Custom Clevite Rod Bearings

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by LSx

My specification software says that the main bearing clearance is .020mm-.055mm which is ~.0008-.002"

For an aluminum block motor that main bearing clearance range is not an issue.

Secondly, as indicated by the detailed teardown pictures & tolerance inspection, a major component of the problem for the rod bearings is that there's practically no side clearance. Main bearings (excluding the single thrust) don't have this issue as they're completely open to the crankcase on either side so oil can freely exit the bearing.

That's assuming the engines are actually assembled to the clearance specification I have, and as you postulated, the rod bearings have basically the same specification which is too tight for a steel connecting rod in a performance application.

Nice to see another knowledgable person on here! regular guy, Kawasaki00, and myself all spoke of this same info about a year ago now and we're basically called idiots who knew nothing. Keep posting, the more knowledgable people we have on here the better....... It will hopefully educate the community and save some people some money by catching their rod bearings before it is too late!

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

as indicated by the detailed teardown pictures & tolerance inspection, a major component of the problem for the rod bearings is that there's practically no side clearance.

The section on side clearance in the engine teardown on page 1 of the Wiki bearing thread which notes the shock horror of finding a side clearance issue is totally opposite to the detailed description of the same engine teardown originally completed in 2011 in the Van Dyne shop. In that write up by Regular Guy (as Pencil geek) they send off for a BMW crank and rods which they use to measure the side clearance in order to machine the out of spec Carrillo rods to the right clearance.
Also main bearing failure in S65 engines are very rare.

This is pure crap! They got the OEM crank and rods to verify the measurements and the width of OEM vs Carillo rods were the same! This is all written in the wiki thread..... Try re-reading it!

[SenorFunkyPants]

This is pure crap! They got the OEM crank and rods to verify the measurements and the width of OEM vs Carillo rods were the same! This is all written in the wiki thread..... Try re-reading it!



This is a direct quote from the original write of RGs engine strip down at Van Dyne in 2011 from a different forum.

"This is another one of those areas where BMW doesn't publish any specifications, so without measuing a few crankshafts and connecting rods, it's impossible to know what BMW intended. A typical measurement is 0.010" (ten-thousanths of an inch). For our application, we wanted a slightly different side-play tolerance. So we first had to measure the factory crank and connecting rods, then measure the stroker crank and connecting rods to see how they compare."

"Even though Carrillo connecting rods are made to the highest standards, we did find a few of them were 1/2 of a thousanth of an inch different than the others (0.0005"). Since Van Dyne already planned to use his own tolerance specifications, this was our opportunity to make the necessary corrections. To ensure that Van Dyne machines the correct face of the connecting rod, each rod is marked with dye. The dyed face is the side that gets machined."

The section on side clearance in the Wiki thread on the OEM rods having tight side clearance is completely opposite to the original and extensive engine strip down and rebuild journal that RG wrote. Van Dyne used the BMW parts to get a side clearance to use for the machining of the Carrillo rods.

[bigjae1976]

Oh noes...

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

This is pure crap! They got the OEM crank and rods to verify the measurements and the width of OEM vs Carillo rods were the same! This is all written in the wiki thread..... Try re-reading it!



This is a direct quote from the original write of RGs engine strip down at Van Dyne in 2011 from a different forum.

"This is another one of those areas where BMW doesn't publish any specifications, so without measuing a few crankshafts and connecting rods, it's impossible to know what BMW intended. A typical measurement is 0.010" (ten-thousanths of an inch). For our application, we wanted a slightly different side-play tolerance. So we first had to measure the factory crank and connecting rods, then measure the stroker crank and connecting rods to see how they compare."

"Even though Carrillo connecting rods are made to the highest standards, we did find a few of them were 1/2 of a thousanth of an inch different than the others (0.0005"). Since Van Dyne already planned to use his own tolerance specifications, this was our opportunity to make the necessary corrections. To ensure that Van Dyne machines the correct face of the connecting rod, each rod is marked with dye. The dyed face is the side that gets machined."

The section on side clearance in the Wiki thread on the OEM rods having tight side clearance is completely opposite to the original and extensive engine strip down and rebuild journal that RG wrote. Van Dyne used the BMW parts to get a side clearance to use for the machining of the Carrillo rods.

Please provide the link to this thread on the other forum.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

Please provide the link to this thread on the other forum.

I've already given it to you before.

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...=386602&page=2

[LSx]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

This is pure crap! They got the OEM crank and rods to verify the measurements and the width of OEM vs Carillo rods were the same! This is all written in the wiki thread..... Try re-reading it!

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement. When an aftermarket rod manufacturer is handed a part to use as the basis for their stronger replacement, they will use all the basic tolerances from that part and then allow the engine builder to modify it from there to the needs of the motor....it says right in your quote that the Carrillo rods were modified from that point in order to give them the clearance desired. The BMW parts were simply measured in order to have the knowledge of what the clearance was as delivered by the factory...I think you might want to re-read it because the you're getting something from it that's simply not there.

