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
 
GTB Performance
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-27-2013, 10:58 AM   #89
kerrit
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2008 Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bellevue, WA

Posts: 389
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
Has anyone thought about the reason BMW Chose 10w-60 when there is such a tight bearing clearance? Is it because it holds up better when you track the car often?
kerrit is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 11:40 AM   #90
e92zero
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2011 E92 BW
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere in US

Posts: 520
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiln View Post
This raises the next question. Who is going to sell a stroker kit with all the proper machining for clearances.
+2
e92zero is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 12:02 PM   #91
BMRLVR
Grease Monkey
 
BMRLVR's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

Posts: 2,299
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
RG: In your original M5 board teardown thread, it says the Carillo rods were the same thickness as the S65 rods and they were only reground for the specifics of the stroker build. Nothing was said about only having a .003" side clearance.

If the standard side float is deemed as being too little, wouldn't Carillo make their rods thinner?

Did Van Dyne say at the time that this would cause a problem on a stock engine?

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e90...r-motor-2.html

Anyway. I have done some more accurate measurements of both the red and blue bearings and have found them both to be almost exactly the same size! This must mean the discrepancy between the two must be down to material softness.

Measuring a soft bearing is difficult with a mic of any sort. I measured the same bearings with a mic and found them to be different.

To get an exact no quibble size, I set up a reference grade 2mm slip gauge at 20 degrees C.



Red bearing is .0003" (3 tenths) smaller than 2mm. ie .07844" or 1.992mm



Blue bearing is pretty much exactly the same. which gives a total .0006" (6 Tenths) clearance on the nominal sizes, plus journal and rod clearances .

The answer to the question you ask regarding side clearance is: Yes the side clearance would cause issues with a stock engine or stroker. The side clearances that regular guy
Told me were way too tight for any engine, be it a street or race engine! Carillo rods for the S65 are made to BMW OEM dimensions on both width and bore size. If a custom rod dimension is required it must be requested.

The choices made by BMW on these clearances are also quite odd! When I build a small displacement engine I look for between 0.012"-0.020" side clearance for a minimum but on the S65 and the fact that it revs so high I would be more comfortable with 0.020"-0.030".

As for your bearing measurements, please tell me why you think that blue and red shells are the same thickness? Why would they have different colors and part numbers if they are exactly the same dimensions??? I would be more inclined to think your measurements were off rather than the bearings being the same thickness.

To regular guy, GREAT JOB!!! Lots of info, well written and well organized! Sorry I haven't been participating in this great thread....... Between work, selling my current home and building a new one it is next to impossible to get a 1/2 hour to take in the forums!
BMRLVR is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 02:02 PM   #92
B-52Gunner
Second Lieutenant
 
B-52Gunner's Avatar
 
Drives: 13' Jet Black E92 M3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Clifton Park, NY

Posts: 201
iTrader: (0)

Kawasaki00, How do you feel about the MOTUL 300V 0w40 compared to the Castrol TWS 10w60 and the MOBIL 1 0W40? The MOTUL and MOBIL 1 seem very similar.

Viscosity grade SAE J 300 SAE 0W-40
Density at 20C (68F) ASTM D1298 0.848
Viscosity at 40C (104F) ASTM D445 75.7 mm/s
Viscosity at 100C (212F) ASTM D445 13.6 mm/s
HTHS viscosity at 150C (302F) ASTM D4741 3.9 mPa.s
Viscosity Index ASTM D2270 186
Pour point ASTM D97 -51C / -59.8F
Flash point ASTM D92 222C / 431.6F
TBN ASTM D2896 8.25 mg KOH/g
B-52Gunner is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 02:03 PM   #93
Yellow Snow
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 335d Coupe. Stock no more!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle

Posts: 265
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMRLVR View Post
As for your bearing measurements, please tell me why you think that blue and red shells are the same thickness? Why would they have different colors and part numbers if they are exactly the same dimensions??? I would be more inclined to think your measurements were off rather than the bearings being the same thickness.
Did you see the pics? That's a 2mm reference slip gauge. It's a far more accurate way of measuring shells than using a mic.

