▀▄ eas | S65 Rod Bearing Replacement: An ongoing "Journal"

[jcolley]

Just noticed the S85 rod bearing thread was closed. Should have been following along here instead.

Post on M5board, this thread has simliar intent.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...re-thread.html

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

That was only a change for the main bearings. The rod bearings haven't changed (part numbers) since the beginning from what I understand. Hence all rod bearing wear will begin to show up as increased lead initially I would assume?

That is not correct...... Upon further investigation it has shown that the part numbers have indeed changed! The original part numbers have been purged from realoem for some reason You are not the only one under this impression, I too thought the rod bearings haven't changed but they have indeed. Regular guy showed these part numbers he found in another post. The part #' of the lead free bearings end in 702 and 703 and the bearings with lead in them end in 889 and 890.

[M3PO]

Originally Posted by jbraslins

got this today, should i be worried?

That is an elevated level of lead. Nothing to be concerned with yet. But your mileage isn't that high either. In 20K miles, you will likely be in the same boat as me I bet. Higher lead and starting to show copper from the intermediate layer.

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

You should have zero lead Joe....... Your bearings have no lead in them since you drive a 2011 model!

Are you absolutely sure about this? If you look at the oil analysis thread, there are 2012 cars with lead showing up in their analyses. Some 2008s show no lead. BMW may have changed the bearing part numbers, but may not have changed the bearing material.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

That is not correct...... Upon further investigation it has shown that the part numbers have indeed changed! The original part numbers have been purged from realoem for some reason You are not the only one under this impression, I too thought the rod bearings haven't changed but they have indeed. Regular guy showed these part numbers he found in another post. The part #' of the lead free bearings end in 702 and 703 and the bearings with lead in them end in 889 and 890.

I'd like photos of these "lead free" rod bearings. I can only see BMW doing this for environmental reasons and not longevity.

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

I'd like photos of these "lead free" rod bearings. I can only see BMW doing this for environmental reasons and not longevity.

Post 119 in this thread. But he does not say they are lead free.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by JEllis

Post 119 in this thread. But he does not say they are lead free.

Thanks, man. Google images had nothing but vendor photos, which can be inaccurate. I'll wait and see how these pan out.

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

I'd like photos of these "lead free" rod bearings. I can only see BMW doing this for environmental reasons and not longevity.

Fair questions, hopefully we can get a definitive answer soon.

[BMRLVR]

The lead free bearings are as a result of the European Unions directive to remove lead from the auto industry. I can'y confirm the composition of the bearings but it was my understanding as of 2010 lead would not be used on engine bearings going forward.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by jbraslins

got this today, should i be worried?

Are we looking at the right car here. Just noticed an S54 six cylinder engine in an E90 M3 . Hope this is a typo on Blackstone's part.

[jbraslins]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Are we looking at the right car here. Just noticed an S54 six cylinder engine in an E90 M3 . Hope this is a typo on Blackstone's part.

I posted corrected one few posts down from my original. Blackstone goofed.

[blankstar43]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

That is not correct...... Upon further investigation it has shown that the part numbers have indeed changed! The original part numbers have been purged from realoem for some reason You are not the only one under this impression, I too thought the rod bearings haven't changed but they have indeed. Regular guy showed these part numbers he found in another post. The part #' of the lead free bearings end in 702 and 703 and the bearings with lead in them end in 889 and 890.

How can those of us with later models with lead free bearings detect bearing wear with oil analysis reports?

[regular guy]

Today we disassembled an engine in preparation for a bigger project. Engine was 2008 with 30,000 miles. Four or five of the bearings showed excessive wear, and one with small amounts of copper showing around the edges. After disassembling the motor, I measured all of the rod journals, but due to time constraints didn't measure bearings. All I can offer right now is a single measurement on the #1 piston/journal:

Journal: 2.04645
Rod bore: 2.04770
Clearance: 2.04770 - 2.04645 = 0.00125"
Bearings: Clevite 088/089's

I don't know if or how bearings are supposed to thin with miles (kawasaki00?). After 30k miles, this engine only had 0.00125" clearance on the #1 piston. Ironically, the #1 piston was one of the best looking bearings of the bunch.

At some point I think the car owner will want to share the photos, but for now, this is all I can share. By next week, I'm sure I'll get the rest of the measurements as well.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by blankstar43

How can those of us with later models with lead free bearings detect bearing wear with oil analysis reports?

Look for excess copper instead.

[FR01]

Interesting thread, makes me wonder how much of an impact tracking the car will have. Mine now has 25k, I'd better start sending oil samples as a baseline for analysis in the future.

[kawasaki00]

[QUOTE=regular guy;14630323]

Journal: 2.04645
Rod bore: 2.04770
Clearance: 2.04770 - 2.04645 = 0.00125"
Bearings: Clevite 088/089's

I don't know if or how bearings are supposed to thin with miles (kawasaki00?) QUOTE]

The bearings are not really going to change as they wear, you can see by the clearance that they are virtually the same as when new. When you start to pick up clearance it is usually already starting to hammer the bearing out to the side. Although the bearing is a wear item it does not actually wear as in the more miles it has the more clearance it gains. The bearing never actually touches the crank in normal usage, it rides on oil. In our case with clearance being too tight it is squeezing the oil out and it IS riding on the crank. This does wear it out and increase clearance, but it is also ruining the bearing in the process. I guess it is a two sided answer, normal clearance, no the bearing does not wear.

