Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

Assimilator1 wrote

Ooo never's a strong word!

...
But anyway, largely agree that the LCI bearings fair far less worse.

...
I think if I had an LCI engine I would probably still change them anyway, but
it would be much less pressing.
...

Why do you say that? A few years ago, a guy kept a spreadsheet with all RB failures. He actually wanted to prove that the LCI's were "the fix" to the rod bearing problem. He found just as many failures with LCI engines and pre-LCI. He also found the damage caused by a RB failure much worse on the LCI engines than pre-LCI. So I'm curious about the comment above.

Fair question, regarding my point about LCI bearing condition, that was based on seeing over 500 photos of rod bearings in this thread, Autocoutre's thread here, and a small number from an M3 UK FB group, as I detailed all 3 here. Apart from possibly 1 posters photos of LCI bearings posted just a couple of days ago, I haven't yet seen an LCI bearing worn to copper amongst those 3 sources.
That said, most of the LCI bearings still show wear that they shouldn't have, hence why I said I would probably change them anyway.

I did however forget (in the post a couple of days ago) the point that some LCI engines have died as a result of rod bearing failure anyway! , as I highlighted myself in this cleaned up list of the 'blown engine' thread! lol.
Although in that small sample, about 1/2 as many again of the pre LCI bearing engines failed vs LCI from rod bearing failure.
(Hmm, I wonder if that thread has links to photos of shot LCI bearings.... [edit] Nope! I thought amrazM's case did, but it turned out his car had a replacement engine in 2015 which had the lead/copper bearings!).

And now that you mention it, I remember now that I have heard that when the harder tin (mostly LCI cars) bearings fail they cause worse damage, but I don't recall seeing photos of that, and I didn't see that in the 3 sources I used for my analysis mentioned above.

Btw, I'd like to see that spreadsheet and thread that you mentioned, I don't believe I have seen it myself, got a link for it?
I'd also be interested in any photos showing failed LCI/tin S65 rod bearings.

Assimilator1 wrote

...
And now that you mention it, I remember now that I have heard that when the harder tin (mostly LCI cars) bearings fail they cause worse damage, but I don't recall seeing photos of that, and I didn't see that in the 3 sources I used for my analysis mentioned above.

Btw, I'd like to see that spreadsheet and thread that you mentioned, I don't believe I have seen it myself, got a link for it?
I'd also be interested in any photos showing failed LCI/tin S65 rod bearings.

The guy had a few different screen names here, and I can't remember which one he used to post the spreadsheet. I think it was posted sometime around 2015 if that helps. Since you're on the UK Forums, I'm sure you know who he is, but he used a different screen name here versus there. He had quite an axe to grind against BE Bearings. Maybe that will help you find him.

Fezza wrote

I posted this a while back from a friend's LCI after 125k miles: https://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26312408&postcount=1688 maybe that was the first one you saw showing copper?

That 2010 does not look like it had newer style bearings, did you check the other side to confirm it was 702/3 and not 088/089?

Green-Eggs wrote

The guy had a few different screen names here, and I can't remember which one he used to post the spreadsheet. I think it was posted sometime around 2015 if that helps. Since you're on the UK Forums, I'm sure you know who he is, but he used a different screen name here versus there. He had quite an axe to grind against BE Bearings. Maybe that will help you find him.

Ah I remember we had some kind of conversation about him before! lol, I'm pretty sure I know who you mean now. Do you remember if he at least stuck to about the same theme name? If not, I've got no chance!

That said, if the spreadsheet did counter his own argument, I bet he's deleted it! Btw, do you remember what his sources were for that spreadsheet?

Fezza wrote

I posted this a while back from a friend's LCI after 125k miles: https://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26312408&postcount=1688 maybe that was the first one you saw showing copper?

I changed mine (LCI) at 59k miles: https://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25005753&postcount=1123 so will do your test as I never knew LCI shells had copper but was confused why my friend's above LCI was showing copperish hues.

Sorry I managed to miss this reply by you as well
As todott said, I also think those are the earlier lead/copper bearings.
I think this is a case where we call the bearings LCI bearings inaccurate (myself included!), it has been seen before that LCI cars have the earlier type bearings.
Note to self, call them tin/copper bearings in the future! (or at least tin).

Assimilator1 wrote

Ah I remember we had some kind of conversation about him before! lol, I'm pretty sure I know who you mean now. Do you remember if he at least stuck to about the same theme name? If not, I've got no chance!

That said, if the spreadsheet did counter his own argument, I bet he's deleted it! Btw, do you remember what his sources were for that spreadsheet?

One of his names here was "SeniorFunkyPants" (not even sure I'm spelling it right). I don't remember the other screen name, but it was not similar. I think his sources were limited this forum.

Green-Eggs wrote

One of his names here was "SeniorFunkyPants" (not even sure I'm spelling it right). I don't remember the other screen name, but it was not similar. I think his sources were limited this forum.

