New Engine Finally In! Factory Reman...

[ezpzhuhuh]

Oh. So you're the owner of this M. I saw your car on the lift when I went to BMW couple months ago. Had my KW Sleeves installed and asked the guys there what's up with your car and they said rod bearing failure. I then got nervous about my car lol. Fingers crossed.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Jeez how many of you people are in RGs "the sky is falling, its raining broken M3s" choir.

You're mincing words. No one is saying the sky is falling. The conversation has always been that there's an issue, there are documented failures. Since no one can predict the future, no one knows when or if which car will or won't experience one. Since I, and most, don't necessarily feel like gambling on whether or not our engines will be one of those affected, as we've seen a wide cross section of failures, there is a growing sentiment that a bit of preventative maintenance is in order. That's it. No paranoia. No hysteria. Just simply taking the knowledge that there are failures (a LOT of them if you consider the S85 as well) and letting each person decide what they want to do with that information. While you're in the camp that people shouldn't be overly concerned (I can respect that opinion, btw) there is another camp that feels that a heightened level of concern is warranted.

Bottom line is, all the information is out there, and each person can decide for themselves about which camp they'd like to be in

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Here are a couple - look OK to me but then I'm only comparing them to the opinion of Clevite when they were sent sets of bearings to examine with similar wear that they declared as normal.
You know Clevite, the people who manufacture bearings, the experts in the field who have already told RG that the accelerated wear patterns aren't due to insufficient rod bearing clearance.

It gets so tiring reading this guy repeating the same false information every time he gets a new audience.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Jeez how many of you people are in RGs "the sky is falling, its raining broken M3s" choir.

And where did I say anything even remotely like that? My goodness this guy has an insatiable desire for attention.

OK to get you started here are six people who have had their bearing swopped and none showed imminent signs of failure. E92zero Rennwerks Scrippy, Pbonsalb 08 E92 jerez black Mikulski. There are others but I don't remember their usernames offhand - I'll add them if I do. Plus of course Maleks customer car.

Not sure which of Malek's customer cars you are talking about. This one with 35000 miles, Malek described as "accelerated wear." So that's not good, and a few of the bearings showed particle streaks. That's not good either. Obviously these can't be the ones.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...61&postcount=1

Or are your talking about this engine of his that was down to the copper on both rods and mains? Obviously these can't be the ones.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=58

Maybe it's this one with 65000 miles on it. These look pretty destroyed and the engine came in with a rod knock. Obviously these can't be the ones.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...4&postcount=74

It can't be this one with 70000 miles on it and many bearings down to the copper. Malek said the engine would probably have failed soon. Obviously these can't be the ones.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...2&postcount=97

Aha, I think I found it. It's this motor with perfect looking rod bearings after 33500 miles.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1073979

Only one problem. This engine had VAC coated bearings and APR rod bolts with rod bore distortion that gave it extra clearance. Who would have ever thought that extra clearance would yield perfect looking bearings after 33500 supercharged miles?

In the bearing wiki thread, you road raged for pages about the use of Carrillo rods for measurements and how all the data derived from them was irrelevant because they weren't factory rods. It didn't seem to matter that they had tighter tolerances than factory rods, and that factory rods measured worse. Those facts didn't stop a good soapbox. So it would be so ironic if this were the motor you're talking about now, with non-standard bearings and non-standard rod bolts. Oh the irony.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

You're mincing words. No one is saying the sky is falling. The conversation has always been that there's an issue, there are documented failures. Since no one can predict the future, no one knows when or if which car will or won't experience one. Since I, and most, don't necessarily feel like gambling on whether or not our engines will be one of those affected, as we've seen a wide cross section of failures, there is a growing sentiment that a bit of preventative maintenance is in order. That's it. No paranoia. No hysteria. Just simply taking the knowledge that there are failures (a LOT of them if you consider the S85 as well) and letting each person decide what they want to do with that information. While you're in the camp that people shouldn't be overly concerned (I can respect that opinion, btw) there is another camp that feels that a heightened level of concern is warranted.
Bottom line is, all the information is out there, and each person can decide for themselves about which camp they'd like to be in

