Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Transfer

My assessment of everything I've read and what I think I understand is that our cars are at increased risk of bearing/engine failure

Hate to continually be the skeptic but... well I guess I don't

An increased risk over what? Over a Volvo 240? Or perhaps increased compared to folks perceptions that an S65 bottom end should last 300k miles? Either way we do not have enough information to actually firmly conclude this.

Originally Posted by Transfer

due to a design that is not standard practice

BMWs numbers do not appear entirely inconsistent with some numbers from Ferrari. Yes that comparison is not quite exactly apples to apples but it seems to be the only other reasonably close data point we have. At any rate, I believe that this conclusion above is also still an opinion. Other will say "no way, pure fact" but I simply do not accept that.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

BMWs numbers do not appear entirely inconsistent with some numbers from Ferrari. Yes that comparison is not quite exactly apples to apples but it seems to be the only other reasonably close data point we have. At any rate, I believe that this conclusion above is also still an opinion. Other will say "no way, pure fact" but I simply do not accept that.

True. Ok, how are bearings in any car should look in a high mileage engine? I don't think in any series production cars, the bearings will look like brand new if you inspect them. Given some metal2metal contact, there should be some wear. But how much wear is considered nomal?

We have seen some very bad bearings, and we have seen some with some wear. But given the reputation, we conclude that any wear is bad. I think that's wrong, and we are not allowing for normal wear in metal2metal contact.

I did have concerns after reading some of thease threads but I have stopped worrying about my engine. I am happy with the explantion given to me by BMW Australia and I am doing everything humanly possible to make sure the S65 doesn't grenade on me.

But I will keep reading these posts and contribute. It's good discussion and brings together car lovers with a common interest which helps educate the BMW and the /// community.

Keep up the good work .... I am not scared anymore. Warm up and TWS is the way to go

[Billj747]

N20 Turbo 4-cylinder:
242hp
1997cc = 121 hp/L
3.3" bore
3.5" stroke
10 : 1 compression ratio
Max boost 18.9psi
7,000rpm redline

S65 V8:
414hp
3999cc = 103.5 hp/L
3.6" bore
3.0" stroke
12:1 compression ratio
8,400rpm redline

I would say the N20's greater HP/L, stroke, cylinder pressures (I'm assuming), and oil temps -which the turbo nukes, would be pretty hard on its bearings and oil if not harder than the S65. And what weight oil does the N20 spec?

[W///]

Originally Posted by Transfer

Whew! Just made it all the way through this one. To all those involved in developing this information, thank you and you deserve the Nobel BMW prize. My assessment of everything I've read and what I think I understand is that our cars are at increased risk of bearing/engine failure due to a design that is not standard practice. What we don't know is how much increased risk there is as well as why BMW designed the S65/85 bearing clearances outside of the standards.

I'm very tempted to switch to the thinner 0w-40, particularly for the colder half of the year (which would be 5k miles per oil change for me) but I'm still under warranty, receive free maintenance, and I don't see the risk as that significant... yet. If I were running FI or even stage II cat deletes I would be slightly more concerned. If I were out of warranty and doing my own oil changes, I would go thinner.

My solution is I will stick with 10w-60 TWS, let it warm up properly, and keep it under warranty including buying extended warranty for engine and transmission (DCT). So if TWS can potentially last safely to 15k miles, is there any advantage to changing TWS every 5k miles? If not using the thinner oil, would I be wasting my money for that extra oil change once a year?

Well the thing that threw all that out the window is that M1 is approved by BMW. This is just IMHO, but cold+thick oil is still there regardless of how you drive it. Personally I prefer the oil to heat up as quick as possible.

Secondly, even if you are under warranty, it costs approx $80 to change the oil with filter (if you use Mobil1). I don't think that's wasting money at all, considering how much gas this thing consumes

Lastly, I highly recommend you send an oil sample in after each oil change. That's about the only way to track the bearing wear.

My situation: I'm out of warranty (always have been). I will run M1 0W40 year round, and keep sending oil samples. I don't plan on changing my bearings unless the lead and copper levels start going up.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by Billj747

N20 Turbo 4-cylinder:
242hp
1997cc = 121 hp/L
3.3" bore
3.5" stroke
10 : 1 compression ratio
Max boost 18.9psi
7,000rpm redline

S65 V8:
414hp
3999cc = 103.5 hp/L
3.6" bore
3.0" stroke
12:1 compression ratio
8,400rpm redline

I would say the N20's greater HP/L, stroke, cylinder pressures (I'm assuming), and oil temps -which the turbo nukes, would be pretty hard on its bearings and oil if not harder than the S65. And what weight oil does the N20 spec?

