Blown motors, Rod Bearing failure S65 Registry.

[swartzentruber]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems like you are on a mission to disprove hard facts that surround bearing clearances or oil recommendations from what appear to me to be very qualified industry or subject matter experts. The facts are all there and many cannot be refuted, yet it seems like you try to do so every opportunity you see. My opinion is that you troll these threads to make conclusions you cannot back up with technical data or hard evidence. But you know what they say about opinions…

But that's just it, there are very few hard facts that are known or were ever posted in that thread about this engine, only a lot of speculation regarding industry standards, and RegularGuy was no engine building SME by any means (kawasaki would seem to be much closer to one based on what I've seen of him in these threads). I think it was pretty well established the clearance was tight -- too tight? That's something that's open to a lot of speculation, since designing engines always has compromises, and no engine is perfect. SFP has reliably been the voice of right or wrong, give the BMW engineers the benefit of the doubt over armchair critics. In hindsight, perhaps they erred on the side of too tight, but to date the instances of purely stock well driven/maintained M3s with blown engines is still, probably one year after that epic thread, pretty low.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by swartzentruber

But that's just it, there are very few hard facts that are known or were ever posted in that thread about this engine, only a lot of speculation regarding industry standards, and RegularGuy was no engine building SME by any means (kawasaki would seem to be much closer to one based on what I've seen of him in these threads). I think it was pretty well established the clearance was tight -- too tight? That's something that's open to a lot of speculation, since designing engines always has compromises, and no engine is perfect.

I beg to differ that the Clevite white paper regarding safe bearing clearances is speculation. That is the trump card to BMW's engineering oversight in this instance. History has shown that BMW M Division has maintained critical clearances tighter than industry accepted standards. So much so with the E46 M3 that they recalled who knows how many thousand cars to correct the error. If kawasaki is the one you would credit with expertise and discount regular guy's input on clearance than why are the two partnering up to create a fix for this issue? The guy you "might" give some credit obviously puts some faith in regular guy's abilities. This is shown in the Clevite bearing fix thread that has recently been getting a lot of attention. I'm not sure how much time was needed to obtain and document regular guy's findings or the cost of this venture, but I challenge anyone else to do the same, to the same extent, and post their findings. It seems to me that this guy put a lot of effort into doing this right and he is viewed as a martyr of BMW engineering by a select few. It just baffles me. He may or may not be a subject matter expert on engine building, I don't know his credentials. What I do know is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even an engine builder to measure the engine's clearances.

Originally Posted by swartzentruber

SFP has reliably been the voice of right or wrong, give the BMW engineers the benefit of the doubt over armchair critics. In hindsight, perhaps they erred on the side of too tight, but to date the instances of purely stock well driven/maintained M3s with blown engines is still, probably one year after that epic thread, pretty low.

How could any reasonable person give BMW engineers the benefit of the doubt when EVERY documented engine teardown, failure related or not, has shown wear on the connecting rod bearings? Wear that is most certainly uncharacteristic of engines with their respective mileage and usage. Modified or not, TWS or otherwise, properly warmed up or not…all show age beyond their use.

Originally Posted by swartzentruber

In hindsight, perhaps they erred on the side of too tight

This is all you needed to say. This is a fact and an extensively researched and documented one at that.


For the record, I am not an engine builder by trade nor do I claim to be a subject matter expert on the topic. I review the information provided from multiple threads on this forum regarding engine clearances and oil characteristics and formulate my opinions base on the data provided. The only subject that ties into this issue that is up for debate in my opinion is oil choice. There are pros and cons to every single grade and manufacturer of oil and there have been no solid data points presented from extended use that allow me to conclude one is better than the other or better than another.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Jeez its like RG is back again.
Forget the armchair experts lets recall what the real experts said:
On the 6 sets of bearings sent to Clevite by RG for analysis:
RG: "Are there any signs of bearing clearance deficiencies. The nominal bearing clearance is 0.00140 inch on a 2.04655 inch journal."
Clevite: "I know you are all hot on this, but I just don't see it. The upper shells in most of the samples show a wear pattern over 2/3 of the surface which we'd consider normal.

