BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > E90/E92 M3 Technical Topics > Engine, Transmission, Exhaust, Drivetrain, ECU Software Modifications
 
OneEighty
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-23-2013, 06:51 PM   #45
VCMpower
Banned
Canada
9
Rep
941
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 Dakar, 2013 Fire Orange
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Victoria B.C.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawasaki00
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower View Post
Did you mean tolerance of .0003 or .003?
.0003, sorry. That is why mahle doesn't make .0005 increments. The tolerance overlaps too much.
Probably why some have seen a range of .00096 to .0015, that makes sense.
If the demand is high enough they will make -.001 bearings.
Perfect. Thanks. Possibly why some of us do not get along so well. Hopefully that can change as well.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 07:49 PM   #46
BMRLVR
Grease Monkey
BMRLVR's Avatar
Canada
39
Rep
2,332
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMRLVR
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower View Post
If folks set clearances to say, .002, oil pressure drops to 20-25 psi below 2k rpm from 40 psi. How will this affect stop and go, sitting at traffic light style driving? Without playing with oil weight. All components of this engine are designed to see 40-80 psi(vanos included). Maximum pressure is 60 with .002 clearance. Would a revised oil pump be a full package solution along with more clearance? I have measured 2 motors both closer to .0015, but I do not disagree that there are ones closer to .001. If this can be proven without doubt should BMW not take accountability?
20-25PSI of oil pressure is lots below 2K RPM. Like was mentioned many times before, Dinan builds their Strokers with 0.019" Main & 0.025" Rod and they dont change the oil pumps in any way. They have their cranks pre-machined with to be at these clearances with stock bearing shells........ With Dinan building most of the BMW engines for race teams across NA (Fall Line Motorsports, and the Grand-Am Rolex Sports car series Daytona prototype class to name only a few) I think they know what they are doing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
It looks like some clarification may be in order to answer a bunch of these question.

The factory bearings are Mahle-Clevite-77. BMW uses blue and red bearings for top/bottom shells, not different sizes.

My people exhaustively measured the clearances and shared our results with select individuals on this forum, including BMRLVR. We measured two factory cranks, and four sets of connecting rods. Two sets of factory connecting rods and two sets of Carrillo rods. We experimented with red/blue shells to see if there was any size difference.

We used bore dial indicators to measure clearance, not Plastigauge. Nothing against Plastiguage and it's decent when in a bind, but it's not as accurate as bore gauges. The accuracy of Plastigauge will depend on its placement. Put Plastigauge in the wrong spot or wrong orientation, and the results are not dependable.

Our measurements showed very consistent results. Clearance on both main and rod journals was between 0.00096 - 0.00100, with most closer to 0.00100 than 0.00096. It didn't matter if we used factory connecting rods or the two different sets of Carrillo's because both measured the same. It also didn't matter if we matched two red and two blue bearing shells, as they measured the same as well.

There are two different types of coated bearings that we've seen for S65 engines. Most people, including VAC, use bearings coated by Calico Coatings. Calico web site specifies the coating between 0.0002 - 0.0004 thickness. The other coated bearing appears to be a Mahle-Clevite TriArmor bearing (although we can't be totally sure). The thickness of the TriArmor coating is spec'ed by Mahle-Clevite as 0.0003 - 0.0005 thickness. According to these manufacturers specifications, that would mean using the coated bearings would reduce your clearance by 20%-50% depending on which coated bearing you use if you do not add extra clearance by reducing the size of your crankshaft journals or using larger bearings (larger bearings are not available).

Even though we had access to both sets of coated bearings, we did not measure them. Now that there's sufficient interest in this topic, we plan to measure both types of coated bearings for the next engine we build.

Both Calico and Mahle-Clevite specify proper bearing clearance at 0.001" per 1-inch of journal diameter. BMW went much smaller, and according to Mahle-Clevite they do this for two reasons: 1) minimize noise in aluminum blocks; 2) reduce horsepower loss. But Mahle-Clevite also warns against these tight tolerances and says any such small clearance should also be mated with thinner oils like 5-30W.

There's actually much, much more to this topic with much greater details, warnings, and recommendations. But hopefully this clears up some things for now.