[Chrishkm5]

Tom could you tell us more about the ESS bearing you guys recommend for the s65 engine ?

[Chrishkm5]

Maybe I should have started with this guys I'm from M5board and own a 2006 M5 with 63000Km and my engine failed around 2 months ago I have now received my replacement engine and it should go in in the coming week or so.

I have been reading/searching a lot about the RB issue and I have to say this tread has helped me a lot so Thanks to all of you for sharing so much valuable information.

Chris

[bigtracing]

Finally got some time away from work to work on my car and get up on here to post pictures. So got the motor out and the oil pan off. Found a ton of metal in the pan stuck in the oil pick up it is basically everywhere. In the picture the left bearing and cap is number 8. I put the biggest shaving next to the number 7 cap as a joke and then the one to the right is the number 5. The top and bottom shell was completely missing from #7 except for that little piece of the top shell. Looks like I got decently lucky as far as damage to the rest of the motor goes. The crank seems to be beyond fixing wont know until I get it out. But the top end looks good and no scoring in any of the cylinders.

History of car:
Maintained solely by BMW from new-96000 miles when I bought it I then started to do 5k oil changes putting 1 to 2 quarts in in between oil changes. Never tracked. the PO was a highway king but I cant confirm that.

looking to build this thing back up to last forever.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by bigtracing

Finally got some time away from work to work on my car and get up on here to post pictures. So got the motor out and the oil pan off. Found a ton of metal in the pan stuck in the oil pick up it is basically everywhere. In the picture the left bearing and cap is number 8. I put the biggest shaving next to the number 7 cap as a joke and then the one to the right is the number 5. The top and bottom shell was completely missing from #7 except for that little piece of the top shell. Looks like I got decently lucky as far as damage to the rest of the motor goes. The crank seems to be beyond fixing wont know until I get it out. But the top end looks good and no scoring in any of the cylinders.

History of car:
Maintained solely by BMW from new-96000 miles when I bought it I then started to do 5k oil changes putting 1 to 2 quarts in in between oil changes. Never tracked. the PO was a highway king but I cant confirm that.

looking to build this thing back up to last forever.

Did your motor start to make any sounds b4 this happend

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Cavitation/starvation as stated by myself and Kawasaki00 is due to the inability of the TWS to flow before it has reached operating temperatures given the tight clearance numbers used by the S65/S85.

1) If the oil inability to flow before it has reached operating temperature and the tight clearance design are the factors at play then does it explain the systematic very rough engine starts when the engine was not driven for the last 12 hours (summertime, not a wintertime question) ? By rough, I mean you can feel the engine slightly shaking the whole car in an irregular pattern (not quite bucking but sufficient to seem abnormal) when sitting in the driver's seat for the first 10-12 seconds of the engine idling or is that normal for a V8 ?

2) if increasing clearance solves the problem why didn't bmw start machining the crankshaft for bigger journals clearance for MY '10, '11, '12, '13 ? Is it because it would make them liable for a recall on all early MYs sold ? At least that tells us they expect the cost of all later MYs failure under warranty to cost them less than an official fix in mid production years and recalling all earlier MY's to machine the crankshafts. How far could this be from reality ?

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

1) If the oil inability to flow before it has reached operating temperature and the tight clearance design are the factors at play then does it explain the systematic very rough engine starts when the engine was not driven for the last 12 hours (summertime, not a wintertime question) ? By rough, I mean you can feel the engine slightly shaking the whole car in an irregular pattern (not quite bucking but sufficient to seem abnormal) when sitting in the driver's seat for the first 10-12 seconds of the engine idling or is that normal for a V8 ?

2) if increasing clearance solves the problem why didn't bmw start machining the crankshaft for bigger journals clearance for MY '10, '11, '12, '13 ? Is it because it would make them liable for a recall on all early MYs sold ? At least that tells us they expect the cost of all later MYs failure under warranty to cost them less than an official fix in mid production years and recalling all earlier MY's to machine the crankshafts. How far could this be from reality ?

I don't think there is a prescribed answer to this. The point is BMW don't see this as an issue, and probably the cars they ripped apart after miles and miles of testing on the 'bahn didn't have the bearing issues we're seeing now. It's pointless talking about this about BMW's involvement given the E9x /// are out of production. Nothing is going to bring BMW to the party. There might be individual cases of goodwill replacement given how good the service history is with the dealer. If you haven't had the car serviced through your dealer, don't even think about it.

What we need to find is a permanent aftermarket solution. The E9x ///3s are a brilliant car and we won't get another NA engine in an /// car in our lifetime, so it's all about how we can keep the car and drive it like an /// car and not worry about bearing issues.

Ifs and buts have been discussed at length on various thread within this forum and now it's action time. There are some expensive solutions like making the journals smaller but the greater feeling on this forum is not to go down that path. But having said that, engine failure and subsequent replacement or repairs will be a lot more costly,

So there is no real answer to your two questions.