Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

[Will_L]

Mporium did a great job, 5/5 would go back.

[drrust]

Originally Posted by Will_L

Mporium did a great job, 5/5 would go back.

Did Dean comment on #3, that looks like an averted disaster!

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by drrust

Did Dean comment on #3, that looks like an averted disaster!

I did note that there was a significant amount of debris embedded in cylinders 3 and 8. Yes, I suspect that #3 would have been the first to fail, given the chance. This particular motor had a couple of shells worse off than we usually see in the 702/703 style engines. Well timed service.

[bbnks2]

Foreign material embedded into your rod bearings doesn't indicate a rod bearing issue. It indicates the bearings did their job very well, actually, by allowing the material to imbed into the bearing rather than score the crank and possibly jam up the flow of oil between the running surfaces causing a spun bearing. The question you and others should ask is: where did the foreign material come from? Cam shaft?

A vast majority of the pictures being posted show perfectly normal looking bearings with perfectly normal looking wear patterns. I only see a handful of bearings posted here that actually show wear down into the copper. Yet everyone is posted "omg good thing you changed your bearings" blah blah. Reality is that a majority of these cars would've went another 100k without issue. KING has some great literature available on this for free. You might be surprised to see what they consider to be a perfectly normal looking bearing after as little as 1 year of use in a high performance engine... Spolier: basically looks the same as every bearings posted here.

The second thing I am seeing is that some of the worst pictures posted are all 2nd and 3rd+ owner cars with unknown histories. Posters stating "this car was always babied! The prior owner showed me all the oil receipts!" Yeah ok... how do you know he didn't drift the thing to work every morning with 10w-60 oil in 0f weather. In those case, it was definitely good that the new owner replaced the bearings. More-so because they got a 2nd hand car with unknown history rather than because there is some underlying bearing issue.

Third, this entire thread is based around service limits and not actual bearing clearance measurements. How many of the people pulling out old bearings have thrown some plasti-gauge in to see what their ACTUAL bearing clearance was before moving to aftermarket bearings? Especially in the cases where the bearings looked horrible. I'd like to see the before/after. Deducing clearance from min/max service intervals like the OP does is just flat out misleading. BE plays the same game playing off fears of "worst case scenario" manufacturing tolerance stacks. Fact of the matter is that BMW quality control holds hardware to much tighter tolerances than the published max service intervals being thrown around.

Finally, what is all this non-sense about BMW changing bearing material because of EU limits? Does anyone have an actual link to factual legislation? The rumor is the "new" bearings are made by KING, and if you look at KING's bearing material they most certainly use lead in their tri-metal bearings. Was lead actually mandated to be removed from bearings, or, the percentage just lowered? Does that mean actual lead content is different between pre-2015 and post 2015 bearings? Then in another BE bearing post You see them talking about this change concurring in 2011? People claim the new bearings have more clearance than the old ones too. This contradicts BE saying the clearance is/was the issue and the old bearings were actually fine design wise other than the clearance being too tight. None of the conspiracy theories around the bearing makes any sense. I can't follow this at all. But again, I guess this is what you end up with when a bunch of people try to deduce clearance from service limits rather than actual measurements? Anyone have a concise factual synopsis of what's going on here? General consensus is the failure rate of the bearings does not change over the years as the bearings changed part numbers. Is there any actual proof the bearings changed in material at all? BMW changes part numbers for simple production batch differences, manufacturer changes, production location changes, etc. It's mandated I believe. That doesn't mean that any percentage of any metal changed in the bearing just because it got a new part number.

If the new part number has a harder babbit layer, and clearance is the underlying issue, then you should see an INCREASE in failure rates associated with the newer bearings. No such trend exists. Further, BE is stating that their aftermarket bearings are better than others purely because they have thicker babbit layer. This is just simply not true. Comparing bearings is massively more complicated than the dog and pony show BE puts on with a micrometer. Either they don't understand what they are presenting entirely, or it's marketing at work. If clearance is the issue then why all the fuss over the bearing material anyway? All of it is just one big circle jerk.

