▀▄ eas | S65 Rod Bearing Replacement: An ongoing "Journal"

[e92zero]

^would like to learn and hear more about this WPC treatment. It looks like it's a micro shot peening processing. If that's the case, wouldn't it actually make the bearing smaller by some amount (maybe not measurable) which would benefit us perhaps?

[flipmeraz]

Originally Posted by e92zero

^would like to learn and hear more about this WPC treatment. It looks like it's a micro shot peening processing. If that's the case, wouldn't it actually make the bearing smaller by some amount (maybe not measurable) which would benefit us perhaps?

My buddy at work is doing it on his engine rebuild (STI enngine). I'll let you guys know how it goes. It looks like it would reduce some of the wear on the bearings

[aussiem3]

If I understand correctly, following statements as per my knowledge are correct:

1. the bearing issues are prevalent in the pre 2009 production ///3s as the mileage goes up
2. BMW changed the bearing part# from '09 production but didn't changed the clearance
3. the catastrphic damage happens in the warmp up window due to the thickness and flow of 10w-60
4. Changing the bearing with the '09 is a band-aid solution
5. No aftermarket replacement bearings with increased clearance
6. Permamnent solutions is to machine crankshaft
7. Treated bearings are not a solution due to reduced clearance
8. Mobil 0w-40 is a band-aid solution
9. Lack of expert companies to do a complete engine overhaul
10. One's peace of mind is gone for good every time you drive this car
11. BMW refuses to acknowledge there is a latent issue with regard to the bearings

I know at least one other case of engine blow up with low mileage in an '08 ///3 in our region, Australasia. This is very serious than first thought, at least in my case. I just don't know what to do.

Given I haven't got my car serviced at the dealer since the warranty expired makes it even worse. Had I got the car serviced, BMW would have extended a goodwill in the first five years of the car's life even if the warranty has expired. That's at least the case in Australia. I don't have that option either.

I don't know how a class action works. Anyone like to chime in. More I think of this now, the happiness the car gave me each time I drove it, has now changed to mortal fear. It's like a ticking time bomb

I think we need to start a engine failure register with VIN# for reference, and approach BMW. What we have currently is an ad hoc posting of engine issues and what we believe are fixes. Whilst being respectful of everyone's contribution, it's time we gathered some solid evidence to support individual cases. This is very serious.

Jason, would you want to do the honours for us and start a thread please on S65 engine failures - vin#, mileage, BMW's approach, owners' experience etc.? Thanking you in advance.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

If I understand correctly, following statements as per my knowledge are correct:

1. the bearing issues are prevalent in the pre 2009 production ///3s as the mileage goes up
2. BMW changed the bearing part# from '09 production but didn't changed the clearance

BMW changed main bearings in Oct-2008 and the part number changed along with it. But I've never seen any proof that rod bearings have ever changed as their part number has ever changed. Do you have any more information on this?

1. No aftermarket replacement bearings with increased clearance
2. Permamnent solutions is to machine crankshaft
3. Treated bearings are not a solution due to reduced clearance

Correct.
Correct.
Opinions vary.

1. Lack of expert companies to do a complete engine overhaul

There's a few I trust. It all depends on your willingness to ship the engine and/or car.

I know at least one other case of engine blow up with low mileage in an '08 ///3 in our region, Australasia. This is very serious than first thought, at least in my case. I just don't know what to do.

I know a few here stateside. One bone stock with rod snapped in half, and big end of rod turned blue from heat. Pictures have never been posted of this. But it's pretty clear that the heat was caused by a bearing issue, most likely lack of lubrication.

I don't know how a class action works. Anyone like to chime in. More I think of this now, the happiness the car gave me each time I drove it, has now changed to mortal fear. It's like a ticking time bomb

Class action is going to be per-country. Some countries may not even have this type of lawsuit category.

Jason, would you want to do the honours for us and start a thread please on S65 engine failures - vin#, mileage, BMW's approach, owners' experience etc.? Thanking you in advance.

I've already started writing a similar article and was planning to include pictures of engines both good and bad with as much data (mileage, etc.) that I can get. I probably have a handful of pictures that haven't yet been published.

[aus]

Please post the pics and I'll include them in the blown engine registry.

.

[Someone?]

Seems hard to believe the OEM bearing manufacturing company could not easily produce a bearing with the correct clearance? even if they started now they would probably sell a shit load over the coming years.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

BMW changed main bearings in Oct-2008 and the part number changed along with it. But I've never seen any proof that rod bearings have ever changed as their part number has ever changed. Do you have any more information on this?

