Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I don't see the point in carrying on the same conversation in two different threads by pulling quotes from another thread and bringing it here. If clarification is so important, then you can ask and wait for an answer or send a PM. It's usually impolite to pull comments from one thread and bring them over to another. Most people might consider that an aggressive move; but it doesn't bother me to be honest.

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

If the other thread is relevant, there should be no issue linking it as it pertains to the same issue, and contains comments you made in reference to the subject at hand. I'm sorry if others may take this as an aggressive move, although I don't understand that to be the case. This is common practice and is a discussion forum. The reference was for informational purposes and not an act of aggression.

C'mon Mike and RG. Let's call it quits. It's all about a matter of opinion and how we individually interpret it. We're grown ups and what's the point in fighting over couple of words here and there.

RG, I don't think Mike was trying to discredit you. Probably he's looking for answers and clarification just like me or any other respected member on this board. Keep in mind he's a tuner and not an engine builder, and you're vica versa.

We need to respect each other which I think is very important has been lacking lately.

I am sure we'll call it quits here please Mike and RG. Thank you very much.

[JRV]

What he said...

[IMG]

Some tight clearance in this thread !

[Phanto///M]

Originally Posted by BLUDVL

Some tight clearance in this thread !

I see what you did there... Lol

[IMG]

Originally Posted by Phanto///M

I see what you did there... Lol

Lmao

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by BLUDVL

Some tight clearance in this thread !

Slick!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

C'mon Mike and RG. Let's call it quits. It's all about a matter of opinion and how we individually interpret it. We're grown ups and what's the point in fighting over couple of words here and there.

RG, I don't think Mike was trying to discredit you. Probably he's looking for answers and clarification just like me or any other respected member on this board. Keep in mind he's a tuner and not an engine builder, and you're vica versa.

We need to respect each other which I think is very important has been lacking lately.

I am sure we'll call it quits here please Mike and RG. Thank you very much.

If Mike wants answers, he can start by asking a question.

This thread has had its problems with a small handful of people trying to put words into my (and other's) mouths. Some are accidental, others are intentional. I'm not going to judge Mike's as intentional. However, it's one thing to have an interpretation, it's another thing to make something up that wasn't there in the first place and try to put it in somebody's mouth. Mike presents himself to this forum as an expert and perfectionist -- always correcting people with little gotcha comments -- comments that are often wrong themselves...like this one from earlier today. To the man who demands perfection from others, perfection should be expected of him.

[IMG]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Slick!

Every time a good thread is going good, some members decide to go at it which is funny to me.
Every single person that started drama on the forum that I met in person was nothing but a gentleman. So I don't really get it !

[BPMSport]

RG,

You can consider it a "gotcha" comment, but it was simply accurately stating what is in the owners manual (which you suggested that he reference).

Accuracy is important, especially when measuring bearings. My comment was not incorrect, it was a cut and paste from the BMW manual.

Edit: it appears BMW added 0w-40 in later manuals. The fact that they have continuously added new oils that are suitable every year supports the conclusion that they are not doing that as a "fix" because they messed something up.

I'm pretty sure most people that read your comment about "BMW messing it up twice" took it the same exact way that I did.

Please let it rest. It would be nice to see a concise general summary of what you've learned so far in your research on this matter.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by BLUDVL

Every time a good thread is going good, some members decide to go at it which is funny to me.
Every single person that started drama on the forum that I met in person was nothing but a gentleman. So I don't really get it !

Absolutely. Just because you're "face-less" doesn't give the right to tarnish and ridicule one another.

This is where active moderation is required. Not sitting behind the scene and banning people for petty comments.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

RG,

You can consider it a "gotcha" comment, but it was simply accurately stating what is in the owners manual (which you suggested that he reference).

Accuracy is important, especially when measuring bearings. My comment was not incorrect, it was a cut and paste from the BMW manual.

I'm pretty sure most people that read your comment about "BMW messing it up twice" took it the same exact way that I did.

Please let it rest. It would be nice to see a concise general summary of what you've learned so far in your research on this matter.

There is really no reasonable interpretation of my rather broad comments on oil that lead to your very narrow interpretation and gotha correction. But just in case you haven't seen it...your correction was only partially correct, and has now been corrected itself. Remember what I said about your corrections often being wrong themselves. (Comments on CAN bus discussion as well.)

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The older bearings are just outside of the Clevite spec (about 10% "tighter") but the newer ones are well inside it. Furthermore (not because you are claiming so but just as a preemptive point) any such specification is inherently based on a nominal value thus it is not appropriate to cherry pick the very tightest old (088/089) case at 0.00059 in/in and claim that to be radically outside of the 0.0075 in/in specification.

I don't believe in doing that, and I hope I've been careful not to do that. I agree, nominal should be what we're talking about.