I greatly prefer manufacturers to send me parts that have too much metal and are considered "tight" so that I can modify them to fit properly....it's much easier to kiss a rod big end on the hone to open it up than it is to take them apart, cut the caps by a thou or two and then hone them back to size in order to put the tolerance where I want it. Same goes for the width of the rod and it's effect on side clearance, it is absolutely normal for pretty much all aftermarket parts to need modification of some type in order to work properly and as such their sizing out of the box should never be assumed to be correct.

I'm basing my statements upon the teardown thread that was linked on this site showing factory rods that have turned blue in spots on their cheeks coupled with the statement that side clearance was too tight. The picture is enough to tell the story, an actual measurement would be nice and if anyone wants to send me a factory crank and rods I can get those numbers...until that time I'll just have to believe what was pictured and written.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

This is pure crap! They got the OEM crank and rods to verify the measurements and the width of OEM vs Carillo rods were the same! This is all written in the wiki thread..... Try re-reading it!



This is a direct quote from the original write of RGs engine strip down at Van Dyne in 2011 from a different forum.

"This is another one of those areas where BMW doesn't publish any specifications, so without measuing a few crankshafts and connecting rods, it's impossible to know what BMW intended. A typical measurement is 0.010" (ten-thousanths of an inch). For our application, we wanted a slightly different side-play tolerance. So we first had to measure the factory crank and connecting rods, then measure the stroker crank and connecting rods to see how they compare."

"Even though Carrillo connecting rods are made to the highest standards, we did find a few of them were 1/2 of a thousanth of an inch different than the others (0.0005"). Since Van Dyne already planned to use his own tolerance specifications, this was our opportunity to make the necessary corrections. To ensure that Van Dyne machines the correct face of the connecting rod, each rod is marked with dye. The dyed face is the side that gets machined."

The section on side clearance in the Wiki thread on the OEM rods having tight side clearance is completely opposite to the original and extensive engine strip down and rebuild journal that RG wrote. Van Dyne used the BMW parts to get a side clearance to use for the machining of the Carrillo rods.

As usual you are skewing what was actually written. 0.0005" is negligible when it comes to tolerances on mass produced parts...... I am quite sure that if you measured BMW rods you would find variances of at least 0.0005" or more. The main reason why manufacturers have production tolerances is to make up for variance in parts as delivered from the suppliers. No matter what there is production variance between parts on mass produced items no matter how good QA is.

The big benefit to a hand built engine like the one that RG had built by Van Dyne is the fact that all clearances can be dialed in, Crankshaft end play, rod side clearance, main and rod oil clearance, main and rod journal roundness & taper, ring end-gap, piston to wall clearance etc. The thing is that many people assemble engines with parts and do very little to adjust clearances of said parts. In my line of work if clearances are not within spec parts are either swapped for parts that meet dimensions or they go to the machine shop to be milled.

In quote that you posted above it clearly states "Since Van Dyne already planned to use his own tolerance specifications, this was our opportunity to make the necessary corrections". When RG stated that they wanted to measure the factory crank and rods and compare them he meant just that, they wanted to compare the aftermarket parts to OEM to see actual assembled BMW side clearance numbers since they don't publish those specs and they didn't have any OEM parts or an OEM engine in front of them to confirm the measurements, this step was just done for information purposes and not to find the spec to set the side clearance to.

What you seem to be missing from all of this is that the engine was already assembled and while Van Dyne was going through his normal process of measuring "all" clearances a red light came on when measuring side clearances..... Something that was assumed to not be an issue by anyone until that point. It was not thought that BMW could have screwed up on side clearance too. The Carillo Rods were made to OEM Dimensions so it was assumed that all would be OK. Generally when checking side clearances it is a simple quick check as more times than not, everything is fine.

So you can keep picking this whole S65 oil clearance/side clearance/rod bearing issue apart but you are doing nothing to solve the issue. Please let knowledgable people with proper credentials work through the issue and try and correct it...... meanwhile please try and stop being a google engine builder because it is quite obvious you have little tangible experience working on actual engines.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by LSx

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement. When an aftermarket rod manufacturer is handed a part to use as the basis for their stronger replacement, they will use all the basic tolerances from that part and then allow the engine builder to modify it from there to the needs of the motor....it says right in your quote that the Carrillo rods were modified from that point in order to give them the clearance desired. The BMW parts were simply measured in order to have the knowledge of what the clearance was as delivered by the factory...I think you might want to re-read it because the you're getting something from it that's simply not there.

