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

[OM VT3]

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 thought I was RG. Have I been demoted?

[Green-Eggs]

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?

Haven't we been through this in another thread? I'm Sam @ Auto Talent.

When somebody makes a claim and wants to be believed, they provide the means and formulas for people to verify what they say. That's the one thing RG has all over you is that he can always prove what he says. You never can.

If anybody is playing dumb here, it's a guy who has a very long history of falsifying data and then makes some new claims and refuses to back it up in any verifiable form.

Then you refuse to answer those "strawman" questions. But those aren't really strawman arguments are they because those questions are at the heart of all your claims. You claim this clearance is detrimental to the engine. So that's why it's important for you to answer if BMW made a mistake when they used the same clearance ratio on their updated S54 bearings as BE did on their S65 bearings as recommended by both Clevite and King. Secondly, you claim this level of oil flow is detrimental to the engine. So why not answer why you think 8 GPM is detrimental, and what data you have to back it up?

Any person who wants to be taken seriously would provide everything I've asked. Why not prove to everybody here that you're not a troll, and not a guy who falsifies your own data. Just answer these simple questions.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

I thought I was RG. Have I been demoted?

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

If you are going to take it out of the car yes you should look at main clearances. Some are not as bad as others but the ones that burn the front main out because of the s/c are probably too tight. I say probably because you cant measure it after it blows up so no way to actually say.
Adjust mains, change rods to a nice H beam and a better set of pistons and it will run forever as long as you dont kill it with a super aggressive tune.

I just saw Eggs replied above, well you see we both agree on what some issues are.

Just want to make sure my pea brain is processing this all correctly...Ideally, we'd pull the crank and grind the main journals to increase the clearance.

Then what would be preferable in your opinion? Grinding the rod journals and using the OE bearings or just sticking with the BE bearings?

Once we did all of this, oil flow would be increased significantly. Would that also result in cooler oil?

[Leonardo629]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

SFP = sneaky Pete, such that it matters.

Really Doc? he hasn't mentioned detonation yet, so I'd reserve my sneaky = SFP conclusion

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by SVH

I know it's not RG.

Really, I don't think so?
You can always spot Regular Guy...he's fine when you agree with him, but as soon as you disagree he goes all Donald Trump, gets petulant and switches to personal attacks.

This thread more than demonstrates the basic problem with the BE Bearing "fix".
They don't know the oil flow rate over the bearings.
They don't know the distribution of oil pressure over the bearing surface.
They don't know the temperature gradient of the oil as it flows through the bearing.
They don't know the bearing loads.
They don't know the oil film peak pressure.
They don't have flow charts for the oiling system.
etc etc.
In fact they have pretty much none of the important data that BMW can use to software model the bearing environment and calculate the optimum clearance and of course predict how that environment would change at different clearances.


Instead all they have is an old practice used by diy engine builders as a starting point to calculate clearance in the absence of proper data to model the optimum clearance....a clearance they regularly misrepresent as 0.001*D when the bottom end is of course 0.00075*D.
At the same time failing to mention that all volume motor manufacturers are moving to clearances far tighter than BMW in order to benefit from using lighter viscosity oils.

Anyway, bless you all for having faith that BE bearings are smarter than BMW when they so clearly are blundering around in the dark.
Peace and good luck.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

At the same time failing to mention that all volume motor manufacturers are moving to clearances far tighter than BMW in order to benefit from using lighter viscosity oils.

If using lighter viscosity oils allows tighter clearances then thick oil like 10W60 hould have looser clearances like those BE specifies.

[undecided]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Really, I don't think so?
You can always spot Regular Guy...he's fine when you agree with him, but as soon as you disagree he goes all Donald Trump, gets petulant and switches to personal attacks.

This thread more than demonstrates the basic problem with the BE Bearing "fix".
They don't know the oil flow rate over the bearings.
They don't know the distribution of oil pressure over the bearing surface.
They don't know the temperature gradient of the oil as it flows through the bearing.
They don't know the bearing loads.
They don't know the oil film peak pressure.
They don't have flow charts for the oiling system.
etc etc.
In fact they have pretty much none of the important data that BMW can use to software model the bearing environment and calculate the optimum clearance and of course predict how that environment would change at different clearances.


