BE Bearings In-Depth: Oil Flow, Oil Pressure Analysis

[Doc Oc]

Hey Kawasaki if side clearance is too tight what kind of metal are we looking for on a uoa?

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

There is no prediction only way to know is to use the flow meter. The reason we cant predict it is you would have to dyno the oil system with the pump and have specific flow charts for the oiling system.

But there are generic formula that you can use to calculate how oil flow changes with clearance and King Bearings have graphs which can be used to cross check that the number is at least in the ball park.
Now by my calculation(which could well be wrong) by increasing the clearance from 0.0017 to 0.0025 you would expect an increase in oil flow in the region of 50% at 8000rpm.
And the graph below suggests that the 50% number is indeed in the ballpark.

What you don't expect to get is a rise in flow of some 400%!

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

Hey Kawasaki if side clearance is too tight what kind of metal are we looking for on a uoa?

Iron is most likely what you'd be looking for for rod wear........ The rods are a steel alloy.

[duk]

Totally effin subscribed. So interested in this.

[O2ShootTheJ]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Sure, I'll take a stab at it. In stock engine form, the oil pump has plenty of capacity, but the clearances are so small they restrict oil flow to dangerous levels. BE Bearings were designed to fix this problem. The analysis above shows the factory oil pump has plenty of capacity. It shows the factory bearings have dangerously low oil flow. It shows the BE Bearings open up the clearance, the factory oil pump still has plenty of capacity, and the oil flow is sufficiently increased to much more normal and safer levels than factory bearings.

Thank you! glad to hear the new BE bearings I have in my car are an improvement

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

But there are generic formula that you can use to calculate how oil flow changes with clearance and King Bearings have graphs which can be used to cross check that the number is at least in the ball park.
Now by my calculation(which could well be wrong) by increasing the clearance from 0.0017 to 0.0025 you would expect an increase in oil flow in the region of 50% at 8000rpm.
And the graph below suggests that the 50% number is indeed in the ballpark.

What you don't expect to get is a rise in flow of some 400%!

Apparently that formula isn't nearly as generic as you say because you weren't able to use it when you were asked the same question months ago. But let's not get sidetracked. You have a very long history of fabricating and falsifying data. That seems very clear what you're doing here too. Even when you couldn't read a simple graph, it was clear the numbers you were pulling off of it were falsified because they appeared nowhere on the graph even when reading the wrong axes. If you were a reputable guy, I'd allow you to download the raw data and let you calculate the area under the curves so you could come up with some real numbers to replace your fabricated ones. But that's not even necessary. Anybody who objectively looks at the graphs can tell without a calculator that your falsified numbers don't add up.

We do appreciate the attention you keep bringing into this topic. Every time you respond, it brings more attention to this thread where new and old members alike can read about the topic, see all of the hard work that went into it, and see the dedication and expertise BE has put into the product. It seems that the data has proven itself to all objective viewers.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Iron is most likely what you'd be looking for for rod wear........ The rods are a steel alloy.

Thanks, iron always seems to show up on reports, sometimes pretty high...

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

Thanks, iron always seems to show up on reports, sometimes pretty high...

You can also get iron from cams, lifters, ferroprint piston coating, rings, oil pump....... so you will always have iron in there

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

Thanks, iron always seems to show up on reports, sometimes pretty high...

If you are getting high Iron from the sides of the rods the engine is already doomed. They will rub and rub for quite a while before galling and transferring material. Dont really be concerned with it, I do not feel their is anyway to pick up on it by a OA.

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

You can also get iron from cams, lifters, ferroprint piston coating, rings, oil pump....... so you will always have iron in there

+1

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Anybody who objectively looks at the graphs can tell without a calculator that your falsified numbers don't add up.

Let me recap so that you can clearly point out where I am "falsifying" the numbers.



So lets pick a point on the graph around 5800 rpm which conveniently shows an ~ doubling of overall oil flow.
At that point:
BMW 702 bearings show a total system flow rate of ~3.2 gpm
BE bearings show a total system flow rate of ~6.5 gpm.

Of course there is no way to know the actual OEM flow rate through the rod bearings at that point, but lets say its 30% of the total flow.
Pick a different number if you like but its highly unlikely to be much bigger.
So of your measured OEM total flow rate of 3.2 gpm, ~1 gpm flows through the RBs.

By increasing the RB clearance from 0.0017 to 0.0025 we observe an increase of oil flow from 3.2 to 6.5 gpm - where the increase of 3.3 gpm must be flowing through the RBs.
However, referencing the King Bearing graph above the prediction is for an increase in flow of only ~0.55 gpm (an ~ 55% increase).
How do you reconcile the predicted figure of 0.55 gpm with your clearly implausible increase of 3.3 gpm!

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

If you are getting high Iron from the sides of the rods the engine is already doomed. They will rub and rub for quite a while before galling and transferring material. Dont really be concerned with it, I do not feel their is anyway to pick up on it by a OA.

+1

+1
I can't say as I've ever seen an engine fail for a rod side clearance issue...... The bigger issue we all pointed out with rod side clearance was yet another area where oil flow was being restricted to the rod bearings.

Tight side clearance doesn't allow the oil to get out of the bearings and it was yet another area where BMW messed up on the design. The tight side clearance in the S65 is an issue, however, it is not such a great issue that it needs to be addressed. If one was doing a rebuild then addressing the side clearance would be a given but I don't recommend anyone taking an engine apart specifically to address it........ Replacing the rod bearings with bearings that address the oil clearance issue is going to be all 99% of these engines need.