I agree with nearly all that...except the part about which camp I'm in...I'm more trying to balance the perception of the problem as best I can by supplying the information I have collated.
If everyone was saying "its all good, absolutely no problem, move along" I'd be pointing out that there have been more engine failures than one could reasonably expect and that rod bearing wear seems to be higher in some cars than you would hope for.
But its the other way, there is a vocal minority that often shouts down any dissent of the idea that every BMW dealership has broken M3s queued up waiting for new engines. Every ticking or tapping is instantly diagnosed as imminent bearing failure and owners with little mechanical understanding take that particular stupidity as fact.
A fair guess at the failure rate is somewhere around 1.5%, which doesn't sound much but it equates to about 1000 cars worldwide with nearly half in the USA. Its not brilliant by any stretch but its not catastrophic either. A good number of bearing sets are showing more wear than we would like but at the same time there are plenty cars reaching high mileages on original bearings.
My car is under warranty, it can blow up any time it likes....I don't even know why I bother getting involved in these discussions, I guess it just irks me to see owners being unreasonably freaked out by a minority of people with whatever their agenda is.

[bstone801]

Originally Posted by Z K

I believe the latest BMW bearings are not what you want. They are the harder non-copper/lead ones.

Here we go....

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

A fair guess at the failure rate is somewhere around 1.5%, which doesn't sound much but it equates to about 1000 cars worldwide with nearly half in the USA. Its not brilliant by any stretch but its not catastrophic either. A good number of bearing sets are showing more wear than we would like but at the same time there are plenty cars reaching high mileages on original bearings.

I think if we incorporate the rising number of S85 failures, we'd have quite a few more cars.

I believe there is a common ground that everyone shares in this, which is we all own cars which we really, really like, with engines (S65s and S85s) that we all really, really like, and that we can all agree with the statement that there is an issue somewhere that we'd all like to have identified and subsequently, have it resolved. In the grand scheme of things, after all the threads, the bickering, and the facts, I think that's all that really matters.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I agree with nearly all that...except the part about which camp I'm in...I'm more trying to balance the perception of the problem as best I can by supplying the information I have collated.

But there's quite a few problems.
1. You're not an expert in any of these areas.
2. You reject what experts tell you, and come up with your own theories that even your OWN sources and experts reject.
3. Your collated data excludes big portions of the failed engine data you've been given and you've never explained why you do that. It appears to be intentional to skew the results. Again, you've never explained this.
4. When you lack data, you make up your own. When you have real data (like updated RB specs), you ignore it and make up your own. You never explain where your numbers come from and why they don't match published specifications.
5. When you do compare specifications, you always seem to compare smallest to largest, one vehicle to another...just as you did the other day with Honda K20x and S65. This is a continued trend and seem to intentionally manipulate the outcome.
6. You've spent considerable time doing opposition research and using that information to try to discredit people, instead of finding any fault with the information they are discussing. You've done this from the very beginning of the Bearing Clearance Wiki thread, going on two years now.
7. You've repeatedly misrepresented the information Clevite provided me, and you've hidden some of the information they provided you. Yes, I know more about what they told you than I've said publicly. This is why I keep asking you to publicly disclose EVERYTHING they told you.

My car is under warranty, it can blow up any time it likes....I don't even know why I bother getting involved in these discussions, I guess it just irks me to see owners being unreasonably freaked out by a minority of people with whatever their agenda is.

In short, it appears you have an agenda, and it appears you always have had an agenda. I think we would all like to know what your credentials, your expertise, and your connection to the auto industry. That might help us understand your agenda as well. I'd love to see answers to those seven points above, but I already know from experience they will never be explained.

[IIAp3x]

Originally Posted by ezpzhuhuh

Oh. So you're the owner of this M. I saw your car on the lift when I went to BMW couple months ago. Had my KW Sleeves installed and asked the guys there what's up with your car and they said rod bearing failure. I then got nervous about my car lol. Fingers crossed.

They should have had my name on that lift stall my car was in there so long! Congrats on the KW's! Which ones? V2's?

Even after this incident, I still plan on keeping this car forever... How many miles are on your car? I would not worry too much, but if it comes down to a peace of mind just have your bearings upgraded...

If I was in a position to have a bearing upgrade done I would do it just so I could post the pics of the old bearings...

I think if everyone could see more photos of decent looking bearings taken out of these cars it would certainly ease people's minds... Unfortunately, the evidence of prematurely worn out bearings currently outweighs the evidence of normally worn bearings... That is visible evidence anyways... Remember there are a lot of guys in here that have pretty high mileage with no failures so that alone obviously stands for something good; however, we just don't know what their bearings look like... They could last another 100k miles or they could fail tomorrow... We just don't know without the evidence.... Currently, the evidence we do have available points to a problem; one that is slowly growing larger as our cars age...

