Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

Wouldn't this be fairly easy to verify by someone like Bike Benvo? We are in CA, 91 octane is the highest we get, it's pretty warm, pretty easy to duplicate detonation if indeed it's plaguing our rod bearings.
Why don't you send him a PM.

My concern is that the ionic sensing anti knock system is still quite immature technology. There may be issues as the spark plugs wear with age...there is also the problem that the ion sensing occurs only in the small area around the spark plug.
IIUC - In principle whenever possible the engine attempts to run at the ignition advance target set by the ECU (lets say its 32 degree stock). If you run high octane fuel at cool temps then the engine can spend the maximum time at 32 degrees without activating the anti knock system...compared to using low octane fuel with hot IAT when the anti knock system will be almost permanently retarding and advancing the ignition to keep it at boundary knock...clearly a far less desirable condition.
Add a tune which raises the ECU ignition target ensures that the motor will spend even more time at boundary knock.
If long term low level damage due to elevated combustion pressures was occurring then it would be during this boundary knock condition.

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

So with all the tools to control the rod bearing clearance to such a tight number why do their specs allow for such a large variance.
Instead of 0.0013 - 0.0024 why not put 0.0018 +- 0.0001?
In fact why do all kinds of manufacturers allow for really quite tight clearances at the lower end:
Minimum rod bearing clearance for:
Audi V6...0.0006"
VW Jetta......0.0008"
Chevy Cruze...0.0005"
Nissan SX....0.0008"
Honda k20A3...0.0008"
GM 6ltr LS2....0.0009"

A random selection I know but googling for clearances doesn't give that many and essentially none for current cars.

Honestly I am not sure why the allowable spec is so large, but make no mistake about it when they leave the factory they are all controlled to be very tight. Honda wouldn't go through the cost and manufacturing effort required if they didn't want to control the tolerance that tight.


Do remember it is a service manual and therefore a Honda reman manual and not one that is used by the factory. I also cropped it out but the procedure calls for plastigage which obviously can't measure a tenth. The procedure states reference the size markings, find the correct bearing (which is essentially within a tenth), then verify with plastigage. The verification with plastigage alone may explain why they have you verify against such a large range.

Finally none of those listings you just posted are high output, high revving engines, or anything that closely matches the characteristics of the S65. I'm sure I can go digging for some diesel that specs out .004 but that doesn't really prove much.

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

My concern is that the ionic sensing anti knock system is still quite immature technology. There may be issues as the spark plugs wear with age...there is also the problem that the ion sensing occurs only in the small area around the spark plug.
IIUC - In principle whenever possible the engine attempts to run at the ignition advance target set by the ECU (lets say its 32 degree stock). If you run high octane fuel at cool temps then the engine can spend the maximum time at 32 degrees without activating the anti knock system...compared to using low octane fuel with hot IAT when the anti knock system will be almost permanently retarding and advancing the ignition to keep it at boundary knock...clearly a far less desirable condition.
Add a tune which raises the ECU ignition target ensures that the motor will spend even more time at boundary knock.
If long term low level damage due to elevated combustion pressures was occurring then it would be during this boundary knock condition.

In theory the ionic sensing is actually really good at true detection of detonation, misfires, and even timing that is marginal. It actually should be able to detect things before they ever really get near a true "detonation" point. Also most EMSes will have some learned knock as well so that they know not to target ignition targets too high when low octane fuel is used.

However I do also question the ionic system used for the S65. Ionic sensing is used, but not all that frequently, by OEMs but I believe it was BMW's first venture into the domain. The general concept is certainly proven and sound, however it is a fairly complex system with new hardware circuitry (high speed current conditioning and measurement) along with new software (real-time time-domain analysis if the ionic current signal). I certainly believe that, in general, it works well however I'm certainly not convinced that its infallible especially if this was BMW/Siemens first major system with it.

I don't think that all of the wear we are seeing is from long term detonation as we would likely see other signs of wear in the other parts of the engine and on the plugs. However it wouldn't surprise me that it had some contribution. Is there any data that suggests there are more failures in areas with lower octane fuel?

