OEM 702/703 to BE Bearings

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

Good luck and report back.

you should be glad BE binned all the parts and allows you order mixed sets of varying thicknesses to suit your specific needs.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

They ought to know...they were the OEM supplier to BMW for the S85 and S65 for the best part of a decade (IIRC from initial S85 engine design to the change to lead free bearings for the S65).
You think in their long term partnership with BMW they supplied M5/M3 rod bearings to use at a clearance that they now consider to be incorrect?

On one hand you say it isn't possible for three blokes to design a rod bearing entirely on their own. Then right here you say Clevite dictates the design requirements to BMW, not the other way around. Got to love people creating new screen names after being banned and posting with the same old agenda.

[Merlin_83]

Originally Posted by L4ces

Hey Sneaky Pete, you just joined and have 1 post.

Like to hear more on the bearing issue. What is your take on it and why?

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

you should be glad BE binned all the parts and allows you order mixed sets of varying thicknesses to suit your specific needs.

I don't know where I'd be today if it weren't for some banned folks who started some useless bearing company.

Thanks be to God :

[rcracin]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

I don't know where I'd be today if it weren't for some banned folks who started some useless bearing company.

Thanks be to God :

That's the attitude that leaves you shit out of luck versus getting the best experienced knowledge available to build you a reliable motor at a good price. Good luck to you as well.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by rcracin

That's the attitude that leaves you shit out of luck versus getting the best experienced knowledge available to build you a reliable motor at a good price. Good luck to you as well.

BE bearings would have given this guy a crank to take to Bryant like he wanted but he was just rude so no point helping someone like that

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by rcracin

That's the attitude that leaves you shit out of luck versus getting the best experienced knowledge available to build you a reliable motor at a good price. Good luck to you as well.

Whomever you are referring to I never asked for their help. But thanks anyway.

We can agree to disagree all day long, slapping in a set of bearings is nothing but a bandaid. Just a group of guys who started a business looking to cash in, like they re-invented the wheel. Wait hold on I think I hear the phone ringing its joe gibbs racing looking for a set of bearings.

[rcracin]

Shit i PM'd him to see what he was trying to accomplish because I would've sent a crank out on his behalf but he was too damn ignorant. Made no sense whatsoever.

[rcracin]

Nobody has agreed to disagree with you. You just make no sense and choose to shit on what other people invested their free time and expertise into. I can assure you these guys did not set out to make money. They were genuinely curious as to what the real problem is and sought out a viable solution.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by rcracin

Shit i PM'd him to see what he was trying to accomplish because I would've sent a crank out on his behalf but he was too damn ignorant. Made no sense whatsoever.

Its pointless, unless someone is willing to write a check for 8k (tooling) and commit to purchasing 10 cranks. And we won't know what the final price will be until they actually see one. Call them up and send one and report back.

Not everyone is mechanically inclined, I know spending thousands is what people don't wanna hear. But unfortunately its the realization of this issue. Anyone looking to keep their m3 long term would see this as a great investment.

[rcracin]

It really isnt. A properly balanced crank with properly sized bearings is just good as anything else. Like i said before, it isn't rocket science. Tolerance is based on a builder's preference just like tuning rich or lean. There is nothing wrong with the oem crank. You seem to believe that there is.

Use the already collected data that exists and ask any reputable builder what they think of the oem tolerances and report back.

Oh wait, you didnt invest time and money in gathering data sampling many failed motors so you can't do that. Instead you shit on the people that did.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by rcracin

It really isnt. A properly balanced crank with properly sized bearings is just good as anything else. Like i said before, it isn't rocket science. Tolerance is based on a builder's preference just like tuning rich or lean. There is nothing wrong with the oem crank. You seem to believe that there is.

Use the already collected data that exists and ask any reputable builder what they think of the oem tolerances and report back.

Oh wait, you didnt invest time and money in gathering data sampling many failed motors so you can't do that. Instead you shit on the people that did.