This makes sense, but BMW's expected use of the M3 is probably different, so maybe the TWS is a CYA for BMW ...

[speedaddictM3]

Originally Posted by jphughan

I had one more idea for people near the end of the warranty period who are worried about this and might consider $2000 an acceptable spend in order to get peace of mind. If anyone attempts this, please report back on your success. The idea would be to go to the dealership and say, "Hey, I've heard there might be issues with bearings on these engines. So I propose this: You inspect my bearings. If they're a-ok, install new OEM bearings anyway since the parts will be a fraction of the bill at that point, and I'll obviously pay for the service. But if they're NOT ok, you cover this as warranty work to address premature and abnormal bearing wear."

So either you end up with a free bearing replacement AND get an idea of how bad your bearing wear was at a given mileage (which MIGHT help you estimate how often you'll need to continue replacing them unless a confirmed solution surfaces), OR you're out $2000 only to discover that there was nothing to worry about, but at least you have new bearings and peace of mind from knowing that your car isn't affected by this issue. That's still a lot to pay IMHO, but for some it might be worth it, and I'm curious whether the dealer (and BMW) would agree to this type of arrangement.

No such thing as preventative maintenance under warranty. Warranty will only cover actual mechanical failure. As long as your engine is working, warranty won't cover it no matter how bad the bearings are. Your only realistic choice is to hope the engine self destructs before the end of the warranty period.

[DATM3]

Originally Posted by W///

Well the thing that threw all that out the window is that M1 is approved by BMW. This is just IMHO, but cold+thick oil is still there regardless of how you drive it. Personally I prefer the oil to heat up as quick as possible.

Secondly, even if you are under warranty, it costs approx $80 to change the oil with filter (if you use Mobil1). I don't think that's wasting money at all, considering how much gas this thing consumes

Lastly, I highly recommend you send an oil sample in after each oil change. That's about the only way to track the bearing wear.

My situation: I'm out of warranty (always have been). I will run M1 0W40 year round, and keep sending oil samples. I don't plan on changing my bearings unless the lead and copper levels start going up.

Did you send blackstone your oil samples when you used 10W60? Were there much differences after you changed to M1 0W40?

[W///]

Originally Posted by aznboi319

Did you send blackstone your oil samples when you used 10W60? Were there much differences after you changed to M1 0W40?

I've got 2 readings from 10W60, still have a few thousand miles to go before I send M1 0W40 out.

2 readings using Liqui Moly 10W60 at between 60 to 70k:
Lead: 8
Copper: 2

So I'm pretty satisfied with that, right at average. Will see what M1 looks like in about 2k miles.

[jayzF30]

Has this rod bearing issue been fixed by BMW in some later models or is this happening all the way to 2013 models?

[Ronnydashore]

I understand like the rest of you what the "problem" is but isn't the problem more that we do not drive our m3's like they really were designed to be driven? Maybe an error on M's part to design a true race inspired car that they erroneously thought people would buy and drive hard on a consistent basis. Short-sighted no doubt given that the majority of M3 owners toodle around town and are old which means the engine temp never even gets up to where they likely anticipated it would be in this car with spirited driving.

I drive as spirited as possible while keeping legal and appropriate road manners and I have never had the temp below 210 once I get going. In winter I live in the 210-230, and in summer 230-275 and I live in a hot climate. Track use the norm is 275. This engine is inherently one that runs at a relatively hot temperature.

So the low clearances were obvious if you look at that in isolation. Less parasitic loss and this is on par with any high performance race engine. Whether it is worth the extra "power" it is up for you to decide but it is certainly not uncommon with race engines.

Now the logical thing we all think is if they used those clearencese why not recommend lighter weight oil. Well in my view, whether short sighted or not, M assumed people drive these cars harder than they actually do and given an engine that runs at 210-275 with some spirited driving, a lightweight 10-60 like tws which as we all know is more like a 50 weight, would be appropriate in an engine running at this high temperatures with these clearances. without accounting for the temperature an engine runs at, you cannot state an oil is too thick. 10-60 at 230-275 degrees is probably thinner than 0w40 at 175-190 which the majority of people drive their cars.

