Blown motors, Rod Bearing failure S65 Registry.

[aus]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

99% sure funds are now available and the ball has started to roll. RG and I have been in communication with Clevite and that is about all the info I can give right now.

Can we get an update on this after a more than a month of this teaser statement???

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by aus

Can we get an update on this after a more than a month of this teaser statement???

Lets say everything is moving forward on a new bearing option. We won't see them in production for a long time.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by JEllis

Lets say everything is moving forward on a new bearing option. We won't see them in production for a long time.

How many different forum members are a part of this new bearing design/manufacture? So far it seems like kawasaki00, regular guy, and maybe JEllis? Anyone else?

[pbonsalb]

I thought MRF was involved.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by aus

Can we get an update on this after a more than a month of this teaser statement???

Originally Posted by JEllis

Lets say everything is moving forward on a new bearing option. We won't see them in production for a long time.

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

How many different forum members are a part of this new bearing design/manufacture? So far it seems like kawasaki00, regular guy, and maybe JEllis? Anyone else?

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I thought MRF was involved.

Bearing update thread is being made now

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

How many different forum members are a part of this new bearing design/manufacture? So far it seems like kawasaki00, regular guy, and maybe JEllis? Anyone else?

I was making a hypothetical statement about the realities of engineering design, manufacturing and sales. I have no inside information nor am I involved. I just made a statement based on what is bound to create quite a lot of impatience.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by JEllis

I was making a hypothetical statement about the realities of engineering design, manufacturing and sales. I have no inside information nor am I involved. I just made a statement based one what is bound to create quite a lot of impatience.

Thanks for clearing that up. I do agree that it will be a ways down the road before marketable bearings are released to the public. Processes like this don't happen overnight.

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

Thanks for clearing that up. I do agree that it will be a ways down the road before marketable bearings are released to the public. Processes like this don't happen overnight.

And if you think about it... this is something that probably deserves some time.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by JEllis

And if you think about it... this is something that probably deserves some time.

True. Next weakest link seems to be the rod side clearance and then after that the main bearing clearance. I don't think either can be resolved without requiring removal of the crank (I know the mains can't) so at that point it just makes sense to have the rods re-worked before install and the crank ground for the mains. Guess it just never ends.

[Obioban]

Have there been multiple instances of issues with the mains?

[pbonsalb]

Only one I have read of here in the past several years is a motor on a Gintani car. Gintani has a video you can watch that details the disassembly.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Only one I have read of here in the past several years is a motor on a Gintani car. Gintani has a video you can watch that details the disassembly.

Yeah, I've seen that video. I'd say Gintani isn't 100% trustworthy, or, at the very least, they had certain motivations behind making that video. Or, even if you disagree with that, that engine was certainly one of the most powerful S65s out there at the time, so those were under the most stress any should see.

If that's the only known instance of worn mains, I wouldn't be overly concerned about them (or the small end rod bearings). Seems like only the big end rod bearings are a concern... so common custom spec bearings fixing the issue

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Have there been multiple instances of issues with the mains?

Not that many actually, but according to the bearing wiki thread regular guy started the main bearing clearances are tighter than industry accepted standards. There is also a documented main bearing failure at 4k miles on a stock motor in the first or second post in that same thread. Not a huge issue, and probably not a cause for any concern, but once the weakest link is made stronger the breakdown will inevitably relocate itself. Where is that next place is all I'm asking, and from exhaustive reading it looks like rod side bearing clearance will be our next closest alligator to the boat.

[SenorFunkyPants]

I would note that the side clearance issue reported on the first page of "wiki" thread was in an engine using non standard aftermarket rods. I think I've only seen it mentioned on one other occasion as a point of concern. Main bearings also seem to have been quite reliable.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I would note that the side clearance issue reported on the first page of "wiki" thread was in an engine using non standard aftermarket rods. I think I've only seen it mentioned on one other occasion as a point of concern. Main bearings also seem to have been quite reliable.

