OEM 702/703 to BE Bearings

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by rcracin

I'm not even using BE bearings but I am using another set that I will pull off in 20-30k miles. I'll do so because I am worried about how bitchy this motor seems to be. I'll be pulling it to inspect main and rod bearings as well as the rods.

I think VAC did pull aftermarket bearings off after 40k miles of testing and it looked perfect compared to oem. The thread is floating around if you search.

Actually, it was MRF that pulled VAC bearings coated by Calico from a car after they had been on 33.5k miles, all s/c'ed:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1073979

And you are correct, the bearings looked perfect.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

Not everyone is mechanically inclined, I know spending thousands is what people don't wanna hear. But unfortunately its the realization of this issue. Anyone looking to keep their m3 long term would see this as a great investment.

So ironic. That was RG's first suggestion three years ago too to fix the problem with a newly machined crank. They said the same thing about his crank idea that you're saying now about the bearings.

Originally Posted by m3aviator

There isn't anything wrong with the oem crank, its forged. I'm not a crank specialist but bryant said they could fix the oiling issues as well as journal diameters. Plus their forgings are better with better steel being used.

So what problem are you trying to fix with the crank? Connecting rods will fix the side clearance oiling issue and are a lot cheaper than a crank. Rod bearings fix the clearance oiling issue, and together with connecting rods (new or machined ones) are a lot cheaper than a billet crank. So what exactly are you trying to reinvent and what problem do you think you're trying to solve?

Originally Posted by m3aviator

If someone has a crank to donate send it to bryant and they will look at it no charge.

Oh, so you do need help?

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

This is so obviously true. Anyone with OEM design engineering professional background (as I have) can have a good laugh at this. Forum champion (whose nickname used to be pencil-geek) re-branding bearing design to fix BMW M engineers mistakes. Please, this is bordering on the ridiculous. The main guy behind that venture is a basic engine technician who worked in a shop taking engine measurements and not someone who is learned in mechanics engineering design. Throwing Clevite in the mix to assert legitimacy is good marketing strategy but Clevite is a business like any other that makes money. Sure, they can spec any bearings one desire as long as they get paid for it for a big enough batch.

This tells me a lot. This tells me you don't know the guy, never worked with him, and made up just about everything you say. The "main guy behind that venture" built an Indy-500 winning motor, multiple 24-hours of Daytona motors, one or two winning 24-hours of Lemans motors, and multiple championship USAC, IMSA, and SCCA winning motors. His design engineer is former BMW M-engine designer, S14 designer, and successfully took BMW to Formula-1. Yeah, he's got his PhD in mechanical engineering. So maybe get your story straight next time you post.

Maybe, just maybe, these guys know a lot more than some random guy with a new screen name every few months who claims to have "OEM" experience.

Just hypothetically , if the crankshaft forged steel grade and its production quality was at cause then that would explain that BMW never made that 5 min call to Clevite to talk about changing bearing clearance specs but I doubt the forged nitrocarburized high strength 42CrMo4 steel used for the crankshaft is lacking.

By the same token, BMW could fixed your problem with a new crankshaft. So why didn't they do it? Oh wait...they did do it...they been through four crank designs on the S85 and three crank designs on the S65. Why didn't any of these fix the problem? I can't wait to hear the next conspiracy theory.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

This tells me a lot. This tells me you don't know the guy, never worked with him, and made up just about everything you say. The "main guy behind that venture" built an Indy-500 winning motor, multiple 24-hours of Daytona motors, one or two winning 24-hours of Lemans motors, and multiple championship USAC, IMSA, and SCCA winning motors. His design engineer is former BMW M-engine designer, S14 designer, and successfully took BMW to Formula-1. Yeah, he's got his PhD in mechanical engineering. So maybe get your story straight next time you post.

Maybe, just maybe, these guys know a lot more than some random guy with a new screen name every few months who claims to have "OEM" experience.



By the same token, BMW could fixed your problem with a new crankshaft. So why didn't they do it? Oh wait...they did do it...they been through four crank designs on the S85 and three crank designs on the S65. Why didn't any of these fix the problem? I can't wait to hear the next conspiracy theory.

Don't forget that another one of the people contributing to the design works building "race winning" engines for one of the biggest NASCAR teams in the country. These bearings were definitely not some moneymaking scheme by a couple of jo blows. In fact, the first production run will be lucky to turn a profit. If all the people involved got paid for their time invested they would only be making pennies an hour!

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

This tells me a lot. This tells me you don't know the guy, never worked with him, and made up just about everything you say. The "main guy behind that venture" built an Indy-500 winning motor, multiple 24-hours of Daytona motors, one or two winning 24-hours of Lemans motors, and multiple championship USAC, IMSA, and SCCA winning motors. His design engineer is former BMW M-engine designer, S14 designer, and successfully took BMW to Formula-1. Yeah, he's got his PhD in mechanical engineering. So maybe get your story straight next time you post.

Maybe, just maybe, these guys know a lot more than some random guy with a new screen name every few months who claims to have "OEM" experience.