Member
https://www.m3post.com/forums/member.php?u=61451
Thread?
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935368

Green-Eggs wrote

One of his names here was "SeniorFunkyPants" (not even sure I'm spelling it right). I don't remember the other screen name, but it was not similar. I think his sources were limited this forum.

DrFerry found the member, and possibly the excel file you mentioned, does it look like the one you saw?
SFP doesn't seem to be a bearing problem denier unlike that bob guy though! Lol. Are you sure it's the same person?

Anyway, I looked at that excel file (not been updated since 8/2014), but interestingly that also showed that roughly 1/2 as many again lead bearing engines failed vs tin bearing engines (excluding 2010 engines as they could have either bearing). Although of course at that time many of the LCI cars would have been nearly new and generally lower mileage. But it doesn't support the idea that as many tin bearing engines fail as lead bearing engines.

(Note to any new readers on this, it's not the fault of the lead metal! But possibly the fractionally higher minimum clearance that some tin bearings have been measured at) [edit. The Wiki has since removed that claim, although that was the case with the 1 set they measured, it is not considered the case in general].
Btw Green-Eggs, any idea how many OEM tin bearings they measured? (couldn't see it here, but I could've easily missed it).

Assimilator1 wrote

DrFerry found the member, and possibly the excel file you mentioned, does it look like the one you saw?
SFP doesn't seem to be a bearing problem denier unlike that bob guy though! Lol. Are you sure it's the same person?

100% it's the same person. I didn't look at the file, but the post looks about right to me.

Anyway, I looked at that excel file (not been updated since 8/2014), but interestingly that also showed that roughly 1/2 as many again lead bearing engines failed vs tin bearing engines (excluding 2010 engines as they could have either bearing). Although of course at that time many of the LCI cars would have been nearly new and generally lower mileage. But it doesn't support the idea that as many tin bearing engines fail as lead bearing engines.

I asked Bert (aka regular guy) about this. He says that he kept a copy locally, and gave me this information: 2007-2009 had 17 rod bearing failures, or failures that were 90% sure caused by rod bearing failure (e.g. rod through the block). He didn't count 2010 because it could be either set of bearings. Using the same search/sort criteria, 2011-2013 also had 17 failures. If SFP was trying to prove the later bearings "fixed" the problem, then seeing equal numbers of failures -- especially on newer cars with lower mileage -- wasn't what he would have wanted to see.

How many entries in the spreadsheet posted here? There's 68 entries in Bert's version of the spreadsheet.

(Note to any new readers on this, it's not the fault of the lead metal! But possibly the fractionally higher minimum clearance that some tin bearings have been measured at).
Btw Green-Eggs, any idea how many OEM tin bearings they measured? (couldn't see it here, but I could've easily missed it).

Bert measured exactly one set of bearings. He feels that too many people are trying to draw too many sets of conclusions from a single set of measurements -- especially claiming that based on this one set of measurements that BMW increased the clearances of the bearings and "fixed" the problem.

Here's the raw data with the measurements for one set of bearings.
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index.php?title=Engine_Specs_-_S65_Rod_Bearings#OEM_702.2F703_Bearings

I asked Bert (aka regular guy) about this. He says that he kept a copy locally, and gave me this information: 2007-2009 had 17 rod bearing failures, or failures that were 90% sure caused by rod bearing failure (e.g. rod through the block). He didn't count 2010 because it could be either set of bearings. Using the same search/sort criteria, 2011-2013 also had 17 failures. If SFP was trying to prove the later bearings "fixed" the problem, then seeing equal numbers of failures -- especially on newer cars with lower mileage -- wasn't what he would have wanted to see.

How many entries in the spreadsheet posted here? There's 68 entries in Bert's version of the spreadsheet.

Lol, very true, I'm surprised he didn't delete the whole thread!
And his 8/14 file has 43 entries (I see only 2 of Bert's entries are listed).

Bert measured exactly one set of bearings. He feels that too many people are trying to draw too many sets of conclusions from a single set of measurements -- especially claiming that based on this one set of measurements that BMW increased the clearances of the bearings and "fixed" the problem.

Ah only 1 set, yea fair enough then, you won't see me mention increased clearances for the tin bearings again then...... unless I just plain forget!

I will say though that it's in part his own fault, from his web page you linked (the same one I did):-

The new 702/703 bearings are made from tin/aluminum composition. BMW increased the clearance slightly over the 088/089 bearings and increased the eccentricity as well. But this improvement in clearance and eccentricity came at a price. The 702/703 bearings are substantially harder than the 088/089 bearings they replaced. As a consequence, when a bearing is spun, it tends to cause more damage to the crankshaft in the process

The bolded section clearly states BMW increased the clearance, perhaps he should just say that for that one set of tin shells they measured the clearance was increased over the lead bearings (some/all?) they measured?

Assimilator1 wrote

Lol, very true, I'm surprised he didn't delete the whole thread!
And his 8/14 file has 43 entries (I see only 2 of Bert's entries are listed).