[Flea7]

Originally Posted by regular guy

But there's quite a few problems.
1. You're not an expert in any of these areas.
2. You reject what experts tell you, and come up with your own theories that even your OWN sources and experts reject.
3. Your collated data excludes big portions of the failed engine data you've been given and you've never explained why you do that. It appears to be intentional to skew the results. Again, you've never explained this.
4. When you lack data, you make up your own. When you have real data (like updated RB specs), you ignore it and make up your own. You never explain where your numbers come from and why they don't match published specifications.
5. When you do compare specifications, you always seem to compare smallest to largest, one vehicle to another...just as you did the other day with Honda K20x and S65. This is a continued trend and seem to intentionally manipulate the outcome.
6. You've spent considerable time doing opposition research and using that information to try to discredit people, instead of finding any fault with the information they are discussing. You've done this from the very beginning of the Bearing Clearance Wiki thread, going on two years now.
7. You've repeatedly misrepresented the information Clevite provided me, and you've hidden some of the information they provided you. Yes, I know more about what they told you than I've said publicly. This is why I keep asking you to publicly disclose EVERYTHING they told you.



In short, it appears you have an agenda, and it appears you always have had an agenda. I think we would all like to know what your credentials, your expertise, and your connection to the auto industry. That might help us understand your agenda as well. I'd love to see answers to those seven points above, but I already know from experience they will never be explained.

[SenorFunkyPants]

In short, it appears you have an agenda

Before we get into that, lets remind ourselves of the facts:
Clevite were given multiple sets of used bearings showing the typical wear patterns, asked to examine them and comment on whether there were any signs of the bearing clearance being too tight, their reply was:
" I know you are all hot on this, but I just don't see it."

So as to my agenda, let me say what it isn't:

It isn't to disagree with some of the leading experts in the field (Clevite) who say the bearing clearances are fine.
Its not to grossly exaggerate the failure rate of S65 engines.
Its not to bully, shout down or discredit anyone who disagrees with my opinion, using my own username, alias's or with the help of a small band of cronies.
It isn't because I have an under sized bearing product coming to market to address a clearance problem that doesn't exist.

Lastly I'm not at all interested in refuting your lies about me (again) you duplicitous little man.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Before we get into that, lets remind ourselves of the facts:
Clevite were given multiple sets of used bearings showing the typical wear patterns, asked to examine them and comment on whether there were any signs of the bearing clearance being too tight, their reply was:
" I know you are all hot on this, but I just don't see it."

As usual, misleading by omitting the rest of the quotes and context. I'm sure it's no coincidence that this same half truth always gets re-presented whenever you have a new audience.

So as to my agenda, let me say what it isn't:

It isn't to disagree with some of the leading experts in the field (Clevite) who say the bearing clearances are fine.

But yet you do disagree with Clevite when they told you there was no evidence of detonation on any of the NA bearings they inspected. There's other experts you've tried to cite, that when looked close were cited incorrectly and therefore in disagreement.

Its not to grossly exaggerate the failure rate of S65 engines.

Your thread is the only one that collates and presents this data. My thread does not. Your collation spreadsheet strangely omits large numbers of RB failures reported on this forum, and you've never explained why.

Its not to bully, shout down or discredit anyone who disagrees with my opinion, using my own username, alias's or with the help of a small band of cronies.

I have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

It isn't because I have an under sized bearing product coming to market to address a clearance problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, we all know business is evil, except BMW. Small business is bad, big business is good. We've got it. You've made that clear on many occasions. However just as I predicted in the wiki thread, you offer no condemnation against VAC for making under sized bearing products and selling them right now. Also no acknowledgement that I am recommending people buy those bearings right now because they are the best recommendation to mitigate bearing clearance issues. Pretty clear by these actions this is personal and not ideological...I just don't know why.

Lastly I'm not at all interested in refuting your lies about me (again) you duplicitous little man.

Actually you've never refuted any of it, and if they were lies...you would. There's still no defense of offering half truths, omitting data, intentionally using wrong measurements to compare one car to another. I've never seen explanations of any of these actions. And of course, instead of crafting a technical response to my questions, you chose a personal one instead. Even so, these are nice talking point for your new audience.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

As usual, misleading by omitting the rest of the quotes and context. I'm sure it's no coincidence that this same half truth always gets re-presented whenever you have a new audience.

AGAIN Its a direct quote from a senior guy at Clevite with 30 years experience. The context changes nothing.

Originally Posted by regular guy

But yet you do disagree with Clevite when they told you there was no evidence of detonation on any of the NA bearings they inspected.