The more I read the more contradictions pop up lol. BE them-self measured stock S65 bearings to produce .0016"-.0017" clearance on a 2" rod bearing journal diameter when they actually put them into a rod and tightened the caps down with new rod bolts. That is actually exactly the same is it is on an N54/N55 engine and really not that tight at all, relatively. KING specs .0015"-.0025" depending on application for a 2" journal size. With .0017" being on the tighter side, sure, but not exactly earth shattering considering the N5x engines are higher torque applications and use the same clearance.

Another key takeaway is that Be measured factory bearings to be DEAD ON down to .0000" within their published thickness. Yet everyone is in here talking about poor quality control and tolerances stacking to cause clearance issues. Again, one big circle jerk without measurements of "actual" clearance to show there was an issue before moving to aftermarket bearings.

[houston]

... are you trying to buck the trend that is killing any residual value in your m3/m5? I love that in today’s world people assume everything is a conspiracy. Russian trolls on m3post driving down the value of perfectly fine BMWs. Something is wrong. Period. End of story.

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Foreign material embedded into your rod bearings doesn't indicate a rod bearing issue. It indicates the bearings did their job very well, actually, by allowing the material to imbed into the bearing rather than score the crank and possibly jam up the flow of oil between the running surfaces causing a spun bearing.

A vast majority of the pictures being posted show perfectly normal looking bearings with perfectly normal looking wear patterns. I only see a handful of bearings posted here that actually show wear down into the copper. Yet everyone is posted "omg good thing you changed your bearings" blah blah. Reality is that a majority of these cars would've went another 100k without issue. KING has some great literature available on this for free. You might be surprised to see what they consider to be a perfectly normal looking bearing after as little as 1 year of use in a high performance engine... Spolier: basically looks the same as every bearings posted here.

The second thing I am seeing is that some of the worst pictures posted are all 2nd and 3rd+ owner cars with unknown histories. Posters stating "this car was always babied! The prior owner showed me all the oil receipts!" Yeah ok... how do you know he didn't drift the thing to work every morning with 10w-60 oil in 0f weather. In those case, it was definitely good that the new owner replaced the bearings. More-so because they got a 2nd hand car with unknown history rather than because there is some underlying bearing issue.

Third, this entire thread is based around service limits and not actual bearing clearance measurements. How many of the people pulling out old bearings have thrown some plasti-gauge in to see what their ACTUAL bearing clearance was before moving to aftermarket bearings? Especially in the cases where the bearings looked horrible. I'd like to see the before/after. Deducing clearance from min/max service intervals like the OP does is just flat out misleading. BE plays the same game playing off fears of "worst case scenario" manufacturing tolerance stacks. Fact of the matter is that BMW quality control holds hardware to much tighter tolerances than the published max service intervals being thrown around.

Finally, what is all this non-sense about BMW changing bearing material because of EU limits? Does anyone have an actual link to factual legislation? The rumor is the "new" bearings are made by KING, and if you look at KING's bearing material they most certainly use lead in their tri-metal bearings. Was lead actually mandated to be removed from bearings, or, the percentage just lowered? Does that mean actual lead content is different between pre-2015 and post 2015 bearings? Then in another BE bearing post You see them talking about this change concurring in 2011? People claim the new bearings have more clearance than the old ones too. This contradicts BE saying the clearance is/was the issue and the old bearings were actually fine design wise other than the clearance being too tight. None of the conspiracy theories around the bearing makes any sense. I can't follow this at all. But again, I guess this is what you end up with when a bunch of people try to deduce clearance from service limits rather than actual measurements? Anyone have a concise factual synopsis of what's going on here? General consensus is the failure rate of the bearings does not change over the years as the bearings changed part numbers. Is there any actual proof the bearings changed in material at all? BMW changes part numbers for simple production batch differences, manufacturer changes, production location changes, etc. It's mandated I believe. That doesn't mean that any percentage of any metal changed in the bearing just because it got a new part number.

