Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[Z K]

Originally Posted by chris719

Just FYI, every time I looked at the used TWS 10w-60 from my Z4M (S54) it was black.

+1

Motor oil looking darker is very normal and has nothing to do with it wearing out.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/5-engin...ths.htm#page=2

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by Z K

+1

Motor oil looking darker is very normal and has nothing to do with it wearing out.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/5-engin...ths.htm#page=2

Thanks ... I was always under the impression that the Diesel engine oil turned black doesn't matter how old it is and it was the opposite for petrol engines. I was surprised because an article that was linked under this discussion said that the oil should remain translucent, and hence the decision to raise it.

Kawasaki is the oil expert here and may chip in with his opinion.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Comparing blown motors to blown motors is going to be very difficult because frankly, people aren't telling the truth about them and we will never get any reliable statistics from BMW or any SA. So that's why I think we should be comparing bearing photos from the different localities to test any of the cold weather theories. I think it's going to be really difficult to make this comparison between US, UK, and AU because I don't think anybody from the UK or AU has replaced their bearings and posted the photos. If there are some from the UK or AU, then please post links so we can make the comparison.

Until members from the UK and AU post bearing photos, it's really going to be impossible to make a comparison to US and Canadian motors. I have asked jcolley @ m5board if any of his members are from the UK or Australia and see if I can bring over some of the photos to this thread if they are. That's the only way to know if the UK and AU are immune or not. I suspect they are not immune.

Yes, we need hard evident. Most AU owners are not enthusiasts so we are unlikely to get them frequenting forums like this. I don't know whether it's worthwhile posting on the regional forums to see whether there have been any issues. Even if there were, I am not sure whether there will be photo evidence. Dealers might have it because they would have taken to raise a PUMA measure. These days it is not easy to have anything replaced as faulty unless a PUMA measure is raised and BMW tech heads at the head office is convinced that it's an issue. The days of blindly replacing parts under warranty are gone.

[Sti2e92sedan]

can we add mine to this list?
2008 m3 e90 blown June 2013 at 68k miles. located in southern califonia

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

I got your point. If you checked the thread I linked to the M5board, one of the guys in Hong Kong had is motor blow w/60k on it. http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...ml#post3876361
*Broken* bearing on an E60 in Texas (southern US) and I wouldn't say we have harsh winters: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...ml#post3722377
2007 M6 out of Florida (southern US) that had ~32K on it: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...ml#post3874961
2008 E60 w/50K out of Georgia (southeast US): http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...ml#post3922794
2008 E60 w/90k California: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...000-miles.html

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Sti2e92sedan

can we add mine to this list?
2008 m3 e90 blown June 2013 at 68k miles. located in southern califonia

I don't think we can, my man. Your post about your engine said it failed b/c of an oil pump failure, not because of the bearings.

[Sti2e92sedan]

just been following these two threads too very interesting:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...tures-s85.html

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...k-miles-3.html

[Sti2e92sedan]

Yes this was at first. I have not updated the reason but I will ask my indy shop to take pics of the bearings. Im sure it has to do with the bearings as i heard noise before engine failed. I will search more about what happened with my engine and confirm.

But now that I am still in the s65/85 engine these bearing do concern me.
please continue to thread learning a lot.

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

I don't think we can, my man. Your post about your engine said it failed b/c of an oil pump failure, not because of the bearings.

[SenorFunkyPants]

A quick and dirty look at the location of 14 cars with blown engines shows 7 in California.
Is that significant? Its quite a spike, could it be related to the fact that in California 91 octane fuel is the highest octane fuel and the easy availability of cheaper lower octane fuel?

A key problem is that what little data there is, has not been set out.
Without some sort of table setting out a complete list of engine failures/high bearing wear with associated data, year, mileage, fault, whether S/Ced, location etc how can any theory be properly tested.