So personally I believe there maybe was a short sighted view from engineers that people would drive these cars harder than they do so they designed an ideal setup for cars driven spirted and that would see consistent engine temps of 210 and above which allowed the oil to be thin enough to work with the tight clearances but also not too thin.

Now I know people have tested 0w40 saying it works fine at temps 255 and above so clearly there was more than one option, however I think even this board may agree that 10w60 tws (a thinner 60 oil) when at 230-275 degrees is thin enough to work nicely with these bearing clearances no? And that in my view was their goal. Cold start is always a different story and will always be a high wear situation on a performance engine requiring thicker oil.

So bottom line, I don't know the engineering was flawed but rather the evaluation of the target buyers driving behavior. Or they were protecting against those that would track to make sure they didn't blow their engines and figured those who drive it slow would not have the problems they did or to the extent they did

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by Ronnydashore

I understand like the rest of you what the "problem" is but isn't the problem more that we do not drive our m3's like they really were designed to be driven? Maybe an error on M's part to design a true race inspired car that they erroneously thought people would buy and drive hard on a consistent basis. Short-sighted no doubt given that the majority of M3 owners toodle around town and are old which means the engine temp never even gets up to where they likely anticipated it would be in this car with spirited driving.

I drive as spirited as possible while keeping legal and appropriate road manners and I have never had the temp below 210 once I get going. In winter I live in the 210-230, and in summer 230-275 and I live in a hot climate. Track use the norm is 275. This engine is inherently one that runs at a relatively hot temperature.

So the low clearances were obvious if you look at that in isolation. Less parasitic loss and this is on par with any high performance race engine. Whether it is worth the extra "power" it is up for you to decide but it is certainly not uncommon with race engines.

Now the logical thing we all think is if they used those clearencese why not recommend lighter weight oil. Well in my view, whether short sighted or not, M assumed people drive these cars harder than they actually do and given an engine that runs at 210-275 with some spirited driving, a lightweight 10-60 like tws which as we all know is more like a 50 weight, would be appropriate in an engine running at this high temperatures with these clearances. without accounting for the temperature an engine runs at, you cannot state an oil is too thick. 10-60 at 230-275 degrees is probably thinner than 0w40 at 175-190 which the majority of people drive their cars.

So personally I believe there maybe was a short sighted view from engineers that people would drive these cars harder than they do so they designed an ideal setup for cars driven spirted and that would see consistent engine temps of 210 and above which allowed the oil to be thin enough to work with the tight clearances but also not too thin.

Now I know people have tested 0w40 saying it works fine at temps 255 and above so clearly there was more than one option, however I think even this board may agree that 10w60 tws (a thinner 60 oil) when at 230-275 degrees is thin enough to work nicely with these bearing clearances no? And that in my view was their goal. Cold start is always a different story and will always be a high wear situation on a performance engine requiring thicker oil.

So bottom line, I don't know the engineering was flawed but rather the evaluation of the target buyers driving behavior. Or they were protecting against those that would track to make sure they didn't blow their engines and figured those who drive it slow would not have the problems they did or to the extent they did

I am speechless, this sounds like something LONGWONG would say.

^This is me baffled from a entire post of frivolous info.

[Malek@MRF]

Originally Posted by Ronnydashore

I understand like the rest of you what the "problem" is but isn't the problem more that we do not drive our m3's like they really were designed to be driven? Maybe an error on M's part to design a true race inspired car that they erroneously thought people would buy and drive hard on a consistent basis. Short-sighted no doubt given that the majority of M3 owners toodle around town and are old which means the engine temp never even gets up to where they likely anticipated it would be in this car with spirited driving.

I drive as spirited as possible while keeping legal and appropriate road manners and I have never had the temp below 210 once I get going. In winter I live in the 210-230, and in summer 230-275 and I live in a hot climate. Track use the norm is 275. This engine is inherently one that runs at a relatively hot temperature.

So the low clearances were obvious if you look at that in isolation. Less parasitic loss and this is on par with any high performance race engine. Whether it is worth the extra "power" it is up for you to decide but it is certainly not uncommon with race engines.

