Scary rod bearing thread s85

[CSBM5]

Thread cliff notes:

1. Rod bearing potential wear issue attributable to spec clearance of 0.001? +/- ?"
2. Via regular guy in this post:
   • The factory bearings are Mahle-Clevite-77.
   • "Clearance on both main and rod journals was between 0.00096 - 0.00100, with most closer to 0.00100 than 0.00096. It didn't matter if we used factory connecting rods or the two different sets of Carrillo's because both measured the same. It also didn't matter if we matched two red and two blue bearing shells, as they measured the same as well.
   • Both Calico and Mahle-Clevite specify proper bearing clearance at 0.001" per 1-inch of journal diameter. BMW went much smaller, and according to Mahle-Clevite they do this for two reasons: 1) minimize noise in aluminum blocks; 2) reduce horsepower loss. But Mahle-Clevite also warns against these tight tolerances and says any such small clearance should also be mated with thinner oils like 5-30W."
     
3. Dinan stroker is built with rod bearing clearance of 0.025" (mains at 0.019"). Via BMRLVR in this post: "Dinan builds their Strokers with 0.019" Main & 0.025" Rod and they dont change the oil pumps in any way. They have their cranks pre-machined with to be at these clearances with stock bearing shells........ With Dinan building most of the BMW engines for race teams across NA (Fall Line Motorsports, and the Grand-Am Rolex Sports car series Daytona prototype class to name only a few) I think they know what they are doing!"

Is there anything else that should be added to this list? I would like to gather together the big picture here all in one place in an accurate, concise manner.

Just gathering together the key bullet points out of this thread had member regular guy's post leap out at me again. The guidelines for bearing clearances are really not rocket science (well, in fact they are based on decades of empirical data but also on analytical evaluation that is at least, if not more, involved than rocket science), and the bearing manufacturer in fact warns against using such tight tolerances but says to use a thinner oil if you do. They also state that using these tight tolerances for two reasons, minimizing noise and reducing power loss are what drove BMW's decision. Sigh...

[jcolley]

I'm assumung the Mobil1 0W-40 is the one on sale at Wal-Mart right now for $22.47 for a 5Qt jug? I never thought I would see a $60 Oil Change on this car.

Much applause to all of you gentlemen. I've been lurking and following this thread from the beginning and chatting with B767Capt a bit for the last month or so on this.

I'm ordering my bearings soon for a preventative swap in the next month or so. Scrounging the cash though to replace the VANOS high pressure pump with the new style while I'm in there (you S65 guys got the better end of the deal on that part).

Will post pics of mine here when it happens as well.

One final question though. Assuming an S65/S85 sustains the premature wear earlier in its life, is it possible that through switching to a thinner oil and being more conscientious about warm-ups and lugging that the engine could survive a much longer life without spinning a bearing? Obviously, better behavior would prolong the life of any engine, but I guess I'm asking is it possible that once a motor has wear along the lines of what B767Capt had, proper engine care would have prevented it from ever coming to an engine casualty?

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by jcolley

I'm assumung the Mobil1 0W-40 is the one on sale at Wal-Mart right now for $22.47 for a 5Qt jug? I never thought I would see a $60 Oil Change on this car.

Much applause to all of you gentlemen. I've been lurking and following this thread from the beginning and chatting with B767Capt a bit for the last month or so on this.

I'm ordering my bearings soon for a preventative swap in the next month or so. Scrounging the cash though to replace the VANOS high pressure pump with the new style while I'm in there (you S65 guys got the better end of the deal on that part).

Will post pics of mine here when it happens as well.

One final question though. Assuming an S65/S85 sustains the premature wear earlier in its life, is it possible that through switching to a thinner oil and being more conscientious about warm-ups and lugging that the engine could survive a much longer life without spinning a bearing? Obviously, better behavior would prolong the life of any engine, but I guess I'm asking is it possible that once a motor has wear along the lines of what B767Capt had, proper engine care would have prevented it from ever coming to an engine casualty?

oooff deep breath...likely will go M1 0-40 on the next change as well. First time going away from factory recommendation.

Yes, agreed, TWS is about $13, M1 0-40 is about $4, (did I see that price right $22?!) big difference since the M3's mulitplier of number of bottles needed on this is about x10! Saving over $85 per change. Holy cow.

I believe Walmart should carry it, there's only one type of M1 0-40 offered in the US, should look like this:




http://www.amazon.com/Mobil-96989-0W...mobile+1+0w-40

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/..._1_0W-40.aspx#

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by jcolley

I'm assumung the Mobil1 0W-40 is the one on sale at Wal-Mart right now for $22.47 for a 5Qt jug? I never thought I would see a $60 Oil Change on this car.

Originally Posted by mdosu

oooff deep breath...likely will go M1 0-40 on the next change as well. First time going away from factory recommendation.

Yes, agreed, TWS is about $13, M1 0-40 is about $4, (did I see that price right $22?!) big difference since the M3's mulitplier of number of bottles needed on this x9! Saving about $81 per change. Holy cow.

