Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[speedaddictM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, cry me a river. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I've never made personal attacks here, period. Unless you call questioning some folks credibility on some issues an attack. See above.

Lack of dececy, nope, don't buy it. Hasn't happened.

I've posted my inputs here, my clear attack on the view that we have a THEORY here (as opposed to a small bit of data and a loose HYPOTHESIS) and my arguments against certain elements of the appeal to expertise. And I'll keep posting whatever the heck I like, thank you very much, Mr. My Skin is Way Too Thin...

What's the mileage on our car? Why don't you impress us and prove us all wrong? Go pull the bearings out of your car and come and post pics showing us how fantastic a shape they are in.

[cposk]

Originally Posted by speedaddictM3

What's the mileage on our car? Why don't you impress us and prove us all wrong? Go pull the bearings out of your car and come and post pics showing us how fantastic a shape they are in.

His car is probably part of the .5%. Just like everyone that has pulled their bearings so far.

Been watching this thread and the others since inception. Just wanted to voice my support for Regular Guy. Lots of word twisting and conclusion drawing going on here. He's just showing us the facts that are available.

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Why would BMW go back down to a .03mm clearance again for the S65? The above SIB is from November 2001 which is long before the 2003 recall where you say the bearing size was changed.

I'm sure they thought the S65/85 would be fine, I think it's fair to say it's not the exact same issue the S54's had on the E46 M3, it's not as immediate as that bearing issue, cars were failing early on, but it cleary appears to be an issue that could eventually arise on the S65/85.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

There are no documented S65 BMW tolerances to make an informed judgement on, it's all based on assumptions

I think we can make a good judgement that there is an issue, based on the bearings that we are seeing, as well as the important specifics many here have brought up that something is awry.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

The Z3M S54 didn't get different bearings, just the oil change from 5w30 to 10w60. That change on it's own almost cured the Z3M failures.

They did not have the failure rates that the early M3's did, and the redline was 7500 rpm in the Z3M S54's? But it's interesting that the Z3M's with S54's did get the extended warranty of 6 years 100K miles, just like the early M3's did.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

As for my last comment, why if there is a major problem didn't BMW ask Clevite to change the size of the bearing? Surely that's a simple enough task.

I'm sure BMW thought it was fine, but it appears that it may not be.

I don't know, but I think that's a good/fair question.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

What other daily drive 8,400rpm motors are out there that go to over 100k miles without a problem?

I'm sure there are issues, every platform has them, but we're talking clearances and oil choice here, pretty major in terms of a specific issue for owners! I haven't looked into it but do GT3's have bearing issues like this, do 458's, do the Lexus LFA's have this issue?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

It is also worth noting that the nominal mains in the S65 are listed as 60 mm but in your calculation in your 2nd post you used 70 mm nominal.

Good catch. These calculations were made from this diagram. Fixed.

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...21&hg=11&fg=20

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

But that's my point. We have been told by someone who claims to build Nascar engines that we need a lot more than the .001" clearance that the article says is correct for Nascar. One person says one thing and the other says different. Where are the facts and who is correct?

Slight correction. You have been told by somebody who builds WINNING NASCAR engines that you need greater than 0.001" clearance per 1.85" jounal.

But let's get back to this NASCAR article that supposedly bolsters the counter claims. I think the readers are owed a vigorous defense of the article because it's being used as part of their opposition.

The article claims:

"Most of these engines are running rod and main bearing clearances of .001˝ or less, and they are doing it with low viscosity racing oils such as 0W5, 0W30 and 0W50."

Who are these teams? Are they winning teams or losing teams? The article doesn't say. I'd like to know what validity this claim has if it can't be independently verified, or the weight it has if you can't compare the claim to the team's win/loss record.

The next part of the article says:

"Street engines can benefit from tighter tolerances and thinner oils for everyday driving. But when power adders such as nitrous oxide, turbocharging or supercharging are used, or the engine’s power output gets up in the 450 to 500 plus horsepower range, looser bearing clearances are probably safer to accommodate crankshaft flexing, main bore and rod bore distortion."

How was this possibly missed by the opposition and how do they explain it? I asked it once before but no answer was given.

Then this caught my eye:

"To reduce friction and improve fuel economy, most late model stock engines are factory-filled with 5W20 or even 0W20 oil. Combined with tighter engine assembly tolerances, these oil and bearing combinations work relatively well for everyday driving and even mild performance use."

Again, how was this missed by the opposition? What explanation is there from this article that helps explain BMW's use of tight clearance with thick 10W60 oil?