By the same token, BMW could fixed your problem with a new crankshaft. So why didn't they do it? Oh wait...they did do it...they been through four crank designs on the S85 and three crank designs on the S65. Why didn't any of these fix the problem? I can't wait to hear the next conspiracy theory.

BMW did Three crank designs on the S65? I wasn't aware of that, do you know when this happend (i.e 3 different designs tested before released or production upgrades)?

Thanks

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

His design engineer is former BMW M-engine designer, S14 designer, and successfully took BMW to Formula-1. Yeah, he's got his PhD in mechanical engineering.

Woah you don't want a BMW engineer on your team....everyone knows even their top M power engineers are a bunch of stupid incompetents who can't even get a simple rod bearing clearance right despite collaborating with Clevite who apparently set the standard for this clearance....and even when broken engines are filling up the returns bay they still can't figure out a simple fix.

Originally Posted by OM VT3

The "main guy behind that venture" built an Indy-500 winning motor, multiple 24-hours of Daytona motors, one or two winning 24-hours of Lemans motors, and multiple championship USAC, IMSA, and SCCA winning motors.

Or rather a mechanic who is part of team who build engines for a race car team...not the guy who designs them.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Actually, it was MRF that pulled VAC bearings coated by Calico from a car after they had been on 33.5k miles, all s/c'ed:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1073979

And you are correct, the bearings looked perfect.

Surely these are the aftermarket bearings to choose if you don't want OEM..at least you get to see how a set looks after some serious hard use?

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Surely these are the aftermarket bearings to choose if you don't want OEM..at least you get to see how a set looks after some serious hard use?

Seems like your agenda is just to trash BE. You are pushing VAC's redesign of the Clevite bearing over BE's redesign of the Clevite bearing. Yet you claim no bearing will fix the problem.

[kawasaki00]

Seems like we have another Longwong on our hands

[Leonardo629]

I miss long wong...ah...the gilded age of m3post.com

[dragonsi]

Wow that was a great analysis!

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

Thanks Helmsman. In the US 10% ethanol (E10) is firmly established but ethanol free pumps can be found.
RB failure is rare everywhere in general, but correlates with ethanol use. The higher the worse. The UK's is also on a 5% ethanol maximum legislation and there are no bearing failure there to my knowledge. This forum RB registry wrongly listed one UK member for RB engine replacement. His engine was pre-emptively replaced after excessive oil consumption, not RB failure.



Thank you for this constructive question. I was strongly anticipating it.

The issue is prevalent in any high revving engine and accentuated further in over-designed capacity oil cooling systems because they take longer to warmup. The S65 oil system was designed to keep the engine cool at the track. But in daily use this results in longer warmup times and thus faster oil dilution with ethanol. High revving racing engines are known to have faster oil dilution rates, but they systematically flush the oil after each racing event or practice session.

With ethanol free fuel, the oil dilution does not cause the same issue as with ethanol. When ethanol is present it will cause bearing surfaces to corrode at the microscopic level, reduce surface hardness and cause pitting. Ethanol will also reduce the oil lubricity. This increase frictions and causes higher temperatures on the bearing surfaces. Higher temperatures amplifies the detergent and corrosive effect of ethanol.

Now the second part of the answer.

It is only in 2009 that European legislation has been put in place to offer E10 and to enforce auto manufacturers to support it in Europe.

In the USA in 2003, California banned MTBE and replaced it as an octane booster by ethanol. Other states followed over time. At that time German auto manufacturers strongly opposed ethanol fuels.

The S65 engine developed on Preussen strasse Munich by bmw M division is a 2 cylinders knock- off from the 10 cyl s85 engine in the e60 m5 which critical testing was completed around early to mid 2004 and started production in 2005. In 2004 corn fuel was not expected to power mainstream vehicles much less did auto manufacturer expect that it would politically become a fuel requirement. It is safe to say that the s85 M5 engine was tested on ethanol free fuel. The s65 is essentially the same high revving engine except for the fuel pump and the HP vanos. Both run 10W60 oil.

With ethanol entering the consumer market in the USA in 2003 in California the Honda s2000 F20C engines failures due to spun bearing started to increase in 2006 three years after E10 introduction in California and occurrences peaked in 2007-2008. A short RB failure registry was made. i have logs for 14 F20C RB failures. We have to ask ourselves why S2000 engines did not spun bearings before ethanol started to be used.

The story repeats for the E46 M3 S54 engine. bearing failures followed a similar time table.

Why some other NA high revving engine brands are less impacted (Porsche) could be due to a better oil system with faster warmup times and better oil pressures. However they occasionally spin bearings too.




Blackstone oil labs analysis cannot specifically detect ethanol in the oil. Their oil analysis sheet gives fuel but cannot distinguish between ethanol and gasoline and they do not have equipment to do that. I asked them months ago.

Expectedly this steers heavy sentiments. For haters, sorry to ruin your love of E85.

[SVH]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

...So what problem are you trying to fix with the crank? Connecting rods will fix the side clearance oiling issue and are a lot cheaper than a crank. Rod bearings fix the clearance oiling issue, and together with connecting rods (new or machined ones) are a lot cheaper than a billet crank.....