I might have something on this on Friday. I have asked for a quote to replace the bearing. When they looked up the bearing there was a message to contact BMW head office, and it also gave a superseded part #. I know the part manager personally, so I will dig into this and post info. I will also try and list the new parts required for this job because the cross member require new bolts that have to be torqued and stretched.

[aussiem3]

The latest and superseded (?) part# for the rod bearings are: 11 24 784 1703 (top - red) and 11 24 784 1702 (bottom - blue). The parts catalogue doesn't give a part# history to verify if the part# has changed.

According to the information I have at hand is, the part # changes when the part has been redesigned or when the manufacturer/supplier is changed by BMW.

So, someone will have to verify whether this is the original part# used on since the first production in 2007. My car is a Sept '07 production and when the used my VIN# to bring up the rob bearing part, the above showed up.

Hope someone can chip in with more information.

[aus]

Duschioano on M5Board mentioned the bearing part number was changed on the S85 because the original ones contained lead, and BMW had to make bearings that didn't contain lead. Not sure if it's the same situation with our engines.

Also, has anyone considered running Castrol 0W30 instead of M1 0W40?
I'd like to mix a little with the 10W60 for track days. Kawasaki has said M1 0W40 deosn't mix well with the Castrol.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...&Number=718643

.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

The latest and superseded (?) part# for the rod bearings are: 11 24 784 1703 (top - red) and 11 24 784 1702 (bottom - blue). The parts catalogue doesn't give a part# history to verify if the part# has changed.

As best I can tell, these are the same rod bearing part numbers since the beginning of S65 production. I searched realoem by part number, and I checked some old receipts for S65 engine builds. I have build receipts from late 2008 and another from 2011, and another from 2013, and they all use these same part numbers. The 2008 receipt lists the M5 rod bearing bottom part number, and I think that might be because the parts list wasn't yet available. ??? But I do know that realoem lists the 1702 bearing as the only bottom bearing ever used on the S65, and the 1703 bearing shared with S85 and S65 during the entire production run.

Originally Posted by aus

Duschioano on M5Board mentioned the bearing part number was changed on the S85 because the original ones contained lead, and BMW had to make bearings that didn't contain lead. Not sure if it's the same situation with our engines.

S85 uses the same blue rod bearing (top shell: 11 24 784 1703) as S65, but has a different red bearing (bottom shell: 11 24 783 8088).

[B767capt]

Originally Posted by regular guy

As best I can tell, these are the same rod bearing part numbers since the beginning of S65 production. I searched realoem by part number, and I checked some old receipts for S65 engine builds. I have build receipts from late 2008 and another from 2011, and another from 2013, and they all use these same part numbers. The 2008 receipt lists the M5 rod bearing bottom part number, and I think that might be because the parts list wasn't yet available. ??? But I do know that realoem lists the 1702 bearing as the only bottom bearing ever used on the S65, and the 1703 bearing shared with S85 and S65 during the entire production run.



S85 uses the same blue rod bearing (top shell: 11 24 784 1703) as S65, but has a different red bearing (bottom shell: 11 24 783 8088).

I hope not because I put the -702 red on the bottom of my S85 a few weeks ago when I did mine myself. I had Vincent at Bimmerzone check the correct part numbers using my VIN (08 M5) with his BMW parts contact and I got the 703 and 702 sent. So far it's running great.

The old ones had Clevite 113 stamped on the back but the new ones didn't and had the BMW logo stamped on them with the color code on the side.


Edit: Just found this. Says ended.
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...=11&fg=20&hl=5

[B767capt]

[QUOTE=aussiem3;14584960]The latest and superseded (?) part# for the rod bearings are: 11 24 784 1703 (top - red) and 11 24 784 1702 (bottom - blue). The parts catalogue doesn't give a part# history to verify if the part# has changed.

Just want to correct this in case someone reads it later before install. Blue goes on TOP to the sky and red goes on BOTTOM towards hell. The 703 is the blue top and 702 is the bottom red.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by B767capt

Just want to correct this in case someone reads it later before install. Blue goes on TOP to the sky and red goes on BOTTOM towards hell. The 703 is the blue top and 702 is the bottom red.

Thank you. I probably wrote it down incorrectly when the parts manager read it out.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

As best I can tell, these are the same rod bearing part numbers since the beginning of S65 production. I searched realoem by part number, and I checked some old receipts for S65 engine builds. I have build receipts from late 2008 and another from 2011, and another from 2013, and they all use these same part numbers. The 2008 receipt lists the M5 rod bearing bottom part number, and I think that might be because the parts list wasn't yet available. ??? But I do know that realoem lists the 1702 bearing as the only bottom bearing ever used on the S65, and the 1703 bearing shared with S85 and S65 during the entire production run.



