Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Remember, neither you nor I are the experts here. You used your instrument incorrectly and the manufacturer even called your exact type of error at their web site. If I have to choose between trusting an amateur and the manufacturer on using their own instrument, I'm going to trust the manufacturer any day.

LOL if only you trusted Clevite as much...you remember the manufacturer and experts in the field who told you the S65 doesn't have insufficient bearing clearance.
If ever a scientific institution wanted to give a lecture on confirmation bias your posts to this thread would make a perfect example.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I have the utmost respect for automotive engineering and I realize that a guy in a garage doesn't design and build a better engine than an engineering team does.

Pandering at best, you've shown your true colors on this topic prior, both with respect to engineers/engineering as well as engineering in academics.

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

You need to understand that you are making assumptions about BMW and their engineering practices and the reasoning and motivation behind their decisions. You may know your profession, but you have never worked for BMW as an engineer and don't know what outside forces were involved from other departments in the organization leading to the final bearing design.

Hmmm that's interesting and you are not also making assumptions about BMW, their engineering, motivations, etc.? This exact criticism goes right back at you.

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I am a mechanic and I know engines. BMW engineers may have their tolerances right but without different bearing sizes available to dial in clearances, they could never get their oil clearances right unless there was 100% QC on their crank journals and rod BE bores. Tolerance stacking is real and they did not deal with it adequately in my opinion. Maybe it was a bean counter thing, we will never know.

Again, well outside your area of expertise in my opinion. Also, again, I'm willing to bet for all BMW M crank journals BMW manufacturing uses both statistical process control and near 100% inspection (one can get away from a true need for 100% with the former). They achieve +/- 5 MICRONS here on diameters in a mass produced crank (full tolerance range - most parts are significantly tighter than this). Do you have some data showing how this is superior/inferior to other manufacturers? The Honda data posted a few pages back indicates a total factory defined allowable here to be 2.5x larger than BMWs (Honda is +/- .0005). However this is an observed range (BMW) vs. official spec (Honda) and thus is not quite "apples to apples".

Now also just to be 100% clear, I've already admitted that the total clearance range RG has determined, with the "pass" for his confidence on back calculating the some OEM tolerances, does seem quite broad. But there are also two layers of assumption here, his back calculation and my gut feel, both are not infallible.

Lastly, we could have better and more focused exchanges if you directly address some of the points I bring up and my replies to your comments. However, I can see that you might like to avoid harsh criticisms and reality in many cases.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Lastly, we could have better and more focused exchanges if you directly address some of the points I bring up and my replies to your comments. However, I can see that you might like to avoid harsh criticisms and reality in many cases.

Harsh criticisms don't bother me in the least. I just don't have the time or patience to argue with someone who knows everything about everything and is never wrong.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

LOL if only you trusted Clevite as much...you remember the manufacturer and experts in the field who told you the S65 doesn't have insufficient bearing clearance.
If ever a scientific institution wanted to give a lecture on confirmation bias your posts to this thread would make a perfect example.

Except for Clevite told me to my face that for the rpm, oil and power that is either not enough clearance or too thick of oil. This is in one of the meetings we have every month or two where they come to OUR place because they WANT to know everything we have to say.
The same as when Ludwig was in here asking questions about what is going on. Pretty positive the president of BMWNA has never traveled to anyone elses place on here to ask questions.
Oh but some article off the internet somewhere says we are all full of shit.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

LOL if only you trusted Clevite as much...you remember the manufacturer and experts in the field who told you the S65 doesn't have insufficient bearing clearance.
If ever a scientific institution wanted to give a lecture on confirmation bias your posts to this thread would make a perfect example.

Why should Clevite's comments bother me in the slightest when I'm not here to mislead people? I posted it without hiding or altering it. I think you're trying to alter the truth for your new audience by altering and/or omitting Clevite's comments AFTER they saw the actual bearings. Newbies are free to request links to the proof.

Just one observation: If I were caught hiding and altering 95% of what Clevite tried to teach me when it contradicts me, I don't think I'd be lecturing anybody or telling them how much I trust Clevite. But that's just me.

