Yet Another Rod Bearing Engine Seized Up Story

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

Yes that's accurate in the context of coating the OEM bearings. Aftermarket bearings like VAC etc were designed thinner to compensate for the thickness of the coating, but BE went further to engineer a coated bearing with a more traditional oil clearance.

Hey Dean from my understanding the later VAC bearings are redesigned for more clearance even with the coating.

From VACs website...

Our VAC Extra Clearance Bearing Sets: Precise construction with extra clearance and specially coated to keep bearing failure at a minimum.
Reap lower temps and less friction in your expensive BMW engine!

Dave

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

Hey Dean from my understanding the later VAC bearings are redesigned for more clearance even with the coating.

Dave

Yes, per the BE bearing wiki measurements, VAC bearings technically are "increased clearance" with clearance only marginally better than OEM, but they are still not to the industry standard of .001" per journal inch. This becomes a matter of word play. Increased clearance could mean many things. Perhaps someone should label their bearings "Ideal Clearance" bearings and stop causing confusion.

That is unless they've changed something yet again...It's hard to keep track they've made so many revisions to the marketing copy or product.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

Yes, per the BE bearing wiki measurements, VAC bearings technically are "increased clearance" with clearance only marginally better than OEM, but they are still not to the industry standard of .001" per journal inch. This becomes a matter of word play. Increased clearance could mean many things. Perhaps someone should label their bearings "Ideal Clearance" bearings and stop causing confusion.

That is unless they've changed something yet again...It's hard to keep track they've made so many revisions to the marketing copy or product.

I totally respect your opinion as I do Maleks with MRF, he has done a ton of these. He swears by the VAC newer bearings.

Dave

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

I totally respect your opinion as I do Maleks with MRF, he has done a ton of these. He swears by the VAC newer bearings.

Dave

No worries and I appreciate it. MRF is a great shop and has a great thing going, and VAC is a powerhouse in our niche. I know he swears by them and that's fine, every shop has their own product preference. It's the entire performance engine industry and OEM manufacturers like Mahle/King/ACL that suggest the .001 clearance, it's not just my opinion. My stance anyway is that it's safer to go with any new bearings than keep running the originals. I've even installed plenty of VAC bearings too when BE are unavailable. With that said, I (as do most others) believe the root issue in the S65 is due to inadequate clearance. For anyone else who does as well, it would seem the first choice should be BE's set which adopts traditional dimensions and has transparently published their data to back it up.

How did VAC end up at their dimensions? Did their testing determine it optimal? Do they assume a thinner oil weight will be used? Or was it just random? Surely there's a reason, but we don't know- they're very difficult to get information from and secretive when it comes to much of their technical details. Just some food for thought.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

That is unless they've changed something yet again...It's hard to keep track they've made so many revisions to the marketing copy or product.

I wish I kept a screenshot of the list of changes VAC has 'done' to the bearings they sell. They've gone back and forth over and over.

VAC is a laughing riot of a company.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

No worries and I appreciate it. MRF is a great shop and has a great thing going, and VAC is a powerhouse in our niche. I know he swears by them and that's fine, every shop has their own product preference. It's the entire performance engine industry and OEM manufacturers like Mahle/King/ACL that suggest the .001 clearance, it's not just my opinion. My stance anyway is that it's safer to go with any new bearings than keep running the originals. I've even installed plenty of VAC bearings too when BE are unavailable. With that said, I (as do most others) believe the root issue in the S65 is due to inadequate clearance. For anyone else who does as well, it would seem the first choice should be BE's set which adopts traditional dimensions and has transparently published their data to back it up.

How did VAC end up at their dimensions? Did their testing determine it optimal? Do they assume a thinner oil weight will be used? Or was it just random? Surely there's a reason, but we don't know- they're very difficult to get information from and secretive when it comes to much of their technical details. Just some food for thought.

Well said, I agree on all counts.
Some prefer to put blind trust on the word of others without asking for information to back it up or even care to try to understand any logic behind it, I guess it's easier to be blind and just trust others by their word or experience even when data, knowledge and sound logic is laid out for you.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by deansbimmer

No worries and I appreciate it. MRF is a great shop and has a great thing going, and VAC is a powerhouse in our niche. I know he swears by them and that's fine, every shop has their own product preference. It's the entire performance engine industry and OEM manufacturers like Mahle/King/ACL that suggest the .001 clearance, it's not just my opinion. My stance anyway is that it's safer to go with any new bearings than keep running the originals. I've even installed plenty of VAC bearings too when BE are unavailable. With that said, I (as do most others) believe the root issue in the S65 is due to inadequate clearance. For anyone else who does as well, it would seem the first choice should be BE's set which adopts traditional dimensions and has transparently published their data to back it up.