I believe Walmart should carry it, there's only one type of M1 0-40 offered in the US, should look like this:


http://www.amazon.com/Mobil-96989-0W...mobile+1+0w-40

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/..._1_0W-40.aspx#

It is a big difference, it takes no more than 20 minutes to change the oil on this car. 45 for oil and 17 for a filter. At the price point I am changing it every 4k miles. I was in wally world last night and saw that price, in my area it is a price cut not on sale so that will be the price going forward.
Buy 2 jugs, the walmart version is 5.0qt, the advance version is 5.1qt and the autozone version is 5L.
I have a pyrex 1L graduated container from the kitchen ware dept, I pour 1qt out of one of the jugs which makes 9qt and it puts the level meter at 7/8 full.
9qt=8.5L
Remember I have brought this up before, this car was designed in 06/07, oil technology has changed a bunch in the past 6 years. What was absolutely necessary back then is not always the case now.

[CSBM5]

Awesome pricing at Walmart: $22.47 for the 5qt jug.

[aus]

You guys going to run all M 0W40, or mix in some 10W60?

Originally Posted by CSBM5

Thread cliff notes:

1. Rod bearing potential wear issue attributable to spec clearance of 0.001? +/- ?"
2. Via regular guy in this post:
   • The factory bearings are Mahle-Clevite-77.
   • "Clearance on both main and rod journals was between 0.00096 - 0.00100, with most closer to 0.00100 than 0.00096. It didn't matter if we used factory connecting rods or the two different sets of Carrillo's because both measured the same. It also didn't matter if we matched two red and two blue bearing shells, as they measured the same as well.
   • Both Calico and Mahle-Clevite specify proper bearing clearance at 0.001" per 1-inch of journal diameter. BMW went much smaller, and according to Mahle-Clevite they do this for two reasons: 1) minimize noise in aluminum blocks; 2) reduce horsepower loss. But Mahle-Clevite also warns against these tight tolerances and says any such small clearance should also be mated with thinner oils like 5-30W."
     
3. Dinan stroker is built with rod bearing clearance of 0.025" (mains at 0.019"). Via BMRLVR in this post: "Dinan builds their Strokers with 0.019" Main & 0.025" Rod and they dont change the oil pumps in any way. They have their cranks pre-machined with to be at these clearances with stock bearing shells........ With Dinan building most of the BMW engines for race teams across NA (Fall Line Motorsports, and the Grand-Am Rolex Sports car series Daytona prototype class to name only a few) I think they know what they are doing!"

Is there anything else that should be added to this list? I would like to gather together the big picture here all in one place in an accurate, concise manner.

Just gathering together the key bullet points out of this thread had member regular guy's post leap out at me again. The guidelines for bearing clearances are really not rocket science (well, in fact they are based on decades of empirical data but also on analytical evaluation that is at least, if not more, involved than rocket science), and the bearing manufacturer in fact warns against using such tight tolerances but says to use a thinner oil if you do. They also state that using these tight tolerances for two reasons, minimizing noise and reducing power loss are what drove BMW's decision. Sigh...

Great post. OP should put this in the first post because your post will just get eaten up in this huge thread.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by jcolley

One final question though. Assuming an S65/S85 sustains the premature wear earlier in its life, is it possible that through switching to a thinner oil and being more conscientious about warm-ups and lugging that the engine could survive a much longer life without spinning a bearing? Obviously, better behavior would prolong the life of any engine, but I guess I'm asking is it possible that once a motor has wear along the lines of what B767Capt had, proper engine care would have prevented it from ever coming to an engine casualty?

Re thinner oil: People here are far more qualified than me to give guidance, but what I would be concerned about is if wear has already occurred as in the case referenced. At that point, you have an unknown situation in the bearing to crank interface. If the surface roughness is greater than a unworn bearing (I would assume this is the case), then a "thick" oil film will likely be needed to prevent contact and wear of the surface asperities, perhaps even at "normal" rpms/load conditions. At that point in the bearing's wear cycle, I'm unsure about then switching to a less viscous oil since that will make the hydrodynamic oil film "thinner" in that critical interface. It would seem that the time to use 0W40 would be from the start...with fresh bearings?

That's a rough swag/thought on your question. I'm sure the guys here with empirical experience can chime in with more.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by mdosu

oooff deep breath...likely will go M1 0-40 on the next change as well. First time going away from factory recommendation.

Yes, agreed, TWS is about $13, M1 0-40 is about $4, (did I see that price right $22?!) big difference since the M3's mulitplier of number of bottles needed on this is about x10! Saving over $85 per change. Holy cow.

I believe Walmart should carry it, there's only one type of M1 0-40 offered in the US, should look like this:




http://www.amazon.com/Mobil-96989-0W...mobile+1+0w-40

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/..._1_0W-40.aspx#

Mduso,before my ///M3, i had a 325 i for more than 15 years and i run 315,000 km's with it,and without any problem !
And i used all the time this Mobil 1 0W40 oil but in the golden packaging(SuperSyn)Protection Formula !
It seems also that the engine is quicker warmd up with the Mobil 1 than with the Castrol TWS!
Also...i have found this,a comparison between this 2 oils brands, and with Blackstone oil reports....interesting data ....http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39...il-1-0w40.html

[CSBM5]

Here's a link to a Clevite 77 pdf document. Does anyone know the series of 77 bearings used in the S85/65?

