|
|
01-13-2014, 11:45 PM | #1915 |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
This weekend I re-torqued the 702/703 bearings back in place and took the eccentricity measurements at 3/8 inch from the parting line (20 and 160 degrees). This is the location recommended for correct eccentricity measurements. The goal was to see if re-torque would affect these measurements. Simple answer after looking at this graph: no.
It's hard to see, but the new line is in green and overlays exactly on top of the red line. You can see the new sets of green dots on the graph. The green dots represent the new measurements. Measurements were not taken at 5, 45, 90, 135, and 175 degrees as part of this re-do. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-14-2014, 07:56 AM | #1916 |
Lieutenant Colonel
234
Rep 1,673
Posts |
Imagine that.
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-15-2014, 11:04 PM | #1917 | |||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Any particular reason for this strong biasing of the data set? Quote:
__________________
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
|
01-15-2014, 11:19 PM | #1918 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
Big shout out to EAS for sending me their bearings from the 106000 mile engine and allowing them to be sent to Clevite. They will promptly go back to EAS and back on display in their showroom when Clevite is done. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2014, 03:22 AM | #1919 | |
Brigadier General
2513
Rep 4,381
Posts |
Quote:
2008 9010 2009 4146 2010 2047 2011 8616 2012 2453 2013 3984 For a total production of 30256 M3s for the USA/Canada market. Below I've added 2008 & 2009 & 2010 together, left 2011 separate (as the date of change from 088/9 to 702/703 bearings is uncertain) and then added 2012 & 2013 together - as this helps to even out the rates due to the low numbers. I've not included the supercharged engines, oil pump or valve failures. Dividing the production numbers by fails gives a rate per 1000 cars. 2008/9/10 15203 cars @ 10 fails = 1/1520 2011 8616 cars @ 7 fails = 1/1230 2012/13 6437 cars @ 5 fails = 1/1287 I've started a new thread for this topic to stop this one from getting further cluttered up and because it might get a bit lost in here. http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935368 Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-16-2014 at 10:37 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2014, 05:44 PM | #1920 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Loosely relevant - my first oil analysis. My car is a 2008. Everything low/below average or in range except lead just a bit high. No concern though on that according to Blackstone.
Probably a better question for Blackstone but can this type of analysis really provide an advanced warning indication of significant bearing wear or impending failure (due to wear only of course)? Looking at the bearings photos in this thread, the progressive wear down to copper and the most severely damaged bearings with large pieces flaking away, it seems pretty obvious that this truly can be such a great preventative indicator. The metal removed from the bearings has to go somewhere. Who wants to have their engine dropped and bearings inspected when it is a total crap shoot as to whether or not new bearings may be needed.
__________________
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
|
01-18-2014, 06:15 PM | #1922 | |
Private First Class
60
Rep 198
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
*1996 S54 E36 M3* •2017 F87 M2•
Sold: 07' e90 335i, 08' e92 M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2014, 06:30 PM | #1923 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
I hope I didn't speak too soon. I have the full ROD bearing specs for F10 M5...I didn't check for main bearing specs. I'll see if I can get those too. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2014, 07:32 PM | #1924 | ||
Private First Class
60
Rep 198
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
*1996 S54 E36 M3* •2017 F87 M2•
Sold: 07' e90 335i, 08' e92 M3 |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-19-2014, 12:43 AM | #1925 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
It looks like BMW made quite a few changes to the bearings on the F10-S63 M5 engine. I kind of backed my way into finding it like this.
I had access to the BMW software the dealers used. I started snooping around the S63 engine details. I first looked up rod bearing clearance, and just like the S65, the entry for clearance was blank. So out of curiousity, I decided to look over the S63 rod bearing replacement instructions. BMW instructions the service tech to check the clearance with Plastigage. The software provides a link you can click to check for proper clearance. I clicked the link, and I found the missing S63 bearing clearance specifications. Next of course I tried the same thing on the S65. But there was no luck, clicking the same link for the S65 engine brings up the same blank spec sheet that I've seen many times. Here's an overview of the F10-S63 M5 bearing changes.