I hope this helps.
Thanks for helping shed some light on my claims......... Hopefully all of the non believers will sit-up and listen now!
Now now, condescending? Reg guy gave me the data I was looking for, thanks.
I had the info from Regular Guy long before this and I shared it with you....... At that point you were still recommending bearings as preventative maintenance items!
__________________
2011 E90 M3 ZCP - Individual Moonstone/Individual Amarone Extended/Individual Piano Black With Inlay:LINK!!!
1994 Euro E36 M3 Sedan - Daytona Violet/Mulberry:LINK!!!
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 07:55 PM   #47
VCMpower
Banned
Canada
9
Rep
941
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 Dakar, 2013 Fire Orange
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Victoria B.C.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMRLVR
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMRLVR
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower View Post
If folks set clearances to say, .002, oil pressure drops to 20-25 psi below 2k rpm from 40 psi. How will this affect stop and go, sitting at traffic light style driving? Without playing with oil weight. All components of this engine are designed to see 40-80 psi(vanos included). Maximum pressure is 60 with .002 clearance. Would a revised oil pump be a full package solution along with more clearance? I have measured 2 motors both closer to .0015, but I do not disagree that there are ones closer to .001. If this can be proven without doubt should BMW not take accountability?
20-25PSI of oil pressure is lots below 2K RPM. Like was mentioned many times before, Dinan builds their Strokers with 0.019" Main & 0.025" Rod and they dont change the oil pumps in any way. They have their cranks pre-machined with to be at these clearances with stock bearing shells........ With Dinan building most of the BMW engines for race teams across NA (Fall Line Motorsports, and the Grand-Am Rolex Sports car series Daytona prototype class to name only a few) I think they know what they are doing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
It looks like some clarification may be in order to answer a bunch of these question.

The factory bearings are Mahle-Clevite-77. BMW uses blue and red bearings for top/bottom shells, not different sizes.

My people exhaustively measured the clearances and shared our results with select individuals on this forum, including BMRLVR. We measured two factory cranks, and four sets of connecting rods. Two sets of factory connecting rods and two sets of Carrillo rods. We experimented with red/blue shells to see if there was any size difference.

We used bore dial indicators to measure clearance, not Plastigauge. Nothing against Plastiguage and it's decent when in a bind, but it's not as accurate as bore gauges. The accuracy of Plastigauge will depend on its placement. Put Plastigauge in the wrong spot or wrong orientation, and the results are not dependable.

Our measurements showed very consistent results. Clearance on both main and rod journals was between 0.00096 - 0.00100, with most closer to 0.00100 than 0.00096. It didn't matter if we used factory connecting rods or the two different sets of Carrillo's because both measured the same. It also didn't matter if we matched two red and two blue bearing shells, as they measured the same as well.

There are two different types of coated bearings that we've seen for S65 engines. Most people, including VAC, use bearings coated by Calico Coatings. Calico web site specifies the coating between 0.0002 - 0.0004 thickness. The other coated bearing appears to be a Mahle-Clevite TriArmor bearing (although we can't be totally sure). The thickness of the TriArmor coating is spec'ed by Mahle-Clevite as 0.0003 - 0.0005 thickness. According to these manufacturers specifications, that would mean using the coated bearings would reduce your clearance by 20%-50% depending on which coated bearing you use if you do not add extra clearance by reducing the size of your crankshaft journals or using larger bearings (larger bearings are not available).

Even though we had access to both sets of coated bearings, we did not measure them. Now that there's sufficient interest in this topic, we plan to measure both types of coated bearings for the next engine we build.

Both Calico and Mahle-Clevite specify proper bearing clearance at 0.001" per 1-inch of journal diameter. BMW went much smaller, and according to Mahle-Clevite they do this for two reasons: 1) minimize noise in aluminum blocks; 2) reduce horsepower loss. But Mahle-Clevite also warns against these tight tolerances and says any such small clearance should also be mated with thinner oils like 5-30W.

There's actually much, much more to this topic with much greater details, warnings, and recommendations. But hopefully this clears up some things for now.