AGAIN I emailed Clevite in early November 2013 with photos of worn rod bearings displaying the typical wear pattern of accelerated wear on the top bearing shell and no/low wear on the lower shells. I asked: “Any idea on the wear presented would be great. Could using low octane fuel be a factor in what looks like excessive wear...the S65 engine does come with an anti knock ignition system".
The reply was from a veteran employee at Mahle Clevite. “Well, generally speaking, when you see heavy, accelerated wear on the upper rod bearings, the cause is detonation. You can still see the machining marks on the lower shells and I see no signs of abrasive wear caused by contaminated oil. This was instantly dismissed by you as a Clevite tech giving me the answer he thought I wanted. Apparently you believe Clevite employees of 30+ years have absolutely no integrity and casually supply the wrong answer when asked a simple question by a complete stranger.
In response in Nov 2013, you started an email exchange with the same Clevite employee where you tell him that detonation is impossible because of “ the sophisticated knock detection in the MSS60.” No wonder then that Clevite are unable to blame the wear directly on detonation but had to settle for elevated upper cylinder pressure. And of course lets not forget that they also stated to you that "long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear".

Originally Posted by regular guy

Your thread is the only one that collates and presents this data. My thread does not. Your collation spreadsheet strangely omits large numbers of RB failures reported on this forum, and you've never explained why.

AGAIN if you have data that I have missed please advise me and I will add it.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yes, we all know business is evil, except BMW. Small business is bad, big business is good. We've got it. You've made that clear on many occasions. However just as I predicted in the wiki thread, you offer no condemnation against VAC for making under sized bearing products and selling them right now.

VAC is a business, they have every right to sell whatever products they like...as long as they are not purposely trying to panic owners (as you do) in order to create a market for a product then why should I care.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Actually you've never refuted any of it, and if they were lies...you would. There's still no defense of offering half truths, omitting data, intentionally using wrong measurements to compare one car to another. I've never seen explanations of any of these actions. And of course, instead of crafting a technical response to my questions, you chose a personal one instead. Even so, these are nice talking point for your new audience.

The lies just drip out of your mouth...there is nothing new, its all been referenced ad nauseum.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

AGAIN Its a direct quote from a senior guy at Clevite with 30 years experience. The context changes nothing.

Including only half the story and omitting the parts you don't want people to see changes everything and demonstrates a misleading motive.

AGAIN I emailed Clevite in early November 2013 with photos of worn rod bearings displaying the typical wear pattern of accelerated wear on the top bearing shell and no/low wear on the lower shells. I asked: “Any idea on the wear presented would be great. Could using low octane fuel be a factor in what looks like excessive wear...the S65 engine does come with an anti knock ignition system".
The reply was from a veteran employee at Mahle Clevite. “Well, generally speaking, when you see heavy, accelerated wear on the upper rod bearings, the cause is detonation. You can still see the machining marks on the lower shells and I see no signs of abrasive wear caused by contaminated oil. This was instantly dismissed by you as a Clevite tech giving me the answer he thought I wanted. Apparently you believe Clevite employees of 30+ years have absolutely no integrity and casually supply the wrong answer when asked a simple question by a complete stranger.

Speaking of cognitive memory testing. Those were your accusations against Clevite not having integrity...not mine. And as you recall, after seeing those bearings in person, Clevite said there were no signs of detonation. I see no mention of that above. Again, omission is a form of deception as well.

Would you like me to provide links for your new audience?

In response in Nov 2013, you started an email exchange with the same Clevite employee where you tell him that detonation is impossible because of “ the sophisticated knock detection in the MSS60.” No wonder then that Clevite are unable to blame the wear directly on detonation but had to settle for elevated upper cylinder pressure. And of course lets not forget that they also stated to you that "long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear".

As you said, we've been through this repeatedly. As I pointed out to you many times prior, I never said this and it was Clevite's unsolicited opinion. Last time you tried this, I even showed you the chain of correspondence to disprove this. But you continue to repeat this knowing false information. If facts are on your side, I just don't understand why you do these things to mislead people this way.

Would you like me to provide links for your new audience?

AGAIN if you have data that I have missed please advise me and I will add it.

It's simple: go through the engine failure registry, go through your spreadsheet, and explain why so many are missing from your graphs. And explain how you selected some entries for inclusion and and omitted others. It's that simple. Explain why you did it.

VAC is a business, they have every right to sell whatever products they like...as long as they are not purposely trying to panic owners (as you do) in order to create a market for a product then why should I care.

