Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[JRV]

Originally Posted by 5soko

This is what he told me:

"The 702/703 bearings all looked great by the way. Highest mileage as 42k and it looked far better than the 088/089 bearings with" -Troy Jeup

Interesting, thanks!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by 5soko

Interesting new news found on the S85 M5 side of things, bmw started using 702/703 bearings in MY2009 M5's and continued on MY2010 cars.. Six 2009 s85 m5 engines that were opened up by Troy Jeup on M5board had 702/703 bearings. Those around late-mid 2008 built cars started getting these newer bearings.

Only one problem: 702/703 bearings didn't go into production until June, 2010. Ask for pictures of the back side of the bearings, and a photo of the build label in the driver's door jamb. That might help solve this mystery.

[swamp2]

Just to counter the claim made here that not one set of bearings has been pulled from a car that don't show excessive wear. It's an older post but is very relevant to post here. Look at the last image before jumping down my throat. Discussion in the original thread leans toward a conclusion that the one bad looking bearing here was caused by some assembly contamination.

Originally Posted by ndau

Info
Vehicle: 2008 BMW M3, DCT (Australian - Maybe hotter weather)
Production Date: 11/08
Oil Used: TWS Motorsport 10W-60, no data provided on previous oil change
Mileage: ~16,XXX mi (27,000 Km)
Fuel: 93 Oct
Driving Habits: Mostly highway/street driving, no track use

Oil report to follow ETA 2 weeks, photo quality is terrible but I believe I am seeing copper on the edges of bearing 4. Replaced with WPC + ARP when installing SC.

Full Album:

View post on imgur.com

Bearing 4;

[VCP]

We have just finished a build on a 2008 S65 and the bearings were in normal to better condition. This person was very diligent on oil changes. Clearances measured .0016-0018 on rods. More details/pics will follow.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Just to counter the claim made here that not one set of bearings has been pulled from a car that don't show excessive wear. It's an older post but is very relevant to post here. Look at the last image before jumping down my throat. Discussion in the original thread leans toward a conclusion that the one bad looking bearing here was caused by some assembly contamination.

Those bearing do look pretty good for sure. Obviously their was something underneath that #4 shell causing the wear.

With the car being from a hot climate that no doubt helped since the 10W60 was more relevant in those temperatures. In fact, this helps to confirm the fact that the 10W60 is not a good choice for engine oil in all climates. Thanks for those photos.

[5soko]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Only one problem: 702/703 bearings didn't go into production until June, 2010. Ask for pictures of the back side of the bearings, and a photo of the build label in the driver's door jamb. That might help solve this mystery.

I tryed contacted Troy Jeup, but it seems he doesnt have pics of them on hand..

Here is the thread speaking on the 3 different verisons throughout the years on the S85 motor.. 06/07 being 1, 08 being 2nd, and 09/10 being the 3rd.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...out-years.html

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

With the car being from a hot climate that no doubt helped since the 10W60 was more relevant in those temperatures. In fact, this helps to confirm the fact that the 10W60 is not a good choice for engine oil in all climates. Thanks for those photos.

Wow, if you really think that can all be concluded from one sample, congratulations. This is not unlike much of the other speculative posts littered throughout this thread...

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, if you really think that can all be concluded from one sample, congratulations. This is not unlike much of the other speculative posts littered throughout this thread...

I know...huh? It almost seems as ludicrous as thinking one set of bearings with only 16k miles on them is such a noteworthy exception that it had to be posted here in such a way to make it sounds like it invalidated everything else that came before it (and has come since). Or almost as ludicrous as posting it here at all to bump the dormant thread in hopes that you'll get a much needed intellectual workout.

[chris719]

To be fair, there is just not enough evidence to jump to the conclusion that this engine had little wear due to the climate being appropriate for 10W-60. Could it be true? Sure, but there is not enough data to say either way.

I would like to point out this engine only has 16k miles as well.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I know...huh? It almost seems as ludicrous as thinking one exception is so noteworthy that it had to be posted here in such a way to make it wounds like it invalidated everything else that came before it (and has come since). Or almost as ludicrous as posting it here at all to bump the dormant thread in hopes that you'll get a much needed intellectual workout.

Originally Posted by chris719

To be fair, there is just not enough evidence to jump to the conclusion that this engine had little wear due to the climate being appropriate for 10W-60. Could it be true? Sure, but there is not enough data to say either way.

I would like to point out this engine only has 16k miles as well.

Yay to bmw for getting a set of bearings to look normal after only 16k miles. Oh except for that one that had trash under it or some issue going on.

[DLSJ5]

Is it not conventional wisdom that thicker oil works better in hotter climates? I would agree this one sample isn't the absolute proof, but he didn't say that it was, he basically said it's one more piece of evidence that helps supplement it.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, if you really think that can all be concluded from one sample, congratulations. This is not unlike much of the other speculative posts littered throughout this thread...

Even when I try and make a comment on a post of yours in a good natured way you still turn around and act like an idiot! I guess it shows who is who around here!

Where did I say I was making a final conclusion on the oil?! I said it "HELPS" to confirm the fact that the 10W60 is not a good choice for all climates. I wasn't saying this was proof beyond a doubt, all I was saying that the pieces fit of this puzzle fit together.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by chris719

To be fair, there is just not enough evidence to jump to the conclusion that this engine had little wear due to the climate being appropriate for 10W-60. Could it be true? Sure, but there is not enough data to say either way.