I hope this helps.
Thanks for helping shed some light on my claims......... Hopefully all of the non believers will sit-up and listen now!
Now now, condescending? Reg guy gave me the data I was looking for, thanks.
I had the info from Regular Guy long before this and I shared it with you....... At that point you were still recommending bearings as preventative maintenance items!
Agree, and now more details came out that help me understand your points. You would not just go on heresay. I have credible info on oil pressures as well and you questioned that. Whether the lower psi's were fine or not. I am glad we can understand the same info now.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 07:59 PM   #48
Alekshop
Alekshop's Avatar
United_States
120
Rep
2,340
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3 l E92 M3 l F82 M4
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area

iTrader: (8)

Send a message via Skype™ to Alekshop
Quote:
Originally Posted by kawasaki00
Well you just made my mind up, I would never put coated bearing in my engine from Calico, we have failed so many of those bearings it is not even funny. Calico was good before they got bought out, now not so much.
Mahle also recommends thinner oils....Imagine that.
If they are Mahle bearings that also means they are quite inconsistent from batch to batch. Mahle has a tolerance of about +-.003 on the shells.
You should definitely consider Clevite 77 Tri-Armor instead.

Looking at the pictures of the Calico bearings that VAC is selling, you can see that parting lines are also coated.

Coating parting lines is an issues
since it can increase the total crush effect by .0012 (.0003 x 4).

Initially, this causes the bore to become distorted.

Then overtime as the coating extrudes from the parting line faces, the bearing loses its tight fit in the housing potentially causing additional problems.

No one seems to cover that so hopefully it helps.

Last edited by Alekshop; 06-23-2013 at 08:05 PM.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 08:08 PM   #49
VCMpower
Banned
Canada
9
Rep
941
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 Dakar, 2013 Fire Orange
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Victoria B.C.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekshop
Quote:
Originally Posted by kawasaki00
Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
It looks like some clarification may be in order to answer a bunch of these question.

The factory bearings are Mahle-Clevite-77. BMW uses blue and red bearings for top/bottom shells, not different sizes.

My people exhaustively measured the clearances and shared our results with select individuals on this forum, including BMRLVR. We measured two factory cranks, and four sets of connecting rods. Two sets of factory connecting rods and two sets of Carrillo rods. We experimented with red/blue shells to see if there was any size difference.

We used bore dial indicators to measure clearance, not Plastigauge. Nothing against Plastiguage and it's decent when in a bind, but it's not as accurate as bore gauges. The accuracy of Plastigauge will depend on its placement. Put Plastigauge in the wrong spot or wrong orientation, and the results are not dependable.

Our measurements showed very consistent results. Clearance on both main and rod journals was between 0.00096 - 0.00100, with most closer to 0.00100 than 0.00096. It didn't matter if we used factory connecting rods or the two different sets of Carrillo's because both measured the same. It also didn't matter if we matched two red and two blue bearing shells, as they measured the same as well.

There are two different types of coated bearings that we've seen for S65 engines. Most people, including VAC, use bearings coated by Calico Coatings. Calico web site specifies the coating between 0.0002 - 0.0004 thickness. The other coated bearing appears to be a Mahle-Clevite TriArmor bearing (although we can't be totally sure). The thickness of the TriArmor coating is spec'ed by Mahle-Clevite as 0.0003 - 0.0005 thickness. According to these manufacturers specifications, that would mean using the coated bearings would reduce your clearance by 20%-50% depending on which coated bearing you use if you do not add extra clearance by reducing the size of your crankshaft journals or using larger bearings (larger bearings are not available).

Even though we had access to both sets of coated bearings, we did not measure them. Now that there's sufficient interest in this topic, we plan to measure both types of coated bearings for the next engine we build.

Both Calico and Mahle-Clevite specify proper bearing clearance at 0.001" per 1-inch of journal diameter. BMW went much smaller, and according to Mahle-Clevite they do this for two reasons: 1) minimize noise in aluminum blocks; 2) reduce horsepower loss. But Mahle-Clevite also warns against these tight tolerances and says any such small clearance should also be mated with thinner oils like 5-30W.

There's actually much, much more to this topic with much greater details, warnings, and recommendations. But hopefully this clears up some things for now.

I hope this helps.
Well you just made my mind up, I would never put coated bearing in my engine from Calico, we have failed so many of those bearings it is not even funny. Calico was good before they got bought out, now not so much.
Mahle also recommends thinner oils....Imagine that.
If they are Mahle bearings that also means they are quite inconsistent from batch to batch. Mahle has a tolerance of about +-.003 on the shells.
You should definitely consider Clevite 77 Tri-Armor instead.

