Quote:
Originally Posted by ham_sammich
In conclusion.
1. BE hasn't proven anything in my opinion. They have provided some data from a small sample size that conveniently backs their speculation.
|
And where is VAC's data? How big is their sample size? Again you can speculate, they actually have data to back their conclusions up and many believe their approach that lead to that conclusion to be sound, some don't and that is fine, not everyone understands this stuff, so they place blind trust in others while accusing others of being bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ham_sammich
2. These engines are all a little different and each bearing condition posted here are specific to that engines assembly procedure.
|
Yet you still installed the same size bearings in your engine, BMW sells the same sized bearings as only top/bottom, VAC does the same.
Yet BE is biased because they do also?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ham_sammich
3. In order to fix your specific engine permanently, you would have to assemble, measure, adjust clearances, measure again and repeat until the engine is assembled with spec clearances.
|
Yes, perhaps you should do that. Perhaps you should tell VAC and BMW to stop selling their bearings also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ham_sammich
4 Oil selection becomes more critical when you change oil clearances from factory. Especially if you increase Rod bearing clearances, without adjusting the main clearance as well.
|
Perhaps you should tell that to VAC also.
From VACs website.
Quote:
Our VAC Extra Clearance Bearing Sets: Precise construction with extra clearance and specially coated to keep bearing failure at a minimum.
Reap lower temps and less friction in your expensive BMW engine!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ham_sammich
5. Stating one company is better than another is false. If you believe your bearing wear was due to insufficient clearance, buy BE or WPC. If you don't, buy stock or VAC. Any new bearing is better than the old ones.
|
As mentioned above, VAC sells their bearing as Extra Clearance sets also.
Where is their biased data that lead them to that conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ham_sammich
You can hate me all you want, until I see a larger engine sample size backed with consistent data, I'm a skeptic.
|
We will hate on you because your story has holes, your judgement is biased towards one company, yet it's clear you don't apply that bias to the company you prefer, because you used their product and you placed blind trust in them, they've shared even less info on their product, infact they are also faulted with sending whichever bearing they feel like to some customers. You were even a victim of that. You wanted Calico coated oem clearance bearings but you were sent "revised thickness Clevite bearings". Why aren't you saying VAC is biased also? They even sent you something you didn't order, yet you are okay with it? We will all look at the data and those who believe it will take that path, others who don't will take another. There is no end all and be all solution, there is no hard evidence just valid conclusion based on data with some assumptions.
I think we are all generally on the same age about the general state of S65 bearing options, it's the biased you have against BE for no valid reason is what others including myself are objecting to. No one "outright said the Calico/VAC bearings are bad" as you claim, some just are not a fan of how VAC runs their business and they are entitled to that opinion but they don't use that to say the VAC bearings are bad, they just aren't the choice they wish to go with, but many have and that is perfectly fine also.