Official S65 Rod Bearing Condition Example Thread

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by CamasM3e93

https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=924916

There's a poll at this link which shows 16 bearing failures in model years '12 and '13 out of 117 total failures across the entire e9x M3 build. It's raw data, response to a poll. Hardly scientific, but my having seen this months ago shaped some of my decision making. To be certain, you'd need to add in total # of cars built in each model year to see if there was a shift in the percentage of failures, and perhaps have more robust input data then the folks who cared to respond here on the forum.

I am unsure why you care about random internet polling data. The attached image of properly collected data shows there is a risk of having as little as 0.00056"/" of clearance with 702/703 bearings.

This is just simply a statistics problem. Some people get lucky and have a loose engine. Some people get unlucky and have a tight engine. There is no way to tell unless you take the bearings out and look (and without a full teardown, there is no way to actually measure). At that point, it is best to put in bearings that will at least guarantee a worst case minimum clearance that is closer to 0.001"/" than the 088/089 or 702/703 bearings were.

[CamasM3e93]

Rod bearing theories and elbows, everybody's got at least one.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by CamasM3e93

Rod bearing theories and elbows, everybody's got at least one.

To be fair, some double amputees have zero elbows...

The data is not a theory. Statistics is not a theory either. Statistics is a harsh mistress who enjoys causing pain and suffering - just ask any radio systems engineer about the reality of statistics...

King, ACL, Clevite and Glyco all specify a minimum of 0.001"/" for any high performance application. Reputable engine builders follow this advice. The people who came up with the BE bearings are responsible for building race engines used in IMSA, Indy and NASCAR.

[Assimilator1]

Originally Posted by CamasM3e93

https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=924916

There's a poll at this link which shows 16 bearing failures in model years '12 and '13 out of 117 total failures across the entire e9x M3 build. It's raw data, response to a poll. Hardly scientific, but my having seen this months ago shaped some of my decision making. To be certain, you'd need to add in total # of cars built in each model year to see if there was a shift in the percentage of failures, and perhaps have more robust input data then the folks who cared to respond here on the forum.

Btw, their is no post LCI bearings, only pre LCI and LCI, perhaps it was just a typo .
Re possible lower rate of LCI bearing failures, well that might be the case, and I haven't found any LCI bearing photos which are showing copper, but many show significant wear, not to mention some LCI engines have blown up as a result of rod bearings (see link below). But regardless the risk is still there, and it's still worth changing the rod bearings, as you concluded too .

Theirs the 'blown motors, rod bearing failure S65 registry' which has more data. Additionally I cleaned up, updated and categorised the list here

Green-eggs
Not sure if the above linked thread is the one you were thinking of, but the last posts were ~5mths ago, and I last updated my list then too.
[edit] I've just done a little update to my list there adding in pre LCI vs LCI RB failures (from 'confirmed' and 'likely' lists). I had to exclude 2010 MY as that could be either bearing type.
Between the 2 RB failed lists, 42 were pre LCI engines, and 25 were LCI engines.
Some reports didn't include the year at all .

I think my list is up to date, but if anyone knows of any other blown S65s then LMK!

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Btw, their is no post LCI bearings, only pre LCI and LCI, perhaps it was just a typo .
Re possible lower rate of LCI bearing failures, well that might be the case, and I haven't found any LCI bearing photos which are showing copper, but many show significant wear, not to mention some LCI engines have blown up as a result of rod bearings (see link below). But regardless the risk is still there, and it's still worth changing the rod bearings, as you concluded too .

Theirs the 'blown motors, rod bearing failure S65 registry' which has more data. Additionally I cleaned up, updated and categorised the list here

Green-eggs
Not sure if the above linked thread is the one you were thinking of, but the last posts were ~5mths ago, and I last updated my list then too.
[edit] I've just done a little update to my list there adding in pre LCI vs LCI RB failures (from 'confirmed' and 'likely' lists). I had to exclude 2010 MY as that could be either bearing type.
Between the 2 RB failed lists, 42 were pre LCI engines, and 25 were LCI engines.
Some reports didn't include the year at all .

I think my list is up to date, but if anyone knows of any other blown S65s then LMK!

I was thinking about the thread started by the guy who put everything into a spreadsheet and made it available for download. I don't remember which screen name he used because he had a new one every time he got banned. He's known over in the UK forums as 'Maximum Bob.' It seemed that his primary goal was to try to disprove just about any theory of too little clearance by replacing it with a theory of his own. A few of his favorites were: octane rating in the USA (contradicted by non-USA blown motors), high ambient temperatures (contradicted by blown motors in Canada and northern Europe), and one of his all time favorites: BMW fixed it with the LCI bearings. That last one is why I believe he started the spreadsheet. But then the data he collected tended to show the opposite of his intentions...and it then was abandoned and he disappeared from this forum. That was also about the time he traded in his car for another BMW after getting what I was told was the second worst copper reading of an oil analysis on record.

EDIT: You're the guy with the oil analysis thread, maybe you can verify that last comment or not. His Blackstone oil analysis showed LEAD=100, IRON=33. Any idea how that compares to some of the other higher values?

[Assimilator1]

Oh him again, lol. I don't see him listed in my thread, unless he used a completely unrelated name.
But perhaps you were thinking of the 'Oil Analysis report' thread? (I'll look through it in a minute).