The whole "BMW specified a too tight bearing clearance for the S65" theory falls flat on its face as soon as you consider that ~99% of S65 engined M3s are still running fine, plenty with over 100,000 miles. As Clevite succinctly noted after inspecting a set of bearings at 38,000 miles: "engines with too tight bearing clearances do not last to 38,000 miles".
However it does seem possible (likely) that BMW may have picked a clearance that makes them vulnerable to variations away from OEM part specifications
Whatever is going on with these engines, fitting a bearing set to give a bigger clearance gives absolutely no guarantee of better reliability. Increasing bearing clearance has the undesired effect of reducing oil pressure at the bearing face and therefore film strength.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

However it does seem possible that BMW may have picked a clearance that makes them vulnerable to variations away from part specifications
Whatever is going on with these engines, fitting a set with a bigger clearance gives absolutely no guarantee of better reliability. Increasing bearing clearance has the undesired effect of reducing oil pressure at the bearing face and therefore film strength.

Very good point whether it is right or wrong.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Jeez its like RG is back again.
Forget the armchair experts lets recall what the real experts said:
On the 6 sets of bearings sent to Clevite by RG for analysis:
RG: "Are there any signs of bearing clearance deficiencies. The nominal bearing clearance is 0.00140 inch on a 2.04655 inch journal."
Clevite: "I know you are all hot on this, but I just don't see it. The upper shells in most of the samples show a wear pattern over 2/3 of the surface which we'd consider normal.

The whole "BMW specified a too tight bearing clearance for the S65" theory falls flat on its face as soon as you consider that ~99% of S65 engined M3s are still running fine, plenty with over 100,000 miles. As Clevite succinctly noted after inspecting a set of bearings at 38,000 miles: "engines with too tight bearing clearances do not last to 38,000 miles".
However it does seem possible (likely) that BMW may have picked a clearance that makes them vulnerable to variations away from OEM part specifications
Whatever is going on with these engines, fitting a bearing set to give a bigger clearance gives absolutely no guarantee of better reliability. Increasing bearing clearance has the undesired effect of reducing oil pressure at the bearing face and therefore film strength.

Or perhaps it's a quality control issue from the bearing manufacturer (again, like the s54 fiasco), where batches of vehicles have had them installed and they are coming to light in these cases. Maybe a variance in the clearance, or the concentricity of the bearing itself. Either way, I hope it gets figured out in time.

[wrecklessfool]

In a perfect world, the clearances BMW spec'd might last a solid 100k and beyond under ideal conditions. In one of these threads someone mentioned tolerance stacking or stack up. In a perfect world this wouldn't exist. With the stack up that has the potential to exist in the real world we live in you see failures from too tight of a clearance in this critical area. I'm of the opinion that BMW spec'd the bearing without a safety margin to account for these minute variations that have been shown to ultimately make the bearings too tight. The proposed fix Kawasaki posted about a few days ago looks like it will provide the bearing thickness (rather thinness) to open up this safety margin to acceptable levels.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

In a perfect world, the clearances BMW spec'd might last a solid 100k and beyond under ideal conditions. In one of these threads someone mentioned tolerance stacking or stack up. In a perfect world this wouldn't exist. With the stack up that has the potential to exist in the real world we live in you see failures from too tight of a clearance in this critical area. I'm of the opinion that BMW spec'd the bearing without a safety margin to account for these minute variations that have been shown to ultimately make the bearings too tight. The proposed fix Kawasaki posted about a few days ago looks like it will provide the bearing thickness (rather thinness) to open up this safety margin to acceptable levels.

You get that tolerance variations works both ways right?
IF there are significant tolerance variations in the parts dictating the rod bearing clearance then its as likely to produce a looser clearance as it is to produce one that is tighter. Adding further clearance to an already oversize clearance is just as likely to lead to early failure as one that is too tight. Its an illusion to think that fitting under sized bearings is a silver bullet fix.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

You get that tolerance variations works both ways right?
IF there are significant tolerance variations in the parts dictating the rod bearing clearance then its as likely to produce a looser clearance as it is to produce one that is tighter. Adding further clearance to an already oversize clearance is just as likely to lead to early failure as one that is too tight. Its an illusion to think that fitting under sized bearings is a silver bullet fix.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I for one will be replacing my rod bearings with the soon-to-be alternative. If you don't believe the clearance is a real problem then that's fine; this horse has been beaten to pulp. Just one question though: would you honestly post on here if you had a problem arise with your rod bearings? I would hope you would but I would understand if you didn't.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

Just one question though: would you honestly post on here if you had a problem arise with your rod bearings? I would hope you would but I would understand if you didn't.