Looking at the pictures of the Calico bearings that VAC is selling, you can see that parting lines are also coated.

Coating parting lines is an issues
since it can increase the total crush effect by .0012 (.0003 x 4).

Initially, this causes the bore to become distorted.

Then overtime as the coating extrudes from the parting line faces, the bearing loses its tight fit in the housing potentially causing additional problems.

No one seem to cover that so hopefully it helps.
I literally just sat here and measured VAC and oem bearings( both new ). Surprisingly the vac's measured at .0765 and stock .077. Go figure. For curiosity I used emery and the ends of the bearings that are coated can easily be removed. I can't see the end coating being a issue though.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 08:33 PM   #50
BMRLVR
Grease Monkey
BMRLVR's Avatar
Canada
39
Rep
2,332
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

iTrader: (3)

Good info, the coating on the parting line could be a huge issue...... It could cause the bearing crush to be wrong as pointed out by Alekshop which would make it not fit the journal properly!
__________________
2011 E90 M3 ZCP - Individual Moonstone/Individual Amarone Extended/Individual Piano Black With Inlay:LINK!!!
1994 Euro E36 M3 Sedan - Daytona Violet/Mulberry:LINK!!!
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 08:33 PM   #51
Alekshop
Alekshop's Avatar
United_States
120
Rep
2,340
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3 l E92 M3 l F82 M4
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area

iTrader: (8)

Send a message via Skype™ to Alekshop
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower View Post
I literally just sat here and measured VAC and oem bearings( both new ). Surprisingly the vac's measured at .0765 and stock .077. Go figure. For curiosity I used emery and the ends of the bearings that are coated can easily be removed. I can't see the end coating being a issue though.
Non of it can be considered as an issue unless you know about it.

Why removing something when you can buy a product that was properly coated in the first place.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 08:34 PM   #52
VCMpower
Banned
Canada
9
Rep
941
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 Dakar, 2013 Fire Orange
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Victoria B.C.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekshop
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCMpower View Post
I literally just sat here and measured VAC and oem bearings( both new ). Surprisingly the vac's measured at .0765 and stock .077. Go figure. For curiosity I used emery and the ends of the bearings that are coated can easily be removed. I can't see the end coating being a issue though.
Non of it can be considered as an issue unless you know about it.

Why removing something when you can buy a product that was properly coated in the first place.
I hear ya. Sounds like a quote from Galileo Galilei.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 08:36 PM   #53
vinniechin
Vinnie
United_States
1
Rep
174
Posts

 
Drives: E93 Space Gray DCT
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern NJ

iTrader: (1)

Great thread guys! Thanks for all the information.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 09:25 PM   #54
US///M3
Major
23
Rep
1,266
Posts

 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

iTrader: (0)

I think for those who track their M3's, oil pan baffles, a dry sump oil kit maybe what's needed.
I think under certain conditions the oil pump isn't sending the right amount of oil/ oil pressure.
BMW sensors usually are slow to notice a quick drop in oil pressure.
There must be a reason the E36 LTW (dual oil pick-up sumps), E46 M3 CSL received similar upgrades.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 09:26 PM   #55
Longwong
Banned
9
Rep
371
Posts

 
Drives: e92 m3 catless
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Can someone summarize what we have learned here for us mere mortals? What my take away is

1. The issue is bmw made the clearence for oil to properly lubricate the bearings so ridiculously small because speculation that they were doing it for noise reduction or increase in power? At the expense of not having enough clearence for the thick oil they recommend

2.Mahle recommends 5w30 with the clearences bmw is using. So why don't we all switch to 5w 30? Can someone explain the cost vs benefit of those who don't know how 5w 30 may hold up at 8k rpm?

3. No point to coated bearings for 2 reasons. First it may worsen the problem since the coating further reduces the clearences. Second even if not, it still does not fix the problem of under lubrication and the coated ones will fail as well

Last are we all just doomed if we drive our cars hard? I feel like it could go at any day.

So is there literally nothing anyone can do?

Honestly with this information I cannot see how anyone in their right mind would supercharge this car. I was going to but no way in hell now.