Shoot bert an email, and I'm sure he'll send you his version of the spreadsheet. Shoot me a PM if you're unsure how to reach him.

Lol, very true, I'm surprised he didn't delete the whole thread!
I will say though that it's in part his own fault, from his web page you linked (the same one I did):-

The new 702/703 bearings are made from tin/aluminum composition. BMW increased the clearance slightly over the 088/089 bearings and increased the eccentricity as well. But this improvement in clearance and eccentricity came at a price. The 702/703 bearings are substantially harder than the 088/089 bearings they replaced. As a consequence, when a bearing is spun, it tends to cause more damage to the crankshaft in the process

The bolded section clearly states BMW increased the clearance, perhaps he should just say that for that one set of tin shells they measured the clearance was increased over the lead bearings (some/all?) they measured?

Ah, good point. I'll point that out.

Just replaced my original RB's in my '08 E92 6MT. Car had ~106k at the time of replacement. Blackstone analysis showed very high lead and slightly higher copper ppm than average. I bought the car used about 1-2k miles prior, and the previous owner said the car was basically only driven on long highway commutes.

All around not the worst I've seen, but definitely feel like I was right on time.

Hein Jockins wrote

Just replaced my original RB's in my '08 E92 6MT. Car had ~106k at the time of replacement. Blackstone analysis showed very high lead and slightly higher copper ppm than average. I bought the car used about 1-2k miles prior, and the previous owner said the car was basically only driven on long highway commutes.

All around not the worst I've seen, but definitely feel like I was right on time.

Are any of them showing copper? It's hard to see as most of the shells are showing quite dark.

Yeah I turned all the lights on, brightened up the photo, but it's still kind of hard to see.

Yes cyls 1, 3, 4, and 5 on the top noticeably show copper with cyls 1 and 5 showing the most.

Here's cylinders 5 and 1 (top) attached below:

Quite a bit of life left, but may as well do them at that mileage ofc

Hein Jockins wrote

Yeah I turned all the lights on, brightened up the photo, but it's still kind of hard to see.

Yes cyls 1, 3, 4, and 5 on the top noticeably show copper with cyls 1 and 5 showing the most.

Here's cylinders 5 and 1 (top) attached below:

Ah yea, they are shot!
Btw re photos, I've found with some phones that photographing with a light background makes the camera darken up the picture, you could try on a lighter background.
That said, your right hand photo is just fine

TboneS54 wrote

Quite a bit of life left, but may as well do them at that mileage ofc

A? There's no life left at all in those shells, they're completely shot! The copper should never be showing, that means the lead protective layer has gone and it's just down to luck the shells haven't picked up on the crank.
See this tech info by Kingbearings to see what I mean.

If we could somehow know beforehand, we'd change the shells before the copper was showing (and no oil analysis doesn't always work there, see my sig).

Yeah definitely needed to be replaced. Some cylinders were better than others obviously, but I don't see any value in "squeezing the life" out of oem bearings when my new ones will last indefinitely (until proven otherwise) or at least for the foreseeable future.

Sissies. That's nothing.

Lol

Bought a 2011 E90 with 45000 km. (27000 km). should i be concern with changing RB ?

lauz wrote

Bought a 2011 E90 with 45000 km. (27000 km). should i be concern with changing RB ?

Why am I only now starting to realize the game-theoretic implications of trying to answer this question? Woof!

It's highly, highly unlikely that your rod bearings are anywhere near failure right now. Start doing oil analysis now, at every oil change, to get a baseline for the numbers your engine produces. Then watch for deviations from the baseline. A lack of deviation doesn't mean everything's fine, but a significant deviation probably means something's up.

Around 80k miles / 120k km is when I'd start thinking about changing the rod bearings preventatively. Whenever you start thinking about that, base your decision on what the evidence is at that time. And remember to make your decision on apparent failure rates, NOT just ugly-looking pictures on the Internet.

IamFODI wrote

Why am I only now starting to realize the game-theoretic implications of trying to answer this question? Woof!

It's highly, highly unlikely that your rod bearings are anywhere near failure right now. Start doing oil analysis now, at every oil change, to get a baseline for the numbers your engine produces. Then watch for deviations from the baseline. A lack of deviation doesn't mean everything's fine, but a significant deviation probably means something's up.

Around 80k miles / 120k km is when I'd start thinking about changing the rod bearings preventatively. Whenever you start thinking about that, base your decision on what the evidence is at that time. And remember to make your decision on apparent failure rates, NOT just ugly-looking pictures on the Internet.

I don’t agree with this logic. If you assume that original bearings are wear items, and if you agree that the so-called “improved” bearings fix the problem with increased clearance and are therefore lifetime items, then it makes way more sense to change them now. They’re not brake pads or spark plugs.

Change them now. Prices will not get cheaper. It’s a one-time expense for most people.