Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Hopefully he'll also be down for regrinding cranks for less than $8k

Regrinding the cranks is less than $800. It's the other $2k in parts and gaskets and labor to rebuild the motor that gets you to $8k depending on the cost of your engine builder.

[regular guy]

Here's a California S65 engine with 45000 miles. The car never had less than 91 octane in the tank. From the best I can tell, the rods big end became super heated (see discoloration), seized on the crank journal, then punched two holes in the block. The engine was naturally aspirated.

Full photo journal here:
http://www.rcollins-home.org/photobu....php?album=221

Photos will be reposted after confirming some more details with owner. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Not to be a doubter but the owner is hardly likely to admit putting in low octane fuel as it might endanger his warranty.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Not to be a doubter but the owner is hardly likely to admit putting in low octane fuel as it might endanger his warranty.

The owner is a very knowledgeable enthusiast in our area. I've known him for three years. He never put anything less than 91 octane in the car. End of story.

By now you already know that your low octane hypothesis doesn't match any of the bearing photos. You can thank your fellow UK buddy for calling BS on that. To me that says you're here for some other purpose than learn or share.

[fsmtnbiker]

Since you know the history of this car - Were the BMW recommended service intervals followed, or shorter intervals?

Just curious... Nasty pics. Thx.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Regrinding the cranks is less than $800. It's the other $2k in parts and gaskets and labor to rebuild the motor that gets you to $8k depending on the cost of your engine builder.

Found your original post on that, thanks for the clarification....again *lol*. You mentioned that you had a list of the cost breakdown, so if you'd either PM or post that when you have an opportunity, it would be appreciated

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Here's a California S65 engine with 45000 miles.

Is this their car or someone elses?
http://www.rcollins-home.org/photobu...dex.php?cat=43

Anyway so that brings up the tally to some 20 failures in markets where <91 octane is available and 0 failures in markets where <91 octane is NOT available.
Jeez if only someone could see a pattern!

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Is this their car or someone elses?
http://www.rcollins-home.org/photobu...dex.php?cat=43

Anyway so that brings up the tally to some 20 failures in markets where <91 octane is available and 0 failures in markets where <91 octane is NOT available.
Jeez if only someone could see a pattern!

FYI there have been a few at the dealerships in Charlotte and they are not on this board. We have 93 here and as I know, all but one were 2011 and later.
We have been over this before but unless the clearance is fixed there is no way I would run those hard bearings. I would put the older bearings in without question.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Is this their car or someone elses?
http://www.rcollins-home.org/photobu...dex.php?cat=43

Sorry I don't understand the question. Could you please rephrase it?

Anyway so that brings up the tally to some 20 failures in markets where <91 octane is available and 0 failures in markets where <91 octane is NOT available.
Jeez if only someone could see a pattern!

Yesterday your theory only included engines in areas with < 91 octane, and there were only 7 of 14 samples in your list. Today your theory includes angines with <= 91 octane, and there are now 20 of 20 samples from only one additional entry. Can you explain that inconsistency. Regardless, that's quite a change in your definition in the past 24 hours. Your new definition could only mean that BMW has a design flaw if their engines can't run on the gasoline they were designed to run.

Please post a breakdown of all 20 engines you're taking about, with photos of the failures (need to confirm a bearing issue and you're not just making up the data), and the min/max gasoline available in each area. I already know you're either misleading us or incorrect about lowest gasoline in the UK, so you can assume I will check your story. You said 87 octane isn't available in the UK, but 91-RON is 87-AKI, and 91-RON is the minimum gas available in the UK occording to UK Gasoline Wiki page.

In the UK, ordinary regular unleaded gasoline is 91 RON (not commonly available), premium unleaded gasoline is always 95 RON, and super unleaded is usually 97-98 RON. However, both Shell and BP produce fuel at 102 RON for cars with high-performance engines, and the supermarket chain Tesco began in 2006 to sell super unleaded gasoline rated at 99 RON. In the US, octane ratings in unleaded fuels can vary between 86 and 87 AKI (91-92 RON) for regular, through 89-90 AKI (94-95 RON) for mid-grade (European premium), up to 90-94 AKI (95-99 RON) for premium (European super).

I'd also like to know if you've found any credible engine builders of the stature of NASCAR winning builders, or Indy-500 winning builders that agree with your hypothesis? Have them come here and explain why the photos posted here showing clearance issues don't match the photos of overlay fatigue caused by detonation (poor gasoline).