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

Please don't crop what Kawasaki typed, and totally distort what he's trying to say.

Which of your Hondas spin over 9k rpm?

A few did. I didn't crop anything, the whole post is there. If he's talkng about be newer cars he should've been more specific. You guys are hear arguing the minimalist detail and you jump in when I correct a post. Please.

[SVH]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Well...lets recall how it went:
I emailed clevite some bearing pictures in Nov 2013 and the guy was all yes its certainly looks like it could be detonation.
Days later you exchange emails and get a reply from the same man that now says the M3s ECU "MSS60 had advanced knock detection" and it couldn't be detonation.
So in the days between his email to me and and his reply to you, either you or by some fantastical coincidence someone else, told the Clevite guy all about the S65s and its infallible anti knock system.
Doesn't really matter - he was told detonation was impossible and had to change his opinion...while still managing to fit in that " long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"

(my bold).

Err....correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell Clevite?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

My concern is that the ionic sensing anti knock system is still quite immature technology. There may be issues as the spark plugs wear with age...there is also the problem that the ion sensing occurs only in the small area around the spark plug.
IIUC - In principle whenever possible the engine attempts to run at the ignition advance target set by the ECU (lets say its 32 degree stock). If you run high octane fuel at cool temps then the engine can spend the maximum time at 32 degrees without activating the anti knock system...compared to using low octane fuel with hot IAT when the anti knock system will be almost permanently retarding and advancing the ignition to keep it at boundary knock...clearly a far less desirable condition.
Add a tune which raises the ECU ignition target ensures that the motor will spend even more time at boundary knock.
If long term low level damage due to elevated combustion pressures was occurring then it would be during this boundary knock condition.

Why does S54 exhibit the same wear pattern and eat bearings also despite using a completely different knock sensing technology? Continue ignoring this.

You'll bash the clearance theory but your theory has even less evidence. Not even a shred of empirical evidence. No, people thinking they are hearing pinging is not evidence. These engines make so many noises people can't even tell rod knock from the myriad valvetrain noises.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SVH

(my bold).

Err....correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell Clevite?

I'm trying to get permission from Clevite to post this part of my email exchange. If and when I do, he'll look like a complete idiot for falsifying all of this information. I've repeatedly told him he was providing a false record and knowing repeating false information. It never stops him. We all can clearly see at every opportunity to correct his own misinformation, he refuses to do so, whether it's stories like this, his own "cumulative data" thread and spreadsheet, or misinformation about my engine build. When given the opportunity, SFP always posts the false information instead of the truthful information. So I'll post the actual exchange once permission comes through, and it will be clear just how far he's gone to mislead and misrepresent the truth.

But I predict it won't make one shred of difference and he'll continue to falsify this information in front of his next new audience.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

I don't think that all of the wear we are seeing is from long term detonation as we would likely see other signs of wear in the other parts of the engine and on the plugs. However it wouldn't surprise me that it had some contribution. Is there any data that suggests there are more failures in areas with lower octane fuel?

THis is what I mean about him acting this way in front of every new audience. This topic has already been debated Ad nauseam but with 133 pages of forum thread, I don't expect anybody to look it up. He used to say there were no failures anywhere outside of US and 91 octane. But that got debunked so fast. Then he tried to use the UK, Australia and other countries as examples with higher octane and no failures. Of course that got debunked pretty quickly too. It was almost like all the guys in those countries saw his BS and decided to report their failures here. So it will be interesting to see what he's come up with now to provide new spin to the old argument.

Then of course there's that pesky other thing he doesn't want to talk about...and you hit on it yourself. There is no evidence of detonation on any of the other engine parts: rods, pistons, ring lands, bearing shell bottoms, etc.

[Leonardo629]

I had to google what detonation looks like, carnage! Now I don't know the magnitude between "light" and "mega" detonation, but it definitely will kill our motors during high load situation, which is all the time

Detonation Damage

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by SVH

(my bold).

Err....correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you tell Clevite?

My initial email to Clevite included bearings photos and the line:
"Could using low octane fuel be a factor in what looks like excessive wear...the S65 engine does come with a anti knock ignition system."