Now the logical thing we all think is if they used those clearencese why not recommend lighter weight oil. Well in my view, whether short sighted or not, M assumed people drive these cars harder than they actually do and given an engine that runs at 210-275 with some spirited driving, a lightweight 10-60 like tws which as we all know is more like a 50 weight, would be appropriate in an engine running at this high temperatures with these clearances. without accounting for the temperature an engine runs at, you cannot state an oil is too thick. 10-60 at 230-275 degrees is probably thinner than 0w40 at 175-190 which the majority of people drive their cars.

So personally I believe there maybe was a short sighted view from engineers that people would drive these cars harder than they do so they designed an ideal setup for cars driven spirted and that would see consistent engine temps of 210 and above which allowed the oil to be thin enough to work with the tight clearances but also not too thin.

Now I know people have tested 0w40 saying it works fine at temps 255 and above so clearly there was more than one option, however I think even this board may agree that 10w60 tws (a thinner 60 oil) when at 230-275 degrees is thin enough to work nicely with these bearing clearances no? And that in my view was their goal. Cold start is always a different story and will always be a high wear situation on a performance engine requiring thicker oil.

So bottom line, I don't know the engineering was flawed but rather the evaluation of the target buyers driving behavior. Or they were protecting against those that would track to make sure they didn't blow their engines and figured those who drive it slow would not have the problems they did or to the extent they did

This is a highly speculative post and also far fetched to say that BMW exhibited a massive oversight as to who M3 drivers are, how they are driven and where they are driven and how none of this was in the least bit incorporated into the development of the S65.

10W-60 vs. 0W-40 (with 5000 mile intervals), the 0W-40 is superior in every way. Better cold flow properties, quicker warm up, oil temps run cooler in a RACE environment, oil pressure is where it should be. If one prefers to drag the service intervals out to 15,000 (which is already far fetched), then stick to 10W-60.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Ronnydashore

I understand like the rest of you what the "problem" is but isn't the problem more that we do not drive our m3's like they really were designed to be driven? Maybe an error on M's part to design a true race inspired car that they erroneously thought people would buy and drive hard on a consistent basis. Short-sighted no doubt given that the majority of M3 owners toodle around town and are old which means the engine temp never even gets up to where they likely anticipated it would be in this car with spirited driving.

I drive as spirited as possible while keeping legal and appropriate road manners and I have never had the temp below 210 once I get going. In winter I live in the 210-230, and in summer 230-275 and I live in a hot climate. Track use the norm is 275. This engine is inherently one that runs at a relatively hot temperature.

So the low clearances were obvious if you look at that in isolation. Less parasitic loss and this is on par with any high performance race engine. Whether it is worth the extra "power" it is up for you to decide but it is certainly not uncommon with race engines.

Now the logical thing we all think is if they used those clearencese why not recommend lighter weight oil. Well in my view, whether short sighted or not, M assumed people drive these cars harder than they actually do and given an engine that runs at 210-275 with some spirited driving, a lightweight 10-60 like tws which as we all know is more like a 50 weight, would be appropriate in an engine running at this high temperatures with these clearances. without accounting for the temperature an engine runs at, you cannot state an oil is too thick. 10-60 at 230-275 degrees is probably thinner than 0w40 at 175-190 which the majority of people drive their cars.

So personally I believe there maybe was a short sighted view from engineers that people would drive these cars harder than they do so they designed an ideal setup for cars driven spirted and that would see consistent engine temps of 210 and above which allowed the oil to be thin enough to work with the tight clearances but also not too thin.

Now I know people have tested 0w40 saying it works fine at temps 255 and above so clearly there was more than one option, however I think even this board may agree that 10w60 tws (a thinner 60 oil) when at 230-275 degrees is thin enough to work nicely with these bearing clearances no? And that in my view was their goal. Cold start is always a different story and will always be a high wear situation on a performance engine requiring thicker oil.

So bottom line, I don't know the engineering was flawed but rather the evaluation of the target buyers driving behavior. Or they were protecting against those that would track to make sure they didn't blow their engines and figured those who drive it slow would not have the problems they did or to the extent they did

275F on public roads? How bad is your driving record?

[sensi09]

I know a lot of people are against speculation and all, but looking at the oil analysis reports, how do some cars running TWS have zero or very low lead counts in their reports?

And with most of the damage to bearing occurring around cold start, wouldn't this be exacerbated by colder climates? From what I've gathered, blown engines don't appear to trend toward colder states/climates.

