Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

[Richbot]

There's a difference between a hypothesis and conjecture, I don't think it's fair to call BE's investigation on this topic pure conjecture or speculation, it's a working theory they've turned into a solution that also happens to make them some money, I think we should all be skeptical and then make the best decision we can with what's always going to be incomplete info and limited funding

Did you happen to pull overrev data (if not SMG) for that #4 conrod failure? I don't remember reading about that one curious if that was a confluence of fuckery at the factory and owner

[Duk996]

Originally Posted by Richbot

There's a difference between a hypothesis and conjecture, I don't think it's fair to call BE's investigation on this topic pure conjecture or speculation, it's a working theory they've turned into a solution that also happens to make them some money, I think we should all be skeptical and then make the best decision we can with what's always going to be incomplete info and limited funding

Did you happen to pull overrev data (if not SMG) for that #4 conrod failure? I don't remember reading about that one curious if that was a confluence of fuckery at the factory and owner

People are overthinking this thing. It's a plain bearing, the simplest, most common, most reliable bearing design. Millions of cars go to the junk yard with everything destroyed EXCEPT their engine bearings.

Either the bearing surface is too small for the load or the oil film strength is weak. All indications are the film strength fails due to too tight a clearance. BMW F'ed up. BE did a good job and actually went too in depth on the whole thing.

Edit: I should say the oil film is failing either way, either due to surface area not being enough, or oil film thickness.

[atopa2002]

Originally Posted by Duk996

People are overthinking this thing. It's a plain bearing, the simplest, most common, most reliable bearing design. Millions of cars go to the junk yard with everything destroyed EXCEPT their engine bearings.

Either the bearing surface is too small for the load or the film strength is failing. All indications are the film strength fails due to too tight a clearance. BMW F'ed up. BE did a good job and actually went too in depth on the whole thing.

Edit: I should say the oil film is failing either way, either due to surface area not being enough, or oil film thickness.

Is there any advantage for BMW to go with a tighter clearance ?

[Duk996]

Originally Posted by atopa2002

Is there any advantage for BMW to go with a tighter clearance ?

Yeah, but it's in the fringes. Tighter clearances reduces oil flow needed, so I guess you save on the size and power consumption of the oil pump...fringes. It's more expensive to work with these crazy tolerances too! I don't really get wtf they were thinking.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

In conclusion.
1. BE hasn't proven anything in my opinion. They have provided some data from a small sample size that conveniently backs their speculation.

And where is VAC's data? How big is their sample size? Again you can speculate, they actually have data to back their conclusions up and many believe their approach that lead to that conclusion to be sound, some don't and that is fine, not everyone understands this stuff, so they place blind trust in others while accusing others of being bias.

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

2. These engines are all a little different and each bearing condition posted here are specific to that engines assembly procedure.

Yet you still installed the same size bearings in your engine, BMW sells the same sized bearings as only top/bottom, VAC does the same.

Yet BE is biased because they do also?

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

3. In order to fix your specific engine permanently, you would have to assemble, measure, adjust clearances, measure again and repeat until the engine is assembled with spec clearances.

Yes, perhaps you should do that. Perhaps you should tell VAC and BMW to stop selling their bearings also.

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

4 Oil selection becomes more critical when you change oil clearances from factory. Especially if you increase Rod bearing clearances, without adjusting the main clearance as well.

Perhaps you should tell that to VAC also.

From VACs website.

Our VAC Extra Clearance Bearing Sets: Precise construction with extra clearance and specially coated to keep bearing failure at a minimum.
Reap lower temps and less friction in your expensive BMW engine!

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

5. Stating one company is better than another is false. If you believe your bearing wear was due to insufficient clearance, buy BE or WPC. If you don't, buy stock or VAC. Any new bearing is better than the old ones.

As mentioned above, VAC sells their bearing as Extra Clearance sets also.
Where is their biased data that lead them to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

You can hate me all you want, until I see a larger engine sample size backed with consistent data, I'm a skeptic.

We will hate on you because your story has holes, your judgement is biased towards one company, yet it's clear you don't apply that bias to the company you prefer, because you used their product and you placed blind trust in them, they've shared even less info on their product, infact they are also faulted with sending whichever bearing they feel like to some customers. You were even a victim of that. You wanted Calico coated oem clearance bearings but you were sent "revised thickness Clevite bearings". Why aren't you saying VAC is biased also? They even sent you something you didn't order, yet you are okay with it? We will all look at the data and those who believe it will take that path, others who don't will take another. There is no end all and be all solution, there is no hard evidence just valid conclusion based on data with some assumptions.