100ppm lead!? Wow that's seriously high! (I'll look through my thread for that too, although my thread is only a portion of the OA reports posted here and at m3cutters).
[edit] Added pb and cu levels for each report (where available), a pb 100 ppm would be the 2nd highest if it was in my thread!

[911r]

Rod Bearings replaced at ~51,200 miles. Pre-LCI bearings (car is 2009) ... replaced with BE bearings & BE spec ARP rod bolts. ~2/3 track days at Mid-Ohio. Was daily driven by previous owner & his wife; no notable "warm up procedure" was followed, apart from allowing the RPMs to settle after cold start. Oil changed every 3,000-10,000 miles throughout the car's life.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Oh him again, lol. I don't see him listed in my thread, unless he used a completely unrelated name.
But perhaps you were thinking of the 'Oil Analysis report' thread? (I'll look through it in a minute).

100ppm lead!? Wow that's seriously high! (I'll look through my thread for that too, although my thread is only a portion of the OA reports posted here and at m3cutters).

IIRC, he kept a photobucket account that was unprotected and open to anybody to view...and that's where the UOA was found. It had his name, address, and car details on it confirming it was his car, not a random UOA in his photobucket account. I don't know if he ever posted it anywhere...I don't think he did.

[Assimilator1]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

IIRC, he kept a photobucket account that was unprotected and open to anybody to view...and that's where the UOA was found. It had his name, address, and car details on it confirming it was his car, not a random UOA in his photobucket account. I don't know if he ever posted it anywhere...I don't think he did.

Lol, quite a security clanger on his behalf!
I just quickly scanned through the Oil reports thread, I found no bob like name attached to an oil report.
Did anyone copy his UOA?

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Lol, quite a security clanger on his behalf!
I just quickly scanned through the Oil reports thread, I found no bob like name attached to an oil report.
Did anyone copy his UOA?

His actual initials are P.S. Here's the UOA with his personal information removed.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

His actual initials are P.S. Here's the UOA with his personal information removed.

How the hell was his viscosity still that high after that many miles?

[TX]

That’s a very good question. My viscosity was 95.7 after a 1k mile change and 90.7 after a 4k change. That doesn’t add up with a 14k mile change on castrol 10w60

[cmyE93M3]

2011.5 (July build), 83,000 km's or 51,000 miles. Replaced with ACL mixed. Left side bearings are lower, right side upper in order of cyl.

Not too bad imo.

[DrFerry]

Originally Posted by cmyE93M3

2011.5 (July build), 83,000 km's or 51,000 miles. Replaced with ACL mixed. Left side bearings are lower, right side upper in order of cyl.

Not too bad imo.

Yep, not too bad at all compared to many others at similar mileage. These are the harder tin type post LCI bearings. Were these replaced recently? Just wondering because your signature says the M3s in your stable were sold. Or are these from a new to you 2011.5 M3?

[Assimilator1]

LCI, not post LCI, no such thing , LCI=update.

And yea don't look too bad, although the way the light is falling on them makes it hard to see them properly.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

LCI, not post LCI, no such thing , LCI=update.

And yea don't look too bad, although the way the light is falling on them makes it hard to see them properly.

And that is even improper - my LCI 2011 had 088/089 bearings.

[DrFerry]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

LCI, not post LCI, no such thing , LCI=update.

Okay, let's split some hairs. I'm game. LCI stands for Life Cycle Impulse or, in more basic terms, mid life cycle refresh. My saying "post LCI" just means "after (post) the Life Cycle Refresh".

[Assimilator1]

Yep, refresh=update, it's not after the refresh, it is the refresh (I know what post means).
Original/pre LCI version 2007-2010
LCI version 2010-2013
There is no post LCI version.

It's only a minor issue, but saying post LCI is stating a 3rd version, which their isn't of course. Let's not add to the confusion .

[SoCalRPM]

Originally Posted by 911r

Rod Bearings replaced at ~51,200 miles. Pre-LCI bearings (car is 2009) ... replaced with BE bearings & BE spec ARP rod bolts. ~2/3 track days at Mid-Ohio. Was daily driven by previous owner & his wife; no notable "warm up procedure" was followed, apart from allowing the RPMs to settle after cold start. Oil changed every 3,000-10,000 miles throughout the car's life.

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5e48f120_o.jpg[/img]

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...eeb11d92_o.jpg[/img]

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3a27b101_o.jpg[/img]

Did you have the bearings changed at a shop in OH or was the previous owner near Mid-Ohio?

[911r]

Originally Posted by SoCalRPM

Did you have the bearings changed at a shop in OH or was the previous owner near Mid-Ohio?

Previous owner was in Cleveland and took his cars to Mid-Ohio pretty frequently—guess he was an instructor or something. I had the rod bearings changed in SoCal.

[SoCalRPM]

Originally Posted by 911r

Previous owner was in Cleveland and took his cars to Mid-Ohio pretty frequently—guess he was an instructor or something. I had the rod bearings changed in SoCal.

I got ya! Mid Ohio is great. Used to live nearby. I have a friend still in Cinci and I was looking to help him find a reputable shop for RB swap

[DrFerry]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Original/pre LCI version 2007-2010
LCI version 2010-2013

So if there is an "Original/pre LCI version" there should be a a post LCI version? Or do we have a pre but not a post?

Perhaps the confusion stems from semantics whereby LCI is an event in the car maker's model lifecycle - but that same event often yields different part specifications. Consequently, LCI can be used synonymously to describe either the event in time or a new part specification (version) associated with the life cycle event (pre or post event).