BTW, glad to see you back on FMO duty today (Forum Misinformation Officer).

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Except for Clevite told me to my face that for the rpm, oil and power that is either not enough clearance or too thick of oil. This is in one of the meetings we have every month or two where they come to OUR place because they WANT to know everything we have to say.
The same as when Ludwig was in here asking questions about what is going on. Pretty positive the president of BMWNA has never traveled to anyone elses place on here to ask questions.
Oh but some article off the internet somewhere says we are all full of shit.

But what relevance do Nascar rod bearings have to do with a daily driven road car?

Have you got any race car engines with 100k miles on them? Are they driven to and from work on a daily basis in all kinds of temps, sometimes not even reaching operation temp? Do they have 15k oil change intervals?

Setting rod bearing clearances on a race car is relatively simple. Setting road car clearances is a different kettle of fish. These engines have to start at sub zero and tropical temps. Different fuels, maps, driving styles etc all come into play.

What's the manufacturing tolerance of a NASCAR crank?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

But what relevance do Nascar rod bearings have to do with a daily driven road car?

Have you got any race car engines with 100k miles on them? Are they driven to and from work on a daily basis in all kinds of temps, sometimes not even reaching operation temp? Do they have 15k oil change intervals?

Setting rod bearing clearances on a race car is relatively simple. Setting road car clearances is a different kettle of fish. These engines have to start at sub zero and tropical temps. Different fuels, maps, driving styles etc all come into play.

What's the manufacturing tolerance of a NASCAR crank?

You think Clevite came in and talked to him about bearing clearance and thick oil on NASCAR engines? And you think the President of BMWNA came to talk to the shop about NASCAR engines?

At what point do you quit acting like you don't know this, when we all know you do because it's been discussed a few times before?

And what exactly are your credentials on this or any other topic? Two years later, and we're all still waiting to see if you have any actual expertise in any of these areas. I think we can all assume you don't.

LMFAO at you guys.

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...
Again, well outside your area of expertise in my opinion. Also, again, I'm willing to bet for all BMW M crank journals BMW manufacturing uses both statistical process control and near 100% inspection (one can get away from a true need for 100% with the former). They achieve +/- 5 MICRONS here on diameters in a mass produced crank (full tolerance range - most parts are significantly tighter than this). Do you have some data showing how this is superior/inferior to other manufacturers? The Honda data posted a few pages back indicates a total factory defined allowable here to be 2.5x larger than BMWs (Honda is +/- .0005). However this is an observed range (BMW) vs. official spec (Honda) and thus is not quite "apples to apples".

Now also just to be 100% clear, I've already admitted that the total clearance range RG has determined, with the "pass" for his confidence on back calculating the some OEM tolerances, does seem quite broad. But there are also two layers of assumption here, his back calculation and my gut feel, both are not infallible.

...

You are trying to compare a total rod journal oil film clearance spec (in a reman manual) to the observed tolerance of *just* the rod journal from a handful (maybe even 2) BMW cranks? Then say Honda is "2.5x greater". I understand you put a footnote to the comment but that is awfully misleading.

First off its oil film clearance as a whole that matters. Not a part in isolation but rather the stackup of clearance from all parts in question (rod bore, crank journal, and bearing). That is the what we are talking about here. That is the controlled variable that you have been posting equations about.

So with that out of the way... Honda essentially holds one tenth for clearance. See here for the measurements of the Honda bearing colors:
http://honda-tech.com/all-motor-natu...arings-715490/
Note that if clearance moves by .0001 then Honda will recommend you move to the next bearing. Also Honda unquestionably measures every part that comes off the floor, in fact they even stamp a code on the engine/crank/rod that indicates the size for that exact journal/bore. This can be seen on EVERY SINGLE B series, K series, etc. part in the world!

