Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

I wonder if any real lawyers are reading this thread?

Probably only those employed by BMW.

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

What do you think we have concluded here? As far as I understand it, we have concluded that in the course of the 6 year S65 production run, BMW changed the connecting rod bearing parts and the new parts differed from the old ones. OEMs do running changes to cars ALL THE TIME. And why? TO FIX PROBLEMS or TO INCREASE DURABILITY.

Even if we assume that this bearing change was in part to help ameliorate a bearing clearance concern, what are you going to assert in the lawsuit? That they changed a clearance to benefit owners by making engine problems less likely? And that is bad why?

Lawsuits need to show economic damage before they can recoup money. How about a blown engine?


The only people who can make a compelling claim to have suffered economic damage due to BMW are people who:
(0) had their engine blow up - Not necessarily. Plenty of worn bearings without failure around, remember this part is not supposed to wear this easily/rapidly (from what I've read here)
(1) after the 4 yr/50K warranty period and were denied coverage by BMW - Number of blown engines replaced during warranty can be used to establish a trend as part of the evidence that there was a design flaw
(2) and who had not supercharged their engines -Agree
(3) and had not applied aftermarket tunes - Probably

How many people like this (fulfilling all 4 categories) are there? 10?

Pat

Beauty lies on the eye of the beholder. It depends on how you see it. They changed an important part of an engine that may be causing serious problems. They may be very well trying to avoid further problems with the easiest "fix" they could. They made a change in oil recommendation also. I believe they have even replaced engine(s) out of warranty for "goodwill" (I think I read that somewhere in this forum). Why? It is anyone's guess at this moment, but... they may be very well trying to avoid angry costumers, trying to avoid THIS VERY THREAD from happening.

The most important thing needed is the number of failures, also anyone's guess at this moment. And probably the S85's can be included too (I am no expert but as I recall both engines share similar bearing design). In a lawsuit they will most likely be forced to reveal that number, unless they settle.

I would like to continue but I'm on a hurry right now.

Anyway, this cannot be debated here, it has to be debated in court. I bet you take this thread to a big lawyer firm (perhaps the same that dealt with the HPFP failures), and they'll know what to do.

Believe me, my engine is running fine, but if it had blown due to rod bearing failure, knowing what I've learned in this thread, I would at least try to contact as much owners with blown engines as possible and take this to a lawyer.

BMW will not come to you to fix you bearings and admit a problem. You have to take the fight to them.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Is it really necessary to try so hard to discredit at every single opportunity? It does you no favours.

Like I said before, it's not possible to discredit you any more than you've done to yourself.

Not a problem but I can assure you I know how to measure very accurately. My credentials are fine.

Nobody doubts you know how to measure accurately. But I do question whether you know how to PROPERLY use your own equipment to measure accurately.

Now that you're willing to discuss your credentials, what are they? What's your name? What shop do you own, or where do you work? How many years experience? What special training? What's your biggest automotive accomplishment? You can't use your credentials to your credit if you won't disclose what they are; and without that disclosure, you're just an anonymous poster in this thread without any credentials.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

But how and where to measure eccentricity is not necessarily related to my concern of if you can uninstall and reinstall bearings and still get valid eccentricity numbers.

I've noticed each virgin bearing I received had a measurement mark in it when it came from BMW. I can't be sure if they've been installed and measured or measured statically as part of QA. But each bearing has a mark on it at 90-degrees as if it's already been measured. Had to come from BMW that way because all packages were sealed.

Bottom line, I don't know the answer to know if a once-installed bearing can be re-measured for eccentricity. Maybe kawasaki can chime in about it. But if it matters AND if they were installed already during QA process, then there won't be any way to get it perfect. Regardless, it is...what it is.

Suggested possible "remedies"

1. Remeasure eccentricity of a single 702/703 bearing combination after one uninstall and reinstall. One weakness of this is that these bearings are substantially harder than the 088/089 bearings and thus will crush differently.
2. Remeasure eccentricity of a single new 088/089 bearing. I understand you have no new bearings left and never had new ones for one of these.
3. Remeasure a full set of 088/089 bearings (obviously only after #2 provided some reason to conclude that values change after an uninstall/reinstall).