How did VAC end up at their dimensions? Did their testing determine it optimal? Do they assume a thinner oil weight will be used? Or was it just random? Surely there's a reason, but we don't know- they're very difficult to get information from and secretive when it comes to much of their technical details. Just some food for thought.

I don't have a clue on how VAC got their dimensions. My car just hit 31k miles on her and would like to get the RB done soon. I have uber respect in Malek and his opinion as I do in yours.

Dave

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by tdott

Well said, I agree on all counts.
Some prefer to put blind trust on the word of others without asking for information to back it up or even care to try to understand any logic behind it, I guess it's easier to be blind and just trust others by their word or experience even when data, knowledge and sound logic is laid out for you.

I would hardly call Maleks word as blind trust. He has done a ton of these and even disassembled a few cars with the VAC extra clearance bearings and they have pretty much came out perfect. As far as VAC is concerned they have built 600hp S65 powerplants and are used in race teams.

Anything else on this I will move it to PM as I don't want this to turn into a pissing match.

Dave

[tdott]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

I would hardly call Maleks word as blind trust. He has done a ton of these and even disassembled a few cars with the VAC extra clearance bearings and they have pretty much came out perfect.

Other than experience building a 'ton' that 'pretty much came out perfect', does he give any hard data on why one vs the other?

Both options are perfectly fine as deansbimmer said, but when someone advocates one vs the other so strongly without being able to say why other than I used it for years, bah bah bah, no issues, that is called trusting their word/experience not relying on any hard data.


Now if someone was to say they use VAC over BE because they don't believe there is a clearance issue, then that is fine, but then why does VAC advertise their bearings are extra clearance now and not before, or why even make them extra clearance if there is no issue? If they said they use it because they believe VAC Calico coating is better than the Clevite TriArmor coated then that is an acceptable reason, regardless of what the actual reason is, atleast you have something other than trust me I know what I am doing/etc........

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

I don't have a clue on how VAC got their dimensions. My car just hit 31k miles on her and would like to get the RB done soon. I have uber respect in Malek and his opinion as I do in yours.

Dave

Please look at this post


http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...3#post20766713
[I]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

With all the recent talk that VAC bearings were designed for extra clearance, I did a little digging today and here's what I found. Not sure how many people are familiar with this, but there's a place where you can look up archived web pages. It's called the "wayback machine." So I looked up the old VAC bearing pages, and here's what came up.

July 1st, 2014: Old VAC bearings (see the price):
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701...ine-p2932.aspx

January 10, 2015:
VAC web page updated for new bearings and new prices. Notice NO MENTION OF EXTRA CLEARANCE!
https://web.archive.org/web/20150323...ine-p2932.aspx

February 10, 2015:
VAC announces new bearings on their Facebook page. VAC calls them "extra clearance" but explain that as follows: "These bearings will give an additional 0.0005" clearance to the OE bearing size. So with the coated bearing shells you will have the OE clearance." That alone settles all doubts what VAC intended with these bearings -- factory clearance was the target. But wait, there's more! VAC goes on to say: "The reality is that you only need enough clearance to get oil to flow into the bearing and the extra clearance is not really necessary."
https://www.facebook.com/vacmotorspo...53144927883169

February 16, 2015:
VAC updated web page. Still doesn't call them "extra clearance" bearings.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150216...ine-p2932.aspx

March 12, 2015
First reported on m3post that VAC has new Clevite designed bearings:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=2408

March 13, 2015:
RG call VAC and was told new bearings are NOT extra clearance, but match factory clearance.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=2421

March 18, 2015:
RG measures VAC/Clevite bearings. His measurements show 0.0020 inch clearance (0.0003 inch bigger than stock).
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=2470

March 23, 2015:
VAC updates web page. Still no mention of "extra clearance" bearings.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150323...ine-p2932.aspx

March-1 - September 1, 2015:
BE Bearings forms, announces extra clearance bearings.

September 20, 2015:
VAC changes web site, finally calls them "extra clearance" bearings.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150920...s65-p2932.aspx

From VAC's own words on their FB page, they are clear what they mean. VAC designed the bearings with 0.0005 inch extra clearance such that once they add the coating on top, it will equal factory clearance. There's plenty more I didn't quote from their FB page where they start talking about how extra clearance isn't all that important, it's the coating that makes the difference. So I think what we have here is an example of VAC bowing to public pressure and changing their marketing to match what the market demanded -- extra clearance. By VAC's own words, they are not offering extra clearance bearings. But if you look at their web site, and the comments of people on this site, you'd think VAC is offering extra clearance bearings, when in fact they're not.

[Dave07997S]

Guys like I said, don't want to get into a pissing war. I called VAC their bearings are extra clearance even with the coating. I have no dog in this hunt I can go with either. Autotalent is literally only 30 minutes from my home but I also know the work Malek at MRF engineering does as well with the VAC bearings.

SYT you are showing posts from over 3 years ago..LOL!!

See my post above on what it says now...