If you read a bit further down it describes how the aftermarket and factory rods share the same dimensions:

Originally Posted by regular guy

Connecting Rod Side Clearance Issues

Discovering rod bearing clearance issues wasn't the only adverse discovery we made while assembling this motor. In addition to measuring bearing clearances, Van Dyne also measures connecting rod side play, crankshaft end play, valve opening/closing angles, valve spring seat pressure, and many other things. Connecting rod side clearance is measured by sticking a feeler gauge between the connecting rods to see how much space is between them. Engine builders like to see the connecting rod side clearance in a very specific measurement range. The measurement is taken when the bottom end is mostly assembled: the crankshaft is in place, and the pistons and connecting rods are attached and torqued down. If the side clearance is too little, then oil cannot escape and extra heat is generated by the friction of the connecting rods colliding against each other.

The crankshaft itself can be damaged as well. When the rod side clearance is too tight, as the engine heats up, the rods will swell and the crank will shrink. The tight clearance gets smaller and smaller until the rods collide and start riding against the crankshaft journal fillet. The fillet can be worn down, and damaged by this process, and the metal shavings it produces will damage the connecting rod bearings and other engine parts as well.

To measure the connecting rod side clearance, Van Dyne instinctively grabbed the feeler gauge for the normal, industry-accepted side clearance measurement. The feeler gauge wouldn't fit. Van Dyne grabbed the next feeler gauge half the thickness of the first: it still wouldn't fit. He then grabbed the next feeler gauge half that size: it still wouldn't fit. After four different tries, Van Dyne finally found the feeler gauge that fit. The side clearance was approximately 1/4 the size of industry expected clearance. The clearance was the thickness of two human hairs.

Without hesitation, Van Dyne grabbed our spare set of Carrillo rods that had been in the motor previously. He grabbed them as if he expected to find evidence of possible damage. Within a split second, Van Dyne pointed to the side of the Carrillo rod and said:

See that tiny blue spot? That's caused by heat from these two rods rubbing together because they are so tight. See that scrape mark? That's also caused by these two rods rubbing together.

As Van Dyne (and kawasaki00) explained, proper rod side clearance is essential to allow oil to escape. As the engine heats up, the connecting rods grow and the crankshaft shrinks until the connecting rods are touching each other. The oil can't escape, and extra heat is generated by the friction of the connecting rod collisions. The side of the crankshaft journal could also be damaged by the collisions as well. To me, the situation sounded pretty serious, and I thought it was going to mean another multi-week setback for the project.

Van Dyne deemed the situation so serious that he asked if we could go 60-minutes across town and bring back a factory BMW crankshaft (ours was a billet "stroker" crankshaft) and some factory BMW connecting rods (we were working with two sets of Carrillos). Van Dyne wanted to measure the factory journal width, and factory connecting rod thickness to see if the stroker crankshaft or Carrillo connecting rods were to blame.


Measuring Connecting Rod Side Clearance

Almost in disbelief, Van Dyne started taking measurements. First he measured with a set of calipers. Then when he realized the measurement didn't lie, Van Dyne knew he had to take accurate measurements with micrometers so he could make the necessary calculations to fix the problem.



To make sure the measurements are accurate, first the micrometers were calibrated to a known good thickness.



Van Dyne then started to measure both crankshafts: our billet crankshaft, and the factory crankshaft. The journal thickness measurements both matched. Next, we need to check the connecting rods to see if the Carrillo's were machined thicker than factory rods.



Following the crankshaft measurements, Van Dyne measured the connecting rods to see how they compared. Van Dyne measured both Carrillo and factory connecting rods.



The measurements showed the Carrillo and factory connecting rods are the same thickness. This is positive proof that the factory BMW crankshafts are machined without enough rod side clearance AND without enough rod bearing clearance. It's a double-whammy against proper engine oiling and operation.

[Amirsm3]

Is this a bad time to ask if an LS1 swap is a viable alternative?