There isn't anything wrong with the oem crank, its forged. I'm not a crank specialist but bryant said they could fix the oiling issues as well as journal diameters. Plus their forgings are better with better steel being used.

I didn't need to waste time and money, I made one 3 minute phone call to a company that makes the best cranks in the country. The latter is wasting time with a bandaid fix.

If someone has a crank to donate send it to bryant and they will look at it no charge.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

There isn't anything wrong with the oem crank, its forged. I'm not a crank specialist but bryant said they could fix the oiling issues as well as journal diameters. Plus their forgings are better with better steel being used.

I didn't need to waste time and money, I made one 3 minute phone call to a company that makes the best cranks in the country. The latter is wasting time with a bandaid fix.

If someone has a crank to donate send it to bryant and they will look at it no charge.

Do you know where dinan got there valve spring design from? Got it from be bearings and some guy who got banned. Also Dinan provided many specs for the be bearing design.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

On one hand you say it isn't possible for three blokes to design a rod bearing entirely on their own.

OK so BMW produced an engine design for the S85 that proved not to be totally reliable...they then recycled the same rod bearing clearance of that design into the S65. To the end of the S65 run the rod bearing clearance remained essentially the same. During all those years, engines replaced under warranty were returned to the factory and stripped down to discover the fault probably at an overall cost somewhere around $10 million.
For the sake of argument lets say the rod bearing clearance actually was the cause of these engine failures (it would have been easily obvious if a couple of people on the old interwebs can diagnose it from pictures posted by Clevite of worn bearings)...it would take industrial levels of incompetence and stupidity for that cause not be noticed by BMW and a 5 minute call made to Clevite to increase the clearance at what would be a near $ zero cost to BMW but would save them $$ millions!

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Got to love people creating new screen names after being banned and posting with the same old agenda.

Who is banned?

[kawasaki00]

So much mis-information in this thread, not even worth posting

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

So much mis-information in this thread, not even worth posting

yet you just posted lol.....

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

So much mis-information in this thread, not even worth posting

+1

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

So much mis-information in this thread, not even worth posting

Please educate us.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

Please educate us.

Pretty much all you seek has already been posted

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

OK so BMW produced an engine design for the S85 that proved not to be totally reliable...they then recycled the same rod bearing clearance of that design into the S65. To the end of the S65 run the rod bearing clearance remained essentially the same. During all those years, engines replaced under warranty were returned to the factory and stripped down to discover the fault probably at an overall cost somewhere around $10 million.
For the sake of argument lets say the rod bearing clearance actually was the cause of these engine failures (it would have been easily obvious if a couple of people on the old interwebs can diagnose it from pictures posted by Clevite of worn bearings)...it would take industrial levels of incompetence and stupidity for that cause not be noticed by BMW and a 5 minute call made to Clevite to increase the clearance at what would be a near $ zero cost to BMW but would save them $$ millions!

This is so obviously true. Anyone with OEM design engineering professional background (as I have) can have a good laugh at this. Forum champion (whose nickname used to be pencil-geek) re-branding bearing design to fix BMW M engineers mistakes. Please, this is bordering on the ridiculous. The main guy behind that venture is a basic engine technician who worked in a shop taking engine measurements and not someone who is learned in mechanics engineering design. Throwing Clevite in the mix to assert legitimacy is good marketing strategy but Clevite is a business like any other that makes money. Sure, they can spec any bearings one desire as long as they get paid for it for a big enough batch.

The same people plastered this forum over the years about supposed bearing clearance obsession when that is not the problem or it would have easily been solved long ago by BMW M engineers working along with Clevite. That's too big a caveat for the clearance issue theory.

Just hypothetically , if the crankshaft forged steel grade and its production quality was at cause then that would explain that BMW never made that 5 min call to Clevite to talk about changing bearing clearance specs but I doubt the forged nitrocarburized high strength 42CrMo4 steel used for the crankshaft is lacking.