To conclude, we have evidence that from the factory Honda is attempting to hold .0001 tolerance on the oil film clearance. If I cross reference this to what I see on the first page of this thread it appears that only two BMW rotating assemblies were measured and there was a .00025 variance for the early bearings and .00035 variance for the later bearings. That equates to roughly "2.5x larger" and
"3.5x larger" variation in clearance for BMW.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Except for Clevite told me to my face that for the rpm, oil and power that is either not enough clearance or too thick of oil. This is in one of the meetings we have every month or two where they come to OUR place because they WANT to know everything we have to say.
The same as when Ludwig was in here asking questions about what is going on. Pretty positive the president of BMWNA has never traveled to anyone elses place on here to ask questions.
Oh but some article off the internet somewhere says we are all full of shit.

When the guy hides 95% of what Clevite already tried to tell him, I don't think he's going to pay any attention to this either. Actually, he's already ignore this point because this isn't the first time you mentioned this.

The FMO duo are not here to talk about bearings or oil clearances. At first I thought they were here just to mislead people. Well, I haven't changed my mind about that. But maybe I overlooked their true motives. Maybe they're here to mislead people because they know the ensuing debate will make sure the post and view count in this thread keeps the topic at the top of the most watched, most viewed threads in forum history. Maybe they want people to be alerted to the bearing clearance issue and I should be thanking the FMO's. What a brilliant strategy for keeping this topic and all of the actual data contained on the front page at the forefront of people's minds and where all the newbies can find it and review it. Why didn't I think of this myself?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Except for Clevite told me to my face that for the rpm, oil and power that is either not enough clearance or too thick of oil.

So even now Clevite are still not confirming it as insufficient clearance.
That they continue to resist interpreting the typical wear pattern (showing essentially unworn lower shells) as insufficient clearance doesn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

The same as when Ludwig was in here asking questions about what is going on. Pretty positive the president of BMWNA has never traveled to anyone elses place on here to ask questions.

He was there to ask you about bearing clearances on the S65?
Seriously...he is essentially a sales guy. He has no interest or say in engine manufacturing or specs.

[Leonardo629]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Except for Clevite told me to my face that for the rpm, oil and power that is either not enough clearance or too thick of oil. This is in one of the meetings we have every month or two where they come to OUR place because they WANT to know everything we have to say.
The same as when Ludwig was in here asking questions about what is going on. Pretty positive the president of BMWNA has never traveled to anyone elses place on here to ask questions.
Oh but some article off the internet somewhere says we are all full of shit.

kawasaki,

I raised the 10W60 is too thick until fully warmed question over at bobistheoilguy, and surprisingly, the gurus over there were not able to provide a clear cut answer. People over there mentioned a lot of words like "positive displacement" and "same volume are pumped"...you get the drift.

A popular thing people always say over there is, as long as you are not at the arctic, a 10W oil is a 10W oil at start up. As one of the advocate for the "thin oil camp", I did some digging. I think most of you have this info down already, if not, here it is. Castrol Pro Edge 10W60 and the Shell Ultra 10W60 have viscosity of 160cst at 40C (104F), now that's double the viscosity of most popular 30wt and 40wt oil. Hell, it's even thicker than M1 15W50.

So in your expertise, is an oil that heavy, detrimental to our motor with a fairly tight bearing clearance? I'm talking about the journey from 40c to 210c, when the oil gets heat up.

Note to myself: 10W60 and 10W40 DO NOT have the same flow at 40C, not even close.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

To conclude, we have evidence that from the factory Honda is attempting to hold .0001 tolerance on the oil film clearance.

So with all the tools to control the rod bearing clearance to such a tight number why do their specs allow for such a large variance.
Instead of 0.0013 - 0.0024 why not put 0.0018 +- 0.0001?
In fact why do all kinds of manufacturers allow for really quite tight clearances at the lower end:
Minimum rod bearing clearance for:
Audi V6...0.0006"
VW Jetta......0.0008"
Chevy Cruze...0.0005"
Nissan SX....0.0008"
Honda k20A3...0.0008"
GM 6ltr LS2....0.0009"

A random selection I know but googling for clearances doesn't give that many and essentially none for current cars.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

To conclude, we have evidence that from the factory Honda is attempting to hold .0001 tolerance on the oil film clearance. If I cross reference this to what I see on the first page of this thread it appears that only two BMW rotating assemblies were measured and there was a .00025 variance for the early bearings and .00035 variance for the later bearings. That equates to roughly "2.5x larger" and
"3.5x larger" variation in clearance for BMW.

