larger than with the old ones. That gives me the piece of mind that I really needed. I thought about not opening my old motor, but since this is the case, I definitely want the newer bearings in there.

Who is to say that the older lead faced bearing aren't the better choice?
It's not like the revised bearings have proved indestructible.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Who is to say that the older lead faced bearing aren't the better choice?
It's not like the revised bearings have proved indestructible.

You may have a point here. But it seems like the added clearance is something that is beneficial. I'm not an expert in this area, so I couldn't tell you.

[Rupes]

Originally Posted by 8k3

No prob on sharing, took a hit for the team ;-P

2008, 41k miles all street, supercharged about 5.5k miles, manual trans. Cost, well lots. ARP bolts, WPC bearings, bolts for the oil pan, gaskets, O-Rings, etc; it adds up (plus labor).

When you say, "supercharged about 5.5k miles." Do you mean you supercharged the car when it had 5.5k miles on the clock, or you've had a supercharger installed for the last 5.5k miles? Pretty impressive if you've gone 35k miles with a supercharged engine with little degradation to the bearings.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

The only thing that tells you is that BMW approves the use of those oils as well.

It doesn't tell you anything else.

I think we've all heard from dealer SA's and people on this forum being warned that the use of anything but TWS 10W60 not only will void your warranty, but could lead to early engine failure. BMWNA has now added LL01 oils to the approved oil list after telling us only four months ago that it would blow our motors. Tell me why (speculation is OK), and tell me what YOU think it means.

[W///]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I think we've all heard from dealer SA's and people on this forum being warned that the use of anything but TWS 10W60 not only will void your warranty, but could lead to early engine failure. BMWNA has now added LL01 oils to the approved oil list after telling us only four months ago that it would blow our motors. Tell me why (speculation is OK), and tell me what YOU think it means.

It could very well be that 10W60 is impossible to find unless you are at a dealership. How many times have people come on here asking what to do if they are on a roadtrip and the car says to add 1 qt. Not everyone keep oil in their trunk. Maybe that's why the rules were relaxed a bit, your guess is as good as mine.

We can sit here and argue all day, but it's still nothing more than speculation. FYI, I'm running 0W40 so it's not like I'm against running lighter oil (my car is out of warranty).

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by W///

It could very well be that 10W60 is impossible to find unless you are at a dealership. How many times have people come on here asking what to do if they are on a roadtrip and the car says to add 1 qt. Not everyone keep oil in their trunk. Maybe that's why the rules were relaxed a bit, your guess is as good as mine.

The answer to that question is right in the M3 owner's manual. It says you can top off with 0W40. I think that's been there since 2008.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ds=TWS%2010W60

We can sit here and argue all day, but it's still nothing more than speculation. FYI, I'm running 0W40 so it's not like I'm against running lighter oil (my car is out of warranty).

Agreed. Everything is speculation because none of us work at BMW-AG and have access to the data to speak as authorities.

[Z K]

Also interesting that the new Edge Professional 10w60 that replaced TWS is a thinner oil as shown in the Blackstone reports on another thread.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by regular guy

The answer to that question is right in the M3 owner's manual. It says you can top off with 0W40. I think that's been there since 2008.

For accuracy's sake, it does not specify that you can top off with 0W40.

Edit: I stand corrected. It appears that the later manuals specify that 0w40 is ok.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Thats a little disingenuous...BMW were forced to change the bearing material specification in 2011 because the exemption from the EU directive (from year 2000) to use lead in engine bearings expired on 1 July 2011. BMW could have made a bearing spec change at any time in the S85/S65 production cycle to comply with the EU directive but stayed with the 088/089 part numbers right to the very last moment when the vast majority of engine production was already complete. This is hardly the action of a company trying to fix anything.