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

FYI there have been a few at the dealerships in Charlotte and they are not on this board. We have 93 here and as I know, all but one were 2011 and later.
We have been over this before but unless the clearance is fixed there is no way I would run those hard bearings. I would put the older bearings in without question.

Can we take it that the best option we have right now (without regrinding the crank) is to replace the bearings with the WPC treated ones on the old leaded bearings and switch to 0-40 and then check back in perhaps 70k miles or so (or however many miles the first replacement was done at) to see if there is any improvement on the wear?

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Sorry I don't understand the question. Could you please rephrase it?

Yesterday your theory only included engines in areas with &lt; 91 octane, and there were only 7 of 14 samples in your list. Today your theory includes angines with &lt;= 91 octane, and there are now 20 of 20 samples from only one additional entry. Can you explain that inconsistency. Regardless, that's quite a change in your definition in the past 24 hours. Your new definition could only mean that BMW has a design flaw if their engines can't run on the gasoline they were designed to run.

Please post a breakdown of all 20 engines you're taking about, with photos of the failures (need to confirm a bearing issue and you're not just making up the data), and the min/max gasoline available in each area. I already know you're either misleading us or incorrect about lowest gasoline in the UK, so you can assume I will check your story. You said 87 octane isn't available in the UK, but 91-RON is 87-AKI, and 91-RON is the minimum gas available in the UK occording to UK Gasoline Wiki page.

In the UK, ordinary regular unleaded gasoline is 91 RON (not commonly available), premium unleaded gasoline is always 95 RON, and super unleaded is usually 97-98 RON. However, both Shell and BP produce fuel at 102 RON for cars with high-performance engines, and the supermarket chain Tesco began in 2006 to sell super unleaded gasoline rated at 99 RON. In the US, octane ratings in unleaded fuels can vary between 86 and 87 AKI (91-92 RON) for regular, through 89-90 AKI (94-95 RON) for mid-grade (European premium), up to 90-94 AKI (95-99 RON) for premium (European super).

I'd also like to know if you've found any credible engine builders of the stature of NASCAR winning builders, or Indy-500 winning builders that agree with your hypothesis? Have them come here and explain why the photos posted here showing clearance issues don't match the photos of overlay fatigue caused by detonation (poor gasoline).

I've never seen 91Ron for sale anywhere in the UK.

We have the choice between 95 premium or 98 Ron super unleaded (sometimes 97 or 99 depending on retailer)

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Let's be honest, if there was actually a bearing clearance problem, BMW could instruct Clevite to make the bearings a few microns thinner in 5 minutes. Absolutely no need to regrind the crank at all.

Originally Posted by regular guy

If we're being TOTALLY honest, then you already know BMW would get an instant class action lawsuit if they did what you suggest without issuing a recall on the people who didn't get the updated bearings. We already discussed this, so you should already know this.

Why would BMW have to wait until the S65 was in production before making a bearing spec change?
BMW had S85 engines up and running in what 2003? on test beds, running in mules, doing arctic and desert testing. They then had time to analyse all the failed field units right up until they finally closed the book on the S65 design.
Given the massive amount of data they would have accumulated, is it really credible that they wouldn't have implemented a quick, simple and very cost effective bearing spec change for the S65 if they believed it would have improved reliability?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Anyway so that brings up the tally to some 20 failures in markets where <91 octane is available and 0 failures in markets where <91 octane is NOT available.

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

FYI there have been a few at the dealerships in Charlotte and they are not on this board. We have 93 here and as I know, all but one were 2011 and later.

Thanks for the info.
In addition to 93 what other octanes are available in Charlotte - 91, 90, 89, 88 and 87?
The trouble is that even where 93 is available there will never be a shortage of owners who don't read the manual and are completely unaware of the minimum fuel octane required by the S65. Or owners who know but put in cheap fuel anyway to save a $. Owners who come from cars where 87/9 octane was perfectly adequate and don't see the point of paying more for driving to and from work. etc etc.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Is this their car or someone elses?
http://www.rcollins-home.org/photobu...dex.php?cat=43

Originally Posted by regular guy

Sorry I don't understand the question. Could you please rephrase it?