12 cranks have been measured.
Probably six sets of rods have been measured.
Three sets of virgin bearings have been measured.
Maybe 6 sets of used bearings have been measured.

The Clevite 088/089 measurements (including clearance specs) on the front page came from a Clevite blueprint for an aftermarket bearing. The blueprint contained a "mistake" that used original factory target clearance specs instead of a requested increased clearance spec. The net result was the possibility of back-dooring an actual blueprint that represents the original factory specifications -- including all of the stack-up possibilities.

I'm not sure if that addresses the point above, but I hope it does.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

So even now Clevite are still not confirming it as insufficient clearance.
That they continue to resist interpreting the typical wear pattern (showing essentially unworn lower shells) as insufficient clearance doesn't surprise me.

You got a link to these "even now Clevite" comments? Of course you don't.

He was there to ask you about bearing clearances on the S65?
Seriously...he is essentially a sales guy. He has no interest or say in engine manufacturing or specs.

Same comment to you:

At what point do you quit acting like you don't know this, when we all know you do because it's been discussed a few times before?

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

But what relevance do Nascar rod bearings have to do with a daily driven road car?

Have you got any race car engines with 100k miles on them? Are they driven to and from work on a daily basis in all kinds of temps, sometimes not even reaching operation temp? Do they have 15k oil change intervals?

Setting rod bearing clearances on a race car is relatively simple. Setting road car clearances is a different kettle of fish. These engines have to start at sub zero and tropical temps. Different fuels, maps, driving styles etc all come into play.

What's the manufacturing tolerance of a NASCAR crank?

Our cranks are +-.0001, rod housings are +-.0000 and clearance is +-.0001
Crank tolerance, rod bore tolerance and oil clearance is all intertwined to a final number. It make no difference if the crank is .001 oversize. The manufacturer is supposed to be able to compensate for that. It would have -.001 shells in the top and bottom. It would then have the same clearance as the one next to it. Honda does this, they have plus and minus bearings to make up for any and all manufacturing tolerances. BMW does not, they try to hold the parts to a high spec and they just slap the stuff together, why? Because it is cheaper and less hands on time is spent on it. Snow is correct in saying 5 micron is really good for a production piece. It is all you can ask for really.
Furthermore we do all kinds of contract work for GM on many production cars you see on the road, from cooling system design and oiling schemes to r&d work on castings. There is not a more diverse group of people in the country that has worked on design and implementation of all kinds of engines than what we have here.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

So even now Clevite are still not confirming it as insufficient clearance.
That they continue to resist interpreting the typical wear pattern (showing essentially unworn lower shells) as insufficient clearance doesn't surprise me.



He was there to ask you about bearing clearances on the S65?
Seriously...he is essentially a sales guy. He has no interest or say in engine manufacturing or specs.

What part of that do you not understand, I have said many times that they said (in theory) the clearance that the s65 runs will work.....if paired with a oil like a 0-20, just like all the honda and toyota stuff does. But they dont turn the rpm, therefore making the 0-20 something we cant run, therefore making the clearance incorrect because off that reason.
Thats what I said isnt it, maybe he helicoptered into the complex, with the Regional manager of luxury dealerships down the road that are all owned by the same guy that the race teams are owned by just to chit chat. Because as you say HE HAS NO INTEREST OR SAY. That is a retarded statement unless you work for BMW yourself and can prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

kawasaki,

I raised the 10W60 is too thick until fully warmed question over at bobistheoilguy, and surprisingly, the gurus over there were not able to provide a clear cut answer. People over there mentioned a lot of words like "positive displacement" and "same volume are pumped"...you get the drift.