I would like to point out this engine only has 16k miles as well.

Couldn't agree more

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I know...huh? It almost seems as ludicrous as thinking one set of bearings with only 16k miles on them is such a noteworthy exception that it had to be posted here in such a way to make it sounds like it invalidated everything else that came before it (and has come since). Or almost as ludicrous as posting it here at all to bump the dormant thread in hopes that you'll get a much needed intellectual workout.

Wow the reading comprehension (lack thereof) is simply astounding.

Again... the only point of adding this information here is due to the near continual drone in this thread and others that "this must be a very serious problem and widespread because every set of bearings for which we have photos of show abnormally high bearing wear".

This is a single isolated piece of evidence that now shows that claim not to be true. I suppose we can now get back to this being something like a ratio game where there are 25 pieces of evidence vs. 1 piece of evidence. Whatever trips your trigger.

The evidence belongs here by the drone of the claim pointed out above, dormant thread or not.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Even when I try and make a comment on a post of yours in a good natured way you still turn around and act like an idiot! I guess it shows who is who around here!

Where did I say I was making a final conclusion on the oil?! I said it "HELPS" to confirm the fact that the 10W60 is not a good choice for all climates. I wasn't saying this was proof beyond a doubt, all I was saying that the pieces fit of this puzzle fit together.

Keep up the BS ad hominem attacks. It does nothing for your credibility either. Your conclusions about the oil are exactly like those about a variety of other topics and sub-debates on related topics - complete knee jerk. See one thing, perhaps one time and viola - conclusion. All I am saying is just what I posted again above to regular guy, nothing more, nothing less.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by chris719

To be fair, there is just not enough evidence to jump to the conclusion that this engine had little wear due to the climate being appropriate for 10W-60. Could it be true? Sure, but there is not enough data to say either way.

Whew, someone with at least a minuscule understanding of weak and strong evidence and how to draw conclusions. (No implication that you might not have also a huge understanding of such, just that others don't even have a tiny bit...).

[chris719]

It is worrying that there is another example of an engine that may have been contaminated in assembly. Wonder if this one was plastic too.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow the reading comprehension (lack thereof) is simply astounding.

This isn't a subject you can win swamp. You want an intellectual workout. That's they only reason you have posted here. I intend to deprive you of it (at least from me).

Again... the only point of adding this information here is due to the near continual drone in this thread and others that "this must be a very serious problem and widespread because every set of bearings for which we have photos of show abnormally high bearing wear".

Nobody has updated this thread, except you. There is no drone, except for yours.

This is a single isolated piece of evidence that now shows that claim not to be true. I suppose we can now get back to this being something like a ratio game where there are 25 pieces of evidence vs. 1 piece of evidence. Whatever trips your trigger.

So why didn't you post the information about the two bearing failures that recently cropped up in Australia? If you're only intent was to equalize the drone of claims, then that should have been a prime target of yours. Yet once again, you selectively chose to ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Hmm.

The evidence belongs here by the drone of the claim pointed out above, dormant thread or not.

I look forward to your next post to include the two Australia motors that blew due to bearing failures. I agree, those belong right here too to equalize the drone of people who said no such failures have ever occurred.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

This isn't a subject you can win swamp.

I already have.

Originally Posted by regular guy

You want an intellectual workout. That's they only reason you have posted here. I intend to deprive you of it (at least from me).

Hmmm, yet you go on and on and on. Unreal. Your contradictory nature is about as bad as your reading comprehension. Perhaps not though, as this sure isn't much on an intellectual workout...

The post very much belongs here, get over it. What happened to your "I just post the data" knight in shining armor character?

Originally Posted by regular guy

Nobody has updated this thread, except you. There is no drone, except for yours.

The thread is full of drone, no perhaps not recently but what the hell does recency matter?

Originally Posted by regular guy

So why didn't you post the information about the two bearing failures that recently cropped up in Australia? If you're only intent was to equalize the drone of claims, then that should have been a prime target of yours. Yet once again, you selectively chose to ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Hmm.

Sure that can go here. Seems better to place it in the thread with the database of failures by SFP. It really adds to the huge list indicating the universality of the problem. Heck 2 motors is about a 10% increase, that's huge

Originally Posted by regular guy

I agree, those belong right here too to equalize the drone of people who said no such failures have ever occurred.

WTF, really WTF. Who has claimed that there has been no bearing related failures. That is so completely out of left field.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by 5soko

Interesting new news found on the S85 M5 side of things, bmw started using 702/703 bearings in MY2009 M5's and continued on MY2010 cars.. Six 2009 s85 m5 engines that were opened up by Troy Jeup on M5board had 702/703 bearings. Those around late-mid 2008 built cars started getting these newer bearings.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...-feedback.html

Makes an interesting read.

[5soko]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...-feedback.html" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.m5board.c...dback.html</a>" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://<a href="http...k.html</a></a>" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://<a href="http...ml</a></a></a>

Makes an interesting read.

I skimmed through it but seems like it worked out at the end? Not sure.. But people seem to love and hate him.. Either way, he seems to know his stuff for the s85 engine and the pics/facts about it are interesting.. No one else seems to know more about them, if you look at the link i posted last..
Man that thread is crazy, his business practice is out of control!

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...-feedback.html

Makes an interesting read.

Man, I just read through about the last 10 pages and what a mess.