So your conspiracy theory is that my engine builder discovered this in 2011, and it was my plan all along to create hysteria and sell bearings to capitalize on it 4.5 years later. That sounds like a brilliant business model. And again we can ignore my previous comments that I'm not in business and will not be selling bearings. Facts never seem to get repeated, but strangely the false information you want people to see, always does. And you claim to have no ulterior motives, and this always gets repeated when you have a new audience. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence and misunderstanding.

Where exactly am I trying to panic owners? Is it simply by creating a thread that provides all the available data? I'd rather do that than start a thread with half the available data. I'd also prefer my method of disclosing everything instead of your method of omitting many things. I'd also prefer to compare apples to apples, smallest to smallest and largest instead of your method of comparing apples to oranges, smallest to largest without telling people that's what you're doing. I'd also prefer to use the published measurements with known provenance instead of fictitious measurements that show S65 better than it really is while refusing to explain why you're not using known measurements instead of fabricated ones with no provenance.

The lies just drip out of your mouth...there is nothing new, its all been referenced ad nauseum.

Referenced...but never explained. Go figure.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Including only half the story and omitting the parts you don't want people to see changes everything and demonstrates a misleading motive.

Its a direct quote from a senior guy at Clevite with 30 years experience. The context changes nothing.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Speaking of cognitive memory testing. Those were your accusations against Clevite not having integrity...not mine.

Seriously dude take the test:

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

[....]
In the email I stated that: "the pictures (hopefully) attached are a rod bearing set from a working 2008 BMW M3 with a standard S65 V8 motor at 30,000 miles - dismantled for tuning.
Any idea on the wear presented would be great.
Could using low octane fuel be a factor in what looks like excessive wear...the S65 engine does come with a anti knock ignition system.
I attached the photos.
The response received has already been posted in full.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Bingo. Leading question.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Wow thats it?
We have a team leader from MAHLE Clevite technical support, a man with great experience whose every day job is looking at damaged bearings and analyzing the cause. A man with no axe to grind, he doesn't know me, he isn't on M3post (AFAICT) and clearly not involved in this thread. The mans opinion is worth more than all the armchair experts here put together...an opinion that ought to give a valuable insight into exactly what is going on.
And all the respect you give him is 3 dismissive words?
Look I applaud the massive amount of work you have put into this, but without some objectivity its all wasted.

Can't be arsed with the rest of your BS.

[Petros]

RG just ignore the troll. No one else pays attention to what he says anyway. WHen are the new bearings coming out?

[SenorFunkyPants]

boom its cronie time!!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its a direct quote from a senior guy at Clevite with 30 years experience. The context changes nothing.

It's part-1 of a quote from a Clevite guy. You always seem to conveniently omit part-2. So ironic isn't it?

[pbonsalb]

SFP has a plan to address the problem -- he buys a warranty every year. Perfectly good plan -- I did not worry about the bearings while I had a warranty. Changed them when the warranty expired.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

boom its cronie time!!

Hardly. I don't know RG, never met him, nor is he my friend. What's obvious to me is that you're a troll who always derails anything to do with bearings. You seem hell bent on scaring people away from using thinner oils, and keep undermining the hypothesis that bearing clearance is the cause for engine problems. You don't even have a hypothesis of your own. You tried the whole crappy gas/octane/detonation hypothesis but that didn't hold water. We have one good working hypothesis from RG that is supported by the bulk of anecdotal evidence. DO you have a better explanation? Or are you disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Petros

You seem hell bent on scaring people away from using thinner oils,

A thinner oil in a warm/hot climate is a bad idea.
You don't agree thats your perogative, make your case....preferably without being a dick about it.

Originally Posted by Petros

and keep undermining the hypothesis that bearing clearance is the cause for engine problems.

I don't believe that bearing clearance is the principle cause of "engine problems" (excepting low mileage failures).

Did freedom of speech get revoked and I missed it?

[Petros]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

A thinner oil in a warm/hot climate is a bad idea.
You don't agree thats your perogative, make your case....preferably without being a dick about it.



I don't believe that bearing clearance is the principle cause of "engine problems" (excepting low mileage failures).

Did freedom of speech get revoked and I missed it?

THe case for thinner oil is made by the fact that almost every high performance car, including those far better than an M3, use thinner oil year round in any climate. If a goddamn GT3RS and Z06 can take 0w40, then so can an M3.

Freedom of speech? Man youre something else. No one is telling you to shut up or be quiet. But freedom of speech doesn't entail freedom from criticism. So you dont agree that clearance is the cause of engine problems? Great. So why don't you give us your alternate hypothesis?