Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by leigh

I think RG might be talking about 4330VM that is the upgrade from 4340

Correct, I couldn't think of it last night. 4340VM is the more expensive version. Thanks!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Yes. Only an amateur would measure at 76.5f. The world standard is 20c/68f. No amount of spin can change that simple fact

Again, ask someone local who knows.

I have the advantage of never claiming to be anything but an amateur; so no spin is required. But let me ask you about the guy who posted this:



The guy who posted this doesn't realize how inaccurate this method is.

• He didn't understand this isn't the proper instrument for the job.
• Didn't understand that measuring with the needle at an angle of inclination to the measurement object will induce a cosine error.
• Didn't understand the concept of "COSINE ERROR" induced by using this method.
• Didn't understand the math of calculating the cosine error.
• Didn't acknowledge the error once it was proven both mathematically and with measurement. (See post #1719.)
• Then once proven wrong, still tried to argue that he wasn't.
• Even after swamp told him he was wrong, he still couldn't admit the mistake.
• Even 1.5 years later, he acts like the conversation never took place, lessons never taught, and certainly lessons never learned.

Certainly you must know this guy because he posted this under your account. Did HE take this photo and make these measurements at 20 degrees C (the new "mandatory requirement"), or did he not? Would you say he's above average, amateur, or totally clueless?

Have fun spinning.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Yes. Only an amateur would measure at 76.5f. The world standard is 20c/68f. No amount of spin can change that simple fact

Again, ask someone local who knows.

I've about had it....and so has he.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I have the advantage of never claiming to be anything but an amateur; so no spin is required. But let me ask you about the guy who posted this:



The guy who posted this doesn't realize how inaccurate this method is.

• He didn't understand this isn't the proper instrument for the job.
• Didn't understand that measuring with the needle at an angle of inclination to the measurement object will induce a cosine error.
• Didn't understand the concept of "COSINE ERROR" induced by using this method.
• Didn't understand the math of calculating the cosine error.
• Didn't acknowledge the error once it was proven both mathematically and with measurement. (See post #1719.)
• Then once proven wrong, still tried to argue that he wasn't.
• Even after swamp told him he was wrong, he still couldn't admit the mistake.
• Even 1.5 years later, he acts like the conversation never took place, lessons never taught, and certainly lessons never learned.

Certainly you must know this guy because he posted this under your account. Did HE take this photo and make these measurements at 20 degrees C (the new "mandatory requirement"), or did he not? Would you say he's above average, amateur, or totally clueless?

Have fun spinning.

Nothing at all wrong with this method. Yes it was done at 20c at an inclination angle of around 12 degrees in comparison to an inspection grade 2mm carbide slip gauge. Far more accurate and consistent than using a mic.

Again, ask someone who knows about these things.

[xpunisherx]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

I've about had it....and so has he.

LMFAO!!!

Made my day!

[regular guy]

Background

A few days ago, m3post member "Malloy" gave us all a tip that VAC had custom made bearings from Clevite. Back in post #2421 of this thread, I got to the bottom of this and discovered that VAC and Clevite had indeed made some custom S65 rod bearings. I purchased a set, had them shipped overnight, Saturday delivery so I could measure them over the weekend.

There was just two problems with what I was trying to do: 1) I had loaned out all of my virgin rod bolts, and 2) I had shipped out and sold my OEM connecting rods. Getting rod bolts on the weekend was tough (real tough when you hear what I mean). I found a full set down in Monterey, California, on the coast, at the beach, only a few miles from Laguna Seca Raceway. It was a very tough ride, all 45 miles of it, sun beating down and beautiful at 85 degrees. I had also arranged to borrow a set of OEM connecting rods over the weekend. These came from a local shop, straight out of the box, OEM remanufactured connecting rods from BMW. It looks like the remanufactured rods were re-honed, and the rod bolt surface was remachined. These rods had bolts in them, and were untorqued when they arrived.

VAC-Clevite bearings

Right before leaving for that difficult ride to the beach, the VAC-Clevite bearings had arrived. I opened them immediately and discovered they were indeed custom made bearings.








