|
|
01-08-2014, 02:07 PM | #1805 |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2014, 02:13 PM | #1806 | |
Lieutenant
36
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2014, 02:21 PM | #1807 |
Banned
842
Rep 3,387
Posts |
RG, you rock. The amount of time and dedication you have devoted to this is outstanding.
While I can appreciate a good "debate" and differing opinions, this thread is FULL of insults, name calling, and general maliciousness. Now that there is conclusive proof that the bearings are the problem, I personally find it *hilarious* that none of the antagonists can man up and simply say, "You were right, I was wrong, I apologize." Last edited by whats77inaname; 03-12-2018 at 01:21 PM.. |
Appreciate
1
DrFerry6748.00 |
01-08-2014, 02:49 PM | #1808 | |
Colonel
503
Rep 2,397
Posts |
Right, at the beginning I was the one who proposed the "deliberate ambiguity" thesis with respect to oil changes.
However, after thinking about this more, the best way to actually reduce litigation risk is to prevent it. BMW already came out with the LL-1 recommendations, which already flagged that there is a potential problem (in conjunction with the awesome work done on this thread). Now, by not actively making it clear to anyone that LL-1 is okay to use, no one will try to change the oil and not only have you increased the chances for failure (an economic impact), the chances for litigation (economic and safety issue), but also increased the chances for a gross negligence argument (knew was a safety issue, but was not clear in giving the right recommendations to customers that could have prevented damage to property and/or individuals). So if BMW continues to stand by the "deliberate ambiguity" approach with respect to oils, I think that is a grave error and creates more potential problems than it solves (predicated under the assumption that there is a higher than avg risk of bearing failure). Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
1
DrFerry6748.00 |
01-08-2014, 02:53 PM | #1809 |
Colonel
503
Rep 2,397
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2014, 03:13 PM | #1810 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
234
Rep 1,673
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2014, 04:56 PM | #1811 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Anyway, you may or may not call me one of those antagonists but as to whether the new bearings show a different clearance than the old ones, I "manned up" IMMEDIATELY (just a couple of posts back FYI). That being said, I think it is still just a bit premature to conclude that the bearing dimensions and or materials are a definitive problem. If the changes to the new bearings "fixed" a "problem" we should not see any (or radically fewer) failed engines with the new bearings. Although I'm sure there have been reported failures in the new 702/703 bearings, I'd also virtually guarantee we can't conclude that the 702/703 failure rate (for only lightly modified engines) is conclusively lower than that for the older 088/089 bearings. Hence we really have no testing. We can certainly jump to some conclusions based on this observation but we still can't damn BMW as completely and fully as many wish to.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | Last edited by swamp2; 01-09-2014 at 02:02 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2014, 05:42 PM | #1812 | |||||||||||||||
First Lieutenant
7
Rep 311
Posts |
Quote:
Perhaps with the help of Google some of the experts will now emerge with the knowledge to comment with authority Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 04:04 AM | #1813 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Now that being said I have not attempted to analyze which of these engine failures have potentially anything to do with bearings, clearances or oil. Quote:
And truly lastly (at least in this post...) RG - don't your measurements overall support the contention that BMW achieves pretty remarkably tight tolerances? In some cases your equipment can barely capture part size deviations (e.g. rod journals). Even with purposefully chosen worst case limits the bearing clearances have a really small range. Certainly some tolerance stack up exists but it begs the question if the failures are explained by rare cases of extreme tolerance stack up. It's a very reasonable point of view. It is unlikely for measurement of such a small number of parts to exhibit any outlier types of results. However, tolerance stack up is also something that most likely would not be fully remedied by adjustments to mean (design) values. Failures would decrease but almost for sure wouldn't be eliminated. This is sort of nature of the beast of manufacturing (variation will exist) and probably explains a huge number of failures across many parts of many different car models.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 06:08 AM | #1814 |
Colonel
280
Rep 2,669
Posts
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land
|
It has been one epic thread on all counts but no conclusion yet. A special thank you to RG and also to all others who made this discussion informative, argumentative, heated and character-assignation But it was all in good fun.
Also not to forget all those who financially contributed and made it possible to make the thread eccentric ... ...
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 08:58 AM | #1815 |
Captain
119
Rep 922
Posts |
Lol Omg it's everywhere. BTW thx for doing the work
__________________
'11 Black/Black GLK350 (Wife)
'19 Black RAM 1500 Big Horn Night Package '11 Loaded AW Fox Red/Black/Black Carbon Leather ZCP E90 M3 (Halloween Delivery) |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 10:58 AM | #1816 | |
Colonel
503
Rep 2,397
Posts |
Agree, the content of this thread is excellent.