If the new part number has a harder babbit layer, and clearance is the underlying issue, then you should see an INCREASE in failure rates associated with the newer bearings. No such trend exists. Further, BE is stating that their aftermarket bearings are better than others purely because they have thicker babbit layer. This is just simply not true. Comparing bearings is massively more complicated than the dog and pony show BE puts on with a micrometer. Either they don't understand what they are presenting entirely, or it's marketing at work. If clearance is the issue then why all the fuss over the bearing material anyway? All of it is just one big circle jerk.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by houston

... are you trying to buck the trend that is killing any residual value in your m3/m5? I love that in today’s world people assume everything is a conspiracy. Russian trolls on m3post driving down the value of perfectly fine BMWs. Something is wrong. Period. End of story.

Yeah I hear you, it is hard to refute what APPEARS to be a high percentage of cars with spun bearings. Especially after looking through the stories presented. But look beyond that face value and nothing factual has actually been presented. No sources have been provided. No actual measurements showing something is wrong exist. Just a lot of stories "my friend...," conjecture, and contradictions in an ever evolving thread full of people blaming 10 different things for what plenty of people have just as certainly called a non-issue.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

A vast majority of the pictures being posted show perfectly normal looking bearings with perfectly normal looking wear patterns. I only see a handful of bearings posted here that actually show wear down into the copper. Yet everyone is posted "omg good thing you changed your bearings" blah blah. Reality is that a majority of these cars would've went another 100k without issue. KING has some great literature available on this for free. You might be surprised to see what they consider to be a perfectly normal looking bearing after as little as 1 year of use in a high performance engine... Spolier: basically looks the same as every bearings posted here.

Please post a few references so that the community does not have to go hunting for this information. Also, if you are referring to their race bearing photos, that is an unfair comparison. Race engines live at redline. The S65 does not. Furthermore, most race teams, in an effort to eeek out every single possible HP, will run tight tolerances and very light race oils to minimize parasitic losses in the rotating assembly. Not apples to apples to the S65 which is specified to run 10w60.

Clevite also has free literature available. And from what I can see, Clevite does not consider S65 typical bearing wear to be normal. I have attached the Clevite figure showing oil starvation - it matches a lot of S65 bearings that are removed.

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Finally, what is all this non-sense about BMW changing bearing material because of EU limits? Does anyone have an actual link to factual legislation? The rumor is the "new" bearings are made by KING, and if you look at KING's bearing material they most certainly use lead in their tri-metal bearings. Was lead actually mandated to be removed from bearings, or, the percentage just lowered? Does that mean actual lead content is different between pre-2015 and post 2015 bearings? Then in another BE bearing post You see them talking about this change concurring in 2011? People claim the new bearings have more clearance than the old ones too. This contradicts BE saying the clearance is/was the issue and the old bearings were actually fine design wise other than the clearance being too tight. None of the conspiracy theories around the bearing makes any sense. I can't follow this at all. But again, I guess this is what you end up with when a bunch of people try to deduce clearance from service limits rather than actual measurements? Anyone have a concise factual synopsis of what's going on here? General consensus is the failure rate of the bearings does not change over the years as the bearings changed part numbers. Is there any actual proof the bearings changed in material at all? BMW changes part numbers for simple production batch differences, manufacturer changes, production location changes, etc. It's mandated I believe. That doesn't mean that any percentage of any metal changed in the bearing just because it got a new part number.

Not sure if you are trying to start that rumor... It has been pretty clearly stated that the original 088/089 bearings were manufactured by Clevite and then the new 702/703 bearings are manufactured by Glyco if I am not mistaken.

RoHS has mandated a reduction of lead in metal parts. I do not have the actual literature to show when the date was that manufactures were supposed to have changed, but they were required to reduce lead. This exemption request is quite interesting and informative about bearing babbitt metallurgy and how lead works really well.

As for proof that the 702/703 bearings are different material, I will let the professional engine builders supply their supporting information (pretty sure
deansbimmer posted some great info about this).