I think we are all generally on the same age about the general state of S65 bearing options, it's the biased you have against BE for no valid reason is what others including myself are objecting to. No one "outright said the Calico/VAC bearings are bad" as you claim, some just are not a fan of how VAC runs their business and they are entitled to that opinion but they don't use that to say the VAC bearings are bad, they just aren't the choice they wish to go with, but many have and that is perfectly fine also.

[doogee]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Anybody who believes there is a S65 rod bearing clearance problem, then coated OEM bearings is the last they should install. If you don't believe there's a clearance problem, then there is no harm in installing them. The VAC Clevite bearings would be a good alternative for people who don't believe there's a clearance issue and want a better bearing than stock. We've steered people in that direction when it was clear they didn't think there was a clearance problem and wanted to keep factory clearances.

Once again you're telling people VAC bearings are something that they are not.

Maybe English is your second language and you don't quite understand. I'm not sure.

[IanMan]

Funny that you continue to defend the VAC bearings. The VAC coated bearings are actually just as bad if not worse as the stock bearings. The coating further decreases the clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft. A friend of mine who posts here took out BE bearings from an S85 V10 he worked on for a client and they showed pretty much zero wear at all. They were in such good condition that he decided to put them back into the motor which he said was the first engine he disassembled of this type where the bearings were actually good enough to go back in after he took them out. He did the same with some VAC coated bearings and remarked at how they looked very wore down for the mileage, mind you he has worked on tons of S85's and S65's. The fact of the matter is that it comes down to crankshaft clearance between the bearings and the room for oil to also lubricate that area. I think BE is on the right path here. Other people have even gone as far as to modify their cranks and have them grounded down for better clearance. Haven't heard about any engine failures from those guys.

PS. I'd love to see your VAC bearings after having driven on them for a while.

[doogee]

Originally Posted by IanMan

Funny that you continue to defend the VAC bearings. The VAC coated bearings are actually just as bad if not worse as the stock bearings. The coating further decreases the clearance between the bearings and the crankshaft. A friend of mine who posts here took out BE bearings from an S85 V10 he worked on for a client and they showed pretty much zero wear at all. They were in such good condition that he decided to put them back into the motor which he said was the first engine he disassembled of this type where the bearings were actually good enough to go back in after he took them out. He did the same with some VAC coated bearings and remarked at how they looked very wore down for the mileage, mind you he has worked on tons of S85's and S65's. The fact of the matter is that it comes down to crankshaft clearance between the bearings and the room for oil to also lubricate that area. I think BE is on the right path here. Other people have even gone as far as to modify their cranks and have them grounded down for better clearance. Haven't heard about any engine failures from those guys.

I don't see how it's funny. There is more than enough evidence on this very forum showing they are a good choice.

I think what people are forgetting is VAC used to sell OEM coated bearings. This is not what they sell now.

Your friend more than likely disassembled a motor with the older OEM coated bearings, which I agree was no better than the original bearings. This isn't the case anymore.

I've never ever said I don't recommend BE Bearings. I still don't understand why everyone has to have this fight.

Most BE Bearing owners choose to be fanboys when it comes to this topic. Recently someone posted photos of BE Bearings pulled with 5000 miles and the coating was wearing off already. I commented on this TWICE and not a single person acknowledged me. Therefore choosing to be blind to it.

But whether the coating is failing or not, I still don't think BE Bearings are a bad choice. Just making the point that even if I pulled out my VAC Bearings with 1 million miles on them, BE Bearing owners would still bash VAC and say the bearings are junk.


I'll have my bearings out soon. I have to tackle the mains before they let go. Like I said I currently have 37,000 Miles on mine. But, even if I post photos of them if they are in excellent shape, it still won't change anyones mind.

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by doogee

...

Recently someone posted photos of BE Bearings pulled with 5000 miles and the coating was wearing off already. I commented on this TWICE and not a single person acknowledged me. Therefore choosing to be blind to it.

...

Can you give us the link? I never saw that thread.

Edit: Nevermind I saw that, just didn't notice the wear. OEM bolts though unfortunately so...uncertainty...

[IanMan]

Originally Posted by ksteckba

Can you give us the link? I never saw that thread.

Edit: Nevermind I saw that, just didn't notice the wear. OEM bolts though unfortunately so...uncertainty...

OEM bolts are prone to being torqued incorrectly due to the torquing process so that would explain a lot.

[Solo_M_Tech]

The assumption is I'm defending VAC, I'm not. I'm defending free options and asking the all important question, what is actually causing the premature wear. BE doesn't know, VAC doesn't know, hell BMW ///M gmbh doesn't know. So how BE claim their bearings are superior? Seriously? They measured some bearings and an engine and drew up a theory, and used the forums fear of bearing failure and a sales tactic to make you buy their product. Their data doesn't prove anything. You believe it does because you want it too. FML.