Would it be premature to at least draw the conclusion that the risk of rod bearing wear can be mitigated if you have 702/703 bearings (higher clearance/greater eccentricity) and you switch to thinner LL-1 approved oils? The remaining questions for me personally are 1) what is the bearing clearance under load at 8,400rpm (probably unanswerable); 2) as a partial corollary to #1, does raising rpm limit increase risk of bearing wear? 3) did the crankshaft measurements change?; 3) the nature of the 2011+ engine failures- notwithstanding the small sample size, does seem to be too many given the bearing changes. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 11:15 AM | #1817 | |
Brigadier General
2513
Rep 4,381
Posts |
Quote:
The poll question must have been quite ambiguous going by the fairly large number of people who voted by mistake (14 with still quite a few replies to arrive). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 11:30 AM | #1818 |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
3406
Rep 7,487
Posts |
Raising the rev limit will definitely cause more bottom end stress.
To build onto what FogCityM3 said, it seems that since the newer bearings allow for more clearance, that switching to the thinner oils would mainly benefit those with the older bearings. Is the switch to 0-40 any less recommended than it would be to those with the old bearings? Seems like 10w60 is fine for those with the newer ones given there is more room there for lubrication than there was previously? Any thoughts on this are much appreciated. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 01:18 PM | #1819 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Increasing redline will likely increase loads but to be sure a rigid body kinematic simulation model is required to answer the question firmly. There can be cases where loads can be smaller at higher rpms due to cancellation of combustion pressure and inertial loads (I posted graphs showing this prior)at this rpm range (redline to redline plus some small amount) the load increase would be almost entirely from inertial components.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 01:57 PM | #1820 | |
Lieutenant
36
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
So from 7500 rpm to 8400 rpm, torque (combustion pressure) is falling and inertial loads are climbing with the square of the rpm. So why couldn't we say conclusively that loads will increase substantially as the rpm limit is raised upwards of 8400 rpm? Pat |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 02:50 PM | #1821 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 03:25 PM | #1822 |
Banned
48
Rep 572
Posts |
All this nonsense about bearings and no one is talking about detonation, timing, and octane.
The fact that the top bearing is taking all the abuse and not the bottom looks like detonation. How many S65 engines are out there? And how many have failed due to bearing failure? Discuss..... |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 03:27 PM | #1823 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by regular guy; 01-09-2014 at 03:45 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 03:45 PM | #1824 | |
Lieutenant
36
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
Pat |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 04:53 PM | #1825 | |
Colonel
280
Rep 2,669
Posts
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land
|
Quote:
As you know, my car is a Sept '07 and probably one of the earliest build cars on this board and probably with the least mileage - 41,500 km. It has had BPM Stage I for a year now, and as of 24th Dec 2013, it's had BPM Stage II with TPs. I am running TWS 10w-60 and the engine hasn't skipped a heartbeat. I religiously warm up the car and then I do push to its limit in every single drive. According to BMW you start the car and drive carefully until all oils in the car gradually reach maximum operating temperature. There is a practice that, you start the car and leave it idling until the engine oil warms up and then push. I think this practice may (please note the use of may here) put unnecessary load on the engine. Changing to a lower viscosity oil is only a Band-Aid solution in my opinion. I have TWS stocked up to last me at least five oil changes. I think like SFP pointed out, there is more to this bearing failure like poor fuel quality. I was pumping fuel yesterday and inside the filler it recommends RON 95-98 and AKI 91. So if people are put in anything less you have to factor that it in. It may not be the case but combine that with other production factors and bad luck = explosion. So, it's just not eccentricity, bearing clearance, poor gas, oil change intervals, money shift ... who knows what else. I don't think even BMW can figure this out if not there would have been a fix already like the E46. So lets document it and hope when we blow that BMW are still in the market and there are enough S65s on the shelf in Munich. I just can't see why people here think that they know better than BMW ... that's to drive the car at high rpm from the time you turn the key. There is a reason why you are instructed to follow the oil temp as you gradually increase the load. We do everything BMW tell you not to, and then when things go wrong we blame the manufacturer. These points have been raised and discussed in the 80-page record breaking thread but I am just reminding including myself. And, how many of these blown engines have the rev limiter increased? If they have they will not acknowledge it on this thread. BMW might not be able to detect a tune but increasing the rev-limiter and the top speed are absolute giveaways that there has been some kind of tinkering going on. I am sure in those cases engine swap under warranty have been denied.
__________________
Last edited by aussiem3; 01-09-2014 at 11:53 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2014, 06:37 PM | #1826 |
Major
68
Rep 1,359
Posts |
RG, a big Thank You Sir!!!
The effort you have put into this is impressive! Thanks also to all who contributed financially and anyone who contributed to the discussion. Does anyone here thinks we have enough information and/or enough bearing related failures to print this thread, take it to a lawyer and start a big ass class action lawsuit? PS: I believe that the title of the last table on post #1786 should read: Complete 702/703 Bearing Specifications with Eccentricity
__________________
2014 E63 AMG-S
2012 C63 AMG (P31) - gone 2011 E90 M3 FBO - gone |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|