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Third, this entire thread is based around service limits and not actual bearing clearance measurements. How many of the people pulling out old bearings have thrown some plasti-gauge in to see what their ACTUAL bearing clearance was before moving to aftermarket bearings? Especially in the cases where the bearings looked horrible. I'd like to see the before/after. Deducing clearance from min/max service intervals like the OP does is just flat out misleading. BE plays the same game playing off fears of "worst case scenario" manufacturing tolerance stacks. Fact of the matter is that BMW quality control holds hardware to much tighter tolerances than the published max service intervals being thrown around.

Your third point brings me the most giggles. Do you, for one second, think that plastigage is capable of measuring bearing clearance with any accuracy? This is akin to measuring cylinder bore with a yard stick. The only thing palstigage can do is let you know if you are WAY too tight or WAY to loose. Short of a complete tear down, there is no way to measure original clearance after the fact. Look at the range on the package - like trying to perform surgery with a sledge hammer.

And please take a moment to educate yourself on statistics and tolerance stack. Even factories with atrocious QA/QC will get lucky and make an acceptable part or 2 from time to time. As QA/QC increases, the final product will more often meet design specs. Simple statistics and prbability at work. BMW did not do a great job on setting the acceptable tolerance OR they did not choose to hold their vendor accountable. They could have solved all of this by simply "binning" the shells, rods and cranks and selecting the right parts to ensure acceptable nominal clearances are maintained in every single engine.

Perhaps you should re-read this post?

But you are entitled to your opinion.

And for giggles, I have attached a picture of a bearing from an N54 with 80K miles. It looks like a bearing should.

Finally, I have attached a photo from a 50,000KM BE bearing running 0w40 oil. That is what we should expect from a properly designed bearing.

Cheers,

[pbonsalb]

It’s often entertaining when a new guy does a quick read of some of the available information and shares the results of his analysis. Hopefully one day one of these guys will come up with something that has not already been debated, but that did not happen today.

[RedScytheM3]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Yeah I hear you, it is hard to refute what APPEARS to be a high percentage of cars with spun bearings. Especially after looking through the stories presented. But look beyond that face value and nothing factual has actually been presented. No sources have been provided. No actual measurements showing something is wrong exist. Just a lot of stories "my friend...," conjecture, and contradictions in an ever evolving thread full of people blaming 10 different things for what plenty of people have just as certainly called a non-issue.

One of the sad things about the world today is that a lot of people tend to fail to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Unfortunately, people like you (bbnks2) abuse this and post claims/opinions hoping that something sticks, knowing someone will read it and think you know what you're talking about. Houston, with the reference to trolls, gets it (as do most others here).

And thank you to everyone keeping an eye on the thread to make sure facts are available for anyone to read, and calling out those who think their opinions can be mistaken as facts

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Foreign material embedded into your rod bearings doesn't indicate a rod bearing issue. It indicates the bearings did their job very well, actually, by allowing the material to imbed into the bearing rather than score the crank and possibly jam up the flow of oil between the running surfaces causing a spun bearing. The question you and others should ask is: where did the foreign material come from? Cam shaft?

A vast majority of the pictures being posted show perfectly normal looking bearings with perfectly normal looking wear patterns. I only see a handful of bearings posted here that actually show wear down into the copper. Yet everyone is posted "omg good thing you changed your bearings" blah blah. Reality is that a majority of these cars would've went another 100k without issue. KING has some great literature available on this for free. You might be surprised to see what they consider to be a perfectly normal looking bearing after as little as 1 year of use in a high performance engine... Spolier: basically looks the same as every bearings posted here.

The second thing I am seeing is that some of the worst pictures posted are all 2nd and 3rd+ owner cars with unknown histories. Posters stating "this car was always babied! The prior owner showed me all the oil receipts!" Yeah ok... how do you know he didn't drift the thing to work every morning with 10w-60 oil in 0f weather. In those case, it was definitely good that the new owner replaced the bearings. More-so because they got a 2nd hand car with unknown history rather than because there is some underlying bearing issue.