My money is on both bearing being made of different material, hence the colour designations.
Yellow Snow is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 03:37 PM   #94
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
RG: In your original M5 board teardown thread, it says the Carillo rods were the same thickness as the S65 rods and they were only reground for the specifics of the stroker build. Nothing was said about only having a .003" side clearance.

If the standard side float is deemed as being too little, wouldn't Carillo make their rods thinner?
BMRLVR already addressed that topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow
Did Van Dyne say at the time that this would cause a problem on a stock engine?
I don't remember if we discussed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
Anyway. I have done some more accurate measurements of both the red and blue bearings and have found them both to be almost exactly the same size! This must mean the discrepancy between the two must be down to material softness.

Measuring a soft bearing is difficult with a mic of any sort. I measured the same bearings with a mic and found them to be different.

To get an exact no quibble size, I set up a reference grade 2mm slip gauge at 20 degrees C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
Did you see the pics? That's a 2mm reference slip gauge. It's a far more accurate way of measuring shells than using a mic.

My money is on both bearing being made of different material, hence the colour designations.
You bring up a good point about bearing material and softness. Our micrometer is a ratchet type with 0.001mm resolution. And unless it's misused, the ratchet micrometer would prevent pressing into the surface of the bearing during measurements.

At the end of the day, the discussion of bearing thickness seems academic because the measurements aren't used to calculate bearing clearance. The only thing that matters is the clearance between the rod+bearing bore and the rod journal.

Regardless, after making the bearing thickness measurements, we also placed red+red into a connecting rod, and torqued them before making proper bore/clearance measurements. This information was originally posted here:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=107

For red+blue: 2.0483
For red+red: 2.0486
Difference: 0.00030

Notice that difference matches our bearing thickness measurements quite well.

BTW, lots of things affect bearing clearance, not just bearing thickness. Did you also measure this at the same time?

Name:  bearing.jpg
Views: 661
Size:  142.1 KB
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 03:42 PM   #95
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
My money is on both bearing being made of different material, hence the colour designations.
BTW, I wouldn't disagree with that; I'm inclined to come to the same conclusion myself. However, there does seem to be a verifiable difference in thickness as well.
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 04:05 PM   #96
sunsweet
Banned
 
Drives: '13 ZCP ED+PCD Only Owner
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NC

Posts: 829
iTrader: (0)

Some people, me included were interested to see a comparison of these clearances specs to other engines. It is difficult to get access to that documentation for more recent engines so if you have something more recent by all mean provide that info but here are some older high performance engines. A few of these are by now historical cars but the clearance numbers cannot be questionned as they come straight from the corresponding manufacturer.

(and think metric)

S65B40 (repeated for the comparison)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0291 - 0.0458
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0293 - 0.0469
-----------------------------------------------
Ferrari Mondial 8/QV
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0290 - 0.0640
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0460 - 0.0890
(source: pages B11 and B19 in the 281/83 Mondial 8/QV WSM specs)

Ferrari 328 GTS
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0130 - 0.0510
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]:
(source: Ferrari Technical Specs, Service bulletin, page 6, total 147 pages)

Porsche 924
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0800
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0700
(source Porsche engine specs)

Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0100 - 0.0720
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source Workshop Manual on E127)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Spec Book)

I have not searched the rod side clearance specs for the above but doing a random search:
Rod side clearance: 0.015 - 0.025 (inches)
(source: Jim Smart Senior editor of Mustang & Ford monthly "Engine Tips - Biggest Engine-Building Mistakes")
For information 2 hairs diameter is about 2 X 0.007 inches = 0.014 inches

Based on these numbers the S65 engine main/rod bearing clearances are not out of family, they seem to fit right in with these other cars. Of course there are large differences between these cars and a whole set of parameters that would have to be adjusted for : surface harshness of main journals and bearings, surface finishing and treatment, materials, engine horsepower, max RPM, dynamic compression ratio, tune, etc. I will let the expert speak on that.