[Duk996]

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

The assumption is I'm defending VAC, I'm not. I'm defending free options and asking the all important question, what is actually causing the premature wear. BE doesn't know, VAC doesn't know, hell BMW ///M gmbh doesn't know. So how BE claim their bearings are superior? Seriously? They measured some bearings and an engine and drew up a theory, and used the forums fear of bearing failure and a sales tactic to make you buy their product. Their data doesn't prove anything. You believe it does because you want it too. FML.

Bmw knows what the cause is. It's probably too small a bearing and they literally can't do anything about it. That's why there is no clear fix and everyone is trying their damdest to work with the crap they CAN change (clearances, coatings, viscosities, etc).

I'm of the opinion opening up the clearances helps make up for the bearings being too small.

[Solo_M_Tech]

Originally Posted by Duk996

Bmw knows what the cause is. It's probably too small a bearing and they literally can't do anything about it. That's why there is no clear fix and everyone is trying their damdest to work with the crap they CAN change (clearances, coatings, viscosities, etc).

I'm of the opinion opening up the clearances helps make up for the bearings being too small.

Smaller(thinner) bearings increase clearance. Bigger (thicker) bearings decrease clearance.


BMW doesn't know. They look at the technical data and don't see a problem. They just blame the user of abuse.

[Duk996]

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

Smaller(thinner) bearings increase clearance. Bigger (thicker) bearings decrease clearance.


BMW doesn't know. They look at the technical data and don't see a problem. They just blame the user of abuse.

By small and big I mean the surface area. Had they used a bearing even a mm or 2 wider they would have reduced the stress in the oil film significantly and it wouldn't fail under the load.

Once they settled on those sizes they sealed their (our) fate. You can't easily make them wider once you have a crank and block set (even an after market crank wouldn't work because your rods wouldn't be centered in their bores anymore if you did widen the journal.....anyway...all we can do is open up the clearances (which by all accounts are too tight for any high performance engine bearing).

[Solo_M_Tech]

Originally Posted by Duk996

By small and big I mean the surface area. Had they used a bearing even a mm or 2 wider they would have reduced the stress in the oil film significantly and it wouldn't fail under the load.

Once they settled on those sizes they sealed their (our) fate. You can't easily make them wider once you have a crank and block set (even an after market crank wouldn't work because your rods wouldn't be centered in their bores anymore if you did widen the journal.....anyway...all we can do is open up the clearances (which by all accounts are too tight for any high performance engine bearing).

I understand. Don't assume the tolerances are too tight. No one has proven that yet. Just opinions and conjecture.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by ham_sammich

The assumption is I'm defending VAC, I'm not. I'm defending free options and asking the all important question, what is actually causing the premature wear. BE doesn't know, VAC doesn't know, hell BMW ///M gmbh doesn't know. So how BE claim their bearings are superior? Seriously? They measured some bearings and an engine and drew up a theory, and used the forums fear of bearing failure and a sales tactic to make you buy their product. Their data doesn't prove anything. You believe it does because you want it too. FML.

ARGH, I deal with this all day at work...

Do you know how almost impossible it is to PROVE anything?

Yes, a larger sample size would be nice for statistical significance. Unfortunately, this takes time and donor engines. The fact is that BMW only produces 2 rod bearing shells implies that BMW expected the rods and cranks to have very little variance for S65 and S85 engines. This is supported by the collected data.

What the group of PROFESSIONAL ENGINE BUILDERS did was SHOW that there is a fundamental design issue with BMW S65 and S85 engines with respect to rod bearing clearances. Their findings agree with what is published by multiple bearing manufactures (wear patterns indicative of oil starvation). After expending far more effort, and sharing far more data, than anyone else has on this topic, this group of PROFESSIONAL ENGINE BUILDERS designed a replacement bearing that meets established bearing clearance specifications for performance engines.

After expending all of this effort, they also took the time to install a set of their redesigned bearings in an S65 to collect data vs stock BMW bearings. All of this data is available for public review. This took a METRICFUKTON of time and effort. Not to mention costs. The collected data validates the new design as the oil flow at higher RPMs increased significantly, resulting in acceptable flow at high RPM. All this with nominal oil pressure decrease - as expected. Anyone can examine this data and draw their own scientific conclusions.

So buy whatever bearings you want. But please stop spouting opinions, assumptions and conjecture.

[Solo_M_Tech]

Originally Posted by Scharbag

ARGH, I deal with this all day at work...

Do you know how almost impossible it is to PROVE anything?

Yes, a larger sample size would be nice for statistical significance. Unfortunately, this takes time and donor engines. The fact is that BMW only produces 2 rod bearing shells implies that BMW expected the rods and cranks to have very little variance for S65 and S85 engines. This is supported by the collected data.