A popular thing people always say over there is, as long as you are not at the arctic, a 10W oil is a 10W oil at start up. As one of the advocate for the "thin oil camp", I did some digging. I think most of you have this info down already, if not, here it is. Castrol Pro Edge 10W60 and the Shell Ultra 10W60 have viscosity of 160cst at 40C (104F), now that's double the viscosity of most popular 30wt and 40wt oil. Hell, it's even thicker than M1 15W50.

So in your expertise, is an oil that heavy, detrimental to our motor with a fairly tight bearing clearance? I'm talking about the journey from 40c to 210c, when the oil gets heat up.

Note to myself: 10W60 and 10W40 DO NOT have the same flow at 40C, not even close.

You are correct on the 10wt being different relative to the temp scale. What we still do not know is what volume is being pushed through the shell for each crank revolution. If we could increase oil pressure to 100psi and look at more shells we might see improvement. We cant really do that though because there are not throw away parts all over the place to figure this stuff out.
IMHO a 10-60 is too thick to push through that tight of a clearance. You are also correct in saying that a 10w-30 and a 10w-60 do not flow the same cold even though the numbers say otherwise.
10-30 at 100 is around 62cst
10-60 at 100 is around 160cst
Pour point is only about 3 degrees different at about -40 but the warmer they get the lines continue to get further apart. A 10-30 is much thinner at 20 degrees than the 10-60

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Our cranks are +-.0001, rod housings are +-.0000 and clearance is +-.0001
Crank tolerance, rod bore tolerance and oil clearance is all intertwined to a final number. It make no difference if the crank is .001 oversize. The manufacturer is supposed to be able to compensate for that. It would have -.001 shells in the top and bottom. It would then have the same clearance as the one next to it. Honda does this, they have plus and minus bearings to make up for any and all manufacturing tolerances. BMW does not, they try to hold the parts to a high spec and they just slap the stuff together, why? Because it is cheaper and less hands on time is spent on it. Snow is correct in saying 5 micron is really good for a production piece. It is all you can ask for really.
Furthermore we do all kinds of contract work for GM on many production cars you see on the road, from cooling system design and oiling schemes to r&d work on castings. There is not a more diverse group of people in the country that has worked on design and implementation of all kinds of engines than what we have here.


What part of that do you not understand, I have said many times that they said (in theory) the clearance that the s65 runs will work.....if paired with a oil like a 0-20, just like all the honda and toyota stuff does. But they dont turn the rpm, therefore making the 0-20 something we cant run, therefore making the clearance incorrect because off that reason.
Thats what I said isnt it, maybe he helicoptered into the complex, with the Regional manager of luxury dealerships down the road that are all owned by the same guy that the race teams are owned by just to chit chat. Because as you say HE HAS NO INTEREST OR SAY. That is a retarded statement unless you work for BMW yourself and can prove otherwise.



You are correct on the 10wt being different relative to the temp scale. What we still do not know is what volume is being pushed through the shell for each crank revolution. If we could increase oil pressure to 100psi and look at more shells we might see improvement. We cant really do that though because there are not throw away parts all over the place to figure this stuff out.
IMHO a 10-60 is too thick to push through that tight of a clearance. You are also correct in saying that a 10w-30 and a 10w-60 do not flow the same cold even though the numbers say otherwise.
10-30 at 100 is around 62cst
10-60 at 100 is around 160cst
Pour point is only about 3 degrees different at about -40 but the warmer they get the lines continue to get further apart. A 10-30 is much thinner at 20 degrees than the 10-60

Not true. My hondas that spun over 9k rpm were NEVER specd for a 20 weight oil. It was a 1030 If I remember. Hondas built will spin much more RPM that I have seen any s65.

[Leonardo629]

Originally Posted by s85e90

Not true. My hondas that spun over 9k rpm were NEVER specd for a 20 weight oil. It was a 1030 If I remember. Hondas built will spin much more RPM that I have seen any s65.

Please don't crop what Kawasaki typed, and totally distort what he's trying to say.