Some engines have failed indeniably something went wrong but I think attributing the problem to the clearances does not seem to add up. It may be an aggravating factor but based on other engines clearances we are not there in terms of finding the root cause.

Last edited by sunsweet; 09-27-2013 at 04:27 PM.
sunsweet is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 04:17 PM   #97
Yellow Snow
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 335d Coupe. Stock no more!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle

Posts: 265
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
BTW, I wouldn't disagree with that; I'm inclined to come to the same conclusion myself. However, there does seem to be a verifiable difference in thickness as well.
Could you measure a red and blue in the same way to see what you find. I thought the bearings were different when I used a mic, but running them under a tenths clock revealed a different story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post

Some engines have failed so indeniably something went wrong but I think attributing the problem to the clearances does not seem to add up. It may be an aggravating factor but IMO we are not there in terms of finding the root cause.
I'm with you on that.

Last edited by Yellow Snow; 09-27-2013 at 04:23 PM.
Yellow Snow is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 04:27 PM   #98
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiln View Post
This raises the next question. Who is going to sell a stroker kit with all the proper machining for clearances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L4ces View Post
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by e92zero View Post
+2
Already in the works. PM for details. I also have two OEM crankshafts out for machining for people who want to build back to stock but still want correct journal clearance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post
Some people, me included were interested to see a comparison of these clearances specs to other engines.
Thank you very much for your time looking this up. I'm sure the engine guru's will know more about this.


Quote:
For information 2 hairs diameter is about 2 X 0.007 inches = 0.014 inches
I was asked by Van Dyne to keep certain measurements confidential. I can tell you if this were the measurements we found, then I wouldn't have written an article about it.

BTW, do you mind if I figure out a way to incorporate your data into the table on the first page?
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 04:43 PM   #99
BobS
Lieutenant Colonel
 
BobS's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Posts: 1,502
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post
Some people, me included were interested to see a comparison of these clearances specs to other engines. It is difficult to get access to that documentation for more recent engines so if you have something more recent by all mean provide that info but here are some older high performance engines. A few of these are by now historical cars but the clearance numbers cannot be questionned as they come straight from the corresponding manufacturer.

(and think metric)

S65B40 (repeated for the comparison)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0291 - 0.0458
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0293 - 0.0469
-----------------------------------------------
Ferrari Mondial 8/QV
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0290 - 0.0640
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0460 - 0.0890
(source: pages B11 and B19 in the 281/83 Mondial 8/QV WSM specs)

Ferrari 328 GTS
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0130 - 0.0510
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]:
(source: Ferrari Technical Specs, Service bulletin, page 6, total 147 pages)

Porsche 924
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0800
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0700
(source Porsche engine specs)

Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0100 - 0.0720
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source Workshop Manual on E127)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Spec Book)

I have not searched the rod side clearance specs for the above but doing a random search:
Rod side clearance: 0.015 - 0.025 (inches)
(source: Jim Smart Senior editor of Mustang & Ford monthly "Engine Tips - Biggest Engine-Building Mistakes")
For information 2 hairs diameter is about 2 X 0.007 inches = 0.014 inches

Based on these numbers the S65 engine main/rod bearing clearances are not out of family, they seem to fit right in with these other cars. Of course there are large differences between these cars and a whole set of parameters that would have to be adjusted for : surface harshness of main journals and bearings, surface finishing and treatment, materials, engine horsepower, max RPM, dynamic compression ratio, tune, etc. I will let the expert speak on that.

Some engines have failed indeniably something went wrong but I think attributing the problem to the clearances does not seem to add up. It may be an aggravating factor but based on other engines clearances we are not there in terms of finding the root cause.
Great post!