The reply was:
"Well, generally speaking, when you see heavy, accelerated wear on the upper rod bearings, the cause is detonation. You can still see the machining marks on the lower shells and I see no signs of abrasive wear caused by contaminated oil."

So yes I told Clevite that the S65 had an anti knock ignition system yet they still replied as above.
For whatever reason shortly after, according to RG, they apparently adopted a new position where detonation was impossible .

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

I don't think that all of the wear we are seeing is from long term detonation as we would likely see other signs of wear in the other parts of the engine and on the plugs. However it wouldn't surprise me that it had some contribution. Is there any data that suggests there are more failures in areas with lower octane fuel?

I think its actually hotter climates that are most indicated in failures.
The number of engine failures reported on m3post (that I have reliable details for) is relatively small so the best you can hope for is a general trend.
CAN/USA (non S/C) cars.
The most striking trend is that over a quarter of cars with engine failures have a history of being tracked.
There are more failures in hot climates than cool relative to sales numbers as best as can be ascertained. This applies equally to the ROTW.
California cars used to be a peak in failures (relative to sales) but this has eased back.
A car tracked in a hot climate appears to be the highest risk.

If you start from the position that its all about a tight bearing clearance and too thick oil...then what is the prediction for failures and engine wear? Would you not expect the highest failure rate in cool climates?
As the man from Clevite said: "If the clearance was too tight, I'd not expect it to run 50k miles".
So if the S65 blueprint spec for rod bearing clearance was too tight how are cars reaching 200K miles, in fact how are any cars even getting past 50K miles.
Why isn't the failure rate accelerating, surely by now with a third of cars being 6 years old with ever increasing higher mileages it should be carnage with blown up motors littering the streets.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I'm trying to get permission from Clevite to post this part of my email exchange. If and when I do, he'll look like a complete idiot for falsifying all of this information. I've repeatedly told him he was providing a false record and knowing repeating false information. It never stops him. We all can clearly see at every opportunity to correct his own misinformation, he refuses to do so, whether it's stories like this, his own "cumulative data" thread and spreadsheet, or misinformation about my engine build. When given the opportunity, SFP always posts the false information instead of the truthful information. So I'll post the actual exchange once permission comes through, and it will be clear just how far he's gone to mislead and misrepresent the truth.

Awww bless you....you really took my rebuff of your crushing on me pretty bad.
How about I get you a present to make up for it. There is a new aftershave called 'Stalker' for men. It's very much like 'Obsession', but a bit stronger.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

... surely by now with a third of cars being 6 years old with ever increasing higher mileages it should be carnage with blown up motors littering the streets.

I am coming up eight years this September. But I have only 53k km.In fact I came across a car that was built before mine ... July '07. So there you go. But despite the age, the Australian cars are of low mileage compared to ROTW.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by regular guy

The FMO duo are not here to talk about bearings or oil clearances. At first I thought they were here just to mislead people. Well, I haven't changed my mind about that. But maybe I overlooked their true motives. Maybe they're here to mislead people because they know the ensuing debate will make sure the post and view count in this thread keeps the topic at the top of the most watched, most viewed threads in forum history. Maybe they want people to be alerted to the bearing clearance issue and I should be thanking the FMO's. What a brilliant strategy for keeping this topic and all of the actual data contained on the front page at the forefront of people's minds and where all the newbies can find it and review it. Why didn't I think of this myself?

Don't underestimate the extent forum owners/managers purposely try to bring "their forum" to the limelight of page hits et al due purely to financial motivations. What gets rewarded gets done. Whenever you're interacting on a forum with an intractable poster or two, odds are you've run into one that is rewarded by forum principles to keep the strife going. Very smart bots are being programmed and likely already in use so this type of manipulation can be done without a human actually having to type most of it.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

My initial email to Clevite included bearings photos and the line:
"Could using low octane fuel be a factor in what looks like excessive wear...the S65 engine does come with a anti knock ignition system."

The reply was:
"Well, generally speaking, when you see heavy, accelerated wear on the upper rod bearings, the cause is detonation. You can still see the machining marks on the lower shells and I see no signs of abrasive wear caused by contaminated oil."