I greatly prefer manufacturers to send me parts that have too much metal and are considered "tight" so that I can modify them to fit properly....it's much easier to kiss a rod big end on the hone to open it up than it is to take them apart, cut the caps by a thou or two and then hone them back to size in order to put the tolerance where I want it. Same goes for the width of the rod and it's effect on side clearance, it is absolutely normal for pretty much all aftermarket parts to need modification of some type in order to work properly and as such their sizing out of the box should never be assumed to be correct.

I'm basing my statements upon the teardown thread that was linked on this site showing factory rods that have turned blue in spots on their cheeks coupled with the statement that side clearance was too tight. The picture is enough to tell the story, an actual measurement would be nice and if anyone wants to send me a factory crank and rods I can get those numbers...until that time I'll just have to believe what was pictured and written.

Try and ignore SenorFunkyPants since he has been busting the balls of many on here for quite some time.

If you are not already aware there is a wiki thread on here with lots of info posted in it: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838 We all look forward to any and all info you can offer from your obvious experience in the field of building engines.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Try and ignore SeñorFunkyPants since he has been busting the balls of many on here for quite some time.

If you are not already aware here is a wiki thread on here with lots of info posted in it: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838 We all look forward to any and all info you can offer from your obvious experience in the field of building engines.

^ This. All of this.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by LSx

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement. When an aftermarket rod manufacturer is handed a part to use as the basis for their stronger replacement, they will use all the basic tolerances from that part and then allow the engine builder to modify it from there to the needs of the motor....it says right in your quote that the Carrillo rods were modified from that point in order to give them the clearance desired. The BMW parts were simply measured in order to have the knowledge of what the clearance was as delivered by the factory...I think you might want to re-read it because the you're getting something from it that's simply not there.

The original stroker engine was build by Auto Talent for Regular Guy using an after market crank and Carrillo rods. Van Dyne pulled this engine down in 2011 http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...=386602&page=2
and noted several problems, one being an inadequate rod side clearance. They then proceeded to measure several BMW OEM parts to get a side clearance measurement which they used as a basis for the rebuild of the non OEM crank and non OEM rods.
By 2013 this had been completely rewritten to say that an OEM BMW crank and rods had been measured by Van Dyne and found to have an inadequate side clearance.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838
When someone is caught in a lie, it taints everything else written by that person.

Originally Posted by LSx

I'm basing my statements upon the teardown thread that was linked on this site showing factory rods that have turned blue in spots on their cheeks coupled with the statement that side clearance was too tight. The picture is enough to tell the story, an actual measurement would be nice and if anyone wants to send me a factory crank and rods I can get those numbers...until that time I'll just have to believe what was pictured and written.

The rods showing blue spots in this "Wiki" thread
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838
are Carrillo after market rods NOT OEM BMW rods. These original Carrillo rods had suffered other problems and where replaced by Carrillo for some stronger ones. These new rods again measured up tight and were machined to fit as described in both threads.

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Try and ignore SenorFunkyPants

Good advise...you don't want to read any inconvenient truths.

[Rupes]

I don't know where I fall on this debate, but I don't think it's fair to discount SenorFunkyPants. He's a concerned owner like the rest of us and has spent a lot of time providing feedback and researching this topic.

At the same time, I don't think it's fair for SFP to say this is a money making scheme. First of all, if they have found a fix, I hope they do get rich off it (though I doubt there is much profit here). They deserve it, after all they've done more than you and I have done just taking about the issue here on the forums. Also, is it worth your reputation and the reputation of the sponsored vendor to sell "snake oil" to the community for a small profit? I think not. I believe there is a genuine desire to try and fix this issue. Whether this turns out to be the silver bullet or not has yet to be determined. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear the new thought process on side clearance that SFP mentioned.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Rupes

I don't know where I fall on this debate, but I don't think it's fair to discount SenorFunkyPants. He's a concerned owner like the rest of us and has spent a lot of time providing feedback on this topic.

At the same time, I don't think it's fair for SFP to say this is a money making scheme. First of all, if they have found a fix, I hope they do get rich off it (though I doubt there is much profit here). They deserve it, after all they've done more than you and I have done just taking about the issue here on the forums. Also, is it worth your reputation and the reputation of the sponsored vendor to sell "snake oil" to the community for a small profit? I think not. I believe there is a genuine desire to try and fix this issue.

The word.... "if" is the key word in your comment... Like you said => "if" they have found a fix !
It doesn't matter how much $$$$ my friend...=>"if"<= it's a fix !
Let's hope we can change the word... "if" => in => "is" !
So let's hope that... It's a fix ! But only the future can tell us this !
Personal I don't like to see my S65 as an experiment !

[Yellow Snow]

What's the warranty on these shells? Does it match the Bmw 2 year repair warranty. ?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Rupes

At the same time, I don't think it's fair for SFP to say this is a money making scheme.