If you read the ethanol important timeline dates and S85 and s65 engine design years (see my posts above) as well as honda S2k f20H engines RB failures occurrences a different picture takes form. There is still a lot of research to be done on high revving engines reliability with ethanol fuels. But as ethanol got introduced the industry shifted research away from high revving engines running on E10.

In 2011, BMW and Daimler created a joint research team effort to investigate why "E10 harms engine oils" (in german "E10 schadet dem Motoröl") which can be construed as an indication that the S65 engine long term compatibility with E10 was never tested pre-production. Suffice to say that the results were never made public but if ones digs into other independently funded research groups (carefully avoiding the ethanol lobby state funded papers and all the proselytizing vulgarization mainstream ethanol articles found on the web) there are alarming findings.
The most obvious contradictory statement is that E10 is safe for NA internal combustion engines built after such and such date but E15 is not. If the latter is worse it's because the former is already bad. For specialty engines like the s65 it accelerates bearing wear unacceptably.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

This is so obviously true. Anyone with OEM design engineering professional background (as I have) can have a good laugh at this. Forum champions (whose nickname used to be pencil-geek) re-branding bearing design to fix BMW M engineers mistakes. Please, this is bordering on the ridiculous. The main guy behind that venture is a basic engine technician who worked in a shop taking engine measurements and not someone who is learned in mechanics engineering design. Throwing Clevite in the mix to assert legitimacy is good marketing strategy but Clevite is a business like any other that makes money. Sure, they can spec any bearings one desire as long as they get paid for it and whoever muppets buys a big enough batch of them.

The same people plastered this forum over the years about supposed bearing clearance obsession when that is not the problem or it would have easily been solved long ago by BMW M engineers working along with Clevite. That's too big a caveat for the clearance issue theory. No, bearing clearances is not the problem.

Just hypothetically , if the crankshaft forged steel grade and its production quality was at cause then that would explain that BMW never made that 5 min call to Clevite to talk about changing bearing clearance specs but I doubt the forged nitrocarburized high strength 42CrMo4 steel used for the crankshaft is lacking.

If you read the ethanol timeline important dates and S85 and s65 engine design years as well as honda S2k f20H engines RB failures occurences a different picture takes form. There is still a lot of research to be done on high revving engines, oil cooling systems with ethanol fuels. But as ethanol got introduced the industry shifted research away from NA high revving engines and the ethanol problem got swept under the rug.

In 2011, BMW and Daimler created a joint research team effort to investigate why "E10 harms engine oils" (in german "E10 schadet dem Motoröl") which can be construed as an indication that the S65 engine long term compatibility with E10 was never tested pre-production. Suffice to say that the results were never made public but if ones digs into other independent funded research groups (carefully avoiding the ethanol lobby state funded papers and all the proselytizing vulgarization mainstream article found on the web) there are alarming findings.
The most obvious contradictory statement is that E10 is safe for NA internal combustion engines built after such and such date but E15 is not. If the latter is worse it's because the former is already bad. For specialty engines like the s65 it accelerates bearing wear unacceptably.

Cool story bro.....needs more dragons

[Shredicus]

Gotta give Sunsweet props; he is persistent

Actually, here's a list of aliases Phil compiled:

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

You are 7 years on Bimmerpost with only 23 posts ! (but actually thousands )
The choise of your words in your comment to me are very clear and I know why and who you are...
Because we were never friends it started back in time with DCT vs 6MT .
And of course with all the bearing BS we had serious words...
But now you are back on "again" and you found me "again" on here but for how long this time before you get BANNED "again" ?!?!
You was banned how many times after online stalking with your insane choise of words ?
I really hope moderators find out who you are and this time sooner because your language is just insane to other people on here !
But for me personal it's no problem , because if you look after me you will find me also...

Saw your usename is "for the moment" => Strokeyguy .
But you had also some other usernames in the past and of course you know why...

1- Sunsweet
2- V8FunNaturally
3- M3-GT4
4- nthretourNAFTW
5- Strokeyguy
6- What's next ?

Sorry OP this situation happend in your thread .

Always comes back with a very transparent(and wordy) agenda.