What the group of PROFESSIONAL ENGINE BUILDERS did was SHOW that there is a fundamental design issue with BMW S65 and S85 engines with respect to rod bearing clearances. Their findings agree with what is published by multiple bearing manufactures (wear patterns indicative of oil starvation). After expending far more effort, and sharing far more data, than anyone else has on this topic, this group of PROFESSIONAL ENGINE BUILDERS designed a replacement bearing that meets established bearing clearance specifications for performance engines.

After expending all of this effort, they also took the time to install a set of their redesigned bearings in an S65 to collect data vs stock BMW bearings. All of this data is available for public review. This took a METRICFUKTON of time and effort. Not to mention costs. The collected data validates the new design as the oil flow at higher RPMs increased significantly, resulting in acceptable flow at high RPM. All this with nominal oil pressure decrease - as expected. Anyone can examine this data and draw their own scientific conclusions.

So buy whatever bearings you want. But please stop spouting opinions, assumptions and conjecture.

Well there we have it. BE is the magical solution to the bearing problem for all of our s65's. I'll remove my VACs asap so I know I'm safe. I'll leave this subject alone. peace.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Scharbag

What the group of PROFESSIONAL ENGINE BUILDERS did was SHOW that there is a fundamental design issue with BMW S65 and S85 engines with respect to rod bearing clearances.

Jeez, you guys still buying into this nonsense?

Assuming you have a high enough level of gullibility to get over the logic hurdle that BMW would have to have been incompetent on an industrial scale to choose an incorrect rod bearing clearance and never notice as the years rolled by.
That they should have instead have used a decades old standard for RB clearance that is coincidentally also disregarded by most modern manufacturers who use similar and in some cases tighter RB clearances.
That BMW never noticed all the broken S85 and S65 broken engines stacked up in the warranty return warehouse. That it was no ones job to see why $millions were being spent on warranty replacement engines or to pull them apart and see whats went wrong and then make spec changes to ameliorate the problem.
Assuming you got past all that and still managed to believe that the accelerated rod bearing wear was down to a too tight RB clearance specification.
How do you reconcile that with the complete absence of any pattern of engine failure. Engines can fail at 6K miles or last to over 200K miles. Some pulled apart engines show poor wear, others far less. Engines that had RB replacements with std clearance bearings showing zero wear when pulled apart after hard service.
If all engines had an incorrect RB clearance then you would see a more equalised fail and wear rate, or at the very least some faint hint of a pattern.
The completely random nature of wear and failure far more logically suggests poor quality control by the RB supplier...with nearly a million RB shells manufactured for the S65, it doesn't take much of an "out of spec" rate for a lot of engines to go south.
Not forgetting that BMW dumped the S65s RB bearing manufacturer Clevite at the first opportunity (around 2010).

[pbonsalb]

You suggest most car makers now specify rod bearing clearances similar to what BMW used on the S65. Which of those car makers also specifies 10W60 oil?

[doogee]

Originally Posted by IanMan

OEM bolts are prone to being torqued incorrectly due to the torquing process so that would explain a lot.

And there is the completely blind defense that I was talking about lol.

You sir are operating on FAITH. Borderline cult.

Couldn't actually be the coating on the bearing failing right? Nooo it has to be installation error!


BE Bearings @ 5130 Miles. Coating significantly worn off for stated mileage. Upper left is especially bad. Keep in mind the areas that look worn in the center of the bearing appear to just be reflection of light. All the wear is closer to the parting lines.





VAC Bearings @ 33,500 Miles. Supercharged. No visible wear. 6.5X the mileage that are on the bearings above.






My argument isn't that BE Bearings are no good, I'm just proving that any evidence that is negative towards BE isn't acknowledged by anybody that is part of their cult. The bearing is just fine, but the coating is quite possibly junk.

[anerbe]

^ was always curious on the pictures above.

For the BE bearing pics, were these with their APR bolts? or OEM bolts? I'm curious on the wearing close to the parting lines.

According to this reference, we should see more wear (if any) across the center of the bearing, uniform 2/3 axially, reducing as you get close to the parting line:

Uniform wear pattern over approximately 2/3 of the bearing’s surface. Wear
should diminish near the parting line ends of the bearing, and the wear pattern
should extend uniformly across the bearing in the axial direction.

https://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/me...s-brochure.pdf

The oil starvation pics looks like examples of failed bearings (as we see in failed bearing pictures on this site).

Out of round bore look to be similar to the examples for cylinder 10 and 5 of the S85 pic.

[doogee]

Originally Posted by anerbe

^ was always curious on the pictures above.

For the BE bearing pics, were these with their APR bolts? or OEM bolts? I'm curious on the wearing close to the parting lines.

Apparently OEM bolts. Which BE currently still recommends.