Instead all they have is an old practice used by diy engine builders as a starting point to calculate clearance in the absence of proper data to model the optimum clearance....a clearance they regularly misrepresent as 0.001*D when the bottom end is of course 0.00075*D.
At the same time failing to mention that all volume motor manufacturers are moving to clearances far tighter than BMW in order to benefit from using lighter viscosity oils.

Anyway, bless you all for having faith that BE bearings are smarter than BMW when they so clearly are blundering around in the dark.
Peace and good luck.

So, the lighter viscosity oils are better suited for lower revving engines (the vast majority). My guess is that BMW needed the 10w-60 for the high rev capability and they got bitten by the tight clearances. It could very well be a manufacturing deficiency (Oktoberfest?).
So, yeah although we cannot be 100% sure of the fix, we can be 100% sure that stock bearings fail a lot and repeatedly. Replacing with same spec bearings buys you very little.

[houston]

Originally Posted by undecided

So, the lighter viscosity oils are better suited for lower revving engines (the vast majority). My guess is that BMW needed the 10w-60 for the high rev capability and they got bitten by the tight clearances. It could very well be a manufacturing deficiency (Oktoberfest?).
So, yeah although we cannot be 100% sure of the fix, we can be 100% sure that stock bearings fail a lot and repeatedly. Replacing with same spec bearings buys you very little.

Well stated.

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

...BMW can use to software model the bearing environment and calculate the optimum clearance...

The failed engine thread would seem to indicate this word does not mean what you think it means.

Unless you are implying there was some sinister plot to increase parts and labor revenue.

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by jcolley

The failed engine thread would seem to indicate this word does not mean what you think it means.

Unless you are implying there was some sinister plot to increase parts and labor revenue.

BMW CLEARLY MAKES MISTAKES!!!

E46 rear floor anyone? I'm sure they engineered that yet more often than not you see the rear floor at some level of failure. Whether its a busted spot weld to cracks, to the rear floor tearing away from the car.

Didn't BMW issue a recall for S65 rod bearings? AND the S54 rod bearings?

Yes...they did.

Again...BMW CLEARLY MAKES MISTAKES!!! In the real world, engineered components fail.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

Didn't BMW issue a recall for S65 rod bearings? AND the S54 rod bearings?

Yes...they did.

I'm not aware of any recall on the S65 rod bearings. But yes, they did a recall for the S54 rod bearings. The updated BMW S54 rod bearings use the same clearance ratio BE used on S65 rod bearings as recommended by both Clevite and King.

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I'm not aware of any recall on the S65 rod bearings. But yes, they did a recall for the S54 rod bearings. The updated BMW S54 rod bearings use the same clearance ratio BE used on S65 rod bearings as recommended by both Clevite and King.

Early 2008s?

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by jcolley

The failed engine thread would seem to indicate this word does not mean what you think it means.

I take "optimum" to mean:
"The best result obtainable under specific conditions."

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

BMW CLEARLY MAKES MISTAKES!!!.

Absolutely.
What is unrealistic however is to believe that BMW for the cost of a handful of $$ would not make a simple basic change to the S85 & S65 engines that would save them millions of dollars.
How do you imagine it works?
No one notices all the warranty returned broken engines littering the warehouse?
Nobody has the job of taking them apart to see why they failed and if something could be changed to improve reliability?
Its no ones job to calculate what that fix would cost - for instance, ask a supplier to change the spec of a part - and balance that against the millions it was costing BMW in replacement engines?

The simple explanation why BMW didn't change the RB clearance spec over the many years of S85 and S65 production is that they know it would not have improved reliability (and therefore saved them money).

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

I take "optimum" to mean:
"The best result obtainable under specific conditions."




Absolutely.
What is unrealistic however is to believe that BMW for the cost of a handful of $$ would not make a simple basic change to the S85 & S65 engines that would save them millions of dollars.
How do you imagine it works?
No one notices all the warranty returned broken engines littering the warehouse?
Nobody has the job of taking them apart to see why they failed and if something could be changed to improve reliability?
Its no ones job to calculate what that fix would cost - for instance, ask a supplier to change the spec of a part - and balance that against the millions it was costing BMW in replacement engines?