Third, this entire thread is based around service limits and not actual bearing clearance measurements. How many of the people pulling out old bearings have thrown some plasti-gauge in to see what their ACTUAL bearing clearance was before moving to aftermarket bearings? Especially in the cases where the bearings looked horrible. I'd like to see the before/after. Deducing clearance from min/max service intervals like the OP does is just flat out misleading. BE plays the same game playing off fears of "worst case scenario" manufacturing tolerance stacks. Fact of the matter is that BMW quality control holds hardware to much tighter tolerances than the published max service intervals being thrown around.

Finally, what is all this non-sense about BMW changing bearing material because of EU limits? Does anyone have an actual link to factual legislation? The rumor is the "new" bearings are made by KING, and if you look at KING's bearing material they most certainly use lead in their tri-metal bearings. Was lead actually mandated to be removed from bearings, or, the percentage just lowered? Does that mean actual lead content is different between pre-2015 and post 2015 bearings? Then in another BE bearing post You see them talking about this change concurring in 2011? People claim the new bearings have more clearance than the old ones too. This contradicts BE saying the clearance is/was the issue and the old bearings were actually fine design wise other than the clearance being too tight. None of the conspiracy theories around the bearing makes any sense. I can't follow this at all. But again, I guess this is what you end up with when a bunch of people try to deduce clearance from service limits rather than actual measurements? Anyone have a concise factual synopsis of what's going on here? General consensus is the failure rate of the bearings does not change over the years as the bearings changed part numbers. Is there any actual proof the bearings changed in material at all? BMW changes part numbers for simple production batch differences, manufacturer changes, production location changes, etc. It's mandated I believe. That doesn't mean that any percentage of any metal changed in the bearing just because it got a new part number.

If the new part number has a harder babbit layer, and clearance is the underlying issue, then you should see an INCREASE in failure rates associated with the newer bearings. No such trend exists. Further, BE is stating that their aftermarket bearings are better than others purely because they have thicker babbit layer. This is just simply not true. Comparing bearings is massively more complicated than the dog and pony show BE puts on with a micrometer. Either they don't understand what they are presenting entirely, or it's marketing at work. If clearance is the issue then why all the fuss over the bearing material anyway? All of it is just one big circle jerk.

The more I read the more contradictions pop up lol. BE them-self measured stock S65 bearings to produce .0016"-.0017" clearance on a 2" rod bearing journal diameter when they actually put them into a rod and tightened the caps down with new rod bolts. That is actually exactly the same is it is on an N54/N55 engine and really not that tight at all, relatively. KING specs .0015"-.0025" depending on application for a 2" journal size. With .0017" being on the tighter side, sure, but not exactly earth shattering considering the N5x engines are higher torque applications and use the same clearance.

Another key takeaway is that Be measured factory bearings to be DEAD ON down to .0000" within their published thickness. Yet everyone is in here talking about poor quality control and tolerances stacking to cause clearance issues. Again, one big circle jerk without measurements of "actual" clearance to show there was an issue before moving to aftermarket bearings.

Here's my takeaways from this:

• I think every statistic you quoted was wrong. N54 has a near-perfect 0.001 inch clearance per journal-inch diameter ratio, whereas S65 has a horrible 0.0006 ratio.
• I think every "fact" you said about BE was actually false (not a fact).
• Many things you claim BE said or did, they never said, or did.
• I think every question you asked, has already been answered -- many, MANY times. Yet you said nobody had answers.
• You said measurements weren't taken -- when in fact measurements were taken...in fact, you even quoted some of them.
• You said King makes the current BMW bearings, when it's Glyco -- with the Glyco logo on them.
• You said you didn't believe the EU mandated the bearing change, when it's been published and documented that they did. BMW went through an entire new certification process when this happened. Documents from BMW are available to show this...search for them.
• You said nobody has removed bearings and taken measurements -- when in fact BE did exactly that -- many times (and posted the results).
• But my favorite was the recommendation to use plastigage -- when in fact it's notoriously inaccurate. Then you say nobody else knows anything.

There's probably more takeaways that I already forgot. Too many to remember.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by RedScytheM3

One of the sad things about the world today is that a lot of people tend to fail to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Unfortunately, people like you (bbnks2) abuse this and post claims/opinions hoping that something sticks, knowing someone will read it and think you know what you're talking about. Houston, with the reference to trolls, gets it (as do most others here).

