|
|
12-29-2016, 09:09 PM | #24 | |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
Quote:
Doing cold start analysis was an afterthought. I think the program that searches the database for them is going to get tweaked to see if we can remove these types of entries. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-30-2016, 02:12 AM | #25 | |
First Lieutenant
104
Rep 303
Posts |
Quote:
Out of interest do you have an idea what is the oil films' peak pressure? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-30-2016, 11:38 AM | #26 |
First Lieutenant
152
Rep 392
Posts |
I don't see it as "detrimental". Any data that indicates that it is? Indeed the clearance in BE's bearings might be perfect
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-30-2016, 12:29 PM | #27 | |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
Quote:
When BMW changed the rod bearing clearance on S54 to what BE is now using on S65, and using the same oil, I don't think we saw any of these concerns or engines blowing as a result. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-30-2016, 04:14 PM | #28 |
Colonel
274
Rep 2,665
Posts
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land
|
Wealth of information and data to absorb. Hope all these lead to one thing - a solutions is afoot to put an end to the BF saga. Thank you for sharing.
__________________
F86 X6///
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-30-2016, 11:05 PM | #29 | ||
Lieutenant General
2317
Rep 12,654
Posts |
Updated cold start/warm start analysis
Quote:
Quote:
Testing Results: BMW Factory 702/703 Bearings Overview Testing Results: BE Bearings SP1527HK Overview |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 10:04 AM | #31 |
Captain
83
Rep 985
Posts
Drives: 08 M5 Sapphire Black
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT
|
I will add to that request
As temps in the northeast can dip into the 0 degree Fahrenheit (-17 Celsius), running 10w60 in the winter doesn't sound wise regardless of which bearings you 've got.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 10:46 AM | #33 | |||
First Lieutenant
104
Rep 303
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
With the OEM bearings the 21 GPM covers the oil flow to the Vanos, main bearings, rod bearings, camshafts, piston cooling, chain tensioners etc. So lets say of that 21 GPM, 7 GPM flows through the rod bearings. With the increased clearance bearings the total flow increases from 21 GPM to 42 GPM, which can only be accounted for by increased flow through the Rod bearings (as nothing else has changed). So by increasing the RB clearance we see the oil flow though the rod bearings increase from an estimated 7 GPM to a total of 28 GPM (7 + 21). A quadrupling of oil flow though the rod bearing may initially seem appealing but its due to the increased clearance allowing the oil to haemorrhage out of the bearing at a greatly increased rate. Increasing the ease of escape of the oil from the bearing will naturally also negatively affect the pressure of the oil wedge and the loaded oil film. Quote:
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 01:04 PM | #34 | |
First Lieutenant
152
Rep 392
Posts |
Quote:
"So let's say that.....". Conjecture. Where's your data. You also presume that the flow over the bearings is enough to start with. Most data to date indicates differet. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 03:12 PM | #35 | |
Grease Monkey
295
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
Oil being lost out the side of the bearings is the only way for additional oil to get in, it is by these means that a journal bearing is cooled. It is less desirable for the bearings to not allow some oil to escape, under these conditions bearing temperatures increase and as a result the oil in the bearing loses viscosity and the oil film could break down allowing metal on metal contact.
__________________
Last edited by BMRLVR; 12-31-2016 at 03:32 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 03:28 PM | #36 | |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
Quote:
So funny to hear a guy argue against the same spec BMW used on a revised S54 rod bearing is now dangerous for S65. I wonder if anybody else finds that pretty funny. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 03:32 PM | #37 | ||
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
Quote:
The 0-15 GPM oil flow sensor specifications are listed in the opening of post-1. The fact you missed this, and think you saw 42 GPM readings, tells me that you didn't read this article very closely, or didn't understand what you read. There's two different scales on the summary graph: one in blue, the other in red. They're color coded for a reason to match the lines in the graph. The oil flow graph is in red, and corresponds to the scale on the right of the graph (also in red). That oil flow scale runs 0-15. It's impossible to read 42 GPM from that scale when it maxes out at 15 GPM. The fact that you didn't catch this tells me you're not familiar with reading technical data, charts, etc. Quote:
Pete, it's time to give this a rest. This article and the data is the worst case scenario for you and your agenda. You hoped oil pressure would be dangerously low. It wasn't, and barely changed. It's still well within BMW specifications. You didn't believe oil flow could be measured attributable to bearing clearance. You now seem to concede that point as well. Face it Pete, no oil pressure drop and double the oil flow, and using specs equal to BMW S54 rod bearings is about the worst case scenario for you and your agenda. Time to pack it up and find a new target for your energy. Last edited by Green-Eggs; 12-31-2016 at 03:45 PM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2016, 03:49 PM | #38 | |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
1
admranger2984.50 |
01-01-2017, 04:14 AM | #39 | |
First Lieutenant
104
Rep 303
Posts |
Quote:
It changes nothing though, the principles remain the same. Increasing the RB clearance does allow an easier escape for the supplied oil such that the flow out of the bearings increases approx some fourfold (not double as you mistakenly noted - but I won't go on about it). The consequence being a 4% drop in oil pressure for the whole lubrication system. Equally it remains correct that increasing bearing clearance will change (non-beneficially) the distribution of pressure over the bearing surface and increase the peak pressure. Last edited by Sneaky Pete; 01-01-2017 at 04:25 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-01-2017, 02:41 PM | #40 | ||
Grease Monkey
295
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
The only concern with BE Bearings from the beginning was, how much of an oil pressure drop would be seen once the bearings were installed? With this data we have answered this question and the results are even better than what we expected. You can keep prodding and poking all you like but all it is doing is making you look silly. You are suggesting that a rod bearing set at best practice clearance could cause some serious issue in an ICE. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-01-2017, 03:48 PM | #41 | ||
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-01-2017, 10:34 PM | #42 |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
1440
Rep 1,614
Posts |
I'm told BE dudes were able to find a statistics add-in to their SQL server. I have no idea what that means lol. I think they're planning to re-run the analysis with median, and mode and then post the spreadsheets for download. Not sure when that will be done...but probably in the next few days.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2017, 02:04 AM | #44 |
Grease Monkey
295
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Not sure if it will happen, but with the clearance now at what it is with BE bearings a 10W60 can actually be used and taken advantage of. I can't see there being an issue with 0W40 with the looser clearance either.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|