The simple explanation why BMW didn't change the RB clearance spec over the many years of S85 and S65 production is that they know it would not have improved reliability (and therefore saved them money).

If they were to change RB clearance that would leave them open to class action lawsuits and would have to replace engines even if they failed due to a bearing problem even if it was 10years down the track.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

If they were to change RB clearance that would leave them open to class action lawsuits and would have to replace engines even if they failed due to a bearing problem even if it was 10years down the track.

So having seen Rod bearing problems in the warranty returned S85 engines, BMW were forced to use the same bearings and clearance when they designed the S65 engine to avoid exposure to a class action lawsuit?
I'd love to see that argued in court!

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

So having seen Rod bearing problems in the warranty returned S85 engines, BMW were forced to use the same bearings and clearance when they designed the S65 engine to avoid exposure to a class action lawsuit?
I'd love to see that argued in court!

Maybe thats part of the reason s65 isn't a flat plane crank.

Wouldn't be hard to argue what else would be there reason for making changes apart from a design fault?

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I'm not aware of any recall on the S65 rod bearings. But yes, they did a recall for the S54 rod bearings. The updated BMW S54 rod bearings use the same clearance ratio BE used on S65 rod bearings as recommended by both Clevite and King.

The "updated" S54 rod bearings had the same designed clearance (same as the BE) as the original S54 rod bearing design-- the s54's early rod bearing issues were a manufacturing issues (not built to spec), not a design issue.

Not that it it influences the message of your post, just for historical accuracy.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Wouldn't be hard to argue what else would be there reason for making changes apart from a design fault?

Because the S65 was a new engine...for instance they could claim changes to the crankshaft and the oil lubricating system forced any number of changes to the design.
What basis would there be for a lawsuit if every S65 came with an increased clearance from the get go?

[pbonsalb]

The S85 came out in the 2005 E60 M5. It was just 3 years later the S65 came out in the 2008 E90 M3. Maybe from the S85 failures at that point in time, no conclusions were made.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Really, I don't think so?
You can always spot Regular Guy...he's fine when you agree with him, but as soon as you disagree he goes all Donald Trump, gets petulant and switches to personal attacks.

This thread more than demonstrates the basic problem with the BE Bearing "fix".
They don't know the oil flow rate over the bearings.
They don't know the distribution of oil pressure over the bearing surface.
They don't know the temperature gradient of the oil as it flows through the bearing.
They don't know the bearing loads.
They don't know the oil film peak pressure.
They don't have flow charts for the oiling system.
etc etc.
In fact they have pretty much none of the important data that BMW can use to software model the bearing environment and calculate the optimum clearance and of course predict how that environment would change at different clearances.


Instead all they have is an old practice used by diy engine builders as a starting point to calculate clearance in the absence of proper data to model the optimum clearance....a clearance they regularly misrepresent as 0.001*D when the bottom end is of course 0.00075*D.
At the same time failing to mention that all volume motor manufacturers are moving to clearances far tighter than BMW in order to benefit from using lighter viscosity oils.

Anyway, bless you all for having faith that BE bearings are smarter than BMW when they so clearly are blundering around in the dark.
Peace and good luck.

Do you have these same concerns with vac bearings? Because I've never seen you voice them. We have no idea what, if any, testing vac has done, yet I've seen you support them in other threads. And we have no data from them at all. They won't even confirm the metals used and sometimes send coated oem instead of custom bearings. Why are you not as concerned with their product?

Anyone who's been here for awhile (I first signed up in 2010) knows you've had a long-standing issue with rg/pg so it's hard to get behind what you're saying knowing how biased you are.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

Do you have these same concerns with vac bearings? Because I've never seen you voice them. We have no idea what, if any, testing vac has done, yet I've seen you support them in other threads. And we have no data from them at all. They won't even confirm the metals used and sometimes send coated oem instead of custom bearings. Why are you not as concerned with their product?

My preferred choice would be a bearing with extra clearance made up with a coating to the OEM clearance.
if I was in the market and BE bearings sold that product then they would be my preferred supplier rather than VAC.
BE bearings seem more professional, have a good presence here and are very well respected.
The one single reason to go with VAC is that only they sell this product.