You started by asking for facts, but this article gave you rumors and a few shots in the foot. I think it's a good time to start leveling the playing field here and demand the same standard for these faux arguments. I'd like to see a vigorous defense of this entire article instead of a of a carefully selected sentence taken out of context with no way to verify its veracity. Instead of demanding more data from me, let's start by hearing a vigorous defense of what's already out here.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I see not much has changed around here.
This is me continuing to watch from the bushes.
Oh yea, we won another race yesterday in dominating fashion in Texas. Maybe one day we will get some of this "data" figured out.

Congrats. Nice to know real world experience of real life NASCAR engine builders trumps collegiate white papers and articles about unnamed NASCAR teams. Didn't somebody recently say if you could design and build engines as successfully as BMW..."you would not be slugging away at your current positions nor would you likely be bothering to debate such topics here at m3post.com...?"

BTW, do (personally) you still hold the world record that I read about? That one might be tough to beat -- just as the Indy-500 winning record set by my engine builder might be very tough to beat as well.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Regular Guy, Can you explain two things

In you rod chart you list the S54 with both 5w30 and 10w60 variants using exactly the same bearing clearances. Only difference is the oil. Why was the ratio of failures much higher on the 5w30 ?

BMW obviously collate information on engine problems. If the S65 failure rate was at an unacceptable level, surely a 5 minute change of spec request to Clevite would cure any clearance issue if there was one.

The first part has already been answered, please review. Before I can offer an opinion on the failure rates vs. oil, I would need to see the data. Since your question assumes you've seen the data, please share it with us. Not sure how you expect a blind answer without any data to back it up. But it's worth demanding you to show the data if you expect an answer.

You do have all the data...right? Please break it down by model year, oil type, mileage, which bearings they have (before or after recall), etc.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Slight correction. You have been told by somebody who builds WINNING NASCAR engines that you need greater than 0.001" clearance per 1.85" jounal.

Nascar rod clearances are hardly rocket science are they? Doing multiple laps at a constant speed on hot oil is a completely different scenario than a daily driver doing a couple of cold starts per day over a few years. How long would this wonder engine last in everyday use? BTW, the Honda S2000 runs .001" clearance


But let's get back to this NASCAR article that supposedly bolsters the counter claims. I think the readers are owed a vigorous defense of the article because it's being used as part of their opposition.

The article claims:

"Most of these engines are running rod and main bearing clearances of .001˝ or less, and they are doing it with low viscosity racing oils such as 0W5, 0W30 and 0W50."

Who are these teams? Are they winning teams or losing teams? The article doesn't say. I'd like to know what validity this claim has if it can't be independently verified, or the weight it has if you can't compare the claim to the team's win/loss record.

So which Nascar engine designer is it that's saying BMW don't know how to design an engine? Do you have validity of the claim?Are you going to name this team?

The next part of the article says:

"Street engines can benefit from tighter tolerances and thinner oils for everyday driving. But when power adders such as nitrous oxide, turbocharging or supercharging are used, or the engine’s power output gets up in the 450 to 500 plus horsepower range, looser bearing clearances are probably safer to accommodate crankshaft flexing, main bore and rod bore distortion."

How was this possibly missed by the opposition and how do they explain it? I asked it once before but no answer was given.

That's a general rule of thumb for a modified engine. Come on, how much flex is there in an S65 or are you saying the blocks are also crap?

Then this caught my eye:

"To reduce friction and improve fuel economy, most late model stock engines are factory-filled with 5W20 or even 0W20 oil. Combined with tighter engine assembly tolerances, these oil and bearing combinations work relatively well for everyday driving and even mild performance use."

Again, how was this missed by the opposition? What explanation is there from this article that helps explain BMW's use of tight clearance with thick 10W60 oil?

Mild performance use? I don't think 105bhp per litre and 180mph capability stock can be considered mild


You started by asking for facts, but this article gave you rumors and a few shots in the foot. I think it's a good time to start leveling the playing field here and demand the same standard for these faux arguments. I'd like to see a vigorous defense of this entire article instead of a of a carefully selected sentence taken out of context with no way to verify its veracity. Instead of demanding more data from me, let's start by hearing a vigorous defense of what's already out here.

Now can you give me an example of a daily driving mass produced car that has around 100bhp per litre, hits 8,400 rpm most days and is expected to last past 100k miles. (There are a lot of 100k mile+ S65s out there)

It's common sense that in cold climates and daily use 0w40 is a better bet, but that's the problem with a production car aimed at such a diverse set of owners. 0w40 for the daily duties but 10w60 for track use.

I notice that you lay constant blame at the crank, not the Clevite bearings. Would there be any reason for that?