A question I have asked myself already and I can't see any reason why not - whether my engine fails or not doesn't really change anything. Its not like I'm saying there is not a problem, I'm just not convinced we truly understand the cause.
My car is covered by an annually renewable BMW extended warranty so I wouldn't mind at all if the engine let go - I'd get a new one....gotta love a new engine.

[pbonsalb]

What do you pay for an annually renewable BMW warranty in year 5? What will you pay for an annually renewable BMW extended warranty in year 8? I imagine the cumulative cost is pretty high and the annual costs are rising and pretty soon BMW won't even let you renew.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Depends on how much deductible you have...but its around $1200 a year which covers everything on the car but wear and tear items.
You can renew this every year up to 100,000 miles. After that you can only have a powertrain warranty.

Edit: its actually called a Drivetrain warranty after 100,000 and the max payout per claim is around $8000

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Depends on how much deductible you have...but its around $1200 a year which covers everything on the car but wear and tear items.
You can renew this every year up to 100,000 miles. After that you can only have a powertrain warranty.

Are bearings considered a wear item?
(Actually asking)

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Are bearings considered a wear item?
(Actually asking)

Sort of.

They are specifically covered under the warranty:
Engine.
"All internally lubricated components, including but not limited to the following:
Cylinder head, cylinder head gasket, valves (excluding decarbonisation, burnt or pitted valves and valve seats), valve springs, valve guides, camshaft and bearings, camshaft followers, hydraulic lifters, timing gears, timing chains, piston and piston rings, cylinder liners and liner seals, connecting rods and small end bearings, gudgeon pins, crankshaft and crankshaft bearings, oil pump and oil pump drive, distributor driveshaft, flywheel, starter motor ring gear, engine management sensors."

But wear and tear or normal deterioration is not covered.

So a "Sudden and unexpected" engine failure is covered but worn bearings may well not be.

EDIT: As in, engine blows up then you are good even if its a spun bearing.
Strip an engine down that was working and replacing worn bearings would most likely be on your dime.

[swartzentruber]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

I beg to differ that the Clevite white paper regarding safe bearing clearances is speculation. That is the trump card to BMW's engineering oversight in this instance. History has shown that BMW M Division has maintained critical clearances tighter than industry accepted standards.

It's a white paper. It presents engineering suggestions/guidelines. It doesn't prove that every single engine must follow those guidelines. Additionally, I would suspect that with better quality control and better engine management control, it could be quite possible for clearances to narrow vs historical specs in modern engines. It's a starting point, not conclusive proof of a mistake.

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

So much so with the E46 M3 that they recalled who knows how many thousand cars to correct the error.

And so they went and made the same damn mistake again? I'd hope the engineers would learn from past issues, so if they made it this tight again, it was likely for good reason. As SFP pointed out, a looser bearing may present its own issues.

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

If kawasaki is the one you would credit with expertise and discount regular guy's input on clearance than why are the two partnering up to create a fix for this issue? The guy you "might" give some credit obviously puts some faith in regular guy's abilities. This is shown in the Clevite bearing fix thread that has recently been getting a lot of attention. I'm not sure how much time was needed to obtain and document regular guy's findings or the cost of this venture, but I challenge anyone else to do the same, to the same extent, and post their findings. It seems to me that this guy put a lot of effort into doing this right and he is viewed as a martyr of BMW engineering by a select few. It just baffles me. He may or may not be a subject matter expert on engine building, I don't know his credentials. What I do know is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even an engine builder to measure the engine's clearances.

I give kawasaki credit as an engine SME, and respect his opinions, but it doesn't necessarily make them right. As far as RG being a "martyr", I don't think it was ever anything close to that. As much as anything it's what I think SFP said in another thread, where it seemed like RG started with a position (bearings are too tight), and did everything possible then to find data to support the already made conclusion and dismiss anything that didn't fit his conclusion. I think if he'd done a better job in the thread of having an open dialogue, the thread wouldn't have degraded as much as it did. And finally, I think there was always an undercurrent of suspicion in that thread that the main point was for him to try to establish himself as some bearing clearance authority, and possibly convince us all that this is a big scary problem, and then leverage that credibility into selling us all an improved part. It seems that is playing itself out.