VAC had given me preliminary specifications during my phone call the week prior. This is what they said.

Engine guy calls me back a few minutes later and says it's true...they did contract with Clevite to make some custom rod bearings. The new bearings, as he explained, were designed with 0.0005 inch extra clearance. VAC still adds the Calico coating, which he acknowledged takes up the extra 0.0005 inch -- returning the new bearings back to stock clearance.

So the bearings start life with 0.0005 inch extra clearance, have Calico coating added (which reduces by 0.0005 inch), and you end up with factory rod bearing clearance again.

Now it's time to put that to the test. But first, there's one more thing I need to do.

The Calico coated bearings don't mask off the material from the parting lines, so they must be removed before using. Failure to do this could result in improper bearing crush, which also translates to improper clearance and eccentricity. I'm not sure how many people know this, or do this, which is one reason I'm critical of Calico Coatings in the first place.

It's a simple process. I used 800 grit wet-dry sandpaper and swiped the bearings back and fourth 4 to 6 times in each direction.







Removing the material from the parting lines is a simple, easy, but an essential process. Once it's finished, the bearings should look like this:







Preparing to Measure

Preparing to measure always takes some time. With the new rod bolts, I had to pre-stretch them according to BMW specifications. Once stretched, they're ready to measure.

I also wanted to measure the new bearing eccentricity, so I came up with this nice little diagram to help locate the places I wanted to measure.



Next, it's time to calibrate the instruments, then time to measure.



Measuring Eccentricity

Eccentricity	5 degrees	19.75 degrees	45 degrees	90 degrees
	175 degrees	161.25 degrees	135 degrees

Measuring Virgin 702/703 Bearings for a Baseline

Kawasaki00 recommended that I also measure the virgin 702/703 bearings as a baseline. He appealed to the perfectionist side of me and didn't even need to convince me to do it. I knew it had to be done; and I'm glad I did.

This would be the first time that virgin bearings, virgin rod bolts were placed in virgin rods (remanufactured by BMW) and measured. This baseline was too important to ignore. So I swapped bearings, and re-measured all over again.

Virgin 702/703's	Rod-1	Rod-2	Rod-3	Rod-4
	Rod-5	Rod-6	Rod-7	Rod-8

The Results

The results were very conclusive. The baseline measurements on virgin 702/703 bearings, using virgin rod bolts, and virgin (remanufactured) connecting rods showed a perfectly consistent 0.00150 inch clearance. This sets a new baseline for 702/703 bearings. The original baseline measurements used a single crankshaft, and gave a nominal clearance specification of 0.00165 inch. At the time, this was a 0.00020 inch clearance increase over the original 088/089 lead/copper bearings. When the 96 crankshaft journals were rolled up into the measurements, the nominal clearance increased to 0.00170 inch. Now with the addition of these new measurements being rolled up, and the fact that all eight of them were indistinguishable the new baseline for 702/703 bearings goes back down to 0.00150 inch clearance, making it virtually indistinguishable from BMW's original 088/089 bearing clearances we've measured.

With the new baseline established, we can now compare the VAC-Calico custom bearings to see the difference. The original VAC salesman said the new bearings would increase 0.00050 inch before the coating and would equal the same BMW clearance after the Calico coating. The measurements show instead of maintaining stock clearance after the coating, the actually increase the stock clearance by exactly 0.00050 inch after the coating.

Here's the table of measurements.