The starting premise here is that the bearing wear/failures are due to clearance and every other piece of the jigsaw is made to fit around this big central piece. The trouble is, when the jigsaw is finished there is one massive piece left over - BMW M Sport.
BMW with all their resources having inspected every failed S85 engine returned to them and processed the data decided not to make any bearing changes when the S65 ( which is basically a 2nd generation S85) was put into production. This despite having sufficient time to incorporate any updated bearing parts and the financial incentive of doing so. That is hard to take.

Were S85 engine failures concentrated in the USA or spread evenly worldwide?

[Cool Steel]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

A quick and dirty look at the location of 14 cars with blown engines shows 7 in California.
Is that significant? Its quite a spike, could it be related to the fact that in California 91 octane fuel is the highest octane fuel and the easy availability of cheaper lower octane fuel?

A key problem is that what little data there is, has not been set out.
Without some sort of table setting out a complete list of engine failures/high bearing wear with associated data, year, mileage, fault, whether S/Ced, location etc how can any theory be properly tested.

The starting premise here is that the bearing wear/failures are due to clearance and every other piece of the jigsaw is made to fit around this big central piece. The trouble is, when the jigsaw is finished there is one massive piece left over - BMW M Sport.
BMW with all their resources having inspected every failed S85 engine returned to them and processed the data decided not to make any bearing changes when the S65 ( which is basically a 2nd generation S85) was put into production. This despite having sufficient time to incorporate any updated bearing parts and the financial incentive of doing so. That is hard to take.

Were S85 engine failures concentrated in the USA or spread evenly worldwide?

Interesting....I wonder why the high failure rate in Cali? Cause and effect...
Higher heat in engine due to lower octane in Cali + our high 12:1 compression ratio cause bearing failure? If it were the octane wouldn't the MSS60 ECU have caught pre ignition and detonation with the ion flow technology? Is the ion flow technology perhaps not working as thought? Is it working, adjusting but engine internals (bearings) still heating up due to the lower octane? The 91 octane is supposed to be the minimum octane level to use with our cars with recommendation at 93...however with a 12:1 I cant imagine 91 being enough?? Is Cali gas crap and actually has an octane rating slightly below 91...??
Didn't they drop the compression ratio on the new Ms?
Wonder what the mileage is on most cars that have this problem? Over 50K? Started before that I am sure but when does one get worried?

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by Cool Steel

Interesting....I wonder why the high failure rate in Cali?

I doubt there is. It wouldn't be surprising to see that close to 50% of M3s sold in the US are sold in CA. It's like saying you've looked at data on people calling in sick and found out that 40% of the time it is on a Friday or a Monday.

[Cool Steel]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

I doubt there is. It wouldn't be surprising to see that close to 50% of M3s sold in the US are sold in CA. It's like saying you've looked at data on people calling in sick and found out that 40% of the time it is on a Friday or a Monday.

True I wonder what the actual percentage is that buy M3s in cali are?

I am hoping it is something not associated with the engineering of the S65, or BMW takes responsibility for this instead of just changing engines out, otherwise we all paid way too much for these cars ...

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

I doubt there is. It wouldn't be surprising to see that close to 50% of M3s sold in the US are sold in CA. It's like saying you've looked at data on people calling in sick and found out that 40% of the time it is on a Friday or a Monday.

As I said It was just a quick look just to get some idea but thats 7 out of 14 worldwide.
I doubt that California accounts for half of all M3 sales worldwide.
Of course its a USA forum so failures will be biased towards USA cars but it makes you think.

[MWM3]

so does this mean my car is going to explode in the near future?

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by MWM3

so does this mean my car is going to explode in the near future?

yes

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by MWM3

so does this mean my car is going to explode in the near future?

It is ticking slowing. Make sure you listen to the "clack ... clack".

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by MWM3

so does this mean my car is going to explode in the near future?

There is a very low probability that your engine will fail. However about every 75000 miles, you should consider replacing your rod bearings if you don't want to resize the journals on your crankshaft to fix the problem.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

A quick and dirty look at the location of 14 cars with blown engines shows 7 in California.
Is that significant? Its quite a spike, could it be related to the fact that in California 91 octane fuel is the highest octane fuel and the easy availability of cheaper lower octane fuel?