Fair comment....I get a bit frisky when people have a go at me...I've removed that part from my post.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Fair comment....I get a bit frisky when people have a go at me...I've removed that part from my post.

Gentleman Jim

[kawasaki00]

First off lets stop bitching and complaining about the debate on the side clearance. It is a real problem that has been noted from many guys.
The entire debate about the Carrillo rods is nothing more than folks trying to make stuff up.
The Carrillo rods are manufactured to the same size as OEM. There needs to be at least .008 clearance, some engines run up to .025 without any issues. The fact that it has only .004 from factory is too tight. Not much to debate on as even Malek has noted it in many engines. If the Carrillo rods are held within .0005 then there is nothing to complain about, the OEM stuff is held no better.
Furthermore will money be made on this project, I am sure of it because people do not do things for free especially since it takes so long to get it all going. Do people make money on a 400 dollar set of test pipes that cost 50 bucks to make??
This is not Obama Care, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. So if people do not want others to make any money off a improved product then dont buy it. But if that is the mentality then dont buy anything for this car ever again because someone will make a buck off of it.

[8600RPM]

Safly it will take another 5 years after people start messing with new specs of parts to see that it will only start causing other problems. The builders of this engine designed the s85 at a time where it was no holds barred in terms of pushing limit, screw longevity and model an engine as close to a race engine as possible. They chose specs to max performance with relative acceptability in some longevity but these engines were never destined for r Reliability. This was an Era where bmw was still relevent to f1 in the late 90s. Yes the core design of this thing is a 90s design for the e60 m5.

It was flawed if the metric was reliability. It was Ms first chance to have carte Blanche at developing a bespoke ridiculous street race engine and they did that. Howevery by the time s65 wasnt much more than an update s85.

They gave us what we all wanted and we loved it. Can't have your cake and eat it to in my view. Howe've to think the engineers didn't pick specs for a reason is ridiculous. You will see a tight bottom end may very well support the lubrication, oil pressure and health of other parts spinning at 8500 rpms.

Just my.02. Bmw built a dream engine, it comes at a cost and specs are a compromise to ensure crazy race performance and relative longevity of other high stressed parts. To think thete is some easy fix to improve engine that much and bmw looked over this is absurd.

[SSJVegita]

i understand how everyone is saying that bmw designed it like this and what not and they choose the specs and u cant have a crazy revving engine and reliability at the same time but i dont agree.....look at the honda s2000 for instance, its a crazy high revving engine and those things are almost reliable as hell.....so many examples with over 100k and some getting close to 200k....i know im comparing apples and oranges but I feel its totally possible to have a reliable engine that can redline at crazy rpms.......then again im not a engine engineer so maybe im wrong....

[theboss1853]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

First off lets stop bitching and complaining about the debate on the side clearance. It is a real problem that has been noted from many guys.
The entire debate about the Carrillo rods is nothing more than folks trying to make stuff up.
The Carrillo rods are manufactured to the same size as OEM. There needs to be at least .008 clearance, some engines run up to .025 without any issues. The fact that it has only .004 from factory is too tight. Not much to debate on as even Malek has noted it in many engines. If the Carrillo rods are held within .0005 then there is nothing to complain about, the OEM stuff is held no better.
Furthermore will money be made on this project, I am sure of it because people do not do things for free especially since it takes so long to get it all going. Do people make money on a 400 dollar set of test pipes that cost 50 bucks to make??
This is not Obama Care, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. So if people do not want others to make any money off a improved product then dont buy it. But if that is the mentality then dont buy anything for this car ever again because someone will make a buck off of it.

I TOTALLY AGREE!! Great response. The numbers don't lie... I'm living proof of the issue. My M3 spun a bearing at 60K miles last week with the dealer quoting me $30K for a new S65..... How's that for REAL FACTS of this issue! Glad your doing all this research along with RG. Big RESPECT to you guys. Thank you!

I'm screwed and BMW NORTH AMERICA has turned their back on me and won't help. I just pray that when I pull the engine next week that the damage isn't catastrophic.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by theboss1853

I TOTALLY AGREE!! Great response. The numbers don't lie... I'm living proof of the issue. My M3 spun a bearing at 60K miles last week with the dealer quoting me $30K for a new S65..... How's that for REAL FACTS of this issue! Glad your doing all this research along with RG. Big RESPECT to you guys. Thank you!

I'm screwed and BMW NORTH AMERICA has turned their back on me and won't help. I just pray that when I pull the engine next week that the damage isn't catastrophic.

Damn ! Feel realy sorry about luck , seems this 5H1T never stops !
Did you heard any ticking or rattle noises before it happend ?
Please add your bearing failure here => http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=786615

[theboss1853]

Yep had some noise in the bottom of the engine but I also had an exhaust issue that was masking it too... I'll post on the other thread as well. Thanks for the reply.