[undecided]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Let me recap so that you can clearly point out where I am "falsifying" the numbers.



So lets pick a point on the graph around 5800 rpm which conveniently shows an ~ doubling of overall oil flow.
At that point:
BMW 702 bearings show a total system flow rate of ~3.2 gpm
BE bearings show a total system flow rate of ~6.5 gpm.

Of course there is no way to know the actual OEM flow rate through the rod bearings at that point, but lets say its 30% of the total flow.
Pick a different number if you like but its highly unlikely to be much bigger.
So of your measured OEM total flow rate of 3.2 gpm, ~1 gpm flows through the RBs.

By increasing the RB clearance from 0.0017 to 0.0025 we observe an increase of oil flow from 3.2 to 6.5 gpm - where the increase of 3.3 gpm must be flowing through the RBs.
However, referencing the King Bearing graph above the prediction is for an increase in flow of only ~0.55 gpm (an ~ 55% increase).
How do you reconcile the predicted figure of 0.55 gpm with your clearly implausible increase of 3.3 gpm!

I am just eyeballing it. This is regardless of how much flows through the RB. So, are now going to start scrutinizing the king bearing graphs?

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

By increasing the RB clearance from 0.0017 to 0.0025 we observe an increase of oil flow from 3.2 to 6.5 gpm - where the increase of 3.3 gpm must be flowing through the RBs.
However, referencing the King Bearing graph above the prediction is for an increase in flow of only ~0.55 gpm (an ~ 55% increase).

First of all, are you sure the cylinder pressure of the S65 is 12000 PSI? These values are different for different cylinder pressures, as the King article demonstrated.

How do you reconcile the predicted figure of 0.55 gpm with your clearly implausible increase of 3.3 gpm!

Show how you calculated this number.

Do you believe that BMW made a mistake on the S54 when they increased the rod bearing clearance to the same ratio now used by BE on the S65, and recommended by both Clevite and King? Also do you have any data to back up your supposition that 6.5 GPM @ 5800 RPMs or 8.0 GPM @ 8400 RPMs is dangerous for the engine?

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

First of all, are you sure the cylinder pressure of the S65 is 12000 PSI? These values are different for different cylinder pressures, as the King article demonstrated.

Indeed but when you change the cylinder pressure then the flow changes for both OEM and BE.
The relationship between RB clearance and oil flow is fairly linear at these values when all you are changing is the clearance.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Show how you calculated this number.

Its all set out in my post..what is it you are struggling to understand?

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Its all set out in my post..what is it you are struggling to understand?

I always struggle to understand BS and I think we are all owed an explanation how you came up with your numbers. You've already proved you can't read simple graphs correctly, and I think we need to make sure that's not happening again. I saw your post. Then I went back and read it again and again. You provided no equation to back it up anything you've said. Please show your exact equations for everything you've claimed. Then we can discuss whether or not they mean anything.

Also waiting for answers to my other two questions:
Do you believe that BMW made a mistake on the S54 when they increased the rod bearing clearance to the same ratio now used by BE on the S65, and recommended by both Clevite and King? Also do you have any data to back up your supposition that 6.5 GPM @ 5800 RPMs or 8.0 GPM @ 8400 RPMs is dangerous for the engine?

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I always struggle to understand BS and I think we are all owed an explanation how you came up with your numbers. You've already proved you can't read simple graphs correctly, and I think we need to make sure that's not happening again. I saw your post. Then I went back and read it again and again. You provided no equation to back it up anything you've said. Please show your exact equations for everything you've claimed. Then we can discuss whether or not they mean anything.

I don't know how I can make it any easier for you to understand, I suppose I could try using shorter words...have you tried tracing the words with your finger and saying them out loud?

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Also waiting for answers to my other two questions:
Do you believe that BMW made a mistake on the S54 when they increased the rod bearing clearance to the same ratio now used by BE on the S65, and recommended by both Clevite and King? Also do you have any data to back up your supposition that 6.5 GPM @ 5800 RPMs or 8.0 GPM @ 8400 RPMs is dangerous for the engine?

Not interested in your strawmen.

[UPSROD]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

I don't know how I can make it any easier for you to understand, I suppose I could try using shorter words...have you tried tracing the words with your finger and saying them out loud?



Not interested in your strawmen.

This shit gets so old!

[Doc Oc]

It's so odd that SFP gets to post here while RG can't....not that he'd want to at this point.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

It's so odd that SFP gets to post here while RG can't....not that he'd want to at this point.

I'm not sure...But do you mean by SFP ...Senior funky pants ?
If so...SFP is using another username ?
I thought he was banned or gone on here..

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

It's so odd that SFP gets to post here while RG can't....not that he'd want to at this point.

Seriously?...RG posts using Green Eggs log in whenever he likes.
Who do you think is playing stupid in Green Eggs recent replies to me?

[SVH]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Seriously?...RG posts using Green Eggs log in whenever he likes.
Who do you think is playing stupid in Green Eggs recent replies to me?

I know it's not RG.
You can call them (BE) and talk with whomever you want...

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

I'm not sure...But do you mean by SFP ...Senior funky pants ?
If so...SFP is using another username ?
I thought he was banned or gone on here..

SFP = sneaky Pete, such that it matters.