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Mduso,before my ///M3, i had a 325 i for more than 15 years and i run 315,000 km's with it,and without any problem !
And i used all the time this Mobil 1 0W40 oil but in the golden packaging(SuperSyn)Protection Formula !
It seems also that the engine is quicker warmd up with the Mobil 1 than with the Castrol TWS!
Also...i have found this,a comparison between this 2 oils brands, and with Blackstone oil reports....interesting data ....http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39...il-1-0w40.html

thanks, but I noticed on the external forums that US and European bottles are different labels, so thanks for the picture, but I don't want to confuse people here that there may be some gold label in the US, as you're in Europe.

Also, the 325 engine tolerance are different than the M3's S65 tolerances, so it's hard to say your experiences using 0-60 in a 325 will also result in great protection on a S65/S85 engine.

[B767capt]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

Here's a link to a Clevite 77 pdf document. Does anyone know the series of 77 bearings used in the S85/65?

The OEM shells I pulled out has the CL logo on the back with number 113 next to it along with 088/089 on the other end. The new BMW bearings I ordered, ending in part # 702 and 703 didn't have CL logo but the BMW logo stamped on them. They had the paint mark on the bottom side red and blue. According to Kawasaki he says that looks like pankl. Who knows?

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

Re thinner oil: People here are far more qualified than me to give guidance, but what I would be concerned about is if wear has already occurred as in the case referenced. At that point, you have an unknown situation in the bearing to crank interface. If the surface roughness is greater than a unworn bearing (I would assume this is the case), then a "thick" oil film will likely be needed to prevent contact and wear of the surface asperities, perhaps even at "normal" rpms/load conditions. At that point in the bearing's wear cycle, I'm unsure about then switching to a less viscous oil since that will make the hydrodynamic oil film "thinner" in that critical interface. It would seem that the time to use 0W40 would be from the start...with fresh bearings?

That's a rough swag/thought on your question. I'm sure the guys here with empirical experience can chime in with more.

^I had the same thought going through my head but didn't know how to word it. Thanks, CSBM5 for bring it up. Would like to know the answer/experience/opinion from others.

[B767capt]

Hey looks like BMW has been reading our thread and took our recommendation:

Found on another forum.

BMW has changed its long time recommended oil change mileage intervals for all 2014 models and beyond. The changes apply to all vehicles produced from July 2013 on.

Previously, BMW recommended a 15,000 mile / 24 month Condition Based Service interval, but as of July 2013, the new basic interval will be every 10,000 miles / 12 months. This applies to both gasoline and diesel models.

The Z4 roadster, M5/M6 and ActiveHybrids have some special recommendations, which you can see in the announcement and charts below.

[aussiem3]

There are pros and cons to each point raised. I am no engine expert. Only thanks to this forum, I have started to do some work on my car. So I will follow everything closely, and when I am brave enough to swap, will take the plunge. My head says one things and my heart another. Very hard. I want to go with M1 0w-40 ...

[Richbot]

M1 0w40 has been out since way before this engine was designed in its current form, unless something with it has changed? BMW seems to think it's correct to spec TWS, build the motors tight, and damn the torpedoes. Many manufacturers spec multiple oils depending on service conditions but not BMW, at least not on the M cars lately

[e92zero]

^damn the torpedoes?!?

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by e92zero

^damn the torpedoes?!?

i.e. ignore decades of hydrodynamic bearing empirical data and theory, be oblivious to the bearing manufacturer guide, gain a few hp with tight clearance, after all most will last past the warranty period, so what's the harm?

[e92zero]

^oh, lol. I missed the joke in that.

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by e92zero

^damn the torpedoes?!?

"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead"..idiom implying, stubborn yet confident executive decision making in light over overwhelming evidence contrary to that decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farragut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_th..._the_torpedoes

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by Richbot

M1 0w40 has been out since way before this engine was designed in its current form, unless something with it has changed? BMW seems to think it's correct to spec TWS, build the motors tight, and damn the torpedoes. Many manufacturers spec multiple oils depending on service conditions but not BMW, at least not on the M cars lately

Richbot, you're killing me!!! M1 0-40 club! You in or you out?!

agreed, with my last car (Evo 8), M1 10-30 was factory fill. Synthetic 10-30 is common, so M1 brand is not required (booklet never stated that, but widely accepted). But the booklet said that I can run "a thinner synthetic oil" during the winter (can't remember exactly how it was said, but intentionally opaque implying M1 0-30). So I ran M1 0-30 during the winter. Yet BMW never goes that far.

[aussiem3]

This is ridiculous ... M1 0w-40 is a lot more expensive in Australia. 5 litres retails at $95 compared to 10w-60 which is $75. Looks like Mobil is following this thread and upped the pricing ...

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

This is ridiculous ... M1 0w-40 is a lot more expensive in Australia. 5 litres retails at $95 compared to 10w-60 which is $75. Looks like Mobil is following this thread and upped the pricing ...

the market has adjusted...lol