Virgin 702/703's	Rod-1	Rod-2	Rod-3	Rod-4	Rod-5	Rod-6	Rod-7	Rod-8	Min	Max	Official	Min Dev.	Max Dev.
Rod B.E. Bore	2.20610	2.20600	2.20575	2.20580	2.20580	2.20590	2.20580	2.20570
Rod Journal Diameter	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650
702/703 Bearings	2.04800	2.04795	2.04800	2.04800	2.04805	2.04800	2.04800	2.04800
702/703 Clearance	0.00150	0.00145	0.00150	0.00150	0.00155	0.00150	0.00150	0.00150	0.00115	0.00200	0.00150	-0.00035	0.00050
VAC-Clevite Clearance	0.00210	0.00190	0.00190	0.00210	0.00210	0.00190	0.00210	0.00210	0.00190	0.00210	0.00200	-0.00010	0.00010
VAC-Clevite Bearings	2.04860	2.04840	2.04840	2.04860	2.04860	2.04840	2.04860	2.04860
Rod Journal Diameter	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650	2.04650
Bearing Thickness Top	0.07840	0.07840	0.07840	0.07835	0.07835	0.07835	0.07830	0.07825	0.07825	0.07840	0.07835	-0.00010	0.00005
Bearing Thickness Bottom	0.07840	0.07840	0.07835	0.07835	0.07835	0.07835	0.07830	0.07825

Bearing Eccentricity

Bearing eccentricity may also be of interest. The VAC-Clevite bearings use the same bearing eccentricity as the original BMW (Clevite) 088/089 bearings. The graph clearly shows this distinction.



Conclusions:

The new baseline for 702/703 bearings show the clearance is about the same as the original 088/089 BMW bearings. Folks who have been banking on this 0.00020 inch increase for their arguments in the bearing threads will need to adjust to this new reality.

The VAC-Clevite bearings show an extra 0.00050 inch clearance over stock. The new bearings are a Clevite Tri-Metal construction using lead-copper composition. The lead-copper composition is highly advised for Blackstone oil tracking because it allows to track lead as an indirect indication of bearing wear and life.

The new VAC-Clevite bearings seem to be the best option available at the moment. I would personally prefer these over the WPC treated 702/703 bearings. And at this point, I wouldn't even consider using the Calico coated 702/703 bearings.

Page-1 of this thread has been updated to reflect this new information.

Photo journal with additional pictures is available here:
http://rcollins-home.org/photobucket....php?album=235

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Does a reduction in crankshaft weight reflects a reduction in the mass of the associated reciprocating parts? If so I would guess that this ought to benefit rod bearing reliability.

Very interesting, however, are these parts really this different in weight? Sort of a dumb question but could it be packaging or some other difference? The maximum difference in those numbers is 10%. Kind of hard to believe such a large change would be implemented mid production on such a critical engine component.

Also, the pistons and rods (reciprocating and "wobbling" parts) don't show parallel nor any revisions for that matter to match these crank revisions on the same website. One would think that engine balance would be significantly upset with a 10% change is crankshaft weight with no changes in reciprocating/wobbling mass.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

At least for me this previously unnoticed information finally offers a possible explanation for the significant improvement in reliability seen in 2009/10 cars which have the lightest cranks and the original 088/9 bearings.

Is there enough data such that the sample rates by year "tracks" the true total failure rates by year? With a total of about 30 data points in your data (here), I would not be so confident that the tracking is good enough to jump to this conclusion that 2009/2010 cars have a truly statistically significant lower failure rate.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Background

A few days ago, m3post member "Malloy" gave us all a tip that VAC had custom made bearings from Clevite. Back in post #2421 of this thread, I got to the bottom of this and discovered that VAC and Clevite had indeed made some custom S65 rod bearings. I purchased a set, had them shipped overnight, Saturday delivery so I could measure them over the weekend.

There was just two problems with what I was trying to do: 1) I had loaned out all of my virgin rod bolts, and 2) I had shipped out and sold my OEM connecting rods. Getting rod bolts on the weekend was tough (real tough when you hear what I mean). I found a full set down in Monterey, California, on the coast, at the beach, only a few miles from Laguna Seca Raceway. It was a very tough ride, all 45 miles of it, sun beating down and beautiful at 85 degrees. I had also arranged to borrow a set of OEM connecting rods over the weekend. These came from a local shop, straight out of the box, OEM remanufactured connecting rods from BMW. It looks like the remanufactured rods were re-honed, and the rod bolt surface was remachined. These rods had bolts in them, and were untorqued when they arrived.

VAC-Clevite bearings

Right before leaving for that difficult ride to the beach, the VAC-Clevite bearings had arrived. I opened them immediately and discovered they were indeed custom made bearings.