Dean thanks for your help bro!!

Dave

[tdott]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

Guys like I said, don't want to get into a pissing war. I called VAC their bearings are extra clearance even with the coating. I have no dog in this hunt I can go with either. Autotalent is literally only 30 minutes from my home but I also know the work Malek at MRF engineering does as well with the VAC bearings.

SYT you are showing posts from over 3 years ago..LOL!!

See my post above on what it says now...

Dean thanks for your help bro!!

Dave

Like I said blind trust. Cool story bro.
No one is pissing at anyone just trying to educate..... but one needs to be willing.

[NeverL8]

Originally Posted by tdott

Like I said blind trust. Cool story bro.
No one is pissing at anyone just trying to educate..... but one needs to be willing.

Blind trust? VAC are the only bearings that were pulled after ~40k miles that showed no wear. Have anyone pulled BE after ANY mileage and documented it?....i guess blind trust huh

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by tdott

Like I said blind trust. Cool story bro.
No one is pissing at anyone just trying to educate..... but one needs to be willing.

Cool story? There is no story...

Dave

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by TheRussski

Blind trust? VAC are the only bearings that were pulled after ~40k miles that showed no wear. Have anyone pulled BE after ANY mileage and documented it?....i guess blind trust huh

Yes, there have been plenty of the VAC bearings shown. I believe they were all shown with ARP rod bolts that have been shown to cause the bore to distort and give extra clearance -- extra clearance by distorting the bore. I don't think any of those can be used for comparison. If there are any removed and shown that were installed without this error, then I missed them.

As far as I know, my shop is the only shop who's pulled VAC bearings that had correct rod bolts installed that didn't cause extra clearance by rod bore distortion. They were pulled after 1500 miles. Here's what they looked like:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...0#post20967558

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Yes, there have been plenty of the VAC bearings shown. I believe they were all shown with ARP rod bolts that have been shown to cause the bore to distort and give extra clearance -- extra clearance by distorting the bore. I don't think any of those can be used for comparison. If there are any removed and shown that were installed without this error, then I missed them.

As far as I know, my shop is the only shop who's pulled VAC bearings that had correct rod bolts installed that didn't cause extra clearance by rod bore distortion. They were pulled after 1500 miles. Here's what they looked like:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...0#post20967558

Those are the oem coated bearings rather than their newer "extra clearance" version, though (Although it appears they still ship out the oem coated bearings sometimes ).

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by ksteckba

Those are the oem coated bearings rather than their newer "extra clearance" version, though (Although it appears they still ship out the oem coated bearings sometimes ).

That's correct. When you look at the bearing condition example threads, it's the VAC coated OEM bearings that people have used for this comparison. People have said if the coated OEM bearings looked this good, then so should the VAC/Clevite bearings as well.

I'm only aware of one or two sets of VAC/Clevite bearings being pulled. I don't remember the mileage on them. But I do remember that they used the rod bolts that cause the bore distortion.

[mharris2007]

Originally Posted by doogee

Give me your used oil!

Oil change before and after a track day? What a waste!


Your theory is pretty invalid. Oil doesn't necessarily break down from a track day as much as stop and go city driving. As long as the oil isn't overheating.

Head over to bitog and do some reading. 7500 miles is "early" for synthetic oil change. I change mine at 7500 miles and the tbn on my black stone says there's still tons of life left. Before and after track day is just nuts.

[zstreet86]

Noob question here, am I reading above correctly that in one case the supposedly stronger arp rod bolts actually caused distortion? The post says distortion for more clearance but I'm assuming that's not intentional right? Is this suggesting that stock bolts are better than around bolts? Thanks in advance.

[pbonsalb]

Whatever bolts are used must be torqued to a spec that does not cause distortion of the bearing shells since that would alter clearance - could result in added clearance where needed or reduced clearance depending. Lang Racing sells Carrillo bolts that it has tested to work with a certain torque spec. BE and VAC sell “custom” ARP 2000 material bolts with a certain torque spec that have been tested to work. And ARP
Offers a 625 material bolt with a certain torque spec that is reported to have been tested to distort the bore. ARP usually qualifies its torque specs by saying it should be tested with a dial bore gauge, but you can’t do that in the car. Bottom line is it’s better to use a bolt and torque spec tested by an engine builder to work on the S65.

[BOOF-M3]

Just saw your for sale thread. So you did go through dean as the engine was toast? It's good to know for a buyer what they are getting and it appears they are getting the best deansbimmer

[opihi5]

Originally Posted by JoePcone

60,000 miles on the car. Took it to the track, 2nd lap - engine just shut off. Wouldn't start backup, no error codes, nothing on the dash, just clicked when attempting to start. Is there really a possibility of BMW assisting with cost on these or is that a pipe dream? Has anyone received help from BMW? No warranty here either. Sad day when you're out 5 figures for a new engine.

lt4 swap time