Correct me if I'm mistaken but what the crank journals? I thought there was some issues with them as well as rod journals....

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

You are pushing VAC's redesign of the Clevite bearing over BE's redesign of the Clevite bearing.

I could care less about VACs design, but at least there has been some real world testing of them and it looked encouraging.

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Seems like your agenda is just to trash BE.

Who, with the sense they were born with, would buy an untested critical engine part that varies from the OEM spec?

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Surely these are the aftermarket bearings to choose if you don't want OEM..at least you get to see how a set looks after some serious hard use?

Hey newsflash! Those ARE OEM bearings with a coating on them. LMFAO. Yeah adding a coating to factory bearings has always been a brilliant idea. I guess if you're in the low information crowd, this is what you'd choose.

Originally Posted by pbsonalb

Seems like your agenda is just to trash BE. You are pushing VAC's redesign of the Clevite bearing over BE's redesign of the Clevite bearing. Yet you claim no bearing will fix the problem.

Not even that, he pointed to a thread about VAC coated OEM bearings! If he had been talking about the new VAC Clevite bearings, this is what I would have said.

At first VAC sales guys didn't even know they had these bearings and then told people they were the same as stock but VAC/Clevite design. They depended on 3rd parties that he calls incompetent to measure them and then they changed their marketing to call them "extra clearance" after he did it and posted the results. They have no test car, no flow meter, no data logging. They provide no data, no testing, no specifications, and no promise to provide any of this data. I guess if you think this is "better" then this is what you'd choose too.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Those ARE OEM bearings with a coating on them. LMFAO. Yeah adding a coating to factory bearings has always been a brilliant idea.

Yet after 33,500 supercharged miles they showed no wear!
What manner of witchcraft is that!!

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

BMW did Three crank designs on the S65? I wasn't aware of that, do you know when this happend (i.e 3 different designs tested before released or production upgrades)?

11 21 7 841 641 redesigned in May '08
11 21 7 841 658 redesigned in Feb '09
11 21 0 443 639 available until end of production

Source: bmwfans.info

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

I could care less about VACs design, but at least there has been some real world testing of them and it looked encouraging.

Can you describe what testing they've done and do you have any links to the results? Anything as elaborate as what BE is doing to test theirs? The only thing I could find are VAC leaving it to 3rd parties to buy it, test it, and post their own results. I haven't seen anything from VAC so far and nothing on their web site either. So what you got...anything at all?

Who, with the sense they were born with, would buy an untested critical engine part that varies from the OEM spec?

Good point. Will be interested to see what you have for VAC supplied testing and what what you can show for VAC supplied results.

Just make sure whatever you post, you get the product right this time and don't point to a thread about coated OEM bearings like you did last time.

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Yet 33,500 supercharged miles later they showed no wear!
What manner of witchcraft is that!!]

Did you read that this engine has ARP-2000 rod bolts in it that causes bore distortion up to 0.0012 inch extra clearance at 90 degrees? Hmm. Maybe you're trying to give us the proof that extra clearance works after all!

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

11 21 7 841 641 redesigned in May '08
11 21 7 841 658 redesigned in Feb '09
11 21 0 443 639 available until end of production

Source: bmwfans.info

Thanks VT. So three different crank and two different bearing shell, and still doesn't provide expected reliability, we see similar percentage of bearing issues over 2008-2013? This is confusing at least for an engine novise, but maybe the re-design targets had nothing to do with improving reliability, do you know?

Cheers

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Who, with the sense they were born with, would buy an untested critical engine part that varies from the OEM spec?

Can you please provide data to back up the claim that they're untested? If you can't substantiate it, technically, that's libel. Just saying, you might want to choose your words a bit more carefully.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Can you please provide data to back up the claim that they're untested?

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

My spare engine is still being ran daily in California, collecting data with every mile (oil pressure, oil temperature, oil flow and RPM) using a new set of OEM 702/703 bearings with OEM 10W60 in the sump then the same data will be collected with BE Bearings and OEM 10W60 to confirm that these bearings are an improvement over OEM.

Apparently they are still on setting a baseline with the old bearings.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Did you read that this engine has ARP-2000 rod bolts in it that causes bore distortion up to 0.0012 inch extra clearance at 90 degrees? Hmm. Maybe you're trying to give us the proof that extra clearance works after all!

LOL make your mind up...are the VAC bearings too tight or too loose.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Apparently they are still on setting a baseline with the old bearings.

Measuring every single shell, putting them in multiple sets of connecting rods for measuring, putting both thick and thin sets into rods to measure, sending a stack to Dinan to measure, and sending them to a NASCAR race team with ultra precise air gauge measuring devices doesn't constitute any type of testing in your mind? Since you have the inside scoop with VAC on testing, remind me again what kind of testing did VAC do themselves?

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

LOL make your mind up...are the VAC bearings too tight or too loose.

You tell me, you're the guy who pointed to the thread and gave the wrong information about it and then drew the wrong conclusions. Maybe we'll get your answers when we get your VAC testing data.