Not sure how you knew this, but yes 702's were measured while still installed the first time. So I think the best way to see if it changes is to re-install the entire set of 702's and take a new set of measurements to see if they change.

Hopefully you can agree that given the fairly large surprise and potential ramifications of the insight gained, it warrants a very high degree of certainty about the technique used (and whether said technique will affect the results).

It's obvious you are a technique-meister so I suspect my concerns should very much resonate with you.

Since I can't get any more 088/089's, I think the best approach is to re-measure the 702/703's to see if they change. I'm willing to do it...but it might take a week or so before my wife will let me start playing with torque wrenches again.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

As a matter of interest, these sizes below were quoted earlier in the thread. Taken from new 702/703 bearings. This give almost the exact same eccentricity that RG has found on the assembled rod as listed in the second quote. This indicates that you can get a pretty good idea of eccentricity from just the shell.

Just curious what you used to measure the eccentricity of the 702/703's. No possible way you can use a test indicator off-axis like that and get an accurate measurement without a test fixture to hold the bearing. You would need to make a test fixture to hold the bearing at a precise angle to use a test indicator. I'm sure you didn't do this. So what did you use to measure eccentricity thickness of the bearings?

Bear in mind, my sizes are radial.

Isn't that just a bore gauge, or is it something else? Sounds like a bore gauge to me (same thing I used).

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Provisional results from the recent engine fail poll.

Included in the 42 votes (Now 43) were a lot of mistaken votes, but they were spread through all the model years so the overall ratio of fails/model year remains similar.
Same goes for the non replies - I ended up reading through all their posts (that wasn't at all tiresome!) to see if they gave any indication at of all of ever having an engine problem and all but one didn't (I included his as a fail).

From the votes only (including even if it was a report of a third party fail):
2008 - 5
2009 - 1
2010 - 2
2011 - 4
2012 - 1
2013 - 2

Adding in the third party reports (but not voted) from RG and MikeB made in that thread (less two 2011s which actually had been voted for and the 2 with unknown MY) it becomes:
2008 - 6
2009 - 1
2010 - 2
2011 - 6
2012 - 2
2013 - 4

No obvious trends regarding gearbox type, pretty much all located in NA, not many noted a tune and a few were supercharged.
I'll add in the cars from the other thread in the next day or so which will bump up the numbers.

Remove one of mine from the 2011's in the lower half. The owner of the car has added his name to the poll a week or so ago. So I don't think upper half needs to change.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

I think like SFP pointed out, there is more to this bearing failure like poor fuel quality. I was pumping fuel yesterday and inside the filler it recommends RON 95-98 and AKI 91. So if people are put in anything less you have to factor that it in. It may not be the case but combine that with other production factors and bad luck = explosion.

Aussiem3, for people who haven't been around before ECU's, I think there's a lot of knowledge that's been lost and incorrect assumptions now being made because of it. You simply can't run 12:1 compression ratio on 91, 93, or even 100 octane without active knock (detonation) control. Controlled detonation is part of normal life for a high compression motor. That's why the Clevite guy told me after looking at my photos that he didn't suspect detonation causing the bearing wear unless the ECU programming was completely screwed up. To give you an idea how important an ECU is to control detonation on a 12:1 motor, without it you would need to run ~110 octane AKI. Detonation happens very regularly on a 12:1 engine with 91 octane (93 as well, 100 as well). It's so normal, that active knock management is required to adjust timing. This is part of why I don't believe poor quality fuel is playing any role in these bearing wear issues unless we're going to accuse BMW of being incompetent ECU programmers. Kawasaki looked at bearings I sent him and he posted a very good analysis looking at the fronts and backs of the bearings, and they showed no signs of detonation in his (and his shop's) opinion. Next week I will send six or more full sets of bearings to Clevite for analysis. I hope they will give an analysis they would let me public in this thread.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Like I said before, it's not possible to discredit you any more than you've done to yourself.



Nobody doubts you know how to measure accurately. But I do question whether you know how to PROPERLY use your own equipment to measure accurately.