Follow the link above and it shows Robert & Mary Ann Collins photo bucket listing folders for 8 S65 engine failures. I'm guessing that they haven't been that unlucky to have had 8 M3s blow up on them. It appears then that the one you referenced is just the latest addition to their "BMW S65 Issues Database". Rather makes your claim to know that every tank of fuel was 91 octane look a little thin.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yesterday your theory only included engines in areas with < 91 octane, and there were only 7 of 14 samples in your list. Today your theory includes angines with <= 91 octane, and there are now 20 of 20 samples from only one additional entry. Can you explain that inconsistency. Regardless, that's quite a change in your definition in the past 24 hours.

There are 18 failures listed in the thread "Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry"....plus the one you mentioned. So sue me for rounding up and calling it "some 20". (its over 20 now anyway when including the failures from Charlotte) The 7 out of 14 (rather disingenuously taken out of context) originally referenced that out of the 14 cars that could be regarded as definitely having bearing failure from my first "quick and dirty" look at the thread, 7 of them were California cars.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Your new definition could only mean that BMW has a design flaw if their engines can't run on the gasoline they were designed to run.

It has always been the case that when I used the words "low octane" it referred to fuel below the minimum 91 octane required. My bad for thinking it would be clearly obvious to anyone and hence the need to define when I realized it wasn't obvious to you.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Please post a breakdown of all 20 engines you're taking about, with photos of the failures (need to confirm a bearing issue and you're not just making up the data),

See thread: "Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry".

Originally Posted by regular guy

and the min/max gasoline available er in each area. I already know you're either misleading us or incorrect about lowest gasoline in the UK, so you can assume I will check your story. You said 87 octane isn't available in the UK, but 91-RON is 87-AKI, and 91-RON is the minimum gas available in the UK occording to UK Gasoline Wiki page.

You can't buy fuel less than 95 Ron in the UK (~91 octane USA rating).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
"United Kingdom: 'regular' petrol has an octane rating of 95 RON, with 97 RON fuel being widely available as the Super Unleaded. Tesco and Shell both offer 99 RON fuel. In April 2006, BP started a public trial of the super-high octane petrol BP Ultimate Unleaded 102, which as the name suggests, has an octane rating of 102 RON.[30] Although BP Ultimate Unleaded (with an octane rating of 97 RON) and BP Ultimate Diesel are both widely available throughout the UK, BP Ultimate Unleaded 102 was available throughout the UK in only 10 filling stations, and was priced at about two and half times more than their 97 RON fuel. In March 2010, BP stopped sales of Ultimate Unleaded 102, citing the closure of their specialty fuels manufacturing facility.[31] Shell V-Power is also available, but in a 99 RON octane rating, and Tesco fuel stations also supply the Greenergy produced 99 RON "Momentum99"."

Originally Posted by regular guy

I'd also like to know if you've found any credible engine builders of the stature of NASCAR winning builders, or Indy-500 winning builders that agree with your hypothesis? Have them come here and explain why the photos posted here showing clearance issues don't match the photos of overlay fatigue caused by detonation (poor gasoline).

And I would be happy to hear from similar sources:
A coherent argument that would explain why all >20 failures known to date have occurred in markets where low octane [1] fuel is available and none where it isn't.
If long term use of low octane fuel [1] could contribute to some bearing wear or in extremis cause engine failure.
And as a side issue I would also be interested to know if the high rate of supercharged S65 failures is more likely fueling/ignition related or something else.
[1] less than 91 USA rated.

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Why would BMW have to wait until the S65 was in production before making a bearing spec change?
BMW had S85 engines up and running in what 2003? on test beds, running in mules, doing arctic and desert testing. They then had time to analyse all the failed field units right up until they finally closed the book on the S65 design.
Given the massive amount of data they would have accumulated, is it really credible that they wouldn't have implemented a quick, simple and very cost effective bearing spec change for the S65 if they believed it would have improved reliability?

My conspiracy theorist friend said:



Lasts the warranty period, no money out of pocket (or an insignificant amount from a few motor or car replacements), then new car sales!


...or Aliens

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Billj747

My conspiracy theorist friend said:



Lasts the warranty period, no money out of pocket (or an insignificant amount from a few motor or car replacements), then new car sales!
...or Aliens

I guess...although they did throw a decent amount of money at changing the vanos, the lubrication system, ECU and anti-knock system...
...then again you can never rule out aliens!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Follow the link above and it shows Robert & Mary Ann Collins photo bucket listing folders for 8 S65 engine failures. I'm guessing that they haven't been that unlucky to have had 8 M3s blow up on them. It appears then that the one you referenced is just the latest addition to their "BMW S65 Issues Database". Rather makes your claim to know that every tank of fuel was 91 octane look a little thin.

