|
|
10-05-2013, 12:32 PM | #177 | |
Grease Monkey
301
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
The thing is that there are potentially more problems but people just wont know about them until they either disassemble their engines or they have a failure. Approaching this issue from a statistical standpoint is exactly what BMW will do. Basically it all comes down to dollars and cents and they are gambling with the fact that most of these engines will last beyond the warranty period and they are then off the hook. The thing about the S65 is that it uses the exact same journal diameters, same rods and same bearings as the S85 so there were in fact no changes made to the S65 main and rod bearings and clearance specifications. The majority of the development for the S65 was most likely done side by side with the S85. Since the S54 bearing issue was not known or addressed till MY03 it is very likely that the majority of the S85/S65 development work was done before they knew there were clearance/bearing issues in the S54. Since the S85 was released for production in 2005 with the final engine R&D being done at least 2 years before, once the problem surfaced in the S54, BMW most likely decided not to spend big money on the S85 to change the clearance specs. This would involve having new cranks and bearings made, and test this stuff all before the release date of the E60 M5......... All this equals big $$$$$ and most likely the bean counters would have just said NO! Clearances are not a mystery and are not something that has been played with a lot in engines over the last 50-60 years. the 0.001"/inch of journal diameter is a well accepted rule, and on the tight side 0.00075"/inch of journal diameter is also a number that is used quite often too. BMW is assembling some engines that are much tighter than even the latter quoted number above. The engines you mentioned that were tested for R&D were most likely hand assembled and blueprinted engines (as we have all seen from the videos of the gentleman assembling the S65 and all of the numbers being recorded for the particular engine right down to torque numbers on the head bolts) once the S65/S85 went to mass production there was no way to control or know if one bearing was 0.00025" tighter than the rest since measuring to this tolerance is no longer feasible. Having only one size of STD bearings available for an engine makes it damn near impossible to dial in clearances to exactly what you want. Even the lowliest civic or corolla will be assembled with multiple main and rod bearing sizes to dial in clearances to what QA wants. Even a GM small block has numerous bearing sizes available to allow the clearances to be dialled in from journal to journal and keep them within spec (even if they are not assembled as such the sizes are still available and with the relatively loose tolerances they are built with [roughly 0.002"+ mains and rods] a few ten thousandths don't matter anyway). Machine work is often out a few ten thousandths and when you are extremely tight like the S65 that can account for a 20-30% difference in total clearance....... With different bearing sizes one could hand fit every journal and cancel out minute machining differences. I am 100% confident that the clearances in this engine (and the S54 and S85) are too tight. As soon as I heard the numbers I was horrified since I knew I would have to disassemble my S65 at some point to measure and confirm/adjust clearances if I wanted my engine to last for the life of the car. I have fit hundreds of sets of bearings and I have also seen many failures. The failures are virtually always either tight clearances or an oil starvation issue resulting from a failed oil pump, blocked oil passage, blocked pick-up tube, or low oil level. Hopefully many people will not have any issue with their S65's and S85's and this may be the case......... What I fear is that the majority will see bearing issues, or at least accelerated wear. It is virtually impossible to build an engine this tight and not have the variation between bearings bite you in the butt without multiple bearing sizes to allow you to fine tune the clearances.
__________________
Last edited by BMRLVR; 10-05-2013 at 12:42 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 04:46 PM | #178 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
BMW chose small bearing clearances in the S85 and S65 by design. It is unknown what advantage(s) or the design intent from BMW M was. Due to manufacturing variations in both bearings and cranks journals these clearances can and will become smaller the desired design point (this will happen in all engines, obviously). These smaller clearances are causing oil starvation issues in some engines/some bearings which can lead to catastrophic engine failure or accelerated/premature wear. I still wouldn't even go that far primarily because of this, straight from the OP in post #108: Quote:
For all of those thinking that this story is done and a firm conclusion has been obtained I strongly advise to rethink this. A ton of data is vastly different than a firm and justifiable conclusion.