Thinner bearings The S65 connecting rod bore is 56mm and the rod journal is 52mm. This leaves for a 2mm thick bearing for the upper and lower shells. The S63 connecting rod bore is 57.6mm and the rod journal is 54mm. This leaves the connecting rod bearing 1.8mm thick. That is slightly thinner than the 2mm S65 bearing. Changes to the upper and lower bearings If there was ever any doubt BMW wanted BLUE bearing shells on the upper connecting rod, and RED bearing shells on the lower connecting rod, then the S63 engine resolved that ambiguity. On the S65, the blue and red bearing shells are ever so slightly different thickness than each other (with blue/upper being thicker). This caused some to believe BMW did this intentionally to set clearances more accurately. The S63 engine leaves no room to hold on to that belief any longer. The upper blue and lower red bearings are keyed differently and can only fit into their proper position. It's no longer possible to install the red on the upper and blue on the lower as it is on the S65. Here's a photo of what the new bearings look like and it shows how they are keyed differently. Increased rod clearance The S65 has rod clearance that ranges from smaller than Clevite recommendations on older 088/089 bearings, to barely within Clevite recommendations on the newer 702/703 bearings. The S63 rod bearing clearance is even larger than the extra clearance on the S65 with the latest 702/703 bearings. The S65 with 702/703 rod bearings has a nominal 0.00165 inch clearance on a 52mm journal, giving a clearance to journal ratio of 0.00081 inch/inch. The S65 mains have a nominal clearance of 0.00180 inch on a 60mm journal, giving a clearance to journal ratio of 0.00061 inch/inch. The S63 improves this somewhat on the rods, but makes the mains even tighter. The S63 rod clearances are 0.00187 inch on a 54mm journal, giving a clearance to journal ratio of 0.00088 inch/inch. The S63 main clearances are 0.00181 inch on 65mm journal, giving a clearance to journal ratio of 0.00051 inch/inch. Back to thinner oil The oil experts in this thread have always said the TWS 10W60 oil is too thick for the tight clearances of the S65. The F10-S63 M5 engine goes away from the thick 10W60 oil by going back to LL01 0W30-5W40 thinner oil. I will try to get a print out of these oil recommendations along with the latest LL01 approved oil list. By the numbers Here's how the F10-S63 M5 engine clearances compare to the other engine clearances being tracked by this thread. BMW ///M Engines (Main Bearings) Sorted by Model
BMW ///M Engines (Rod Bearings) Sorted by Model
Last edited by regular guy; 01-19-2014 at 01:53 AM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
01-19-2014, 08:41 PM | #1926 |
Banned
8
Rep 182
Posts |
Given rods are ever so increased clearance and mains are actually tighter, can we
Assume M has their continued reason to run tighter than typical clearances? The oil rec changed but aside from that I assume many on here Would say these clearances are also too tight compared to industry standards? So will the folks say M screwed up with s54, s65and s85 now think they messed Up again? I think this shows M chooses these tight specs for a reason and it wasn't a miscalculation as some suggested. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-19-2014, 10:13 PM | #1927 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-19-2014, 10:39 PM | #1928 | |
Second Lieutenant
42
Rep 266
Posts |
Quote:
This oil question has my attention. I know you have Clevite looking at some bearings; have they had any recommendations on oil? I am not sure if they really would want to comment but just a thought. I guess what I really want is BMW to make a unambiguous answer. And thanks for your work. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-20-2014, 06:41 AM | #1929 |
Brigadier General
2513
Rep 4,381
Posts |
This is a graph showing fail rates by year and mileage at fail by year.
I've had to add some of the years together to even out the numbers a bit. 2008/2009&10/2011/2012&13. Not much data but it does indicate that the expected downwards trend (newer cars with less miles) reverses about the time that the bearings with the bigger clearance were introduced. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-20-2014, 01:17 PM | #1930 | |
First Lieutenant
7
Rep 311
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-20-2014, 01:47 PM | #1931 |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-20-2014, 02:13 PM | #1933 | |
Major General
2768
Rep 5,483
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-20-2014, 08:20 PM | #1934 |
Banned
8
Rep 182
Posts |
Isn't there some value to thicker oils for high revving engines? Bearing clearance is one thing but aren't their shearing forces at 8500 ROMs that don't exist at 7200? Is the new m cars
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-22-2014, 02:25 PM | #1935 |
Major General
7546
Rep 7,483
Posts |
Shear stability of the oil does not really correlate with the thickness of the oil. It's more about if the oil is loaded with viscosity index improvers (VII) to create a wide multi-grade like 10w-60 or 5w-50. Oils with a higher viscosity index are can be more prone to shearing out of grade.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|