Also (as suggested prior) since Clevite is not the manufacturer for these bearings we really should not even be holding them to the exact same standard. Either way the notion that the S65 (rod bearing) clearances are radically tighter than this "norm" should now be pretty well laid to rest as false.

I'm confused. Clevite did manufacture the 088/089's...and they are the tighter of the two designs.

I know I've mentioned this before, but the "Clevite spec" really isn't the Clevite spec. That same "spec" can be found in multiple engine design books, some I believe going back many decades. I think I've found three different books that mention it long before Clevite put it in a PDF file.

Unfortunately, the flip side to this is that BWM did either design in (most likely in my opinion or perhaps accepted as a consequence of manufacturing) a 20% increase (dead between my prior 15-25% estimate based on bearing thicknesses alone) in bearing clearance along with the update from the old (088/089) to new (702/703) bearings. Unfortunately, we'll most likely never know if this was some preemptive effort against premature bearing/engine failures. It seems reasonable that the material itself may simply have required a different actual clearance that is some way is more like the same initial clearance.

In my industry, when a fab designs a new transistor fab process, they do give us design guidelines for designing chips. So I can see how this may be possible. But I'm wondering how the same thing applies to bearings when the journals aren't ever supposed to touch the bearings. I've asked this before to YS or SFP and didn't get an answer. It's a legit question IMO and I'd still like to know. But let's say for argument sake that it's true that some bearing surfaces require more clearance. Why? Maybe the surface that is more porous would create more friction and require more clearance? If that's the case, I would assume that to be the 088/089 bearing with lead surface that's intended to embed and catch small debris and not the 702/703 bearing with tin surface that is much harder and isn't intended to embed or catch small debris. So just from thinking about it the way I think of it...088/089's would be the ones requiring the extra clearance, not the 702/703's.

-"Official" really should not be used as a term. This is not a number off of a print, it is an observed sample population mean.

I know what you're saying. Not sure I'll change it...but I know what you're saying. I want this thread to be used in the future by engine builders who can measure his/her clearance then very quickly find how it compares. The word "official clearance" is that type of eye grabbing phrase to do that. I just haven't thought of any other eye grabbing phrase that would have the same effect.

-"Nominal Bearing Clearance" also is not a nominal value, a nominal value is a print/design value simply without a tolerance". This should simply be called a Measured Clearance.

Hmmm. Let me think about that when I'm not under a time deadline. I may need to come back to that.

-What are Min and Max Stack Up Clearances? Are they just to account for the additional variation of +/- 0.0005 on the crank?

Yes...exactly.

-Lastly it is a bit odd to also include the Van Dyne measurements here most notably because in the final white/grey tables some include those efforts and some don't.

I'm not sure how to incorporate that here. After I finish the eccentricity article...let me come back to that and see if I can find something that works.

Observations:

...

There is no overlap in the clearances (total range with min/max values) in the tables for the old/new bearings. Also there is a similar and very large ratio of the difference in the mean clearances for the old/new compared to the standard deviation thus leaving no doubt that the consistency of the measurement is not an issue and is fully capturing a real difference in the assembled parts.

If you could post two charts with those values, I would appreciate it.

Again,

the notion that the S65 (rod bearing) clearances are radically tighter than the Clevite recommendation should now be pretty well laid to rest as false.

I said "cuts in half" not "radically tighter." And I think we all know that I was referring to the 0.001 inch/inch metric. Let's keep it real here. I will likely reword that slightly (only slightly) based on these new measurements.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Although you have not been the strongest proponent of the theory that BMW completely screwed the pooch big time on clearances, you've clearly been in that camp. See below, which you have posted in one form or another a good half dozen times or more:

Here's what I've been waiting for...and still am waiting for. I'm waiting for somebody (you, SFP, YS, or anybody) to find a reference in an engine design book, online web site, etc. that shows this is NOT a best practice ratio. I think that's a pretty big hill to climb because I've found this best practice spec mentioned on literally page after page of google search results and haven't found any that dispute it. So to disprove it, show me something that...disputes it and has as many practitioners who disagree with it. I know it may be unpopular, but until I see that...the comment in its basic form has not been proven false in any way shape or form.

Either way I also don't know the answer to YS's original question.

That's because it's a fool's question and once again he tried to insert something into the conversation that never exited before while acting like it did.

[BPMSport]

You mentioned to PM. So I PMed you in an effort to put an end to this childish back and forth, and gain clarification on what you said was incorrect that I said about can bus. You replied not to PM you again that you would report me. Very classy.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

You mentioned to PM. So I PMed you in an effort to put an end to this childish back and forth, and gain clarification on what you said was incorrect that I said about can bus. You replied not to PM you again that you would report me. Very classy.

Let's all of us try an experiment. Here's the experiment: If we can't think of anything productive to add to this bearing/clearance discussion, let's all try shutting up.