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Now can you give me an example of a daily driving mass produced car that has around 100bhp per litre, hits 8,400 rpm most days and is expected to last past 100k miles. (There are a lot of 100k mile+ S65s out there)

Some might say those are Steve Dinan's plans for his stroker engines upon which a portion of his firm's reputation lies once they are in the field. The implication of some in this thread is that they know more than Dinan about building an S65 or S85, so I assume they should call Steve and tell him exactly why he is wrong to open up the main and rod bearing clearances when he does a stroker build? After all internet posters with little direct experience, likely zero formal tribology knowledge, etc, appear to know the answers better than firms like Dinan and Hendrick Motorsports. Damn, the Internet is pretty awesome. If these firms only knew...

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Slight correction. You have been told by somebody who builds WINNING NASCAR engines that you need greater than 0.001" clearance per 1.85" jounal.

But let's get back to this NASCAR article that supposedly bolsters the counter claims. I think the readers are owed a vigorous defense of the article because it's being used as part of their opposition.

The article claims:

"Most of these engines are running rod and main bearing clearances of .001˝ or less, and they are doing it with low viscosity racing oils such as 0W5, 0W30 and 0W50."

Who are these teams? Are they winning teams or losing teams? The article doesn't say. I'd like to know what validity this claim has if it can't be independently verified, or the weight it has if you can't compare the claim to the team's win/loss record.

We can't run that tight, we are in line with the white papers on clearance, I wont say tight or loose but we fall inside the parameters they suggest. We have tried many times to run tight and it just does not work. Either the bearings are down to the copper or a rod ends up out of the oil pan. We have guys working with us now that have worked at competing companies over the years and no one runs that tight with the journal we have (1.850). Heck even when we used to run the Honda journal (1.770) we still did not run that tight. I have yet to talk to anyone that runs that tight, especially something that turns lots of rpm. Furthermore, no one runs oil that light in our series unless it is a restricted engine. They only make 450.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Congrats. Nice to know real world experience of real life NASCAR engine builders trumps collegiate white papers and articles about unnamed NASCAR teams. Didn't somebody recently say if you could design and build engines as successfully as BMW..."you would not be slugging away at your current positions nor would you likely be bothering to debate such topics here at m3post.com...?"

BTW, do (personally) you still hold the world record that I read about? That one might be tough to beat -- just as the Indy-500 winning record set by my engine builder might be very tough to beat as well.

I remember the comment, but no comment out of me.
There are a few, rules change and processes are a little different as the years go by but in a nutshell..Pretty much

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Now can you give me an example of a daily driving mass produced car that has around 100bhp per litre, hits 8,400 rpm most days and is expected to last past 100k miles. (There are a lot of 100k mile+ S65s out there)

It's common sense that in cold climates and daily use 0w40 is a better bet, but that's the problem with a production car aimed at such a diverse set of owners. 0w40 for the daily duties but 10w60 for track use.

I notice that you lay constant blame at the crank, not the Clevite bearings. Would there be any reason for that?

I have talked to the Clevite guys in person many times about this, there is no fault in the bearings, just a clearance issue. The stance they have on it is there is also nothing wrong with running .001 but it has to be mated to a 0-20 oil. That is not the s65 intent to lug around and be a typical daily traffic commuter.

Originally Posted by CSBM5

Some might say those are Steve Dinan's plans for his stroker engines upon which a portion of his firm's reputation lies once they are in the field. The implication of some in this thread is that they know more than Dinan about building an S65 or S85, so I assume they should call Steve and tell him exactly why he is wrong to open up the main and rod bearing clearances when he does a stroker build? After all internet posters with little direct experience, likely zero formal tribology knowledge, etc, appear to know the answers better than firms like Dinan and Hendrick Motorsports. Damn, the Internet is pretty awesome. If these firms only knew...

[IMG]

Lots of tight bearings around here !

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I have talked to the Clevite guys in person many times about this, there is no fault in the bearings, just a clearance issue. The stance they have on it is there is also nothing wrong with running .001 but it has to be mated to a 0-20 oil. That is not the s65 intent to lug around and be a typical daily traffic commuter.

From what I can gather, your take on the issue isn't so much with the clearance (ie not as tight as the Honda S2000). it's just the oil. Is that correct? That sounds fair enough to me for daily driving.

Are Clevite actually stating that BMW are going against their own recommendations by running 10w60? Didn't the two companies get together at the design stage? Will anyone at Clevite stand by this claim?

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

From what I can gather, your take on the issue isn't so much with the clearance (ie not as tight as the Honda S2000). it's just the oil. Is that correct? That sounds fair enough to me for daily driving.

Are Clevite actually stating that BMW are going against their own recommendations by running 10w60? Didn't the two companies get together at the design stage? Will anyone at Clevite stand by this claim?