Also it's probably been covered, but with the "newer" bearings, what do you look for in UOA to see if they are wearing?

[jayzF30]

Originally Posted by jazze90

Has this rod bearing issue been fixed by BMW in some later models or is this happening all the way to 2013 models?

One more time

[M3PO]

So here is my latest analysis. It looks significantly better and I don't know why. This just confuses me more. I've been driving the car harder than ever. More miles, more track and canyon time.

[sensi09]

Interesting results. Along with the lower wear counts, your TBN is even higher after a longer interval?

edit: a quick google search that calcium level can have an affect on the TBN

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I am speechless, this sounds like something LONGWONG would say.

^This is me baffled from a entire post of frivolous info.

It seems like a very reasonable line of speculation from my perspective.

It does not appear that much more speculative than your point of view which still has not made much of any attempt to explain BMWs design choices/design intent.

We certainly know that smaller clearances are good for more power and we certainly know this is one of the most race inspired engines ever in a production BMW. I'm sure there is certainly a trend of smaller clearances in more high performance engines (up to a point of course).

We also know that the use and operating temperature of an engine helps guide toward the best choice of oil viscosity.

The one counter point is that BMW probably has a pretty reasonable idea about how hard or soft a given car/engine will be used because the data is logged by our cars.

Can you please elaborate as to why this post is so terrible? It's more than I have heard from those like yourself who are positive BMW significantly screwed up multiple critical design issues (clearances and oil) something seemingly so easy to get right. Along with the implication that all cars are subject to some significantly high level of risk for a catastrophic failure.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Malek@MRF

This is a highly speculative post and also far fetched to say that BMW exhibited a massive oversight as to who M3 drivers are, how they are driven and where they are driven and how none of this was in the least bit incorporated into the development of the S65.

Is it more or less speculative that BMW M Motor Engineering massively and completely screwed up either bearing clearances and or oil recommendations for the E46 M3, E60 M5 AND E9X M3?

[fbm3cab]

Originally Posted by sensi09

I know a lot of people are against speculation and all, but looking at the oil analysis reports, how do some cars running TWS have zero or very low lead counts in their reports?

And with most of the damage to bearing occurring around cold start, wouldn't this be exacerbated by colder climates? From what I've gathered, blown engines don't appear to trend toward colder states/climates.

Also it's probably been covered, but with the "newer" bearings, what do you look for in UOA to see if they are wearing?

Is the right answer aluminized tin/silicon compound??? I believe I read this in an earlier post.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

True. Ok, how are bearings in any car should look in a high mileage engine? I don't think in any series production cars, the bearings will look like brand new if you inspect them. Given some metal2metal contact, there should be some wear. But how much wear is considered nomal?

We have seen some very bad bearings, and we have seen some with some wear. But given the reputation, we conclude that any wear is bad. I think that's wrong, and we are not allowing for normal wear in metal2metal contact.

I did have concerns after reading some of thease threads but I have stopped worrying about my engine. I am happy with the explantion given to me by BMW Australia and I am doing everything humanly possible to make sure the S65 doesn't grenade on me.

But I will keep reading these posts and contribute. It's good discussion and brings together car lovers with a common interest which helps educate the BMW and the /// community.

Keep up the good work .... I am not scared anymore. Warm up and TWS is the way to go

What did BMW Australia tell you? I'd like to hear because I live in melbourne

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by swamp2

It seems like a very reasonable line of speculation from my perspective.

It does not appear that much more speculative than your point of view which still has not made much of any attempt to explain BMWs design choices/design intent.

We certainly know that smaller clearances are good for more power and we certainly know this is one of the most race inspired engines ever in a production BMW. I'm sure there is certainly a trend of smaller clearances in more high performance engines (up to a point of course).

We also know that the use and operating temperature of an engine helps guide toward the best choice of oil viscosity.

The one counter point is that BMW probably has a pretty reasonable idea about how hard or soft a given car/engine will be used because the data is logged by our cars.

Can you please elaborate as to why this post is so terrible? It's more than I have heard from those like yourself who are positive BMW significantly screwed up multiple critical design issues (clearances and oil) something seemingly so easy to get right. Along with the implication that all cars are subject to some significantly high level of risk for a catastrophic failure.

Then why is it recommended by the bearing manufacturer to ADD 0.0005 to the bearing clearances "for high RPM, high performance uses" ?