You can't use absolute numbers to know if this is a spike. You must look at the numbers as a percentage of total M3's in the area. For example: Suppose California has 14000 E9x-M3 sales and 7 failures. Seven failures of 14000 is 0.0005 failures per-capita. Now suppose the UK has 140 E9x-M3 sales and 1 failure. One failure of 140 is 0.0071 failures per-capita. In this example, the UK would have a much higher spike than California even though they have a lower total number of failures.

Hopefully this explains why you can't draw conclusions from the way you've presented the data. You will never know if 7 failures in California is a spike until you compare them on a per-capita basis. I tried finding M3 sales per region and couldn't find any. Maybe you will have better luck. If you do, post the data and then we can have this discussion about regional spikes.

I thought you had given up on the gasoline angle to this discussion? After arguing so long that BMW is infallible, your gasoline argument is tantamount to admitting BMW is not infallible by designing an engine that may fail simply by using the gasoline it was designed and tested to run. But if you want to continue this gasoline discussion, I think it's time for you to step up and explain how you think 91 octane destroys rod bearings.

A key problem is that what little data there is, has not been set out.
Without some sort of table setting out a complete list of engine failures/high bearing wear with associated data, year, mileage, fault, whether S/Ced, location etc how can any theory be properly tested.

Sigh. This exact data has been presented in the bearing photo database. Please read it. Remember, you correlate engine failures as you will never know all the data. If you do have the total engine failure rate, then don't be shy about presenting it.

The starting premise here is that the bearing wear/failures are due to clearance and every other piece of the jigsaw is made to fit around this big central piece.

There is no jigsaw. Let's review.

There are three things we seem to know for a fact:

1. There is a long standing clearance-to-journal ratio best practice rule that factory and racing engine builders alike have followed for 50+ years. This best practice clearance ratio is well documented in many of web sites, and recommended by Clevite, the maker of the S65 engine bearings. The S65 engine cuts that clearance ratio in half. (1, 2)
2. The bearing wear patterns we're seeing all match the Clevite online/interactive bearing failure diagnosis web site, example #12 "Oil Starvation / Marginal Oil Film Thickness." The main cause mentioned by Clevite for this type of failure is "too little bearing oil clearance." (3)
3. There is also a long standing rod side clearance best practice rule that factory and racing engine builders alike have followed for quite some time. Best practice clearance ratio is well documented in many of web sites. The S65 engine cuts that clearance significantly.

Notes:
1. Artitle: Clevite Bearing Clearance White Paper, Pages 16-18
2. Article: Geometrical parameters of engine bearings
3. Interactive: Clevite online/interactive bearing failure diagnosis web site

The trouble is, when the jigsaw is finished there is one massive piece left over - BMW M Sport. BMW with all their resources having inspected every failed S85 engine returned to them and processed the data decided not to make any bearing changes when the S65 ( which is basically a 2nd generation S85) was put into production. This despite having sufficient time to incorporate any updated bearing parts and the financial incentive of doing so. That is hard to take.

I don't think you realize just how many holes there are in your own argument. For starters, 1) the S65 was already driving at BMW test facilities at least one year before the S85 went into production. There was no S85 failure data to review before S65 design was complete. 2) The S85 was never modified itself during its entire production. Neither crank nor bearings were ever changed sizes. This kind of shoots a Texas sized hole in your argument if you are now accepting the S85 has a design flaw that isn't shared by the S65. 3) Modifying the S65 design would mean at least a two year delay in production. BMW would offer an one extra year warranty before they would delay production by two or more years. 4) Your financial incentive argument doesn't make any sense. BMW has a far larger financial incentive to put the S65 into production with known issues than they do to delay production by two or more years.

Were S85 engine failures concentrated in the USA or spread evenly worldwide?

You do the research and report back to us.

[rantarM3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

There is a very low probability that your engine will fail. However about every 75000 miles, you should consider replacing your rod bearings if you don't want to resize the journals on your crankshaft to fix the problem.