__________________
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
|
10-05-2013, 04:48 PM | #179 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
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
|
10-05-2013, 07:03 PM | #180 |
Colonel
280
Rep 2,669
Posts
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land
|
But BMW has unofficially acknowledge there is a bearing issue. Now they are recommending a thinner oil.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 07:16 PM | #181 | |||
Grease Monkey
301
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
As for the particular engine you referred to, I think there is an issue with concentricity of the rod bores and also possible fastener stretching due to the added wear near the parting line. One thing you are 100% correct about is the more data we collect, the better off we will be to developing a solution. I will be building a stroker next summer and opening up the oil clearance on the mains and rods and adjusting the side clearance on the rods to something I am more comfortable with! At that point my low mileage S65 will be measured, pictures snapped and the info added to regular guy's data so as to benefit the entire community! |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 08:23 PM | #182 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
145
Rep 1,665
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 08:40 PM | #183 | ||
Grease Monkey
301
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 08:56 PM | #184 |
Major
339
Rep 1,488
Posts |
Lol!
But +1 Although I know no better, I am changing mine tomorrow and it's likely going to be either M1 0w40 or 5w30 OE. And the answer is? |
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 09:30 PM | #185 | |
Grease Monkey
301
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
I guess this throws the "S65 was designed for 10W60" guys for a loop now doesn't it!? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 09:44 PM | #186 |
Major General
5061
Rep 6,879
Posts |
I'm confused about this BMW revised oil listing. Does this mean 5w-30 is ok for use in all current and previous M models or just recommended for current models (ie turbo cars)?
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 09:59 PM | #187 |
Captain
481
Rep 989
Posts |
I'm confused too... In the bulletin it says that we can use 5w30 or 10w60 depending on what the climate is in the region we are in.
I'm in California... Does this mean I can use 5w30? As far as warranty is concerned... Can I get away now with different brand oils now? Such as Mobil 1 0w40? Or motul 300V 5w30 or 0w40? |
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 10:27 PM | #188 |
Major
339
Rep 1,488
Posts |
Just something I read on Blackstone's site. It is not in response to anything, just more info and I hope it is not misinformation.
"The heavier oils provide more bearing film, and that's important at the lower end. If your oil is too light, the bearing metals can increase. If the oil is too heavy, the upper end metals can increase." |
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 10:37 PM | #189 | |
Private First Class
60
Rep 198
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
*1996 S54 E36 M3* •2017 F87 M2•
Sold: 07' e90 335i, 08' e92 M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2013, 11:16 PM | #190 | ||
Major
339
Rep 1,488
Posts |
Quote:
Since context is everything, I am posting the link http://www.blackstone-labs.com/oil-viscosity.php |
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2013, 01:45 AM | #191 | |||
Major General
903
Rep 9,034
Posts |
Quote:
I was wondering what BMW oil the 07 51 0 037 195 was for. Anyone have any idea how it's different than the regular 5W30? Quote:
Quote:
NOT the standard Mobil 1 5W30. .
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2013, 02:47 AM | #192 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Also, your statement I criticized as incorrect was fairly easy to do so because it is so absolutist. Is every clearance on every engine too small? I think not, that's why I offered a rewording of the statement that seems to be more in line with the direction both you and the OP have taken already in prior posts. Agree or disagree, my rewording of your statement is more accurate accounting of your hypothesis? Note I use the term hypothesis because that is about all we have thus far. This has not yet graduated to the status of a theory. Quote:
Pure, unadulterated speculation. And speculation so that the data will fit your premature conclusion. Really I expect better especially from you! One might be able to make loosely related statements about other tolerances anywhere in the system to explain away most of the observations already made. Last but not least, I think someone should chime in here with an attempt to understand BMW M's DESIGN INTENT. If doubling of this clearance would have absolutely no downside and 100% pure upside then they would have done it. They chose the nominal clearance for a reason.
__________________
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
|
10-06-2013, 09:36 AM | #193 |
Lieutenant Colonel
267
Rep 1,616
Posts |
Ok, so after scouring the board for all the posts about these bearing problems i went from just dismissing the issue to accepting that it could legitimately be an issue.
I plan to send in my oil for analysis when I do my next oil change and if there are elevated levels of lead I'll switch to a lighter oil. If not, I'll just stick with the TWS
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2013, 09:53 AM | #194 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by regular guy; 10-06-2013 at 10:25 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
1
DrFerry6748.00 |
10-06-2013, 10:25 AM | #195 |
Lieutenant Colonel
429
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Here's a quote from the Mahle-Clevite white paper to explain why engine manufacturers sometimes employ tighter tolerances.