I'll go first. Zzzip.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Edit: it appears BMW added 0w-40 in later manuals. The fact that they have continuously added new oils that are suitable every year supports the conclusion that they are not doing that as a "fix" because they messed something up.

Many people have looked at the BMW manual and made the same mistake. I believe I made the same mistake when I first read that part of the manual. That section of BMW manual is discussing "top-off oil." That's the oil you use when you're not near a BMW dealer and find yourself needing a quart of oil. That topic and section of the manual is not related to BMW's August-2013 change in policy to allow LL01 oils on the S65.

I think you got confused because you took two different posts of mine in the same thread and combined them into a single topic. The first was my comments about BMW "chasing something" and my second was with respect to "top-off" oils. They are two separate topics that are unrelated. It's an honest mistake IMO...no harm, no foul.

I'm pretty sure most people that read your comment about "BMW messing it up twice" took it the same exact way that I did.

By putting that comment in quotes, it sounds like I made comments like that or similar to that...but I didn't. I never said "BMW (messed) up twice." I said it seemed to me that BMW's multiple actions (2011 clearance changes, 2013 oil changes) look like they were chasing something -- as if they were trying to address and fix a problem. I still believe that and should present more evidence on that topic later tonight.

[CSL_E36]

Here is some good news for all the skeptics out there. Nearly 64k from an 08' and clean as a whistle!




For all those that are running 0W40, I think your madd! FYI DINAN recommends Total 10W60 for their stroker motors. If a company who is developing a 700bhp race version S65 for Tudor racing series, recommends running 10W60 on their "street" builds, I certainly would take that with more then a grain of salt...

Personally I think all the failures we hear about come from tolerance differences with mass production. There is nothing wrong with the design of the S65.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by 96LTWM3

Here is some good news for all the skeptics out there. Nearly 64k from an 08' and clean as a whistle!

For all those that are running 0W40, I think your madd! FYI DINAN recommends Total 10W60 for their stroker motors. If a company who is developing a 700bhp race version S65 for Tudor racing series, recommends running 10W60 on their "street" builds, I certainly would take that with more then a grain of salt...

Dinan also opens up the clearance to a very liberal value which makes perfect sense for using Total 10W60.

Personally I think all the failures we hear about come from tolerance differences with mass production. There is nothing wrong with the design of the S65.

That's pretty much exactly what I've said in this thread as well. That's what I call "tolerance stack up" which leads to engine failures -- usually early in life. But the tight clearance isn't a free rid. I hope you've seen the bearing photos posted on the front page. Those photos seem to tell a story of engines that won't last for hundreds of thousands of miles -- which I believe is exactly what our S85 brothers are finding out now. We will find out ourselves in the next few years.

[biglare]

Alright Alright....
Some peeps in this thread should relax and just take in all data and knowledge within 81 pages! I myself have learned more than I ever wanted to know about bearings and clearances! LOL!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

swamp2: Will not
SFP: Should Not.
Yellow Snow: Will not

Did.
Did.
Did.

I think there maybe a difference in eccentricity though.

Yes there is. I'll post that next.

[FogCityM3]

Interestingly, when I brought my car into the Dinan center, I asked if they would change my oil using 0w-40. The SA checked back with corporate and under no uncertain terms, said to absolutely continue to use 10w-60 and that if I wanted to use 0W-40, I'd have to get it changed somewhere else, ie they would not do it. When I asked why, I got no answer and they said that someone from corporate would get back to me to explain why. Still have yet to hear from them.

Originally Posted by 96LTWM3

Here is some good news for all the skeptics out there. Nearly 64k from an 08' and clean as a whistle!




For all those that are running 0W40, I think your madd! FYI DINAN recommends Total 10W60 for their stroker motors. If a company who is developing a 700bhp race version S65 for Tudor racing series, recommends running 10W60 on their "street" builds, I certainly would take that with more then a grain of salt...

Personally I think all the failures we hear about come from tolerance differences with mass production. There is nothing wrong with the design of the S65.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by biglare

Alright Alright....
Some peeps in this thread should relax and just take in all data and knowledge within 81 pages! I myself have learned more than I ever wanted to know about bearings and clearances! LOL!

Larry how can I get anything productive done when I keep laughing my ass off at these?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Interestingly, when I brought my car into the Dinan center, I asked if they would change my oil using 0w-40. The SA checked back with corporate and under no uncertain terms, said to absolutely continue to use 10w-60 and that if I wanted to use 0W-40, I'd have to get it changed somewhere else, ie they would not do it. When I asked why, I got no answer and they said that someone from corporate would get back to me to explain why. Still have yet to hear from them.

When was this? How recently? Dinan sold the company about six months ago. Steve Dinan is no longer the owner. They are big corporation owned now.