So yes I told Clevite that the S65 had an anti knock ignition system yet they still replied as above.
For whatever reason shortly after, according to RG, they apparently adopted a new position where detonation was impossible .

And what were you saying about me telling Clevite about this?

Oops. Caught bold-faced again.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Awww bless you....you really took my rebuff of your crushing on me pretty bad.
How about I get you a present to make up for it. There is a new aftershave called 'Stalker' for men. It's very much like 'Obsession', but a bit stronger.

I know this guy who goes from thread to thread every time he can find a new audience and starts spreading information he knows is false and attributes my name to it at every opportunity he can. He's so obsessed that he works with a group of others who go from Web site to Web site liking for any dirt and information they think they can use to their advantage. They've been doing this for two years by now. I'm talking about you in case it's not obvious. Then there's this other guy who is silent in all the threads and doesn't say anything until the first guy tries to rewrite the public record with misinformation for his new audience. I'm talking about me in case that's not obvious. So guy #1 shows up in every thread to spread misinformation about guy #2, and guy #2 then shows up to smack him down.

The part I like best is trying to masquerade his own stalking obsession behavior by accusing the other guy of being an obsessed stalker. Straight out of Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals." I guess what he really wants is to spread misinformation without being challenged, and anybody who challenges him is now an "obsessed stalker." There's just so many emotionally fragile people around here that fall apart anytime somebody asks them for proof.

So sorry you got so beat up over the weekend. I'll send you a box of chocolates and tissue papers so you can sit in front of the TV and watch reruns of Little House on the Prairie. Maybe that will cheer you up.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I know this guy who goes from thread to thread every time he can find a new audience and starts spreading information he knows is false and attributes my name to it at every opportunity he can. He's so obsessed that he works with a group of others who go from Web site to Web site liking for any dirt and information they think they can use to their advantage. They've been doing this for two years by now. I'm talking about you in case it's not obvious. Then there's this other guy who is silent in all the threads and doesn't say anything until the first guy tries to rewrite the public record with misinformation for his new audience. I'm talking about me in case that's not obvious. So guy #1 shows up in every thread to spread misinformation about guy #2, and guy #2 then shows up to smack him down. [more bla]

Seriously dude stop obsessing about me it is getting embarrassing.
Why not go for a spin in your M3 and chill...oh wait you can't, you still haven't managed to put it all back together again yet,
oh well another 4 years should see it done.
Maybe go and measure some stuff, that normally calms you down.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

I am coming up eight years this September. But I have only 53k km.

Still, I would keep well away from it mate, that thing is a ticking bomb, it could go off at any minute!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Seriously dude stop obsessing about me it is getting embarrassing.
Why not go for a spin in your M3 and chill...oh wait you can't, you still haven't managed to put it all back together again yet,
oh well another 4 years should see it done.
Maybe go and measure some stuff, that normally calms you down.

In what weird twisted world does a guy, working with a band of others, follow somebody else around for two years looking for dirt, giving false testimony, making up false stories, talking about the guy's life and car? In what weird and twisted world is that guy not labeled an obsessed stalker? Beat's the hell out of me and probably everybody else as well.

Just curious if you're going to offer this forum an apology for the last few rounds of getting caught making your stories up? I'm guessing you won't. You'll just keep on with your obsessive stalking and story telling everywhere you can.

Calm down guys....

some news from clevite? im waiting to buy the best bearings....

[Shredicus]

Originally Posted by TL866

Calm down guys....

some news from clevite? im waiting to buy the best bearings....

No bearings here, just SFP on the world's lamest personal crusade

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Shredicus

No bearings here, just SFP on the world's lamest personal crusade

After two years of this, it's not personal, and he's not obsessed, and whatever he's doing...he's NOT STALKING ME! Didn't you know that?

He's so butt hurt that he keeps getting caught falsifying information. Definitely not the brightest bulb in the box. I didn't used to think he was as dishonest as YS, but with his latest round of getting caught, I now think their levels of deception are equal to each other. YS's deceptions are usually related to data falsifications, and SFP's deceptions are usually personal. But they're about the same now in my mind.