I'm totally kidding, guys

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by Amirsm3

Is this a bad time to ask if an LS1 swap is a viable alternative?

I'm totally kidding, guys

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

If you read a bit further down it describes how the aftermarket and factory rods share the same dimensions:

Yeah, a bit of post editing, that wasn't there in the original version....I note later in the thread that the using problems with side issues with Carrillo rods can't be used to demonstrate clearance issues with BMW rods.
In any case I can only recall two mentions of side clearance issues, the Carrillo rods and another engine strip down where the issue was noticed.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Yeah, a bit of post editing, that wasn't there in the original version....I note later in the thread that the using problems with side issues with Carrillo rods can't be used to demonstrate clearance issues with BMW rods.
In any case I can only recall two mentions of side clearance issues, the Carrillo rods and another engine strip down where the issue was noticed.

I did edit the quote, but only to remove extraneous information that was unrelated to the rod side clearance. The post was long and would have been a waste of space in this particular discussion to carry over to this thread. So yes, edited, but not in a way to sway the discussion one way or another. Just wanted this to be clear.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by wrecklessfool

I did edit the quote, but only to remove extraneous information that was unrelated to the rod side clearance. The post was long and would have been a waste of space in this particular discussion to carry over to this thread. So yes, edited, but not in a way to sway the discussion one way or another. Just wanted this to be clear.

I wasn't saying that you edited it...the original post was frequently edited by RG and in this case, the part about measuring the width of the Carrillo rods to say that they were the same thickness as OEM was added over two months later while disingenuously making out that it was contemporaneous.
The Carrillo rods as supplied had problems with measurable width variance, enough that they had to be selectively machined to produce the desired side clearance.
When the only people noting a problem (tight rod side clearance) may have a vested interest in there being one, then some caution should be exercised.

[wrecklessfool]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I wasn't saying that you edited it...the original post was frequently edited by RG and in this case, the part about measuring the width of the Carrillo rods to say that they were the same thickness as OEM was added over two months later while disingenuously making out that it was contemporaneous.
The Carrillo rods as supplied had problems with measurable width variance, enough that they had to be selectively machined to produce the desired side clearance.
When the only people noting a problem (tight rod side clearance) may have a vested interest in there being one, then some caution should be exercised.

Isn’t the point of a wiki to be a constantly evolving document about a particular subject? Although a true wiki’s contents are able to be updated by all users, the setting we are in on the forum simply does not allow for this type of update so a post in the same thread is as close as we can get. If you read through the bearing wiki thread you can see where regular guy updated findings or additions in a later post but actually went back to the original post to add this same content. If you ask me it looks like this was done to benefit readers as all of his findings were consolidated to one place so people wouldn’t have to wade through the attempts members like you made to disprove the findings. The quote you referenced above as “post editing” was an addition made here 3 days after the original post:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=83

…And then added to the original post for consolidation. The post I linked to was not edited so you can see that the identical info was added to the original post.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems like you are on a mission to disprove hard facts that surround bearing clearances or oil recommendations from what appear to me to be very qualified industry or subject matter experts. The facts are all there and many cannot be refuted, yet it seems like you try to do so every opportunity you see. My opinion is that you troll these threads to make conclusions you cannot back up with technical data or hard evidence. But you know what they say about opinions…

May I ask what makes you qualified to draw conclusions on any of these bearing/oil threads? I’m sure your opinions would carry more weight with myself and other forum members if you had a technical background or real-world experience with these topics. Until proven otherwise I have to assume you’re just bored and posting here is how you chose to waste your time, and ours too.

[SenorFunkyPants]

I'm not going to rehash all that was said in the bearing thread...if you want to believe that all S65s have tight rod bearings and insufficient rod side clearance then have at it.
However do have a read of this (its Regular Guy as Pencil Geek):
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=386602
Skip to post #18 if you are in a hurry.
The same engine, the same story but in this original 2011 version the BMW crank and Rods are assembled to get a side clearance measurement to use when assembling the Non OEM crank and rods.