VAC had given me preliminary specifications during my phone call the week prior. This is what they said.

Engine guy calls me back a few minutes later and says it's true...they did contract with Clevite to make some custom rod bearings. The new bearings, as he explained, were designed with 0.0005 inch extra clearance. VAC still adds the Calico coating, which he acknowledged takes up the extra 0.0005 inch -- returning the new bearings back to stock clearance.

So the bearings start life with 0.0005 inch extra clearance, have Calico coating added (which reduces by 0.0005 inch), and you end up with factory rod bearing clearance again.

Now it's time to put that to the test. But first, there's one more thing I need to do.

The Calico coated bearings don't mask off the material from the parting lines, so they must be removed before using. Failure to do this could result in improper bearing crush, which also translates to improper clearance and eccentricity. I'm not sure how many people know this, or do this, which is one reason I'm critical of Calico Coatings in the first place.

It's a simple process. I used 800 grit wet-dry sandpaper and swiped the bearings back and fourth 4 to 6 times in each direction.







Removing the material from the parting lines is a simple, easy, but an essential process. Once it's finished, the bearings should look like this:







Preparing to Measure

Preparing to measure always takes some time. With the new rod bolts, I had to pre-stretch them according to BMW specifications. Once stretched, they're ready to measure.

I also wanted to measure the new bearing eccentricity, so I came up with this nice little diagram to help locate the places I wanted to measure.



Next, it's time to calibrate the instruments, then time to measure.



Measuring Eccentricity



Measuring Virgin 702/703 Bearings for a Baseline

Kawasaki00 recommended that I also measure the virgin 702/703 bearings as a baseline. He appealed to the perfectionist side of me and didn't even need to convince me to do it. I knew it had to be done; and I'm glad I did.

This would be the first time that virgin bearings, virgin rod bolts were placed in virgin rods (remanufactured by BMW) and measured. This baseline was too important to ignore. So I swapped bearings, and re-measured all over again.



The Results

The results were very conclusive. The baseline measurements on virgin 702/703 bearings, using virgin rod bolts, and virgin (remanufactured) connecting rods showed a perfectly consistent 0.00150 inch clearance. This sets a new baseline for 702/703 bearings. The original baseline measurements used a single crankshaft, and gave a nominal clearance specification of 0.00165 inch. At the time, this was a 0.00020 inch clearance increase over the original 088/089 lead/copper bearings. When the 96 crankshaft journals were rolled up into the measurements, the nominal clearance increased to 0.00170 inch. Now with the addition of these new measurements being rolled up, and the fact that all eight of them were indistinguishable the new baseline for 702/703 bearings goes back down to 0.00150 inch clearance, making it virtually indistinguishable from BMW's original 088/089 bearing clearances we've measured.

With the new baseline established, we can now compare the VAC-Calico custom bearings to see the difference. The original VAC salesman said the new bearings would increase 0.00050 inch before the coating and would equal the same BMW clearance after the Calico coating. The measurements show instead of maintaining stock clearance after the coating, the actually increase the stock clearance by exactly 0.00050 inch after the coating.

Here's the table of measurements.



Bearing Eccentricity

Bearing eccentricity may also be of interest. The VAC-Clevite bearings use the same bearing eccentricity as the original BMW (Clevite) 088/089 bearings. The graph clearly shows this distinction.



Conclusions:

The new baseline for 702/703 bearings show the clearance is about the same as the original 088/089 BMW bearings. Folks who have been banking on this 0.00020 inch increase for their arguments in the bearing threads will need to adjust to this new reality.

The VAC-Clevite bearings show an extra 0.00050 inch clearance over stock. The new bearings are a Clevite Tri-Metal construction using lead-copper composition. The lead-copper composition is highly advised for Blackstone oil tracking because it allows to track lead as an indirect indication of bearing wear and life.

The new VAC-Clevite bearings seem to be the best option available at the moment. I would personally prefer these over the WPC treated 702/703 bearings. And at this point, I wouldn't even consider using the Calico coated 702/703 bearings.