Any particular driving habits worse for bearing starvation? Is it a high rpm issue or hard banking on turns issue? Can someone explain
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 09:35 PM   #56
VCMpower
Banned
Canada
9
Rep
941
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 Dakar, 2013 Fire Orange
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Victoria B.C.

iTrader: (0)

This is the type of feedback we need if BMW is going to pay any attention, just don't say you're going to run out and bye a M4! Lol
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 09:41 PM   #57
regular guy
Banned
22
Rep
1,375
Posts

 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

iTrader: (0)

For all you supercharged guys, if you want the real bombshell, here it is. Instead of using my own words, I'll quote this directly from a Mahle-Clevite white paper on bearing clearance, then I'll summarize at the end.
For most applications .00075 to .0010” (three quarters to one thousandth of an inch) of clearance per inch of shaft diameter is a reasonable starting point.

...

Using this formula will provide a safe starting point for most applications. For High Performance engines it is recommended that .0005” be added to the maximum value determined by the above calculation. The recommendation for our 2.000” shaft would be .0025” of clearance.

...

High Performance engines on the other hand, typically employ greater bearing clearances for a number of reasons. Their higher operating speeds result in considerably higher oil temperatures and an accompanying loss in oil viscosity due to fluid film friction that increases with shaft speed. Increased clearance provides less sensitivity to shaft, block, and connecting rod deflections and the resulting misalignments that result from the higher levels of loading in these engines. Use of synthetic oils with their better flow properties
can help to reduce fluid film friction.

...

Use of these coated bearings may result in slightly less clearance than the uncoated CLEVITE 77 high performance parts for the same application. This will typically be in the range of .0005.” This is because the coating, although expected to remain in place during service, is considered to be somewhat of a sacrificial layer. Some amount of the coating will be removed during break-in and operation, resulting in a slight increase in clearance.
Here's what this means to you. If you run high horsepower and high RPM, then you need extra bearing clearance, not less of it. The coated bearings are great, but you have to size your journals for them; and as Alekshop mentioned, you shouldn't have coated parting lines. If you have coated parting lines you must remove the coating in this area before using these bearings.

Mahle-Clevite recommends adding an extra 0.0005 for good measure for high horsepower, high RPM, and coated bearing applications. To see some numbers in real life, please see the following examples.

Factory clearance: 0.0010
Factory clearance with Calico coated bearings: 0.0006 - 0.0008 (20-40% smaller).
Factory clearance with TriArmor coated bearigns: 0.0005 - 0.0007 (30-50% smaller).

Recommended clearance for mains (70mm journal):
0.00100/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00325
0.00075/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00256

Recommended clearance for rods (53mm journal):
0.00100/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00258
0.00075/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00206

So there you have it: ideal mains should be 0.0025 - 0.0032 and ideal rods should be 0.0020 - 0.0025. You're given 0.0010 clearance from the factory and some may be thinking of reducing it another 20-50% with coated bearings without sizing the journals because they believe it gives them extra protection. The extra protection is true if you kept all things the same including the bearing clearance; but reducing the bearing clearance by 20-50% to get the extra protection of the coating is not recommended.

Our next engine will get the Mahle-Clevite TriArmor bearings if we can still find them -- of course with proper clearance to match.

I hope this helps.
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 09:50 PM   #58
Longwong
Banned
9
Rep
371
Posts

 
Drives: e92 m3 catless
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

If I read that correctly, part of the problem with low clearence is the chance the oil will sheer and especially at high performance and high engine speeds will cause the thinner oils to lose protective layer. So this means that is likely why bmw uses the thicker TWS oil (remember the e46 m3 started with 5w30 and switched to TWS after the bearing issues) so going to a thinner oil would in theory "fix" the problem of oil getting into the lower clearence areas but would sheer and the protection would be useless and thus it looks like TWS is the best protection for a low clearence situation like we have.

I just have no clue how bmw could not have caught this and did it again with the s85/s65 blocks/engines after the s54. Such a small little detail yet so catastrophic.