S85 uses the same blue rod bearing (top shell: 11 24 784 1703) as S65, but has a different red bearing (bottom shell: 11 24 783 8088).

when you did the builds did you measure shell thickness and height on the red vs blue. What is perplexing and I have brought this up before is clevite paints those bearings, I have a entire drawer full of red blue yellow and green bearings at work that are painted in the exact fashion. The red shells are standard and the blue shells are +.001, yellow is +.0005 and green is -.001. This is clevites standard system. If that is not the case here it is baffling why they would paint the shells when there is no difference. Also if they were the same size why would there be two part numbers?

[B767capt]

Kawasaki didn't you say in another post that maybe the ones are Pankl? There was no Clevite logo on my new ones.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by B767capt

Kawasaki didn't you say in another post that maybe the ones are Pankl? There was no Clevite logo on my new ones.

So there are no markings of any nature on the shell?
Not that they couldn't be pankl but if they are that is a subsidized price because pankl are about 800 a set.

[lsmkr01]

Originally Posted by B767capt

Kawasaki didn't you say in another post that maybe the ones are Pankl? There was no Clevite logo on my new ones.

Different manufactures wouldn't change the point that 2 different part numbers are used for supposedly the same bearing. The different colors and part numbers would imply one is larger than the other.

[B767capt]

The new 703/702 bearing shells had BMW with a circle around the logo and a few numbers.
old oem lower has:
CL 113
713B
on other end of shell
088/089

old OEM upper:
CL 113
713C
other end
088/089

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

when you did the builds did you measure shell thickness and height on the red vs blue. What is perplexing and I have brought this up before is clevite paints those bearings, I have a entire drawer full of red blue yellow and green bearings at work that are painted in the exact fashion. The red shells are standard and the blue shells are +.001, yellow is +.0005 and green is -.001. This is clevites standard system. If that is not the case here it is baffling why they would paint the shells when there is no difference. Also if they were the same size why would there be two part numbers?

We did measure it.

Red: 0.0835" thick
Blue: 0.0839" thick

Installed clearance:
Red+Red: 0.0014"
Red+Blue: 0.0011"

Didn't measure blue+blue because it's obviously going in the wrong direction of what we needed.

Edit:
Builds notes have some calculations on them regarding journal size and rod bore size, then at the bottom conclude: "Need approx 0.0830" shell."

I remember getting a call to ask me if BMW has any thinner shells. I looked into it and couldn't find any. At that point, we made the decision to send the crank out to resize the journals.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

We did measure it.

Red: 0.0835" thick
Blue: 0.0839" thick

Installed clearance:
Red+Red: 0.0014"
Red+Blue: 0.0011"

Didn't measure blue+blue because it's obviously going in the wrong direction of what we needed.

Edit:
Builds notes have some calculations on them regarding journal size and rod bore size, then at the bottom conclude: "Need approx 0.0830" shell."

I remember getting a call to ask me if BMW has any thinner shells. I looked into it and couldn't find any. At that point, we made the decision to send the crank out to resize the journals.

Aha, so the blues are +.001 and reds are .000. With that being the case I would only run red and red on the replacements then I would scotchbrite the back side pretty hard and call it a day should be able to get it to around .0017 like that.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Aha, so the blues are +.001 and reds are .000. With that being the case I would only run red and red on the replacements then I would scotchbrite the back side pretty hard and call it a day should be able to get it to around .0017 like that.

I was confused by the red/blue bearing shell designations myself. For mains, BMW lists green, yellow, violet for both top and bottom (see items 02 and 04). But for rods, BMW only lists blue for top and red for bottom (see items 06 and 07). So this is a bit confusing to me.

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...21&hg=11&fg=20

Here's where I'm going to have to plead ignorance and lean on the hard core engine experts. My intuition tells me that you're right about red/blue being size differences. But one of my favorite BMW shops insists that's not the case with BMW rod bearings -- that blue is always on top and red is always on bottom. So I'm still confused.

I can tell you that we've disassembled engines that had a mixture of green and yellow shells on the mains. But we've only seen blue-top and red-bottom on the rods. But that's with the caveat that I don't think we were really looking for color codes until we noticed the mixture of main bearing shells. That uncertainty was another factor in deciding to clearance the journals and stick with the blue/red combo.

Kawasaki, any chance your contact at Clevite could shed some light on this? Maybe EAS can chime in if they still have the shady1's bearings to confirm/deny them all being blue-top, red-bottom.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Maybe EAS can chime in if they still have the shady1's bearings to confirm/deny them all being blue-top, red-bottom.

While this is typical for replacement bearings, I haven't seen any colors on bearings pulled from engines (S65 and S52/S54).

SHADY1's bearings have no color markings.