Not disingenuous at all IMO. It wasn't too long ago that you argued something quite different. Just a few weeks ago, you argued if there were a clearance problem, then BMW "could have addressed it" when they designed the 702/703 bearings. The assumption at the time was that BMW didn't change the clearance on the new bearings. Now we know they DID change the clearance when they designed the 702/703 bearings. So now your argument has changed to saying if there was a clearance issue, BMW would have changed it sooner -- citing the EU regulation changes that took effect in July 2011. Maybe you're forgetting that both our research showed the 702/703 bearings went into production in June 2010 (a full year earlier than the July 2011 EU cut-off). So in fact, they DID change it earlier -- a full year earlier.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Dashman

So ok...using this logic... the car is $75K and the engine is $12K, why not just replace the engine intermittently too.

There is a simple rule with cars. You deal with problems as they arise. If you are preaching prevantive maintaince by disassembling your engine, then you've lost the plot.

I don't disagree at all. But the reality is that most people will simply change their bearings every 75k miles instead of resize their journals.

[8k3]

Originally Posted by Rupes

When you say, "supercharged about 5.5k miles." Do you mean you supercharged the car when it had 5.5k miles on the clock, or you've had a supercharger installed for the last 5.5k miles? Pretty impressive if you've gone 35k miles with a supercharged engine with little degradation to the bearings.

I added the supercharger 5.5k miles ago, around 35k on the clock.

[5soko]

If this makes anyone also feel better, 100% stock never opened S85 opened up at 261K Miles, finally bearing gave up:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...000-miles.html

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

For accuracy's sake, it does not specify that you can top off with 0W40.

For even more accuracy sake, it DOES specifiy that you can top off with 0W40 depending on which year manual you check:

2008:
Online Edition for Part no. 01 41 0 014 958, Page 222




2009:
Online Edition for Part no. 01 41 2 600 999, Page 206




2010:
Online Edition for Part no. 01 41 2 603 066, Page 222




2011:
Online Edition for Part no. 01 41 2 604 638, Page 225




2012:
Online Edition for Part no. 01 40 2 609 333, Page 262


2013:
Online Edition for Part no. 01 40 2 918 660, Page 254

[aus]

Since people are still talking oil.
Any opinion on the Mobil 5W40 for diesel engines?
My Walmart had a ton of it, but no 0W40. I remember reading somewhere the 5W40 was suppose to be pretty similar to the 0W40.

Originally Posted by Dashman

So ok...using this logic... the car is $75K and the engine is $12K, why not just replace the engine intermittently too.

There is a simple rule with cars. You deal with problems as they arise. If you are preaching prevantive maintaince by disassembling your engine, then you've lost the plot.

Where can I get a motor installed for $12,000???

[M-powerMode]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

For accuracy's sake, it does not specify that you can top off with 0W40.

Dude .... Do you even double check to make sure what you are say'ing is even true ?
You come off strong as if your 100% certain to only get proven wrong....
What's up with that Hommie ....

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by M-powerMode

Dude .... Do you even double check to make sure what you are say'ing is even true ?
You come off strong as if your 100% certain to only get proven wrong....
What's up with that Hommie ....

He said that it has been there since 2008, and it hasn't been.

So I guess we were both partially incorrect. Depends on which manual you look at.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Not disingenuous at all IMO. It wasn't too long ago that you argued something quite different. Just a few weeks ago, you argued if there were a clearance problem, then BMW "could have addressed it" when they designed the 702/703 bearings. The assumption at the time was that BMW didn't change the clearance on the new bearings. Now we know they DID change the clearance when they designed the 702/703 bearings. So now your argument has changed to saying if there was a clearance issue, BMW would have changed it sooner -- citing the EU regulation changes that took effect in July 2011. Maybe you're forgetting that both our research showed the 702/703 bearings went into production in June 2010 (a full year earlier than the July 2011 EU cut-off). So in fact, they DID change it earlier -- a full year earlier.

The rod bearing part number changes were implemented in March and October 2011 NOT 2010. So BMW did indeed only change to the new bearings when they were forced to, rather than as a last gasp reaction to a clearance issue real or imagined.
Secondly we were all working on the assumtion that there wasn't a change in clearance in the 2011 revision until the recent re-measurements...So everyone has had to re-evaluate the situation in the light of the new information.
The logic however remains the same: Its simply not credible that BMW would continue to build the vast majority of S85/S65 engines with an insufficient crank/rod bearing clearance when a simple bearing spec change would have addressed the problem at any time without consequence and at almost no cost.
The EU directive has been around since at least 2000 so the fact that BMW resisted changing from the lead faced rod bearings until the exemption expired in 2011 strongly suggests that they preferred that design. In fact it is entirely possible that the new bearings with revised materials may have an inferior performance to the original design.