Now that you're willing to discuss your credentials, what are they? What's your name? What shop do you own, or where do you work? How many years experience? What special training? What's your biggest automotive accomplishment? You can't use your credentials to your credit if you won't disclose what they are; and without that disclosure, you're just an anonymous poster in this thread without any credentials.

I have no wish to share my credentials with you so I will decline your kind request thank you.

There is nothing wrong at all with my dial test comparison measurements. Again, ask a professional and they will confirm.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Just curious what you used to measure the eccentricity of the 702/703's. No possible way you can use a test indicator off-axis like that and get an accurate measurement without a test fixture to hold the bearing. You would need to make a test fixture to hold the bearing at a precise angle to use a test indicator. I'm sure you didn't do this. So what did you use to measure eccentricity thickness of the bearings?

Yes I used a dial indicator to find the eccentricity. Note it concurs with your findings so it must have happened.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

There is nothing wrong at all with my dial test measurements. Again, ask a professional and they will confirm.

I did ask two professionals. They both said you were wrong. Swamp looked at it analytically and told you that you were wrong. Your own photographs showed the improper use of your own equipment. You were clearly way over your head in that discussion and the proper use of precision instruments.

Yes I used a dial indicator to find the eccentricity. Note it concurs with your findings so it must have happened.

Let's not forget you have had a history in this thread getting caught presenting false and misleading data. So I don't think anybody is going to trust your results without some type of proof.

It's pretty clear from your own photos and discussion of cosine error that you're not that good with the proper use of precision instruments. That's one of those things you just need to deal with and learn from it. Given my tests and demonstrations with the cosine error experiments, I know exactly how the test indicator reacts to even the slightest perturbation. There's no possible way you did this accurately with a test indicator without a jig to hold the bearings in place. A video will show exactly what I mean if you try to use one this way.

Give us video proof of your measurements and methods...or it didn't happen.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I did ask two professionals. They both said you were wrong. Swamp looked at it analytically and told you that you were wrong. Your own photographs showed the improper use of your own equipment. You were clearly way over your head in that discussion and the proper use of precision instruments.



Let's not forget you have had a history in this thread getting caught presenting false and misleading data. So I don't think anybody is going to trust your results without some type of proof.

It's pretty clear from your own photos and discussion of cosine error that you're not that good with the proper use of precision instruments. That's one of those things you just need to deal with and learn from it. Given my tests and demonstrations with the cosine error experiments, I know exactly how the test indicator reacts to even the slightest perturbation. There's no possible way you did this accurately with a test indicator without a jig to hold the bearings in place. A video will show exactly what I mean if you try to use one this way.

Give us video proof of your measurements and methods...or it didn't happen.

Ok. It didn't happen. I guessed the size a month ago.

Explain to me how you get cosine error when comparing a size for size comparison measurement?

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Aussiem3, for people who haven't been around before ECU's, I think there's a lot of knowledge that's been lost and incorrect assumptions now being made because of it. You simply can't run 12:1 compression ratio on 91, 93, or even 100 octane without active knock (detonation) control. Controlled detonation is part of normal life for a high compression motor. That's why the Clevite guy told me after looking at my photos that he didn't suspect detonation causing the bearing wear unless the ECU programming was completely screwed up. To give you an idea how important an ECU is to control detonation on a 12:1 motor, without it you would need to run ~110 octane AKI. Detonation happens very regularly on a 12:1 engine with 91 octane (93 as well, 100 as well). It's so normal, that active knock management is required to adjust timing. This is part of why I don't believe poor quality fuel is playing any role in these bearing wear issues unless we're going to accuse BMW of being incompetent ECU programmers. Kawasaki looked at bearings I sent him and he posted a very good analysis looking at the fronts and backs of the bearings, and they showed no signs of detonation in his (and his shop's) opinion. Next week I will send six or more full sets of bearings to Clevite for analysis. I hope they will give an analysis they would let me public in this thread.

RG, I am not saying poor fuel is a factor but given everything currently being inconclusive I was just putting it out there amongst all other variables. As I have maintained, I am no expert in any of these areas, so it's fascinating to see this debate build over 85 pages now, and being able to ask questions to understand the intricacies in these engineering masterpiece. I have a lot of respect for yourself, SFG, YS, Kawasaki, Swamp2 and others who have contributed immensely.