Page-1 of this thread has been updated to reflect this new information.

Photo journal with additional pictures is available here:
http://rcollins-home.org/photobucket....php?album=235

Good work as always

[swamp2]

Wow, I am a bit lost here...

Originally Posted by regular guy

Removing the material from the parting lines is a simple, easy, but an essential process.

Seem like a reasonable choice but...

-Is this the recommended process from the supplier. I find it very hard to believe it is.
-If a bit too much material is removed it will affect crush and diameters and everything else downstream.

Originally Posted by regular guy

This would be the first time that virgin bearings, virgin rod bolts were placed in virgin rods (remanufactured by BMW) and measured. This baseline was too important to ignore. So I swapped bearings, and re-measured all over again.

What exactly is a remanufactured rod? I think I know very well what a remanufactured part is but what guarantee is there that such parts rigidly meet all of BMWs specifications. Is this just a used part, certified as meeting all dimensions/specs by BMW? Also on a related point, it seems you have not been consistent with rods clearly a difference in rod big bore will directly affect installed bearing sizes and thus clearances. Rod big bore has a mean and variance like all other dimensions here (such as crankshaft rod journal diameters and bearing thicknesses)...

Originally Posted by regular guy

The results were very conclusive. The baseline measurements on virgin 702/703 bearings, using virgin rod bolts, and virgin (remanufactured) connecting rods showed a perfectly consistent 0.00150 inch clearance. This sets a new baseline for 702/703 bearings. The original baseline measurements used a single crankshaft, and gave a nominal clearance specification of 0.00165 inch. At the time, this was a 0.00020 inch clearance increase over the original 088/089 lead/copper bearings. When the 96 crankshaft journals were rolled up into the measurements, the nominal clearance increased to 0.00170 inch. Now with the addition of these new measurements being rolled up, and the fact that all eight of them were indistinguishable the new baseline for 702/703 bearings goes back down to 0.00150 inch clearance, making it virtually indistinguishable from BMW's original 088/089 bearing clearances we've measured.

So in essence, the prior, big conclusion that BMW changed bearing clearance specs from old to new bearings has now been fully reversed? Given the prior measurements I felt it was completely clear that there was an intentional nominal clearance difference due to a change in bearing design. If I'm understanding this correctly, it just goes to show how firm conclusions can be fully reversed with additional measurement. Of course assuming the remanufactured thing is not significant.

Originally Posted by regular guy

The measurements show instead of maintaining stock clearance after the coating, the actually increase the stock clearance by exactly 0.00050 inch after the coating.

In short you directly contradict the related claim from the actual supplier of these parts?

[OM VT3]

That what calico tell you do do

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Very interesting, however, are these parts really this different in weight? Sort of a dumb question but could it be packaging or some other difference? The maximum difference in those numbers is 10%. Kind of hard to believe such a large change would be implemented mid production on such a critical engine component.
Also, the pistons and rods (reciprocating and "wobbling" parts) don't show parallel nor any revisions for that matter to match these crank revisions on the same website. One would think that engine balance would be significantly upset with a 10% change is crankshaft weight with no changes in reciprocating/wobbling mass.

According to post #7 this thread:
"There have apparently been three different S65 crankshafts, and two sets of connecting rods."
BMW had to R&D a new crank for the S65 and the subsequent revisions may indeed have been simply for reliability - with the apparent weight change indeed being a function of packaging rather than a weight reduction strategy - there is no way of knowing for certain.
However, we do see BMW being prepared to change the spec of a critical engine part for reliability while steadfastly resisting to make the simplest of changes to the rod bearing clearance for the same reason.

I also see that Maleks customer FI engine that had run 33,500 miles with VAC Coated Rod Bearings + ARP Connecting Rod bolts shows the same negligible wear to rod bearings with 0.0012 clearance as rod bearings with 0.0021 clearance.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Is there enough data such that the sample rates by year "tracks" the true total failure rates by year? With a total of about 30 data points in your data (here), I would not be so confident that the tracking is good enough to jump to this conclusion that 2009/2010 cars have a truly statistically significant lower failure rate.