I seriously doubt these engines last past the warranty period or even past 10,000 miles if they had clearance issues. The amount of heat, pressure, and rpm of the parts in the engine would never last past the dyno if the clearance wasn't ideal (imo). I think there are other factors in play... type of oil, miles/time between oil changes, driving habits, climate....

No doubt people have failed motors and the bearings seem to be failing prematurely but my bet is the material of the bearing or oil passage has more to do with it.
__________________

Evolve Supercharged E92 M3
BobS is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 05:02 PM   #100
e92zero
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2011 E92 BW
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere in US

Posts: 520
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post
Some people, me included were interested to see a comparison of these clearances specs to other engines. It is difficult to get access to that documentation for more recent engines so if you have something more recent by all mean provide that info but here are some older high performance engines. A few of these are by now historical cars but the clearance numbers cannot be questionned as they come straight from the corresponding manufacturer.

(and think metric)

S65B40 (repeated for the comparison)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0291 - 0.0458
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0293 - 0.0469
-----------------------------------------------
Ferrari Mondial 8/QV
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0290 - 0.0640
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0460 - 0.0890
(source: pages B11 and B19 in the 281/83 Mondial 8/QV WSM specs)

Ferrari 328 GTS
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0130 - 0.0510
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]:
(source: Ferrari Technical Specs, Service bulletin, page 6, total 147 pages)

Porsche 924
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0800
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0700
(source Porsche engine specs)

Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0100 - 0.0720
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source Workshop Manual on E127)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Spec Book)

I have not searched the rod side clearance specs for the above but doing a random search:
Rod side clearance: 0.015 - 0.025 (inches)
(source: Jim Smart Senior editor of Mustang & Ford monthly "Engine Tips - Biggest Engine-Building Mistakes")
For information 2 hairs diameter is about 2 X 0.007 inches = 0.014 inches

Based on these numbers the S65 engine main/rod bearing clearances are not out of family, they seem to fit right in with these other cars. Of course there are large differences between these cars and a whole set of parameters that would have to be adjusted for : surface harshness of main journals and bearings, surface finishing and treatment, materials, engine horsepower, max RPM, dynamic compression ratio, tune, etc. I will let the expert speak on that.

Some engines have failed indeniably something went wrong but I think attributing the problem to the clearances does not seem to add up. It may be an aggravating factor but based on other engines clearances we are not there in terms of finding the root cause.
Great post! Is there a way to find out what was the manufacture recommended oil that went along with these engines and include them as well? I tried looking them up but probably much slower.

I am taking a machining class right now and just last class session, it was indicated by the prof and the book that the average diameter for a human hair is 0.003 inch. I would believe this is closer to what Regular Guy had in mind when he said 2 human hair. That would make the side clearance at 0.006 which is much smaller than the average of 0.015-0.030 that I randomly searched on.

Last edited by e92zero; 09-27-2013 at 05:13 PM.
e92zero is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 07:29 PM   #101
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post
Some people, me included were interested to see a comparison of these clearances specs to other engines. It is difficult to get access to that documentation for more recent engines so if you have something more recent by all mean provide that info but here are some older high performance engines. A few of these are by now historical cars but the clearance numbers cannot be questionned as they come straight from the corresponding manufacturer.

(and think metric)

S65B40 (repeated for the comparison)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0291 - 0.0458
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0293 - 0.0469
-----------------------------------------------
Ferrari Mondial 8/QV
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0290 - 0.0640
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0460 - 0.0890
(source: pages B11 and B19 in the 281/83 Mondial 8/QV WSM specs)

Ferrari 328 GTS
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0130 - 0.0510
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]:
(source: Ferrari Technical Specs, Service bulletin, page 6, total 147 pages)

Porsche 924
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0800
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0200 - 0.0700
(source Porsche engine specs)

Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0100 - 0.0720
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source Workshop Manual on E127)
Main Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
Rod Bearing Clearance [mm]: 0.0300 - 0.0880
(source 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Spec Book)

I have not searched the rod side clearance specs for the above but doing a random search:
Rod side clearance: 0.015 - 0.025 (inches)
(source: Jim Smart Senior editor of Mustang & Ford monthly "Engine Tips - Biggest Engine-Building Mistakes")
For information 2 hairs diameter is about 2 X 0.007 inches = 0.014 inches

Based on these numbers the S65 engine main/rod bearing clearances are not out of family, they seem to fit right in with these other cars. Of course there are large differences between these cars and a whole set of parameters that would have to be adjusted for : surface harshness of main journals and bearings, surface finishing and treatment, materials, engine horsepower, max RPM, dynamic compression ratio, tune, etc. I will let the expert speak on that.

Some engines have failed indeniably something went wrong but I think attributing the problem to the clearances does not seem to add up. It may be an aggravating factor but based on other engines clearances we are not there in terms of finding the root cause.
I converted the data above to a similar table that I used on the front page. One important note: none of the journal diameters are listed in the other engine specs. Without that data, their clearance specifications don't mean very much. But I decided to convert the data anyways so we could see how the S65B40 compares to other engines even if we don't know their journal sizes.

Now, before anybody wants to messenger, let me explain this. All I did was calculate the midpoint as "nominal" bearing clearance and did a very quick internet search to find the factory recommended oil. I took the first thing I could find. In the case of the Porsche, I found a factory manual online; and same for Ferrari 328. For the others, I found other internet postings that talked about factory oil specs.

For S65B40, I also used the midpoint method to calculate nominal bearing clearance even though we know that's not correct. The actual nominal clearance values are those I posted in the first post and were determined by looking at two cranks and two sets of rods and selecting the values that came up the most often. For reference, actual nominal S65B40 is:
Main Bearing Clearance: 0.03650 mm, 0.00144"
Rod Bearing Clearance: 0.03250 mm, 0.00125"

The point is: let's not roast the messenger. The idea is to make the data as accurate as possible without bias or agenda. If somebody finds more accurate data, I'll refine and revise the list. I will also add more engines to the list should the data become available:

Min (mm)
Max (mm)
Nominal (mm)
Min (inch)
Max (inch)
Nominal (inch)
Oil Type
S65B40 Main (actual)
0.02910
0.04580
0.03650
0.00115
0.00180
0.00144
TWS 10W60
S65B40 Rod (actual)
0.02930
0.04690
0.03250
0.00115
0.00185
0.00125
TWS 10W60
S65B40 Main (midpoint)
0.02910
0.04580
0.03745
0.00115
0.00180
0.00147
TWS 10W60
S65B40 Rod (midpoint)
0.02930
0.04690
0.03810
0.00115
0.00185
0.00150
TWS 10W60
Ferrari Mondial 8/QV Main
0.02900
0.06400
0.04650
0.00114
0.00252
0.00183
Agip 10W50
Ferrari Mondial 8/QV Rod
0.04600
0.08900
0.06750
0.00181
0.00350
0.00266
Agip 10W50
Ferrari 328 GTS Main
0.01300
0.05100
0.03200
0.00051
0.00201
0.00126
Agip 10W40
Ferrari 328 GTS Rod
Agip 10W40
Porsche 924 Main
0.02000
0.08000
0.05000
0.00079
0.00315
0.00197
Porsche 924 Rod
0.02000
0.07000
0.04500
0.00079
0.00276
0.00177
Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Main
0.01000
0.07200
0.04100
0.00039
0.00283
0.00161
Mobil 0W40
Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Rod
0.03000
0.08800
0.05900
0.00118
0.00346
0.00232
Mobil 0W40
Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Main
0.03000
0.08800
0.05900
0.00118
0.00346
0.00232
Mobil 5W40
Porsche 912,911, 911T,911L,911S Rod
0.03000
0.08800
0.05900
0.00118
0.00346
0.00232
Mobil 5W40

Last edited by regular guy; 09-27-2013 at 07:43 PM.
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 07:44 PM   #102
BobS
Lieutenant Colonel
 
BobS's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Posts: 1,502
iTrader: (0)

I think its great your posting this....and its a great discussion. I just don't think its a clearance problem. There are people with 80-100k on their s65's with no failures. That wouldn't happen with a clearance problem that plagues all s65's. I think its really jumping the gun by taking a shop's opinion on clearances.
__________________

Evolve Supercharged E92 M3
BobS is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 09:59 PM   #103
sunsweet
Banned
 
Drives: '13 ZCP ED+PCD Only Owner
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NC

Posts: 829
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
BTW, do you mind if I figure out a way to incorporate your data into the table on the first page?
I do not mind. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e92zero View Post
Is there a way to find out what was the manufacture recommended oil that went along with these engines and include them as well?
I will be back with more info..

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
none of the journal diameters are listed in the other engine specs. Without that data, their clearance specifications don't mean very much.
Good point, I will get that as well if I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobS View Post
Great post!
I think there are other factors in play... type of oil, miles/time between oil changes, driving habits, climate....
No doubt people have failed motors and the bearings seem to be failing prematurely but my bet is the material of the bearing or oil passage has more to do with it.
thanks and I agree.
sunsweet is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2013, 10:45 PM   #104
BMRLVR
Grease Monkey
 
BMRLVR's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

Posts: 2,299
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobS
I think its great your posting this....and its a great discussion. I just don't think its a clearance problem. There are people with 80-100k on their s65's with no failures. That wouldn't happen with a clearance problem that plagues all s65's. I think its really jumping the gun by taking a shop's opinion on clearances.
Let's be honest my friend, you have no idea wether it is a clearance problem or not!

The issue doesn't necessarily plague each and every S65, but it certainly seems like it affects most of them.

The proof is in the pudding. There are lots of documented cases of premature bearing wear, there have been numerous engine failures as due to rod bearings seizing and the rod being thrown through the block.

Take a good look at the measurements that regular guy has posted...... Do you see an issue? The biggest issue to me is the variance between rods. If a manufacturer wanted to build an engine tight like this and have it last, different bearing sizes should have been made to allow each rod to be dialled in more closely and have an even clearance across all of the eight rods. The Japanese manufacturers do this on even their run of the mill engines, it is not uncommon to see a corolla or civic with three or four different bearing colors. You don't just buy a set of bearings for them, you refer to your colors and put back in what came out.

There is no doubt that the S65 has a bearing issue, and listening to a shop is definitely what I would do. Who would you listen to or trust? A manufacturer who has built engines that they had to recall due to clearance issues and seem to be having the same issues all over again? Or would you trust one of the premier engine builders in the world, an engine builder that gas built and designed engines for Indy cars, aircraft, sprint cars......... The list goes on! I know who I would trust!

So the info is here, the facts are that BMW is going against the experience of all of us who build engines for a living, and against the bearing manufacturers recommendation regarding clearances and engine oil selection!

Look at the facts again and see if you still feel the same way.
__________________
2011 E90 M3 ZCP - Individual Moonstone/Individual Amarone Extended/Individual Piano Black With Inlay:LINK!!!
1994 Euro E36 M3 Sedan - Daytona Violet/Mulberry:LINK!!!
BMRLVR is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2013, 12:23 AM   #105
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
Could you measure a red and blue in the same way to see what you find. I thought the bearings were different when I used a mic, but running them under a tenths clock revealed a different story.
I've never used this technique, so I'm not familiar with it. If I understand it correctly, I should place the bearing on the calibrated surface, and run the gauge until I see a minimum on the dial. I don't mind giving it a try, but I won't be back to the engine shop for at least 6 weeks before I can get to it. And after thinking about it, I don't see how this can be very accurate even though it sounds like a really cool idea. Maybe it's my inexperience with that type of gauge. But heres my thoughts:

We're talking about measuring bearing thickness with a gauge calibrated to 0.001 mm resolution. The inside diameter of the bearing is approximately 52.00 mm. The accuracy of this measurement at that resolution depends on the needle landing exactly in the zero-degree mark of the bearing. If you miss the zero-degree mark by 1/20th of one degree, then your measurement will be off by 0.0035 mm on a 52mm ID bearing; that's 3.5 times the resolution we're trying to measure. To make this work at 0.001 mm resolution, your angle error can't be more than 3/200ths of a single degree (+/- 0.015 of a single degree). Call me a skeptic, but that doesn't seem possible with the technique shown in those pictures. Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with this technique and it's actually easier than it looks.

But I'm definitely willing to ask the engine shop if they want to set me up and show me how to use that type of gauge. I've seen that type of gauge in the engine shop, so I know they have them. But it's going to take many weeks before I'll get a chance.
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2013, 12:48 AM   #106
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMRLVR View Post
The biggest issue to me is the variance between rods.
I think this is the most overlooked aspect of this discussion. Nobody's saying that all engines have a problem; and nobody's saying that all engines are going to blow. At least, I'm not saying that. But I am looking for explanations for the actual data we see in real life. For example, why do so many bone stock engines fail with less than 25000 miles, but very few stock engines fail between 25000 to warranty expiration? That perplexes me.

So about a year+ ago, a few of us began to theorize that the cause was due to manufacturing variances. If you get an engine where everything is dead center of the tolerance range, then you will be fine. But if you get an engine that even has a single journal at the upper end of the tolerance range and matched with a rod that's at the bottom end of its tolerance range, and you have a recipe for an engine failure. That's been my theory for nearly a year now.

But there was no way to know if this was true until I collected all of these measurements. If the measurements didn't show so much variance, I would have posted a slightly different article. I would have said: "Here's the measurements, and I didn't see anything wrong." But that's not how it played out. Instead, we looked there and found exactly what I feared we would find. But I realize this still proves nothing. I think of it as just another piece of data.

Last edited by regular guy; 09-28-2013 at 01:23 AM.
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2013, 01:17 AM   #107
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Here's a set of bearings that should spark a good discussion. These are the bearings that came from the bone stock engine used for these measurements. These were "Crankshaft-1" journals, rods, and bearings. I've correlated the clearance measurements by cylinder number. This allows one to see the bearings that came from the cylinder with the least and most amount of clearance.

It's sure to spark some discussion, because the first thing I notice are the worst looking bearings coming from the cylinders with the largest bearing clearance. I've got to be honest, I don't quite understand that; but this is also the only engine I know that has correlated the clearance to the actual bearings. As we see more motors taken apart, that's when we'll know if this is the norm or the anomaly.

S65, 30000 Miles, Bone Stock, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 04/05-Moderate
Description: Bone stock engine disassembled to make stroker motor.
Cylinder
1
2
3
4
Clearance
0.0368 mm / 0.00145"
0.0330 mm / 0.00130"
0.0457 mm / 0.00180"
0.0305 mm / 0.00120"
Photo
Photo
Clearance
0.0330 mm / 0.00130"
0.0318 mm / 0.00125"
0.0444 mm / 0.00175"
0.0330 mm / 0.00130"
Cylinder
5
6
7
8
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2013, 02:26 AM   #108
e92zero
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2011 E92 BW
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere in US

Posts: 520
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
Here's a set of bearings that should spark a good discussion. These are the bearings that came from the bone stock engine used for these measurements. These were "Crankshaft-1" journals, rods, and bearings. I've correlated the clearance measurements by cylinder number. This allows one to see the bearings that came from the cylinder with the least and most amount of clearance.

It's sure to spark some discussion, because the first thing I notice are the worst looking bearings coming from the cylinders with the largest bearing clearance. I've got to be honest, I don't quite understand that; but this is also the only engine I know that has correlated the clearance to the actual bearings. As we see more motors taken apart, that's when we'll know if this is the norm or the anomaly.

S65, 30000 Miles, Bone Stock, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 04/05-Moderate
Description: Bone stock engine disassembled to make stroker motor.
Cylinder
1
2
3
4
Clearance
0.0368 mm / 0.00145"
0.0330 mm / 0.00130"
0.0457 mm / 0.00180"
0.0305 mm / 0.00120"
Photo
Photo
Clearance
0.0330 mm / 0.00130"
0.0318 mm / 0.00125"
0.0444 mm / 0.00175"
0.0330 mm / 0.00130"
Cylinder
5
6
7
8
Is it possible the larger clearance is due to the bearings being worn out? Or the clearance is measured with one single set of upper/lower bearings on each of the rod after disassembly?
e92zero is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2013, 02:29 AM   #109
Yellow Snow
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 335d Coupe. Stock no more!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle

Posts: 265
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
I've never used this technique, so I'm not familiar with it. If I understand it correctly, I should place the bearing on the calibrated surface, and run the gauge until I see a minimum on the dial. I don't mind giving it a try, but I won't be back to the engine shop for at least 6 weeks before I can get to it. And after thinking about it, I don't see how this can be very accurate even though it sounds like a really cool idea. Maybe it's my inexperience with that type of gauge. But here’s my thoughts:

We're talking about measuring bearing thickness with a gauge calibrated to 0.001 mm resolution. The inside diameter of the bearing is approximately 52.00 mm. The accuracy of this measurement at that resolution depends on the needle landing exactly in the zero-degree mark of the bearing. If you miss the zero-degree mark by 1/20th of one degree, then your measurement will be off by 0.0035 mm on a 52mm ID bearing; that's 3.5 times the resolution we're trying to measure. To make this work at 0.001 mm resolution, your angle error can't be more than 3/200ths of a single degree (+/- 0.015 of a single degree). Call me a skeptic, but that doesn't seem possible with the technique shown in those pictures. Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with this technique and it's actually easier than it looks.

But I'm definitely willing to ask the engine shop if they want to set me up and show me how to use that type of gauge. I've seen that type of gauge in the engine shop, so I know they have them. But it's going to take many weeks before I'll get a chance.
Yes, place a reference or inspection grade 2mm slip gauge on a good surface table. Then zero out a high quality lever type dial gauge on the slip. You can see a witness mark on the shell where they were checked at the factory.

This is a highly accurate way of measuring and surely better for your reference when comparing with other shops across the world than relying on someones mic feel.

Your photo's are interesting and seem to indicate that clearance isn't necessarily the problem here.

My theory is that the bearings are different material, hence the price difference between the two. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that some motors have been assembled with the wrong bearings top/bottom ie red top, blue bottom?

Could you check part numbers or colours on a failed set?

I know there have been a few bearing failures but percentage wise across the cars production it's a minute proportion. It's virtually unheard of in the UK.
Yellow Snow is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2013, 06:38 AM   #110
BobS
Lieutenant Colonel
 
BobS's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Posts: 1,502
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMRLVR View Post
Let's be honest my friend, you have no idea wether it is a clearance problem or not!
.
You are correct, I don't know the issue. Common sense would say if it's a clearance issue, every engine or almost every engine would be effected. Clearance would be in the design of the engine and common on all s65's.

I work for a company that rebuilds industrial, marine, truck and generator diesel engines. I've seen where a engine was assembled using the wrong sized bearings (believe it or not they were labeled wrong from the factory!..ouch). The engine didn't make it off the dyno. The bearings looked like these pictured and there was metal all through the engine/pan.

I believe if this was a clearance issue, the failures would be more common and severe
__________________

Evolve Supercharged E92 M3
BobS is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

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 06:23 AM.




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