And thank you to everyone keeping an eye on the thread to make sure facts are available for anyone to read, and calling out those who think their opinions can be mistaken as facts

The point of my post was to point out that this entire thread is a bunch of people throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks. Anything to prove that there is an issue with the car so they can get paid, and, I don't blame them for trying at all!

Where are all these facts you're referring to though because I pointed out that there are no facts presented in this thread at all. What facts? Pictures are the only facts I see. Literally everything else is either wrong or conceptually not even applied to the actual situation. That's not facts-- that is speculation and a bunch of misleading useless information.

I am not new here. Look at my post count. I've rebuilt several N55 engines now. I spun bearings in my N55 at the track (oil starvation). Do you find it interesting at all that VAC created and sells an oil pan baffle for the S65? I do. They also ran a true dry sump on their race cars.

[pbonsalb]

You should start learning by reading the S65 rod bearing wiki:

http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....5_Rod_Bearings

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

You should start learning by reading the S65 rod bearing wiki:

http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....5_Rod_Bearings

I am well aware of all of that information. All of my points still stand.

Please now take that general information provided and apply it to the situation at hand. The application of the information is what's important here.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Where are all these facts you're referring to though because I pointed out that there are no facts presented in this thread at all. What facts? Pictures are the only facts I see. Literally everything else is either wrong or conceptually not even applied to the actual situation. That's not facts-- that is speculation and a bunch of misleading useless information.

All the data and measurements you could imagine are here...including answers to just about every one of your questions.
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838

I am not new here. Look at my post count. I've rebuilt several N55 engines now. I spun bearings in my N55 at the track (oil starvation). Do you find it interesting at all that VAC created and sells an oil pan baffle for the S65? I do. They also ran a true dry sump on their race cars.

It's not hard to run a dry sump designed by another company. It's much harder to design your own dry sump like Van Dyne has done on many occasions.

Originally Posted by bbnks2

I am well aware of all of that information. All of my points still stand.

All of my points still stand too.

If you're aware of the site and all your points still stand, does that include the ones about King being the OEM supplier for BMW and Plastigage being a good way to measure clearance?

The problem I get is that there really is tons of actual data -- which you say doesn't exist -- then you make wild accusations with no data or anything to back them up.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

If you're aware of the site and all your points still stand, does that include the ones about King being the OEM supplier for BMW and Plastigage being a good way to measure clearance?

I never said they were bud. i said BE's website states that it is rumored that KING is the new OE supplier. I was literally pointing out the speculation and misinformation that surrounds this issue. "BE" being the lord and savior of the S65 "rod bearing issue." Apparently that is too hard to comprehend for some people.

Data doesn't mean anything if it's never put into context properly. I asked for facts about the issue, not "data."

Almost everything I said was in regard to BE's website and the marketing of their rod bearings. And Yes, I also pointed out the ridiculousness of assuming what BMW's nominal rod bearing clearance is based off service limits. Service limits that don't even match up with TIS in many instances which is something I pointed out in another one of these threads in the past.

[IamFODI]

Anyone else disappointed by how easy it is to suck the oxygen out of a thread like this?

I'm sitting on a few real questions because I don't want to risk being associated with the "this is all bullshit and you guys are idiots" crowd. Every time I think I've waited long enough for things to cool down and maybe there's space to have a productive conversation without people getting tribal, another white knight rides in to save us all by calling people stupid, and it's back to square one.

I guess it's not surprising at all. Just unfortunate.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by IamFODI

Anyone else disappointed by how easy it is to suck the oxygen out of a thread like this?

I'm sitting on a few real questions because I don't want to risk being associated with the "this is all bullshit and you guys are idiots" crowd. Every time I think I've waited long enough for things to cool down and maybe there's space to have a productive conversation without people getting tribal, another white knight rides in to save us all by calling people stupid, and it's back to square one.

I guess it's not surprising at all. Just unfortunate.