They told me there are other, ie.. toyota and honda running this .001-.0013 clearance in the civic, accord, camry and I am sure there are others. But these engines only turn 6k and they make way less power, and the oil spec for them is 0-20.
They do not get together on these type of things. BMW sends a spec and they make what they ask. He said alot of times they tell them what the bearings need to be but they have no way of knowing what the journal diameter is going to be so in the end they have no idea of the clearance.
As soon as I started talking about the 10-60 they started shaking heads. You know the world today, no one at a big company is going to publicly say something bad about a client on paper for everyone to see.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Now can you give me an example of a daily driving mass produced car that has around 100bhp per litre, hits 8,400 rpm most days and is expected to last past 100k miles. (There are a lot of 100k mile+ S65s out there)

Certainly!

1) The B18C5 in the Integra Type R. More than 100bhp/L (195-200hp depending on the country, 1.8L of displacement). Red line was 8800rpms.
2) The K20I in the Accord Euro Type R. Once again, more than 100bhp/L (220hp/1998cc of displacement). Red line was 8800rpms.
3) Every B16A* DOHC VTEC engine Honda produced. The B16A1, B16A2, and B16A3 found in the Civic Si (they didn't make an appearance in the US until 1998) and del Sol VTECs produce 160hp out of 1.6L and red line is 8100-8400rpms depending on country/configuration. Honda started using the B16A in 1991 and did so until the 7th gen Civic Si in 2001, IIRC. We all know people wring the *piss* out of those engines and red line all day, every day.
4) The F20C in the first generation (AP1) Honda S2000. 237-247bhp (depending on the market) out of 2L of displacement. Red line was 8800rpms.

This sampling of engines excludes:
-the K20A2 (1998CC/210bhp and 8100 red line) found in the 2nd Gen RSX-Type S as it *only* red lines @ 8100rpm.
-The B18C1 (1.8L/170bhp) found in the 1995-2001 Acura Integra GS-R, as it *only* red lines @ 8100rpm, as well.

All of these engines were mass produced, save the K20I. They are all bulletproof well over 100k miles. None of them have bearing issues.

My buddy and I built a "poor man's Type R" (B18C1 block, B16A3 head w/Civic Type R pistons) for my car back in the day that had a chipped ECU helping it red line @ 8600rpms. I racked up over 100k miles on that car, and believe me, it lived @ the red line. Never had a problem the entire time driving that car, nor did the guy I sold it to. On the B16A and B18C1, people would raise the rev limiter to up to 9000rpms, but *after* they rebuilt the head b/c they suffered from valve float. The bottom end was fine.

And I can *assure* you there many, many more of these engines over 100k miles than there are S65s over 100K miles.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Certainly!


And I can *assure* you there many, many more of these engines over 100k miles than there are S65s over 100K miles.

Honda did build some incredible NA engines!

Loved the B16A I had in my Civic. Tracked, autocrossed, drag raced it, drove it every day to work and put over 100k miles on it. 8200 rpm redline with over 100hp/liter. Never had an issue with the car. Just change oil regularly and you're golden. OEM fill was 5w30 Mobil 1. Ran like new until I sold it.

Compare that with the crap Honda sell now...

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Certainly!

1) The B18C5 in the Integra Type R. More than 100bhp/L (195-200hp depending on the country, 1.8L of displacement). Red line was 8800rpms.
2) The K20I in the Accord Euro Type R. Once again, more than 100bhp/L (220hp/1998cc of displacement). Red line was 8800rpms.
3) Every B16A* DOHC VTEC engine Honda produced. The B16A1, B16A2, and B16A3 found in the Civic Si (they didn't make an appearance in the US until 1998) and del Sol VTECs produce 160hp out of 1.6L and red line is 8100-8400rpms depending on country/configuration. Honda started using the B16A in 1991 and did so until the 7th gen Civic Si in 2001, IIRC. We all know people wring the *piss* out of those engines and red line all day, every day.
4) The F20C in the first generation (AP1) Honda S2000. 237-247bhp (depending on the market) out of 2L of displacement. Red line was 8800rpms.

This sampling of engines excludes:
-the K20A2 (1998CC/210bhp and 8100 red line) found in the 2nd Gen RSX-Type S as it *only* red lines @ 8100rpm.
-The B18C1 (1.8L/170bhp) found in the 1995-2001 Acura Integra GS-R, as it *only* red lines @ 8100rpm, as well.

All of these engines are mass produced, save the K20I. They are all bulletproof well over 100k miles. None of them have bearing issues.

