Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[rantarM3]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

It's good that there's little variation from shell to shell. But with the WPC treatment, if I understand it correctly, would it not harden the shell surface? With the new (presumably lead-free) shells from BMW being substantially harder than the leaded shells, it seems that further hardening them would transfer more of the wear to the crank journals. Have you done a hardness test on the WPC treated shells to compare to the stock shells?

Any response to these questions?

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

So if you opened up an S65 engine and it had no bearing wear would that equally refute Regular Guys theory?
One data point that doesn't follow the trend hardly makes all the others invalid.

1) I don't understand how you can repeatedly ask questions of everyone trying to *disprove* your theory when you still haven't answered Regular Guy's calls to provide *any* documentation to back it up?
2) No, b/c honestly, I doubt very seriously that would happen at this point (no bearing wear on an S65 that has been running 10w-60). And yes, in this instance, this data point most certainly does. Your statement said,

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

A coherent argument that would explain why all >20 failures known to date have occurred in markets where low octane [1] fuel is available and none where it isn't.

So since this is *your* theory, then *YOU* explain why the anomaly, as it flies directly in the face of that which you theorize.

This low quality fuel theory of yours....repeated use of low octane fuel in high compression engines will usually result in piston damage and ring land failures, none of which we've seen. I went back and started looking at all the pics of bearing wear in which the pistons can be seen, and see no signs of detonation. Neither have I seen anyone mention piston/ring land damage during replacement of the bearings. Please explain that.

[cjg]

Originally Posted by bigtracing

the motor that came out of my car only ever saw 91+ and has a spun bearing and 7 destroyed ones. I highly doubt this is a fuel issue.

You bought the car with 96k on it, how can you say the car never saw anything but 91+ octane?

Originally Posted by bigtracing

I bought my 2008 e92 in December of 2012 with 96k I now have 107k on it. the car was only maintained by bmw. when I picked up the car I replaced all the "lifetime" fluids when I bought it. I picked up the service records for it. the previous owner only ever had one break down which was a throttle actuator. right now I'm getting a 02 sensor code. two very common things. as for the strength of the motor I average 17 mpg mostly city driving. I have drove a few other e92 m3s and didnt notice them being any faster then my car. these cars are very well built and were made to last. I would buy another high mileage one any day! oh and I only paid 28000 for a own owner no accident loaded minus sunshades and zcp

[SenorFunkyPants]

Here is a slightly different question.
Why do supercharged S65 engines suffer such a relatively high failure rate?
Are these mostly rod bearing failures as well?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Here is a slightly different question.
Why do supercharged S65 engines suffer such a relatively high failure rate?
Are these mostly rod bearing failures as well?

Answer my questions first before asking any more unrelated and diversionary questions.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Answer my questions first before asking any more unrelated and diversionary questions.

Wow could you be any more up your own arse.
Its a forum not your personal domain.
If you don't want to answer then don't.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Wow could you be any more up your own arse.

No, I think he's right. You postulate about this, that, and the other, but you have offered nothing credible to back up your posts, yet you keep throwing shit at the wall, hoping something sticks. I'm all open for debate, but debate isn't one-sided where you get to demand facts for someone else's assertion, but offer none of your own. We're not in the 2nd grade. You're a grown ass man. Do your research and give us something that gives your theory some teeth. If not, stop spouting it b/c all it is doing is wasting time and dragging this down a dead end.

[gatorfast]

SenorFunkyPants, maybe take this to PM with whomever you disagree with as your comments dont seem to be adding anything to this thread and are unsupported. The last page or two has derailed what has been a very informative discussion.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Wow could you be any more up your own arse.
Its a forum not your personal domain.
If you don't want to answer then don't.

One of my questions was asking you why you think I should answer questions about unrelated topics and engine failures without any photo evidence. If you don't want to answer, then don't ask more questions on the same lines and expect answers from me. It's really that simple.

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

Any response to these questions?

Kawasaki does not recommended the newer bearings. WPC will not significantly harden the bearing but make the material more uniform, smooth, and even in its structure due to the similarities to shot-peening, there's also a heat treating effect and it will slightly open the tolerances. But to answer your question no it shouldn't harden the bearing to cause more wear on the journal on either version of the bearing.

[Yellow Snow]

This Guy seems positive that there isn't a rod bearing problem.

http://m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=361456

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

This Guy seems positive that there isn't a rod bearing problem.

http://m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=361456

There is one thing in that thread is definitely wrong: the rod bearings and part numbers of the rod bearings have definitely changed. I thought we've discussed that before. If you want to get hypertechnical, then the rest of that thread is true: there is a clearance issue, not a bearing issue. I haven't seen any evidence of a bearing design or manufacturing flaw...have you?

[fbm3cab]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

This Guy seems positive that there isn't a rod bearing problem.

http://m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=361456

More then two and a half years ago.