I have learned to embrace the ignore feature... Too bad the messages are still visible quotes from other users.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

I never said they were bud. i said BE's website states that it is rumored that KING is the new OE supplier. I was literally pointing out the speculation and misinformation that surrounds this issue. "BE" being the lord and savior of the S65 "rod bearing issue." Apparently that is too hard to comprehend for some people.

Data doesn't mean anything if it's never put into context properly. I asked for facts about the issue, not "data."

Almost everything I said was in regard to BE's website and the marketing of their rod bearings. And Yes, I also pointed out the ridiculousness of assuming what BMW's nominal rod bearing clearance is based off service limits. Service limits that don't even match up with TIS in many instances which is something I pointed out in another one of these threads in the past.

I am an engineer. I love having informed discussions with smart people as all parties usually walk away armed with more knowledge as a result. This, though, is only possible if all parties are willing to use logic and reason and engage in the critical thought process using the tenants of the scientific method.

If, instead, those same people enter a discussion while desperately grasping onto their personal beliefs, then the conversation will ultimately be a waste of time. Think of having a discussion with a flat-earther - their are photos of this round mud-ball we infest and still they are unconvinced. That is what this particular diversion has become - a total waste of this communities time as it is obvious that you are unable (or simply unwilling) to assimilate the data presented to you by multiple members of this forum.

And, finally, I leave for you the dictionary definition of data.

Good day,

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by Scharbag

I am an engineer. I love having informed discussions with smart people as all parties usually walk away armed with more knowledge as a result. This, though, is only possible if all parties are willing to use logic and reason and engage in the critical thought process using the tenants of the scientific method.

If, instead, those same people enter a discussion while desperately grasping onto their personal beliefs, then the conversation will ultimately be a waste of time. Think of having a discussion with a flat-earther - their are photos of this round mud-ball we infest and still they are unconvinced. That is what this particular diversion has become - a total waste of this communities time as it is obvious that you are unable (or simply unwilling) to assimilate the data presented to you by multiple members of this forum.

And, finally, I leave for you the dictionary definition of data.

Good day,

Want to be a smart-ass? Please use logic and reasoning yourself then. As an engineer you should understand what I am saying.

Look at your own definition. You said it yourself... I asked for FACTS. I did not ask for DATA. Data is NOT defined as "facts" whereas the definition of "data" can includes "facts." I already know what data has been presented.

Per your own definition data can also be defined as statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Meaning, data is not necessarily fact. This is comical, an engineer is really trying to claim that all data is factual... I've already poked holes in the data. It even links to TIS to support itself yet TIS does not actually contain any of the information being presented. Does that mean the data is wrong? Not necessarily. It's just an example that proves my point. Other people have provided factual measurements which show that the deduced values claimed by your precious Wikki aren't actually all that based in reality.

Here is a recent article by LANG racing that takes a much more unbiased approach to analyzing the provided data. Notice how they recognize that none of it is fact? "depends on who you ask and who measured." The wikki page really didn't measure much of anything (fact). Most of it is an entire tangent about the difference between aftermarket bearings. Who cares which aftermarket bearing has more eccentricity... Providing different eccentricity data does not mean that bearing eccentricity plays any kind of role in the wear that people have seen. See now what it means to apply data and prove it as fact/relevant?
https://www.langracing.com/rod-beari...85-wpc-be-acl/

Definition of "fact:"
1) a thing that is known or proved to be true.
2) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.

I'll give a specific example: no where in the presented wikki link (data) is it proven that the deduced nominal rod bearing clearance listed as .0013" was indeed .0013" off the factory floor for the S65. Slapping builder bearings into an engine, like Van Dyne did so many years ago, and finding a few tight journals does not mean that the clearance was that tight off the factory floor. They actually measure the clearance at the time of assembly and make part adjustments to achieve target clearance. They don't just slap parts together. They don't just let an engine go out the door at the high and low sides of service limits or maximum stack tolerances like people are inferring happened based on the "data."