So essentially coated bearingas are not the answer. Thinner oil is not the answer. Praying that we have the bearings with a bit more clearence than the next guys is the only hope!
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 09:57 PM   #59
Longwong
Banned
9
Rep
371
Posts

 
Drives: e92 m3 catless
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

If I read that correctly, part of the problem with low clearence is the chance the oil will sheer and especially at high performance and high engine speeds will cause the thinner oils to lose protective layer. So this means that is likely why bmw uses the thicker TWS oil (remember the e46 m3 started with 5w30 and switched to TWS after the bearing issues) so going to a thinner oil would in theory "fix" the problem of oil getting into the lower clearence areas but would sheer and the protection would be useless and thus it looks like TWS is the best protection for a low clearence situation like we have.

I just have no clue how bmw could not have caught this and did it again with the s85/s65 blocks/engines after the s54. Such a small little detail yet so catastrophic.

So essentially coated bearingas are not the answer. Thinner oil is not the answer. Praying that we have the bearings with a bit more clearence than the next guys is the only hope!
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 10:08 PM   #60
BIU
Lieutenant
10
Rep
582
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 A22 E90 M3 DCT
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hong Kong

iTrader: (0)

Appreciating all this discussion with very valuable info. from the technical gurus and Longwong for somewhat breaking it down to caveman lingo for the avg. joe
Appreciate 0
      06-23-2013, 10:11 PM   #61
Transfer
Lieutenant Colonel
Transfer's Avatar
United_States
24
Rep
1,689
Posts

 
Drives: SQ5, X1
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA

iTrader: (0)




Wow have I learned a ton in this thread. Thank you to all contributing who know so much about this stuff because some of us are totally in the dark. Subscribed!
Appreciate 0
      06-24-2013, 05:53 AM   #62
aussiem3
Lieutenant Colonel
aussiem3's Avatar
Australia
30
Rep
1,689
Posts

 
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2014 BMW X5 30d  [0.00]
2007 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
For all you supercharged guys, if you want the real bombshell, here it is. Instead of using my own words, I'll quote this directly from a Mahle-Clevite white paper on bearing clearance, then I'll summarize at the end.
For most applications .00075 to .0010 (three quarters to one thousandth of an inch) of clearance per inch of shaft diameter is a reasonable starting point.

...

Using this formula will provide a safe starting point for most applications. For High Performance engines it is recommended that .0005 be added to the maximum value determined by the above calculation. The recommendation for our 2.000 shaft would be .0025 of clearance.

...

High Performance engines on the other hand, typically employ greater bearing clearances for a number of reasons. Their higher operating speeds result in considerably higher oil temperatures and an accompanying loss in oil viscosity due to fluid film friction that increases with shaft speed. Increased clearance provides less sensitivity to shaft, block, and connecting rod deflections and the resulting misalignments that result from the higher levels of loading in these engines. Use of synthetic oils with their better flow properties
can help to reduce fluid film friction.

...

Use of these coated bearings may result in slightly less clearance than the uncoated CLEVITE 77 high performance parts for the same application. This will typically be in the range of .0005. This is because the coating, although expected to remain in place during service, is considered to be somewhat of a sacrificial layer. Some amount of the coating will be removed during break-in and operation, resulting in a slight increase in clearance.
Here's what this means to you. If you run high horsepower and high RPM, then you need extra bearing clearance, not less of it. The coated bearings are great, but you have to size your journals for them; and as Alekshop mentioned, you shouldn't have coated parting lines. If you have coated parting lines you must remove the coating in this area before using these bearings.

Mahle-Clevite recommends adding an extra 0.0005 for good measure for high horsepower, high RPM, and coated bearing applications. To see some numbers in real life, please see the following examples.

Factory clearance: 0.0010
Factory clearance with Calico coated bearings: 0.0006 - 0.0008 (20-40% smaller).
Factory clearance with TriArmor coated bearigns: 0.0005 - 0.0007 (30-50% smaller).

Recommended clearance for mains (70mm journal):
0.00100/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00325
0.00075/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00256

Recommended clearance for rods (53mm journal):
0.00100/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00258
0.00075/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00206

So there you have it: ideal mains should be 0.0025 - 0.0032 and ideal rods should be 0.0020 - 0.0025. You're given 0.0010 clearance from the factory and some may be thinking of reducing it another 20-50% with coated bearings without sizing the journals because they believe it gives them extra protection. The extra protection is true if you kept all things the same including the bearing clearance; but reducing the bearing clearance by 20-50% to get the extra protection of the coating is not recommended.