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

How could any reasonable person give BMW engineers the benefit of the doubt when EVERY documented engine teardown, failure related or not, has shown wear on the connecting rod bearings? Wear that is most certainly uncharacteristic of engines with their respective mileage and usage. Modified or not, TWS or otherwise, properly warmed up or not…all show age beyond their use.

You know what, bearings wear. It doesn't really prove much of anything since no one really knows how many more miles the bearings have on them before they go. Looking at bearing wear pictures, it's been very hard to correlate engine miles with wear, which suggest something else is probably an important factor other than simple clearance, such as either poor quality control, some kind of installation issues, or how the car is driven. There is also the strong possibility of a selection bias, as I think SFP has pointed out previously. Most people don't just randomly decide to tear down their engine to check bearings, though a few do. Most open up the engine either because they are hearing sounds or perhaps because they are installing a s/c (which might suggest someone that drives their car harder than average. If we took 100 randomly sampled engines, opened them up and took pictures, and they all looked bad, it would have a hell of a lot more credibility.

[BIGW0RM]

You guys ever go outside?

[0-60Motorsports]

Originally Posted by ILSMKU

You guys every go outside?

^This

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by ILSMKU

You guys every go outside?

lol

[SenorFunkyPants]

It occurred to me (in the middle of the night - why is that?) that the solution might lie in a slightly different approach at least as regards rod bearing clearance.
Crowdsource a few thousand $$ (from the owners who are interested in the "new" bearings) and make an arrangement with the guy who owns the 160,000 mile M3 with original bearings to pull his crank. Measure the rod bearing clearance of the ones in best condition and use that number as the clearance for the "new" bearings being manufactured by Clevite (rebuilding his engine as part of the deal obviously).
Better to use a clearance from a car thats lasted 160K miles than RGs random guesstimate of what the clearance ought to be, which will be as likely to be less reliable as more reliable (the actual clearance chosen by RG will remain a secret apparently for some reason).

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

It occurred to me (in the middle of the night - why is that?) that the solution might lie in a slightly different approach at least as regards rod bearing clearance.
Crowdsource a few thousand $$ (from the owners who are interested in the "new" bearings) and make an arrangement with the guy who owns the 160,000 mile M3 with original bearings to pull his crank. Measure the rod bearing clearance of the ones in best condition and use that number as the clearance for the "new" bearings being manufactured by Clevite (rebuilding his engine as part of the deal obviously).
Better to use a clearance of a car thats lasted 160K miles than RGs random guesstimate of what the clearance ought to be, which will be as likely to be less reliable as more reliable - and which apparently will remain a secret.

A great idea but it seems at this point that a great deal of time and probably money have been invested in the Kawasaki/regular guy bearings. If the process wasn't as far along as the bearing thread leads me to believe I would have surely invested $100-$200 for this research project. As it stands I'm not sure a redesign is feasible, but I'm just making an assumption. Maybe Kawasaki can chime in with his thoughts?

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

It occurred to me (in the middle of the night - why is that?) that the solution might lie in a slightly different approach at least as regards rod bearing clearance.
Crowdsource a few thousand $$ (from the owners who are interested in the "new" bearings) and make an arrangement with the guy who owns the 160,000 mile M3 with original bearings to pull his crank. Measure the rod bearing clearance of the ones in best condition and use that number as the clearance for the "new" bearings being manufactured by Clevite (rebuilding his engine as part of the deal obviously).
Better to use a clearance from a car thats lasted 160K miles than RGs random guesstimate of what the clearance ought to be, which will be as likely to be less reliable as more reliable (the actual clearance chosen by RG will remain a secret apparently for some reason).

Are you sure about this I would expect that full technical details of the new bearings will be released once they are offered for sale. You know after the last several years of rod bearings being the hot topic on this forum people are going to have many questions and demand facts/evidence that these new ones are indeed better than oem.

[pbonsalb]

They will have to wait a few years to find out. Until the test of miles and time/usage in a number of cars, coated, treated and bearings with different clearances are just an alternative to stock ones that appear to have more than the expected failure rate.

Clearance are often one of the "secrets" held by engine builders trying to build either the most reliable or the most powerful motor. When the engine has been around longer and more have been built, the secrets tend to get out. Until then, most will look at the factory spec, look at the industry standard, consider their experiences building motors, and perhaps come up with something slightly different from factory spec.

[aus]

Originally Posted by ILSMKU

You guys every go outside?

Repped.