[Cool Steel]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

1) I don't understand how you can repeatedly ask questions of everyone trying to *disprove* your theory when you still haven't answered Regular Guy's calls to provide *any* documentation to back it up?
2) No, b/c honestly, I doubt very seriously that would happen at this point (no bearing wear on an S65 that has been running 10w-60). And yes, in this instance, this data point most certainly does. Your statement said,


So since this is *your* theory, then *YOU* explain why the anomaly, as it flies directly in the face of that which you theorize.

This low quality fuel theory of yours....repeated use of low octane fuel in high compression engines will usually result in piston damage and ring land failures, none of which we've seen. I went back and started looking at all the pics of bearing wear in which the pistons can be seen, and see no signs of detonation. Neither have I seen anyone mention piston/ring land damage during replacement of the bearings. Please explain that.

Actually, wouldn't the ECU compensate for the detonation and the pre ignition? High tech in these engines including: " ion flow technology serving to determine the risk of the engine knocking as well as misfiring and miscombustion". Therefore there would be no sign of piston damage/ring damage as the engine ecu would compensate for it.
However, it might not be able to compensate for a heat increase due to the low octane gas and high compression since it is within the ECUs high end temperature to not adjust? Perhaps, barely above normal but enough to break down the oil sooner? Then add that to our maintenance schedule of yearly oil changes or longer (we should all think about every 4 to 6 months and do it ourselves).........plus crappy bearings...all adds up? Who knows...

All just theory with no solution at this point...only one thing is for sure : do not own this car without a warranty.

I'm also thinking...93 octane only , change oil every 6 months, don't modify engine (supercharge), trade car in when it gets to 50k miles...

[Cool Steel]

I was thinking...if anyone truly believes that the engineers at BMW were so lame that they created an engine with bearing and clearance issues ...then wouldn't this logically lead to questioning everything that they did on this engine? Bearing and clearance issues is major major F up and is the cause but the effect is unknown for sure.........so how can we trust them if we know they F'up the bearing and clearance? Do we honestly trust that they did the appropriate testing on everything else in the engine that could be the cause of the effect? If you believe they screwed up the bearings/clearance how can you believe their tests on 91 octane gas? ( Seems really insane to run a 12:1 engine on its own its crazy...but to run it on 91 octane? ) How do we know the ECU compensates correctly for a higher temperature due to low octane gas? How do we trust their recommendation for oil change frequency?

How can we trust these guys if they made this major F'up...I honestly agree with Regular guy however I think its the effect and there are probably many causes that combine to cause the effect.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Cool Steel

Actually, wouldn't the ECU compensate for the detonation and the pre ignition? High tech in these engines including: " ion flow technology serving to determine the risk of the engine knocking as well as misfiring and miscombustion". Therefore there would be no sign of piston damage/ring damage as the engine ecu would compensate for it.
However, it might not be able to compensate for a heat increase due to the low octane gas and high compression since it is within the ECUs high end temperature to not adjust? Perhaps, barely above normal but enough to break down the oil sooner? Then add that to our maintenance schedule of yearly oil changes or longer (we should all think about every 4 to 6 months and do it ourselves).........plus crappy bearings...all adds up? Who knows...

All just theory with no solution at this point...only one thing is for sure : do not own this car without a warranty.

I'm also thinking...93 octane only , change oil every 6 months, don't modify engine (supercharge), trade car in when it gets to 50k miles...

The DME will pull timing, if I'm not mistaken, but there's only so much it can do for our mess ups. BMW specifies the lowest recommended octane for a reason, and I'd imagine that it is b/c w/a high compression engine, there's only so much it can do.

But, outside of all that, detonation will show up on the ring lands and pistons, and more telling, on the spark plugs.

[aus]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

To start with, there are hundreds of thousands of misfueling events every year. Your personal experience can hardly be extrapolated to cover every M3 owner. There have been threads where owners have noted using low octane fuel when it was the only fuel available - and no I'm not going to go looking for them.

BMW recommend 93 octane for use in the M3, 91 is listed as being acceptable. Octane below 91 is not to be used otherwise the engine could be damaged.

EDIT: Apparently low octane (lower than 91) IS available in Lithuania. So that car also fits the model.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I think I must be explaining myself badly.
When I say low octane fuel I mean fuel that has an rating lower than the minimum recommended by BMW, ie below 91 USA rating.

ALL failures listed in the thread "Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry" are cars from markets where low octane fuel (ie lower than the minimum 91 USA rated) is available. No failures are from markets where the minimum octane fuel available is 91 USA rated or above.

Note: Low octane (88 USA rated fuel) is also available in Lithuania (and Singapore), I've added this to my post above.

Just an FYI, lower octane is available in ALL STATES in the US- usually it's 87, 89, 91/93 octane. These "misuelings" could be happening ALL OVER THE US. Why would it be more in Cali only? The only misfueling I've ever done is put premium fuel in my minivan by accident. It's just automatic for me to get premium since we've have two BMW's for many years now. If you think the 91 is causing the failures, then thatn's a different story.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Here is a slightly different question.
Why do supercharged S65 engines suffer such a relatively high failure rate?
Are these mostly rod bearing failures as well?

That is most likely a function of more blown motors are opened up for bearing upgrade when the owners want to go for big power.
That is a VERY biased arguement if you think boost is causing the bearing failures. I'm sure there are more blowers sold in Cali than any other state too, just like there are more M3's sold here than any other state.

Just to clarify, I have no "side" in the bitch slap match, but just wanted to clarify that lower octane fuel is available all over the US.
.

[fbm3cab]

I am at a loss to understand how an engine can win "Best Engine of the Year" award for 5 or 6 years and have such an "obvious issue".

Do they not tear the engine down before awarding it as the best or did they ignore the rod bearings that were failing or did they conclude that the failure rate was acceptable and/or below the norm?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aus

That is most likely a function of more blown motors are opened up for bearing upgrade when the owners want to go for big power.

Some supercharger vendors such as ESS require rod bearing changes with their upper horsepower kits. This would explain why so many supercharged engines are opened up, rod bearings photographed and posted, before being replaced.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

It's good that there's little variation from shell to shell. But with the WPC treatment, if I understand it correctly, would it not harden the shell surface? With the new (presumably lead-free) shells from BMW being substantially harder than the leaded shells, it seems that further hardening them would transfer more of the wear to the crank journals. Have you done a hardness test on the WPC treated shells to compare to the stock shells?

I think you're wondering the same thing I have, that shot-peening (in general) adds hardness, so why doesn't the WPC treatment. I don't know that answer. I sent Kawasaki the only spare bearings I had so he could run the hardness tests on them; and none of those were WPC treated. I think I read earlier Kawasaki take a stab at your question, and I think Billj747 did a pretty good job above.

I'm pretty sure you can still get the old bearings if you want to...in the same way I got mine. You order the original part number (088/089's), and you ask the dealer to mark them "do not substitute." If the bearings are available, that should guarantee you will get them. Then you can have those WPC treated, or sent to Kawasaki to have his collegue's shop do their treatment.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by fbm3cab

More then two and a half years ago.

Maybe it is 2 years old but it was written by the OP.

On a side note, S54 rod bearing failures are also virtually unheard of in the UK.

Coincidence?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

1) I don't understand how you can repeatedly ask questions of everyone trying to *disprove* your theory when you still haven't answered Regular Guy's calls to provide *any* documentation to back it up?

Whats to understand?
Its a forum...a place for people to ask questions and share answers...I'm not trying a win a debate or deconstruct the OPs theory. I'm simply trying to understand what are the mechanics of the problem (its why I ask questions) and to try and figure out why the data is not a perfect fit to the OPs hypothesis.

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

So since this is *your* theory, then *YOU* explain why the anomaly, as it flies directly in the face of that which you theorize.

Lucky for me then that its not an anomaly after all - it turns out that the owner of the failed engine was a little bit economical with the facts. It already had high mileage when he bought it so he has no idea of what fuel has been used in the car.

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

This low quality fuel theory of yours....repeated use of low octane fuel in high compression engines will usually result in piston damage and ring land failures, none of which we've seen. I went back and started looking at all the pics of bearing wear in which the pistons can be seen, and see no signs of detonation. Neither have I seen anyone mention piston/ring land damage during replacement of the bearings. Please explain that.

Looking at the pictures in the first post: One thing that strikes me in some of the pictures showing bearings in the early stages of wear...
in particular:
S65, 30000 Miles, Bone Stock, 2008.
S65, 31000 Miles, Naturally Aspirated, 2008
...is that the highest wear is concentrated at the 6 o'clock position ie in the middle of the bottom bearing [1]. Simple accelerated wear would show as a more even increase in bearing wear.
So logically this elevated wear at that location would be a function of the vertical load exerted during the power stroke of the engine. So increase the force of the power stroke (by say supercharging) will increase the rate of wear - which appears to be the case. By extension, increase the vertical load during the power stroke through poor combustion should also increase wear to some extent. Not talking about massive pre-ignition or pinging the crap out of the engine that would be readily visible on all related parts - but an increase in load as a result of the engines S65 anti-knock system being unable to always fully accommodate the poor burn characteristics of low octane fuel.
Not making it the cause of increased wear but a component.

BTW I don't need Regular Guy to answer this post...if anyone with an open mind wants to reply then that would be great though.

[1] POST EDIT: As already pointed out it should read "....at the 12 o'clock position ie in the middle of the top bearing..."