Our next engine will get the Mahle-Clevite TriArmor bearings if we can still find them -- of course with proper clearance to match.

I hope this helps.
By the way, who are you? You are new here but seem to know a lot more than some of our forum pros. I am sure you would have been living in a cave to sign up now. Anyway, very good information and educating too. Thank you.
__________________

2007 E92 6MT - Silverstone II with /// Performance Exhaust with ACM Test Pipes and BPM Sport Stage II Dev-Tune - Proper engine warm up, 12-monthly oil change, Castrol TWS 10w-60
2014 F15 X5 3.0d
Appreciate 0
      06-24-2013, 06:48 AM   #63
kawasaki00
Major
kawasaki00's Avatar
18
Rep
1,235
Posts

 
Drives: E92
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Charlotte NC

iTrader: (4)

The only way to fix it without taking the engine apart is to have mahle make -.001 bearings and swap shells, that would effectively give you about .002 clearance.
Oh I also believe that BMW should pay for it and eat the cost of replacing them. Although many of us have not had failures the simple fact that as the m3 and m5 age more failures are creeping up. The clearance they set the engines at is not acceptable in any machine shop across the entire planet. If they dont have at least some sort of response it is pretty lame if you ask me. Many of us know what it takes to fix it and some of us have all the tools neede to fix it ourself, but I have a problem with pulling a 15 thousand dollar engine out of my car and having to fix it myself. On the other hand most of us sit here and think about it everytime you make a blast up a back road or freeway wondering if it is going to spit the rods out.
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
Appreciate 0
      06-24-2013, 07:08 AM   #64
Richbot
Colonel
30
Rep
2,120
Posts

 
Drives: Jerez Black E90
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: STL

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longwong View Post
If I read that correctly, part of the problem with low clearence is the chance the oil will sheer and especially at high performance and high engine speeds will cause the thinner oils to lose protective layer. So this means that is likely why bmw uses the thicker TWS oil (remember the e46 m3 started with 5w30 and switched to TWS after the bearing issues) so going to a thinner oil would in theory "fix" the problem of oil getting into the lower clearence areas but would sheer and the protection would be useless and thus it looks like TWS is the best protection for a low clearence situation like we have.

I just have no clue how bmw could not have caught this and did it again with the s85/s65 blocks/engines after the s54. Such a small little detail yet so catastrophic.

So essentially coated bearingas are not the answer. Thinner oil is not the answer. Praying that we have the bearings with a bit more clearence than the next guys is the only hope!
it's obvious this was an intentional decision by BMW, who knows why, only they do probably. Perhaps too reliant on their suppliers to make parts to a tolerance they couldn't meet, perhaps too reliant on the idea that most M car owners use wide open throttle less than once a month...

This is why some have tried race oils like the redline 40wt with good if inconclusive results
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-24-2013, 07:20 AM   #65
Obioban
Captain
16
Rep
938
Posts

 
Drives: 05 M3, 95 M3 euro, 01 M5, e91
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Chester, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
I think for those who track their M3's, oil pan baffles, a dry sump oil kit maybe what's needed.
I think under certain conditions the oil pump isn't sending the right amount of oil/ oil pressure.
BMW sensors usually are slow to notice a quick drop in oil pressure.
There must be a reason the E36 LTW (dual oil pick-up sumps), E46 M3 CSL received similar upgrades.
Got a source on that? Pretty sure the CSL used the standard e46 M3 oiling system in all respects...
__________________

Current Cars: 2005 IR/IR M3, 2001 LMB/blk M5, Wife's e91, 1995 S50 B32 GT3 RS Green M3 Race Car
Former Cars: 2004 TiAg/IR M3, 1996 TV/black M3, 1995 AW M3 shell
M3 Mod List, M5 Mod List
Appreciate 0
      06-24-2013, 08:12 AM   #66
BASELINE
Private First Class
2
Rep
142
Posts

 
Drives: A few...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Canaan, CT

iTrader: (3)

So...

Basically there is no reasonable recourse at this time. No bolt on upgrade.

Am I incorrect to surmise that if someone wanted to "service" this issue on a higher mileage car at this point going with the stock ones is probably the safest option? I guess one could do the ARP bolts but I'm reading a "NO" on the current coated offerings.

Perhaps
Appreciate 0
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST