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
 
VF Engineering
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-12-2014, 02:00 PM   #1893
Jesal@IND
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor

 
Jesal@IND's Avatar
 
Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL

Posts: 1,033
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2009 BMW M3  [5.00]
Send a message via AIM to Jesal@IND
Quote:
Originally Posted by catpat8000 View Post
It would be interesting to see sales volume by year. For example, the entire economy melted down in Q4 2008 and car sales in the US, in 2009, fell off a cliff, especially expensive car sales. 2010 was not much better. Maybe in 2009 BMW only sold a fraction of the cars they sold in 2008 and 2011.

Does anyone know if this data is available?

Pat
Here you go. http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=863761
__________________
Jesal@IND is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-12-2014, 02:16 PM   #1894
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,141
iTrader: (1)

From very early on this discussion I provided the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
The production numbers are:

~26k units (E90, E92 and E92) US and Canada
~58k units worldwide
So very roughly speaking one should be able to double the number of failed cars in the US (NA technically including Canada) and arrive at the total number failed globally. If one wants to compute a failure percentage based on failed NA cars one should divide by 26k not 58k.

~20 out of ~26k is a whopping ~0.1%. RG claimed earlier here in the thread there is anecdotal evidence of a MUCH larger number of failed US cars from discussions with various BMW dealer service departments.

Also, as far as the numbers by year, there is clearly NO statistical correlation. The numbers are way too small, subject to too little confirmation as to whether bearings were the cause and subject to uncertainty as to which bearings are in which cars.

It's still my opinion that there is some significant "mountains out of molehills" going on here, despite the fact that BMW M very clearly made (or permitted required) changes in the bearing clearances and eccentricities.

Other confounding factors include:

-Modded cars
-Not following a conservative warm up procedure
-Poor gas
-Extended oil change intervals (~15k mi recommended by BMW)
-Mileage vs. year correlation

The only way to make more firm conclusions is a very long term consistent tracking effort and/or get data from BMW. The term required is likely much longer than the attention span of all of us...

A bearing replacement somewhere around 100k mi, using the newer 702/703 bearings (which are the only ones available) along with using a good 0-40W all seem like reasonable insurance.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |

Last edited by swamp2; 01-12-2014 at 04:57 PM.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-12-2014, 03:45 PM   #1895
catpat8000
Lieutenant
 
Drives: my wife and kids crazy
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California

Posts: 416
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by catpat8000 View Post
It would be interesting to see sales volume by year. For example, the entire economy melted down in Q4 2008 and car sales in the US, in 2009, fell off a cliff, especially expensive car sales. 2010 was not much better. Maybe in 2009 BMW only sold a fraction of the cars they sold in 2008 and 2011.

Does anyone know if this data is available?

Pat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesal@IND View Post
According to this (I had to interpret - for example it says 2280 E90s were built in 2008 which was 38.9% of total US production), the total US/CAN production from 2008-2011 was:

2008: 5860 vehicles
2009: 5878 vehicles
2010: 5883 vehicles
2011: 5865 vehicles

If this is true, it suggests the production of US M3s wasn't affected by the economic crisis. I find that hard to believe but that's what this data says.

Last edited by catpat8000; 01-12-2014 at 05:26 PM.
catpat8000 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-12-2014, 08:29 PM   #1896
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Here's three sets of bearings recently added to my collection.

S65, 33000 Miles (30k) Naturally Aspirated, 3000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 06-Medium/Heavy

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8



S65, 60000 Miles (55k) Naturally Aspirated, 5000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 08-Near Catastrophic
Description: Auto Talent estimates this engine had less than one week to live with the bearings found in this condition

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8



S65, 106000 Miles (92k) Naturally Aspirated, 14000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 08-Near Catastrophic
Description: Part of the EAS Ongoing Rod Bearing Journal Thread

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 12:21 AM   #1897
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,141
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
Wow does set #8 stand out from the rest. Not only that it has much more wear but more more equal wear between the top and bottom shell. Quite a bit dissimilar to the somewhat established asymmetric wear pattern with most wear on the top shell.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 02:44 AM   #1898
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,141
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
These new measurements proved that the 702/703 bearings changed material, clearance, and pretty radically changed eccentricity.

By now I think I have a much clearer picture than when I started. Some will say (and have already said) that the 702/703 bearings changed dimensions because of the materials change. I've got to be honest, that sounds very compelling on the surface but there's one thing about it that really bugs me. Nobody has explained why the harder material would require extra clearance when 1) the bearing is never supposed to touch the journal, and 2) it would seem that it has less friction than the older lead/copper design. So to me, the dimensional changes of the new bearing weren't based on a simple materials change, but were much more deliberate.

The S65 started production with 088/089 bearings. But something was wrong: relatively new engines were puking connecting rods. The clearances were too tight, the side clearance was too tight, the eccentricity was too tight, and the oil was too thick. As a result, it seems like tolerance stack up with a bad luck of the draw, and your engine might end up looking like the photos shown above. So BMW decided to do something about it.

When BMW designed the newer 702/703 bearings to comply with lead-free regulations, they made changes. I believe they took steps to mitigate these problems. BMW increased the rod bearing clearance, and they increased the eccentricity by 250%. Those changes mean two of the four possible "trouble spots" I mentioned above have now been addressed.

In August 2013, BMW-NA made a specification change to the oil allowed in the S85/S65. After five years of only allowing 10W60, BMW relaxed the specifications and is now allowing LL-01 approved 0W40, 5W30, and 5W40 weight oils. Three of the four potential trouble areas we identified in the S65 have now been addressed. The only thing that remains is the rod side clearance. With the help of some buddies down the road, I might be able to take measurements on a wide range of BMW S65 crankshafts to see if the rod side clearance has changed throughout the three different crankshafts manufactured for the S65.

...

Some will say it's all a coincidence. They are just as entitled to their opinion as I am mine. I don't think it's a coincidence. For whatever reason, BMW changed (coincidence or not), BMW had three years with old bearing; then three years with new bearings; then changed to allow thinner oils. Sure it may all be a coincidence, but to me, it seems like they were chasing something and were making incremental changes to mitigate what they saw as a problem.
I should have provided some comments earlier on this and have already mentioned some of these points, but still feel like I'd like to put in my 2 cents. I've bolded some specific statements that are either pure speculation or worthy of some additional comment.

RG, it seems a bit like you want to have you cake and eat it too. You make a wide variety of claims about NOMINAL values (i.e. "the clearance", "the eccentricity", etc.) but then also claim that tolerance stack up is to blame. A change to a nominal value would likely reduce failures or prolong lifetimes, but tolerance stack up would still occur. Tolerance stack up always occurs in all parts. However, if the nominal value is "good" then BMW could also "fix" a "problem" simply with the same nominal value and a tighter manufacturing tolerance (although that would likely be a more expensive solution). On this point the tolerances on all parts, especially rod journals, are exceptionally tight, on the order of your (relatively high end) equipments ability to measure. Also, as I've pointed out earlier, your effort to stack tolerances in the worst way possible only produced a couple of tenths (tenths of a thousandths) of total clearance variation (with the older, tighter 088/089 bearings). Thus from these measurements, there is very little evidence of significant tolerance stack up. Now that being said, based upon empirical failure rates, we might have to individually examine and measure thousands of bearings and journals to find a case of observed and excessive tolerance stack up. However, what would a critical value for a clearance (in in/in) be with a tolerance stack "issue", 0.0006, 0.0005, 0.0004, etc. We just don't know what "line in the sand" value will produce certain and early failures.

Also, as others have been mentioning, if BMW truly "fixed" most or all of these issues with the bearing redesign, we would not still be continuing to see failures on 2011, 2012 and even 2013 motors.

Rod side clearance has been measured on how many engines? One. Not much conclusive there exactly.

As much as the data collected thus far firmly and unequivocally indicates dimensional changes to nominal bearing design dimensions, there are far too many unknowns to firmly conclude most of your "opinions" above.

There are some indications, by some loosely applicable metrics, that the bearings are "tight". There is clearly a flow rate difference under constant pressure through a larger vs. smaller "orifice" and that flow rate is absolutely affected by oil viscosity. But are the values we've observed here "tight" enough to cause oil starvation and overheating? I would say we just don't know. The basic cause and effect postulated here by our "experts" doesn't jive very well with the observed failure rates nor year over year differences.

For those that want to hold on to their cars for an extended period of time, nothing beats a conservative approach. All of this data/evidence and speculation, along with the very small overall numbers of failures, leads me to advise a conservative but level headed approach:

-Listen for bearing noise
-Always run good gas (knock can damage bearings)
-Warm up the car conservatively
-Run an approved LL-01 0-40W oil
-Change oil significantly more often than the BMW service interval (very loosely 3-8k miles)
-Stay away from supercharging (there's clearly many supercharged engines that have failed, on the flip side there are many also that have lasted a lot of miles under hard use...)
-Last but not least to be extremely conservative, have a bearing inspection and replacement (using the only available new 702/703 bearings), very loosely sometime around 75-100k miles.

Nothing here will do a speck of harm and many, perhaps combines may help either a problem with nominal values or maybe a problem with a mild tolerance stacking problem.

Most if not all of us will probably loose interest in this topic before enough time has passed or data collected to gain much more certainty. The soonest events yielding any "experimental" data (even if such "experiments" are poorly controlled at best) are probably those who had/will have engines disassembled, they showed significant wear, changed to a 702/703 bearing (or some of the other treated bearing option), perhaps along with a change to 0-40W and then let 10's of thousands of miles pass, finally opting for another disassembly and inspection. In other words multiple years at best...

This situation is far from firm resolution and probably never will be.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 02:57 AM   #1899
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,141
iTrader: (1)

For completness sake here is some reference material on the European Union ELV (End-of-Life Vehicles) Directive and how it relates to the S65 rod bearing change.

This is relevant as the initial (088/089) S65 rod bearings used a lead based compound whereas the newer (702/703) are a lead free design. The initial directive, way back in 2000, was simply to reduce the quantity of waste and hazardous waste that occurs when motor vehicles are junked or totaled. The reason the part changes at BMW occurred in 2011 is because many exemptions were included where the use of certain hazardous materials were industry critical and without viable alternatives. Lead bearings fell in this category.

According to this summary information here bearing shells in engines were exempt until July 1, 2011. On a loosely related point lead in valve seats were only exempted until July 1, 2003.

Thus E9X M3s with a production date after July 1, 2011 almost certainly do not have 088/089 rod bearings but instead have the 702/703.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 04:03 AM   #1900
SenorFunkyPants
Colonel
 
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 DCT M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 2,389
iTrader: (0)

Its still my feeling that BMW would have stayed with the 088/9 lead faced bearings to the end of production if they could have...if for nothing else they knew where they were with them in terms of engine life.
The given start date of 2010 for the production of the new 702/3 while the old 088/9 bearings remained in production until March/October 2011, doesn't make things any clearer - its possible that the bearing versions were made by different companies (there is a picture showing boxes with different countries of origin for the two bearing part numbers (Italy and Germany)). They could even have been using the two types in parallel from 2010 onwards to see if the new version was going to be problematic.
I do agree that it is likely that a couple of the bearing failed cars that are counted as 2011 MY cars were probably built in 2010 with 088/9 bearings. Easiest would be to take cars with a factory build date of 2010 as having the old bearings and 2011 builds as having the new.
Lastly when do USA owners owners consider the start date for a MY for Euro produced cars?
Back in the day when I worked for VW/Audi the factory holidays were in August when the assembly lines were retooled for the following model year and production restarted in September.


Latest.


Anon are users who gave details via personal message but preferred to remain anonymous online.
Blank entries are where no data was provided.
__________________

Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 04:36 PM.
SenorFunkyPants is online now   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 07:48 AM   #1901
SenorFunkyPants
Colonel
 
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 DCT M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 2,389
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by catpat8000 View Post
According to this (I had to interpret - for example it says 2280 E90s were built in 2008 which was 38.9% of total US production), the total US/CAN production from 2008-2011 was:

2008: 5860 vehicles
2009: 5878 vehicles
2010: 5883 vehicles
2011: 5865 vehicles

If this is true, it suggests the production of US M3s wasn't affected by the economic crisis. I find that hard to believe but that's what this data says.
There is something off with those figures - during 2009/10 sales of M5/6 went through the floor - no reason to believe M3s would not have done similar.
__________________
SenorFunkyPants is online now   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 07:52 AM   #1902
kawasaki00
Major
 
kawasaki00's Avatar
 
Drives: E92
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Charlotte NC

Posts: 1,110
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
There is something off with those figures - during 2009/10 sales of M5/6 went through the floor - no reason to believe M3s would not have done similar.
In this area they did not follow the trend of the M5, for the last couple years the m3 was very hard to find and similar year and mileage was way more expensive than the equivalent M5. They were just about giving away M5/6 in this area and the 3's were flying out of the used lots as well as the new lots.
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
kawasaki00 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 07:54 AM   #1903
jcolley
Private
 
Drives: 2006 M5
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Maine

Posts: 85
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
There is something off with those figures - during 2009/10 sales of M5/6 went through the floor - no reason to believe M3s would not have done similar.
The E60 M5 was recently declared "one of the 10 least reliable vehicles of all time". I wouldn't be surprised if the reputation had started to set in at that time and impacted sales. Additionally, the gaining popularity of the M3 may have played a part in that sales decline as well with the E90 available.
jcolley is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 09:02 AM   #1904
SenorFunkyPants
Colonel
 
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 DCT M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 2,389
iTrader: (0)

No its simply that Pat misunderstood the figures.
Sales numbers for the E90 M3 by model year:
2008 2280
2009 964
2010 453
2011 2170
The % numbers in the pdf are a % of the total E90 M3 sales not the total of all M3 sales.


The M5 and M6 follow a similar pattern..
E60 M5
2006 - 4762
2007 - 1225
2008 - 2828
2009 - 272
2010 - 404


E63 M6
2005 - 5
2006 - 1135
2007 - 1629
2008 - 635
2009 - 194
2010 - 289

E64 M6
2007 - 2005
2008 - 1016
2009 - 227
2010 - 264
__________________

Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 09:16 AM.
SenorFunkyPants is online now   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 11:32 AM   #1905
catpat8000
Lieutenant
 
Drives: my wife and kids crazy
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California

Posts: 416
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
No its simply that Pat misunderstood the figures.
Sales numbers for the E90 M3 by model year:
2008 2280
2009 964
2010 453
2011 2170
The % numbers in the pdf are a % of the total E90 M3 sales not the total of all M3 sales.
It's quite possible that I misunderstood. Perhaps you can help clear things up.

At very the top of the page, the document says:
"E90 M3 ONLY PRODUCTION - US/CANADA MARKET"

The only other labels on the page are these:
Production__# of cars___% of US/CAN Production
2008_________2280________38.9
2009_________964_________16.4
2010_________453__________7.7
2011_________2170________37.0


I took this to mean 453 was 7.7% of US/CAN production of M3s. I agree this seems unlikely but that how I read the labels. What do you think this 7.7% means? If it was total sales of E90 M3s, that would disagree with the column label, no?
catpat8000 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 11:34 AM   #1906
SenorFunkyPants
Colonel
 
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 DCT M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 2,389
iTrader: (0)

The % numbers are out of total E90 production not total E9x production.
ie 453 is ~7.7% of 5867 (the total E90 production).
2280 is 38.9% of 5867 etc.
Its definitely poorly labeled as I read it the same way as you at first.
Its only when I came across the M5/6 figures did it occur to me than something was a bit off.
__________________

Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 11:48 AM.
SenorFunkyPants is online now   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 11:50 AM   #1907
catpat8000
Lieutenant
 
Drives: my wife and kids crazy
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California

Posts: 416
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
The % numbers are out of total E90 production not total E9x production.
ie 453 is ~7.7% of 5867 (the total E90 production).
Its definitely poorly labeled as I read it the same way as you at first.
Its only when I came across the M5/6 figures did it occur to me than something was a bit off.
So it sounds like the column labelled "% of US/CAN Production" really should be labelled "% of world E90 Production"? If so, I agree the numbers make a lot more sense and they also confirm the notion that much fewer M3s were sold in 2009 and 2010.

Thanks for double checking this stuff!

Pat
catpat8000 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 11:58 AM   #1908
SenorFunkyPants
Colonel
 
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 DCT M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 2,389
iTrader: (0)

I think the label should say: % of Total US/CAN E90 production
(which is 5867 cars)

2008_________2280 = 38.9% of 5867
2009__________964 = 16.4% of 5867
2010__________453 = 7.7% of 5867
2011_________2170 = 37.0% of 5867

I've looked around for the total USA/CAN E9x M3 production numbers by model year but can't seem to find them.
If we had those, you could calculate a failure rate per 1000 cars by model year which might be a little more linear than just looking at the failure figures alone.
__________________

Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 12:27 PM.
SenorFunkyPants is online now   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 03:43 PM   #1909
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As much as the data collected thus far firmly and unequivocally indicates dimensional changes to nominal bearing design dimensions, there are far too many unknowns to firmly conclude most of your "opinions" above.
That's why they are stated as opinions...as no further proof is required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
...
The given start date of 2010 for the production of the new 702/3 while the old 088/9 bearings remained in production until March/October 2011, doesn't make things any clearer - its possible that the bearing versions were made by different companies (there is a picture showing boxes with different countries of origin for the two bearing part numbers (Italy and Germany)).
We know they are different manufacturers. Clevite made the 088/089 bearings. Their logo can be found on them. Clevite did NOT make the 702/703 bearings. I believe Kawasaki said they were possibly made by "King" in Israel.
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 05:08 PM   #1910
kawasaki00
Major
 
kawasaki00's Avatar
 
Drives: E92
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Charlotte NC

Posts: 1,110
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
That's why they are stated as opinions...as no further proof is required.



We know they are different manufacturers. Clevite made the 088/089 bearings. Their logo can be found on them. Clevite did NOT make the 702/703 bearings. I believe Kawasaki said they were possibly made by "King" in Israel.
It was confirmed by clevite reps that came to our shop that the sideways diamond is the Dana Brand and the CL in the middle is Clevite. They are not usually marked this way but it is a German OEM part so they are funny about markings.
The new bearings have some funky marking that they have never seen before, one of the guys in the shop has order mass bearings from King and they were quite similar but I am not for sure. We know it is not a Clevite, Pankl, or Daido. There are only a few left that could make bearings on a scale like that with OEM quantitys
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
kawasaki00 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 05:29 PM   #1911
SenorFunkyPants
Colonel
 
SenorFunkyPants's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 DCT M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 2,389
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawasaki00 View Post
The new bearings have some funky marking that they have never seen before, one of the guys in the shop has order mass bearings from King and they were quite similar but I am not for sure. We know it is not a Clevite, Pankl, or Daido. There are only a few left that could make bearings on a scale like that with OEM quantitys
I had quite a few email exchanges with various people at King trying to data on the M3 bearings specs - I got the impression that they didn't recognize the part numbers...but I could be mistaken.
__________________

Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 05:58 PM.
SenorFunkyPants is online now   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 06:52 PM   #1912
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants View Post
I had quite a few email exchanges with various people at King trying to data on the M3 bearings specs - I got the impression that they didn't recognize the part numbers...but I could be mistaken.
I would think the manufacturer would have their own internal part number, and may or may not have a mapping to the OEM part number

EDIT: Clevite has an aftermarket parts catalog and an OEM parts catalog. Clevite reps don't have access to the OEM parts catalog and that's why they can't find BMW factory bearings (even though they make them). If King is the manufacturer of the 702/703 bearings, it's possible they have the same separation of aftermarket and OEM catalogs.

Last edited by regular guy; 01-13-2014 at 10:25 PM.
regular guy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 08:38 PM   #1913
FogCityM3
Major
 
FogCityM3's Avatar
 
Drives: M3 (E90)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco

Posts: 1,492
iTrader: (0)

Unless being under-reported, seems like most of the N/A rod bearing issues were on vehicles with no tune?
FogCityM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-13-2014, 10:13 PM   #1914
regular guy
Banned
 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California

Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Today I sent six sets of bearings to Clevite for analysis. I'm hoping they will be able to analyze the bearings for signs of clearance, detonation, and anything they can tell me. I'm not sure how comprehensive Clevite will be, or what they will allow me to publish. It will take a few weeks before before I have any results.

Here's the six sets I sent.

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.


S65, 31000 Miles, Naturally Aspirated, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 04-Moderate
Description: 27,000 Miles Naturally Aspirated, 4000 Miles Supercharged


S65, 33000 Miles (30k) Naturally Aspirated, 3000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 06-Medium/Heavy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8


S65, 47000 Miles, Naturally Aspirated, 1.8k Miles Supercharged, 2008
More Photos

Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 05-Moderate
Notes: The #3 bearing was not wiped to copper when it was removed from the engine. The shop replacing the bearings sanded it to copper for testing purposes.


S65, 60000 Miles (55k) Naturally Aspirated, 5000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 08-Near Catastrophic
Description: Auto Talent estimates this engine had less than one week to live with the bearings found in this condition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8



S65, 106000 Miles (92k) Naturally Aspirated, 14000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089
Category: 08-Near Catastrophic
Description: Part of the EAS Ongoing Rod Bearing Journal Thread
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
regular guy 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 03:55 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