OK, let me help you out with this. You've made two mistakes. Let me correct them.
1. You very clearly haven't followed this thread closely to know where those photos came from. A review might be in order.
2. All but one of those photos came from perfectly running engines, and no claim is made to say they were blown motors or "engine failures."

There are 18 failures listed in the thread "Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry"....plus the one you mentioned. So sue me for rounding up and calling it "some 20". (its over 20 now anyway when including the failures from Charlotte) The 7 out of 14 (rather disingenuously taken out of context) originally referenced that out of the 14 cars that could be regarded as definitely having bearing failure from my first "quick and dirty" look at the thread, 7 of them were California cars.

I'm not sure why you're connecting this thread with that one. I haven't made comments on those threads, so connecting them to me doesn't fly. Without photos of the engines, I would not make any armchair diagnosis as you have done.

It has always been the case that when I used the words "low octane" it referred to fuel below the minimum 91 octane required. My bad for thinking it would be clearly obvious to anyone and hence the need to define when I realized it wasn't obvious to you.

You started with this definition:

"The theory being that any increased rod bearing wear due to tight bearing clearance will be exacerbated (some times to the point of failure) by the use of low octane fuel (<91 octane)."

And you changed it to this definition:

"Anyway so that brings up the tally to some 20 failures in markets where <91 octane is available and 0 failures in markets where <91 octane is NOT available."

That's quite a change where the latter is much more inclusive than the former. Nothing disengenuous about pointing out your expanded definition.

You still haven't explained or provided any evidence to say "The theory being that any increased rod bearing wear due to tight bearing clearance will be exacerbated (some times to the point of failure) by the use of low octane fuel (<91 octane)." Your UK comrade "Yellow Snow" provided articles with photo evidence that somewhat disprove your theory. I assume if you haven't provided anything to back it up thus far, nothing will be coming in the future.

You can't buy fuel less than 95 Ron in the UK (~91 octane USA rating).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
"United Kingdom: 'regular' petrol has an octane rating of 95 RON, with 97 RON fuel being widely available as the Super Unleaded.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

And I would be happy to hear from similar sources:
A coherent argument that would explain why all >20 failures known to date have occurred in markets where low octane [1] fuel is available and none where it isn't.
If long term use of low octane fuel [1] could contribute to some bearing wear or in extremis cause engine failure.
And as a side issue I would also be interested to know if the high rate of supercharged S65 failures is more likely fueling/ignition related or something else.
[1] less than 91 USA rated.

So to finish up this discussion, you have no sources to back up your theory, no trade journals, no photos linking low octane overlay fatigue, the only photos that are available showing overlay fatigue don't match anything in the photo database on this or any other car forum. Basically, the low octane theory has nothing backing it up.

This brings us back to the three basic facts outlined in this thread. Thanks to your participation, I think we can very safely add a fourth.

Four truths of S65 bearing/side clearance
There are three things we seem to know for a fact:

1. There is a long standing clearance-to-journal ratio best practice rule that factory and racing engine builders alike have followed for 50+ years. This best practice clearance ratio is well documented in many of web sites, and recommended by Clevite, the maker of the S65 engine bearings. The S65 engine cuts that clearance ratio in half. (1, 2)
2. The bearing wear patterns we're seeing all match the Clevite online/interactive bearing failure diagnosis web site, example #12 "Oil Starvation / Marginal Oil Film Thickness." The main cause mentioned by Clevite for this type of failure is "too little bearing oil clearance." (3)
3. There is also a long standing rod side clearance best practice rule that factory and racing engine builders alike have followed for quite some time. Best practice clearance ratio is well documented in many of web sites. The S65 engine cuts that clearance significantly.
4. Bearing damage due to detonation (low quality fuel) is known to cause bearing damage called "overlay fatigue." Overlay fatigue is a completely different type of damage than any of the bearing photos in the photo database on this or any other car forum. To date, no photos of overlay fatigue have been observed, and bearing damage due to detonation can safely be ruled out.(4)

Notes:
1. Artitle: Clevite Bearing Clearance White Paper, Pages 16-18
2. Article: Geometrical parameters of engine bearings
3. Interactive: Clevite online/interactive bearing failure diagnosis web site
4. Article: Bearing Failure Analysis - agkits.com

Thank you for your participation.

[bigtracing]

the motor that came out of my car only ever saw 91+ and has a spun bearing and 7 destroyed ones. I highly doubt this is a fuel issue.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
"Follow the link above and it shows Robert & Mary Ann Collins photo bucket listing folders for 8 S65 engine failures. I'm guessing that they haven't been that unlucky to have had 8 M3s blow up on them. It appears then that the one you referenced is just the latest addition to their "BMW S65 Issues Database".

Originally Posted by regular guy

OK, let me help you out with this. You've made two mistakes. Let me correct them.
1. You very clearly haven't followed this thread closely to know where those photos came from. A review might be in order.
2. All but one of those photos came from perfectly running engines, and no claim is made to say they were blown motors or "engine failures."

You need to pay more attention.
The above reply at the top was to:

Originally Posted by regular guy

Here's a California S65 engine with 45000 miles. The car never had less than 91 octane in the tank. From the best I can tell, the rods big end became super heated (see discoloration), seized on the crank journal, then punched two holes in the block. The engine was naturally aspirated.
Full photo journal here:
http://www.rcollins-home.org/photobu....php?album=221

I'm betting that engine with 2 holes in the block is not a "perfectly running engine"

Originally Posted by regular guy

You started with this definition:

"The theory being that any increased rod bearing wear due to tight bearing clearance will be exacerbated (some times to the point of failure) by the use of low octane fuel (<91 octane)."

And you changed it to this definition:

"Anyway so that brings up the tally to some 20 failures in markets where <91 octane is available and 0 failures in markets where <91 octane is NOT available."

That's quite a change where the latter is much more inclusive than the former. Nothing disengenuous about pointing out your expanded definition.

The first is a definition and the second is a statement.
You get that there is a difference right?

Originally Posted by regular guy

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

That is just plain wrong - I'm guessing entered by someone with no local knowledge.
This is more accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Originally Posted by regular guy

So to finish up this discussion,

I'm with you at least on this point. This is only going round in circles.
Do come back to me though if you ever figure out a coherent explanation that would account for why all >20 failures known to date have occurred in markets where low octane [1] fuel is available and none where it isn't.
[1] less than 91 USA rated.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Do come back to me though if you ever figure out a coherent explanation that would account for why all >20 failures known to date have occurred in markets where low octane [1] fuel is available and none where it isn't.
[1] less than 91 USA rated.

Originally Posted by bigtracing

the motor that came out of my car only ever saw 91+ and has a spun bearing and 7 destroyed ones. I highly doubt this is a fuel issue.

So about that theory of yours....

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
"Follow the link above and it shows Robert & Mary Ann Collins photo bucket listing folders for 8 S65 engine failures. I'm guessing that they haven't been that unlucky to have had 8 M3s blow up on them. It appears then that the one you referenced is just the latest addition to their "BMW S65 Issues Database".

There is not "photo bucket listing folders for 8 S65 engine failures." Where are you getting that?

You need to pay more attention.

Where are the photos for 8 S65 engine failures you're talking about? Seven of eight of those sets of photos came from running engines whose bearings were changed for maintenance. This has been well documented.

I'm with you at least on this point. This is only going round in circles.
Do come back to me though if you ever figure out a coherent explanation that would account for why all >20 failures known to date have occurred in markets where low octane [1] fuel is available and none where it isn't.
[1] less than 91 USA rated.

You seem to have a strong desire to put words into my mouth, and I have an equally strong desire not to let you. A few posts ago, you refused to accept second hand information from a German mechanic changing two sets of bearings per week as hearsay and unreliable. But in this case, you're willing to accept third hand information, without photo evidence as undeniable proof and then put words into my mouth and say I'm making claims about those failures.

Since you've never provided any evidence of your theory, or answered ANY of my questions (there's about 12 unanswered questions), I think we can put this to rest now. If you do decide to provide proof or answer any of the unanswered questions, don't hesitate to post it up. Thanks for your participation.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

So about that theory of yours....

So if you opened up an S65 engine and it had no bearing wear would that equally refute Regular Guys theory?
One data point that doesn't follow the trend hardly makes all the others invalid.