If the problem is due to tolerances of the parts involved then changing the bearings could either exacerbate or improve clearance issues, no? If so, is there any way to go about making sure the shells don't decrease clearances beyond what was originally installed? I suppose one alternative would be to use the ground bearings that had been posted (by kawasaki?), right?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

If the problem is due to tolerances of the parts involved then changing the bearings could either exacerbate or improve clearance issues, no? If so, is there any way to go about making sure the shells don't decrease clearances beyond what was originally installed? I suppose one alternative would be to use the ground bearings that had been posted (by kawasaki?), right?

The tolerance stack up appears to be in the journals and rod bore dimensions. I haven't see any significant differences in bearing thickness. It's worth mentioning this because the naysayers seems to blame this on Clevite instead of BMW. But Clevite bearings don't appear to suffer from any significant tolerance differences whereas BMW journals and rod bores do. Technically speaking, I haven't yet measured and confirmed the rod bore dimentions and tolerance difference. But the bearings that went into them were all uniform, but the dimensions of the torqued rods/bearings weren't. That implicitly points the finger at the rod bore dimensions. Hopefully I'll soon have some time to measure and confirm this.

I don't think Kawasaki can make that available to the public. One option available to the public is the WPC treatment. WPC treatment will reduce bearing thickness about 0.00030" if I remember correctly. Here's a link to the data:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...65&postcount=5

[rantarM3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

The tolerance stack up appears to be in the journals and rod bore dimensions. I haven't see any significant differences in bearing thickness. It's worth mentioning this because the naysayers seems to blame this on Clevite instead of BMW. But Clevite bearings don't appear to suffer from any significant tolerance differences whereas BMW journals and rod bores do. Technically speaking, I haven't yet measured and confirmed the rod bore dimentions and tolerance difference. But the bearings that went into them were all uniform, but the dimensions of the torqued rods/bearings weren't. That implicitly points the finger at the rod bore dimensions. Hopefully I'll soon have some time to measure and confirm this.

I don't think Kawasaki can make that available to the public. One option available to the public is the WPC treatment. WPC treatment will reduce bearing thickness about 0.00030" if I remember correctly. Here's a link to the data:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...65&postcount=5

It's good that there's little variation from shell to shell. But with the WPC treatment, if I understand it correctly, would it not harden the shell surface? With the new (presumably lead-free) shells from BMW being substantially harder than the leaded shells, it seems that further hardening them would transfer more of the wear to the crank journals. Have you done a hardness test on the WPC treated shells to compare to the stock shells?

[aussiem3]

Have a look at the crappy iPhone pic of the instrument cluster taken today. Went for a drive with the outside temp close to 39 Celsius and the oil temp north of 100 Celsius. The reading on my performance steering wheel was 102 Celsius.

This is the kind of temp we will be experiencing at least in Western Australia till end Feb. Using anything other than TWS is not advisable in my opinion for us here.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

[..........]

I have no idea about how to find out production numbers for California but lets make a very optimistic guess at just under a quarter of all USA M3s are sold in California so say 6000 cars. Number of M3s sold in the UK is funnily enough 6000 cars.
Widely reported failure rate in California is high. Widely reported failure rate in UK is low.
As there are lots of UK based M3 forums its pretty fair to say that a rash of E9x M3 engine failures would not have gone un-noticed.
The same can be said for all the big European markets.
If your theory can't account for the discrepancy between high failure rates in the USA (especially the apparent California spike) relative to worldwide rates then the model is flawed since if bearing clearance was the single cause then failure/high wear rates would be even across all markets. The model needs at least one other major factor to account for the difference between markets.
A tight rod bearing clearance in a high reving, high compression engine in combination with the use of low octane fuel produces a model in which all the failure/high wear data fits. Principally It explains the low failure rate in the big European market where low octane fuel is unavailable and the high rate in the USA where it is.
If a USA owner can put low octane fuel in a supercharged M3 having been explicitly told not to and blow up his engine then you can be certain that plenty other stock USA M3 owners will have used low octane fuel on occasion for whatever reason..simple mistake, availability, cost or whatever. How many tanks of 87 octane fuel would you have to run in a high compression engine at high revs before it caused rod bearing wear?