Like I said ...at least for me it offers an explanation.
The sudden drop off for 2009/10 cars has been really bugging me for ages.
I should note the first post on the thread you referenced above is out of date.
The last page of that thread contains the latest zip file.

Originally Posted by swamp2

What exactly is a remanufactured rod [.....]

Unless BMW were building new cars using remanufactured rods then measurements taken using these rods can hardly be substituted for the readings taken with OEM rods. Cherry picking a less relevant set of measurement because its a better fit or disputes a counter theory is a bit disingenuous

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, I am a bit lost here...

Seem like a reasonable choice but...

-Is this the recommended process from the supplier. I find it very hard to believe it is.
-If a bit too much material is removed it will affect crush and diameters and everything else downstream.

Yes you must remove the material from the parting lines. This shouldn't be a surprise because you're only removing material that shouldn't have been placed there in the first place, and this extra material is known to affect bearing crush. I know this has been briefly mentioned in this thread before, but it's been discussed much more in depth in some of the VAC bearing threads (some threads of which I think have been deleted).

The intent is only to remove this extra material, not any metal. If you're concerned about the amount of material removed) then it's right up your area of expertise to calculate the measurable effect of 5-7 pounds of downforce, distributed across the bearing, making a total of 12 swipes (6 in each direction), 3-inches long (each), on 800 wet emery cloth.

What exactly is a remanufactured rod? I think I know very well what a remanufactured part is but what guarantee is there that such parts rigidly meet all of BMWs specifications. Is this just a used part, certified as meeting all dimensions/specs by BMW? Also on a related point, it seems you have not been consistent with rods clearly a difference in rod big bore will directly affect installed bearing sizes and thus clearances. Rod big bore has a mean and variance like all other dimensions here (such as crankshaft rod journal diameters and bearing thicknesses)...

You would need to ask BMW what constitutes a remanufactured rod because the rods came from them. I could see evidence of the big end being passed through a hone for a few swipes, not even fully re-honed, and the rod bolt surface re-touched by an end-mill. This is consistent with my experience at race shops "remanufacturing" rods of their own.

I'm not sure what you mean by being inconsistent. As far as I know, I've always measured the rod B.E. on every set of rods I've used; and been consistent in doing that. Original B.E. measurements are shown in post #1741, and these rod B.E. measurements are posted above.. Like all measurement all data is rolled up onto page-1. I'm not sure how much more consistent I can be than following the same procedure every time. If your point is that it's inconsistent to roll up the data from these remanufactured rods with all the rest, then I would disagree. That's the whole point of collecting as much data as possible and letting it converge to whatever it shows. In this case however, the rod B.E. was actually a few tenths larger than the previous rods, so any association there is from these rods with bigger B.E. measurements to smaller bearing clearance seems to be counterintuitive.

So in essence, the prior, big conclusion that BMW changed bearing clearance specs from old to new bearings has now been fully reversed? Given the prior measurements I felt it was completely clear that there was an intentional nominal clearance difference due to a change in bearing design. If I'm understanding this correctly, it just goes to show how firm conclusions can be fully reversed with additional measurement. Of course assuming the remanufactured thing is not significant.

"Fully reversed" is a funny word considering my measurements of 702/703 bearings in post #1741 drew no conclusions. With that said, the techniques used here are the same ones I modified long ago to address your concerns about using mode instead of average. The spreadsheet takes all the data into account, no matter how many measurements are contained therein and rolls them up into the summary spreadsheet seen on page-1. I think the word you're really looking for is "convergence." But if you want to say that posting a written rendition of what the table says as a summary of what the convergence of data shows and call that a "full reversal" -- then I'm fine with that.

In short you directly contradict the related claim from the actual supplier of these parts?

If you want to see it that way, sure. But I'm more understanding than that. I tend to think guys on the phone may not actually know the real answer; or the spec says one thing and the measurements say another.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Yet again, we see BMW being prepared to change spec of critical engine parts for reliability while steadfastly resisting to make the simplest of changes to the rod bearing clearance for the same reason.