[pbonsalb]

You are not making any comments that have not already been made. Others have skimmed the available information and also decided BMW must have been right. It is best for people such as yourself to leave your original rod bearings in place, since there is nothing wrong. A similar critic went silent after his motor failed. I acknowledge the risk of failure is low, so the odds are with you.

I changed mine when my extended warranty expired in 2014 and am happy I did. At 60k miles, my S65 rod bearings had more wear than rod bearings in an S52 with 2 or 3 times the mileage. And at least 90% of the rod bearings others have removed from S65 also show premature wear. I don’t think BMW got it right and I am thankful that BE, VAC and ACL are selling rod bearings with increased clearance. When I changed mine, they weren’t available so I used wpc treated stock 2011+ bearings. Today, I would recommend increased clearance bearings.

I can’t tell whether you want to just argue with people, deny there is a problem, or chase alternative theories. If the latter, I think Troy Jeup has some interesting experience. He has rebuilt more S85 and S65 (mostly S85 but they share bearings and clearances and much design) than anyone else and has some theories.

[RedScytheM3]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Want to be a smart-ass? Please use logic and reasoning yourself then. As an engineer you should understand what I am saying.

Look at your own definition. FACTS can be defined as "data," True! You said it yourself though... I asked for FACTS . I did not ask for DATA. Data is NOT defined as "facts." I already know what data has been presented.

Per your own definition data can also be defined as statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Meaning, data is not necessarily fact. This is comical, an engineer is really trying to claim that all data is factual... I've already poked holes in the data. It even links to TIS to support itself yet TIS does not actually contain any of the information being presented. Does that mean the data is wrong? Not necessarily. It's just an example that proves my point. Other people have provided factual measurements which show that the deduced values claimed by your precious Wikki aren't actually all that based in reality.

Here is a recent article by LANG racing that takes a much more unbiased approach to analyzing the provided data. Notice how they recognize that none of it is fact? "depends on who you ask and who measured." The wikki page really didn't measure much of anything (fact). Most of it is an entire tangent about the difference between aftermarket bearings. Who cares which aftermarket bearing has more eccentricity... Providing different eccentricity data does not mean that bearing eccentricity plays any kind of role in the wear that people have seen. See now what it means to apply data and prove it as fact/relevant?
https://www.langracing.com/rod-beari...85-wpc-be-acl/

Definition of "fact:"
1) a thing that is known or proved to be true.
2) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.

I'll give a specific example: no where in the presented wikki link (data) is it proven that the deduced nominal rod bearing clearance listed as .0013" was indeed .0013" off the factory floor for the S65. Slapping builder bearings into an engine, like Van Dyne did so many years ago, and finding a few tight journals does not mean that the clearance was that tight off the factory floor. They actually measure the clearance at the time of assembly and make part adjustments to achieve target clearance. They don't just slap parts together. They don't just let an engine go out the door at the high and low sides of service limits or maximum stack tolerances like people are inferring happened based on the "data."

You are the true definition of a troll. Welcome to the ignore list

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

You are not making any comments that have not already been made. Others have skimmed the available information and also decided BMW must have been right. It is best for people such as yourself to leave your original rod bearings in place, since there is nothing wrong. A similar critic went silent after his motor failed. I acknowledge the risk of failure is low, so the odds are with you.

I changed mine when my extended warranty expired in 2014 and am happy I did. At 60k miles, my S65 rod bearings had more wear than rod bearings in an S52 with 2 or 3 times the mileage. And at least 90% of the rod bearings others have removed from S65 also show premature wear. I don’t think BMW got it right and I am thankful that BE, VAC and ACL are selling rod bearings with increased clearance. When I changed mine, they weren’t available so I used wpc treated stock 2011+ bearings. Today, I would recommend increased clearance bearings.

I can’t tell whether you want to just argue with people, deny there is a problem, or chase alternative theories. If the latter, I think Troy Jeup has some interesting experience. He has rebuilt more S85 and S65 (mostly S85 but they share bearings and clearances and much design) than anyone else and has some theories.

It's a little bit of everything you just said. i never said BMW was right about anything. I said this thread and the basis for almost everything being said is wrong. Didn't ever deny accelerated wear.