http://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/C125790900540AC0/vwContentByUNID/56F6CDE0B180EF1BC12579AB00611F28/$FILE/EB-20-11.pdf (pages 25-27) http://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/C125790900540AC0/vwContentByUNID/58A5032D3003098AC12579AB00615520/$FILE/EB-10-07.pdf (pages 09-11) For most applications .00075 to .0010” (three quarters to one thousandth of an inch) of clearance per inch of shaft diameter is a reasonable starting point. For example a 2.000” shaft diameter would require .0015 to .0020” bearing clearance. (.00075 X 2.000” = .0015” and .0010 X 2.000” = .0020”) Using this formula will provide a safe starting point for most applications. For High Performance engines it is recommended that .0005” be added to the maximum value determined by the above calculation. The recommendation for our 2.000” shaft would be .0025” of clearance. (See figure 2.)It's noteworthy that according the Mahle-Clevite (BMW's S65 bearing manufacturer) tighter tolerances must be mated with thinner oil. The above quote used the example of 5W30 oil for tighter tolerances -- which is exactly what BMW just announced may be allowed on our M engines. |
Appreciate
1
DrFerry6748.00 |
10-06-2013, 12:26 PM | #196 | |||
Grease Monkey
301
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
I am not speaking from total lack of experience here nor am I going off of speculation. If I had the parts here in front of me I could measure the rods with the excessive wear and prove to you that there was an issue with the boring of those particular rods and show there is an issue there. I actually work on high and medium speed diesels mostly. (Low speed diesels are largely reserved for large power generation facilities and ships). Your statement stating that my experience is unrelated is not correct either. A bearing and the principals of hydrodynamic lubrication and clearances are the same regardless of the engine. We still use the same 0.00075"- 0.001"/ inch of journal diameter during assembly and what we lose in RPM we more than make up for in the mass of the parts and forces exerted. The end result is the same regardless of the engine you work on. Your comment regarding not being involved in engineering and development of engines is not entirely true either. Our mine has been use as a testing ground for most of the new products that came on the market in the mining industry! We had the first development (Field follow as the manufacturers call them) CAT 797A truck in operation, one of the first two development Komatsu 960E's in the world. One of the first two CAT 797F trucks in operation. In fact, right now we are helping Komatsu in developing their Autonomous (operator less/fully automated) 930E haul truck for oil sands usage at our mine as we speak. All of these units have been new prototype units and have had developmental engines and transmissions/diesel electric propulsion systems in them, which we, the local dealers, and the manufacturers have worked together on to work out the bugs and come to a production ready product. In mining equipment the only way to develop a product is to put it in service at a mine where it will be working once it is in production. Real world testing of large mining equipment is hard to do unless you own a mine......... None of the manufacturers own mines big enough to accurately test their largest equipment ...... Just smaller proving grounds. I interact with development engineers on a daily basis so you are incorrect in your statement. I highly respect your opinion and you make huge contributions to the forum. I wish you would give me some more credit in this area since I do this on a daily basis and have seen failure after failure. Based on all of the photos that have been posted and measurements that have been taken I am quite confident in my diagnosis since I have seen these conditions many, many times before. You say that you wish someone would enlighten us on the "M design intent". Unfortunately, there probably was a design intent but there was also one with the original S54....... One that was flawed and they changed their intent along with bearing clearances, bearing shells, and even rods and rod bolts. This goes to show that even with their "design intent" there are still mistakes made. I personally think that in light of the previous acknowledgement of the S54 bearing issue, BMW is going to be highly reluctant to admit there is an issue with the S65 and S85 since it would damage their credibility. Acknowledgement of an issue here would show the customers that they obviously didn't learn from the S54 so it is most likely that engine issues will be handled on a case by case basis with the S65 and S85. Their latest recommendation of the lighter oil (Castrol Edge OE 5W30) also shows that they are acknowledging that there is a potential issue at hand....... Just a few months ago a lighter oil in an NA M engine was strictly Taboo..... M engines were designed for 10W60...... Right!? I apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors, I replied from my I phone. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2013, 12:52 PM | #197 |
Private First Class
32
Rep 194
Posts |
To sum up the oil recommendations, M1 0w40 seems like a safer (and significantly cheaper) bet than the TWS 10w60. Is that the consensus here?
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2013, 02:06 PM | #198 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
234
Rep 1,673
Posts |
Quote:
•BMW Long-life rating LL-01 Synthetic Oils for BMW M vehicles equipped with S54, S62, S65 or S85 engines Mobil 1 0-40 has LL01 approval on the bottle. Therefore according to the new recommendations it is ok to use. Also because it says LL01 on the bottle you will also retain warranty.
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
Last edited by kawasaki00; 10-06-2013 at 02:18 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|