I was responding to OP's comment about lawsuits which is ridiculous. This car is no lemon.

So don't think I was challenging any of the above mentioned contributors but just nipping in the bud of a comment that has no merit. It's his opinion and this is mine. We are all entitled to on this forum.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

RG, I am not saying poor fuel is a factor but given everything currently being inconclusive I was just putting it out there amongst all other variables. As I have maintained, I am no expert in any of these areas, so it's fascinating to see this debate build over 85 pages now, and being able to ask questions to understand the intricacies in these engineering masterpiece. I have a lot of respect for yourself, SFG, YS, Kawasaki, Swamp2 and others who have contributed immensely.

I was responding to OP's comment about lawsuits which is ridiculous. This car is no lemon.

So don't think I was challenging any of the above mentioned contributors but just nipping in the bud of a comment that has no merit. It's his opinion and this is mine. We are all entitled to on this forum.

It's all good. I'm just trying to explain why IMO, fuel quality isn't related to this issue. Because if it were, it means BMW has a VERY BIG flaw in the programming of their ECU. Clevite guy said something very similar.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

It's all good. I'm just trying to explain why IMO, fuel quality isn't related to this issue. Because if it were, it means BMW has a VERY BIG flaw in the programming of their ECU. Clevite guy said something very similar.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
I have no wish to share my credentials with you so I will decline your kind request thank you.


You can't use your credentials as proof of your expertise if you refuse to disclose them. Without credentials, you're just a random internet guy with the same credentials as a random internet guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
Ok. It didn't happen. I guessed the size a month ago.


Video will show exactly what I'm talking about the imprecision of using your device this way. Just take a video and post it. Let the video show without cuts your set up and measurements from start to finish. It will take you 10 minutes. How hard can it be?

Quote:
Explain to me how you get cosine error when comparing a size for size comparison measurement?


How do YOU explain my thickness measurements with both sets of instruments (used properly of course) that were verified with dial bore gauge? You still convinced the bearings aren't different thicknesses and your methods weren't flawed?

Yes I'm just a random poster.

It's easy to explain. You weren't using the dial gauge in the correct way.

You explain to me how you can get cosine error in a size for size comparison measurement. Make the answer as long and complicated as possible to confuse those that don't know any better. It might just give you a nice hit of testosterone to get off on.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Not a problem but I can assure you I know how to measure very accurately. My credentials are fine.

Again, not a jab at ya, just pointing out you haven't shared anything with us here in this thread.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

As a matter of interest, these sizes below were quoted earlier in the thread. Taken from new 702/703 bearings. This give almost the exact same eccentricity that RG has found on the assembled rod as listed in the second quote. This indicates that you can get a pretty good idea of eccentricity from just the shell.

Thanks, very good to know. I expected that eccentricity could be measured via the unmounted shell only so this confirm that.

Do you have any comments/insight on the accuracy of RGs measurements of the 088/089 bearing after a disassembly and reassembly?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I've noticed each virgin bearing I received had a measurement mark in it when it came from BMW. I can't be sure if they've been installed and measured or measured statically as part of QA. But each bearing has a mark on it at 90-degrees as if it's already been measured. Had to come from BMW that way because all packages were sealed.

Sounds like a typical tight tolerance part with 100% inspection, perhaps for statistical process control, likely by the manufacturer, not BMW.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Not sure how you knew this, but yes 702's were measured while still installed the first time. So I think the best way to see if it changes is to re-install the entire set of 702's and take a new set of measurements to see if they change.

Just a good guess and that seemed to be reinforced by you specifically noting the reinstall of the 088/089s.

You can probably get a good idea on the 702/703s after reinstall with a single test.

[SenorFunkyPants]

I've attached a *.doc file with most of the data I've assembled on engine failure by model year. I've left off the usernames and a couple of other fields so it would fit.
NS = not stated
S/C = supercharged.
There are 2 less than last time as there were 2 more duplicates from RG that showed up when it was all put together in an excel file.
In short:
2008 - 11
2009 - 2
2010 - 2
2011 - 9
2012 - 2
2013 - 4

Certainly doesn't look like adding clearance to the later bearings has any beneficial effect.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again, not a jab at ya, just pointing out you haven't shared anything with us here in this thread.