My buddy and I built a "poor man's Type R" (B18C1 block, B16A3 head w/Civic Type R pistons) for my car back in the day that had a chipped ECU helping it redline @ 8600rpms. I racked up over 100k miles on that car, and believe me, it lived @ the redline. Never had a problem the entire time driving that car, nor did the guy I sold it to. On the B16A and B18C1, people would raise the rev limiter to up to 9000rpms, but *after* they rebuilt the head b/c they suffered from valve float. The bottom end was fine.

And I can *assure* you there many, many more of these engines over 100k miles than there are S65s over 100K miles.

And all running with around .001" rod bearing clearance.

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Certainly!

1) The B18C5 in the Integra Type R. More than 100bhp/L (195-200hp depending on the country, 1.8L of displacement). Red line was 8800rpms.
2) The K20I in the Accord Euro Type R. Once again, more than 100bhp/L (220hp/1998cc of displacement). Red line was 8800rpms.
3) Every B16A* DOHC VTEC engine Honda produced. The B16A1, B16A2, and B16A3 found in the Civic Si (they didn't make an appearance in the US until 1998) and del Sol VTECs produce 160hp out of 1.6L and red line is 8100-8400rpms depending on country/configuration. Honda started using the B16A in 1991 and did so until the 7th gen Civic Si in 2001, IIRC. We all know people wring the *piss* out of those engines and red line all day, every day.
4) The F20C in the first generation (AP1) Honda S2000. 237-247bhp (depending on the market) out of 2L of displacement. Red line was 8800rpms.

This sampling of engines excludes:
-the K20A2 (1998CC/210bhp and 8100 red line) found in the 2nd Gen RSX-Type S as it *only* red lines @ 8100rpm.
-The B18C1 (1.8L/170bhp) found in the 1995-2001 Acura Integra GS-R, as it *only* red lines @ 8100rpm, as well.

All of these engines are mass produced, save the K20I. They are all bulletproof well over 100k miles. None of them have bearing issues.

My buddy and I built a "poor man's Type R" (B18C1 block, B16A3 head w/Civic Type R pistons) for my car back in the day that had a chipped ECU helping it redline @ 8600rpms. I racked up over 100k miles on that car, and believe me, it lived @ the redline. Never had a problem the entire time driving that car, nor did the guy I sold it to. On the B16A and B18C1, people would raise the rev limiter to up to 9000rpms, but *after* they rebuilt the head b/c they suffered from valve float. The bottom end was fine.

And I can *assure* you there many, many more of these engines over 100k miles than there are S65s over 100K miles.

Those Honda engines are amazing! Factory fill of Honda were much thinner though, was it 5w-30 or 0-20? Definitely not 10w-60. If we can find/list the journal diameter and width for these engines, it might provide some more info for cross referencing.

[marksae]

Factory fill on my 07 S2000 is Mobil 1 5W30.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

And all running with around .001" rod bearing clearance.

Here's what I dug up on the very first engine in that list: B18C5.
http://www.ej8squad.com/thread-9312.html

Connecting rod journal
Diameter……………………………….............................. .......1.7707 - 1.7717 in

Connecting rod bearing oil clearance
B18C1, B18C5
Standard……………………………….............................. .......0.0013 - 0.0020 in

To be consistent with all my other posts in this thread, I'll use the center of measurements. The rod journals are 1.7712" with clearance of 0.00165" to make the clearance-to-journal ratio 0.00093. Isn't that exactly within the standard rules?

Are you even BS checking your own comments? Please show your data sources to claim 0.001 clearance on a 1.7712 rod journal in the Honda B18C5.

[Leonardo629]

I could've sworn all S2000s come with M1 10W30 from the factory...

Originally Posted by marksae

Factory fill on my 07 S2000 is Mobil 1 5W30.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Here's what I dug up on the very first engine in that list: B18C5.
http://www.ej8squad.com/thread-9312.html

Connecting rod journal
Diameter………………………………...... ...............................1.7707 - 1.7717 in

Connecting rod bearing oil clearance
B18C1, B18C5
Standard………………………………...... ...............................0.0013 - 0.0020 in

To be consistent with all my other posts in this thread, I'll use the center of measurements. The rod journals are 1.7712" with clearance of 0.00165" to make the clearance-to-journal ratio 0.00093. Isn't that exactly within the standard rules?

Are you even BS checking your own comments? Please show your data sources to claim 0.001 clearance on a 1.7712 rod journal in the Honda B18C5.

When we raced the 1.770 journal stuff it was .0015-.0016

[marksae]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

I could've sworn all S2000s come with M1 10W30 from the factory...

Ooops.. maybe it is 10W30. I'm getting things mixed up here. I'll have to check when I get home from work today.