Unless BMW were building new cars using remanufactured rods then measurements taken using these rods can hardly be substituted for the readings taken with OEM rods. Cherry picking a less relevant set of measurement because its a better fit or disputes a counter theory is a bit disingenuous

LMFAO. It is so funny to watch you twist and squirm and contort everything you say so that you try not to contradict everything else you say.

You really are very out of your league here aren't you? The techniques used haven't changed since day-1. All measurements get collected and rolled up. Look up the word "convergence" -- it might help you understand the process.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

LMFAO. It is so funny to watch you twist and squirm and contort everything you say so that you try not to contradict everything else you say.
You really are very out of your league here aren't you?

Wow...it must really suck to be you.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Wow...it must really suck to be you.

Please stop as he said you sound like you are very much out of your league, I'm surprised he's even entertained you for this long.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by tdott

Please stop as he said you sound like you are very much out of your league, I'm surprised he's even entertained you for this long.

+1

Please stop. You (SFP) aren't contributing anything to this thread. If you really want to do something, go buy some rod bearings and measure them for us. Then get some S65 cranks and do some measurements.

Quoting stuff you see on the internet does nothing for your credibility.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Hey RG...Is your argument so weak that you had to get a couple of your little pals to try to bully me out of the thread?
Thats a new low even for you.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Hey RG...Is your argument so weak that you had to get a couple of your little pals to try to bully me out of the thread?
Thats a new low even for you.

I have never met RG, I live in a different Country. Just stop, you keep digging yourself into a deeper hole and making an even bigger joke of yourself. I came in here for an update on the facts, not to see your nonsense.

As Z K said, go get some facts yourself and start your own thread if you think you know better.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Doesn't matter if I know better because Clevite do.
Lets just remind everyone what the EXPERTS said when they had multiple sets of worn bearings to examine.
Paraphrasing:

RG: Can you see signs of tight bearing clearance?
Clevite: No.

And one year later you guys still believe this nonsense.
Even when Maleks customer car with a rod bearings with a meagre 0.0012 clearance shows no sign of wear you still buy into the tight bearing theory.
It is true though that if you don't believe the real EXPERTS in this field I will never be able to convince you of anything.

[pbonsalb]

I think at least one of the UK members knows a former M Division engine designer. That engineer may be the source of some of their information. I agree with their basic premise that it is surprising M screwed up a bearing/bolt/rod design they used for 7-8 years in the E60 M5 and E9x M3, but on the other hand, there are a surprising amount of engine failures for both models using that bearing/bolt/rod design. As an owner, I am thankful people like RG are actually doing stuff to figure out why.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Hey RG...Is your argument so weak that you had to get a couple of your little pals to try to bully me out of the thread?
Thats a new low even for you.

I have no idea who regular guy is but he is actually doing something to help the community by getting factual data where there was none.

All you are doing is spreading misinformation and redirecting. Do something useful for a change. If you want to argue about clearances and sizes, go do your own measurements and present your findings.

Why don't you start by taking apart your own engine and show us the rod bearings from your own car? That's something regular guy has done for us.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I think at least one of the UK members knows a former M Division engine designer. That engineer may be the source of some of their information. I agree with their basic premise that it is surprising M screwed up a bearing/bolt/rod design they used for 7-8 years in the E60 M5 and E9x M3, but on the other hand, there are a surprising amount of engine failures for both models using that bearing/bolt/rod design. As an owner, I am thankful people like RG are actually doing stuff to figure out why.

I know a former M Division engine designer -- S14 designer and successfully took BMW to F1. He's consulted with BMW on the S65, but I don't know to what capacity. But the problem is, I haven't been able to talk to him face-to-face in the last two years since this all came up. I've sent him emails, but only get vague answers. I asked him to design a new rod bearing, but again, only got vague answers. I'm sure he would do it, if I could only get him face-to-face. I want to do it face-to-face, and since I'm 400 miles away, our schedules never are in sync. I'm hoping to get f2f in the next few weeks however as a few things are coming together where we should both be in the same place at the same time.