Thanks, very good to know. I expected that eccentricity could be measured via the unmounted shell only so this confirm that.

Do you have any comments/insight on the accuracy of RGs measurements of the 088/089 bearing after a disassembly and reassembly?

Sorry but I can't comment on the 088/089 shells because I can't get hold of one to measure. Believe me I have tried.

There are plenty of photo's of worn uppers but no accurate measurements of exactly how much wear has taken place when compared to a virgin shell.

Staining can make the shell can look worn in a photo with only a tenth of wear. Some real world figures would give a good indication of wear rates

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Sorry but I can't comment on the 088/089 shells because I can't get hold of one to measure. Believe me I have tried.

That wasn't my question...

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

I was responding to OP's comment about lawsuits which is ridiculous. This car is no lemon.

So don't think I was challenging any of the above mentioned contributors but just nipping in the bud of a comment that has no merit. It's his opinion and this is mine. We are all entitled to on this forum.

Excuse me sir, are you referring to me?

[kawasaki00]

[QUOTE=regular guy;15247857]

Bottom line, I don't know the answer to know if a once-installed bearing can be re-measured for eccentricity. Maybe kawasaki can chime in about it. But if it matters AND if they were installed already during QA process, then there won't be any way to get it perfect. Regardless, it is...what it is.

[QUOTE]

Installing bearings multiple times that have never been ran will not change anything. They will not deform unless the engine has been running.
Not directed at you RG but as a general statement the test indicator is great but there is no need to keep beating that horse, all that is needed is a dial bore gauge and that tells everything you need to know.
I measured the wear in the 088/089 bearings and it was about .0005 at each wear spot.
I am not sure how far 10mm is on that bore in angle measurement but fall off is really not important once you get over 50 degrees.

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I've attached a *.doc file with most of the data I've assembled on engine failure by model year. I've left off the usernames and a couple of other fields so it would fit.
NS = not stated
S/C = supercharged.
There are 2 less than last time as there were 2 more duplicates from RG that showed up when it was all put together in an excel file.
In short:
2008 - 11
2009 - 2
2010 - 2
2011 - 9
2012 - 2
2013 - 4

Certainly doesn't look like adding clearance to the later bearings has any beneficial effect.

Keep in mind that some of the 2011 models may have the older bearings. For example my car. It is a 2011 model year but production date was May 2010, therefore it is supposed to have the older thicker bearings.

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by bigtracing

I think you would have a different opinion if you were paying payments on a car that blew up and now needs a new $12, 000+ engine. all because bmw didn't engineer the bearing clearences to mahles sspecific clear to even a consumer specifications. not only that but this is the second generation of bearing failures in a Sxx engine. thr previous motor had a recall and everyone was happy. now this one vmw won't even goodwill. I think thats a little more serious then someone spilling some coffee on themselves. I usually would agree that americans are ridiculously sue happy but I think this is a justified occasion. unless you think BMW will just come out and pay without any one going after them? unfortunately I don't have the time money or knowledge to do so. as well I don't think my case would hold at all, being second owner. so I will just go back to rebuilding my motor to correct specs like bmw should have.

Originally Posted by Sti2e92sedan

I am in this situation as my engine blew up after warranty. I'm still paying payments for the car and still had to fork up funds to get a new engine. I'd be in with the rest who would like to go for a lawsuit here. I am also the second owner so I am with you as my situation would be harder than if I was the original owner.

Great appreciation to RG, Kawasaki, YS, and rest contributing to this thread. Lots of knowledge was learned. And lots was proven.

As I had to search for a new engine, I spoke with many mechanics and engineers who have been working on these engines since production. They all said the same thing, these engines have tight bearing clearances and they all have seen many engines failed and replaced.

Do not think that because you are second owners you will be out of the class. You will be part of the class and therefore entitled to remedy.

The thing is that if nobody does nothing thinking that there's no chance, nothing will happen...