[meko]

If you can point to documentation stating the quoted date change on the rod bearings from BMW that would be appreciated. No one seems to have that. Thanks

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The rod bearing part number changes were implemented in March and October 2011 NOT 2010. So BMW did indeed only change to the new bearings when they were forced to, rather than as a last gasp reaction to a clearance issue real or imagined.
Secondly we were all working on the assumtion that there wasn't a change in clearance in the 2011 revision until the recent re-measurements...So everyone has had to re-evaluate the situation in the light of the new information.
The logic however remains the same: Its simply not credible that BMW would continue to build the vast majority of S85/S65 engines with an insufficient crank/rod bearing clearance when a simple bearing spec change would have addressed the problem at any time without consequence and at almost no cost.
The EU directive has been around since at least 2000 so the fact that BMW resisted changing from the lead faced rod bearings until the exemption expired in 2011 strongly suggests that they preferred that design. In fact it is entirely possible that the new bearings with revised materials may have an inferior performance to the original design.

With the harder surface recorded in a previous post, I'm inclined to agree. If the bearing surface is significantly harder, I would want more clearance.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by meko

If you can point to documentation stating the quoted date change on the rod bearings from BMW that would be appreciated. No one seems to have that. Thanks

I think RG just got his years mixed up.
Its covered here:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...892838&page=76

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by meko

If you can point to documentation stating the quoted date change on the rod bearings from BMW that would be appreciated. No one seems to have that. Thanks

It is documented right here, in post #1. NOTE: These are PRODUCTION dates listed for the bearings. Nobody, not even SenorFunkyPants knows the dates BMW actually used them in production motors.

Quoted here for convenience:

Connecting Rod Bearing History and Part Numbers

	Connecting Rod Bearing History
BMW Part Number	Description	Location	Color	Standard Size Bearings	Application	Prod. Start	Prod. End	Superceded By
11 24 7 835 662	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50	Apr-04	Apr-04	11 24 7 836 288
11 24 7 835 663	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50	Apr-04	Apr-04	11 24 7 836 289
11 24 7 836 288	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50	Sep-04	Apr-07	11 24 7 838 088
11 24 7 836 289	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50	Sep-04	May-07	11 24 7 838 089
11 24 7 838 088	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50, S65B40, S65B44	Feb-06	Oct-11	11 24 7 841 702
11 24 7 838 089	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50, S65B40, S65B44	Feb-06	Mar-11	11 24 7 841 703
11 24 7 841 702	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50, S65B40, S65B44	Jun-10	Present
11 24 7 841 703	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	52.00 mm (+0.00 mm)	S85B50, S65B40, S65B44	Jun-10	Present
BMW Part Number	Description	Location	Color	Oversize Bearings	Application	Prod. Start	Prod. End	Superceded By
11 24 7 835 974	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	51.75 mm (+0.25 mm)	S85B50	Apr-04	Apr-04	11 24 7 836 290
11 24 7 835 975	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	51.75 mm (+0.25 mm)	S85B50	Apr-04	Apr-04	11 24 7 836 291
11 24 7 836 290	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	51.75 mm (+0.25 mm)	S85B50	Aug-05	Dec-07	11 24 7 838 090
11 24 7 836 291	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	51.75 mm (+0.25 mm)	S85B50	Aug-05	Dec-07	11 24 7 838 091
11 24 7 838 090	Connecting Rod Bearing	Bottom	Red	51.75 mm (+0.25 mm)	S85B50, S65B40, S65B44	Sep-05	Present
11 24 7 838 091	Connecting Rod Bearing	Top	Blue	51.75 mm (+0.25 mm)	S85B50, S65B40, S65B44	Sep-05	Present

[meko]

Yes I saw the production dates. I thought info surfaced as to when they went into the motors. I misunderstood the post. BTW RG thanks for all your work with the measurements you did. Pretty cool