Which of your Hondas spin over 9k rpm?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

What part of that do you not understand, I have said many times that they said (in theory) the clearance that the s65 runs will work.....if paired with a oil like a 0-20, just like all the honda and toyota stuff does. But they dont turn the rpm, therefore making the 0-20 something we cant run, therefore making the clearance incorrect because off that reason.

Yet >98% of S65s are still running and achieving high mileages using 10W60.

I feel sorry for Clevite...they have to rely on what they are being told:
"[RG] told me the factory oil recommendation was somewhat thick for the clearance being run."
and
"the MSS60 had advanced knock detection and it would seem very infeasible to be detonation related unless the MSS60 was incapable of detecting a certain type of knock"
Taking information from sources that have their minds already set on a particular cause makes it difficult for them to give an untainted opinion.

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Thats what I said isnt it, maybe he helicoptered into the complex, with the Regional manager of luxury dealerships down the road that are all owned by the same guy that the race teams are owned by just to chit chat. Because as you say HE HAS NO INTEREST OR SAY. That is a retarded statement unless you work for BMW yourself and can prove otherwise.

Did the president of BMWNA ask about the S65? I'm thinking he probably didn't and even if he did what is he going to do about it? Ring up M division and put them right? I get it some important guy visited your place of work and that is great, but its not really got anything to do with the S65 RB clearances.

I'm sure you guys are very talented and very successful at what you do...but I would have exactly the same misgivings if you took a set of worn bearings out of one of your race cars and sent them to the road division of M power and asked them for their opinion.
You can't get complete a puzzle if you have a only a few pieces and no picture.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I feel sorry for Clevite...they have to rely on what they are being told:

So Clevite is so competent they can be implicitly trusted (even when you delete 95% of what they say when it disagrees with you) and are also incapable of looking up the oil spec for S65 even though they manufactured the original OEM bearings. Did I get that right?

"[RG] told me the factory oil recommendation was somewhat thick for the clearance being run."
and
"the MSS60 had advanced knock detection and it would seem very infeasible to be detonation related unless the MSS60 was incapable of detecting a certain type of knock"

If you're trying to say I made those comments to Clevite, then you are fabricating things again. I never made either comment or anything even close to them to Clevite. As you remember but choose to "forget," Clevite talked about MSS60 knock detection to me, not the other way around. We both know this, but once again you're trying to falsify the record for your current audience. Anybody truly interested can always ask me for links.

When does the misinformation stop? Is there a limit to how many times or how far you'll go to mislead people? I'm guessing there isn't.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

If you're trying to say I made those comments to Clevite, then you are fabricating things again. I never made either comment or anything even close to them to Clevite. As you remember but choose to "forget," Clevite talked about MSS60 knock detection to me, not the other way around.

Well...lets recall how it went:
I emailed clevite some bearing pictures in Nov 2013 and the guy was all yes its certainly looks like it could be detonation.
Days later you exchange emails and get a reply from the same man that now says the M3s ECU "MSS60 had advanced knock detection" and it couldn't be detonation.
So in the days between his email to me and and his reply to you, either you or by some fantastical coincidence someone else, told the Clevite guy all about the S65s and its infallible anti knock system.
Doesn't really matter - he was told detonation was impossible and had to change his opinion...while still managing to fit in that " long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"

[Leonardo629]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Well...lets recall how it went:
I emailed clevite some bearing pictures in Nov 2013 and the guy was all yes its certainly looks like it could be detonation.
Days later you exchange emails and get a reply from the same man that now says the M3s ECU "MSS60 had advanced knock detection" and it couldn't be detonation.
So in the days between his email to me and and his reply to you, either you or by some fantastical coincidence someone else, told the Clevite guy all about the S65s and its infallible anti knock system.
Doesn't really matter - he was told detonation was impossible and had to change his opinion...while still managing to fit in that " long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"

Wouldn't this be fairly easy to verify by someone like Bike Benvo? We are in CA, 91 octane is the highest we get, it's pretty warm, pretty easy to duplicate detonation if indeed it's plaguing our rod bearings.

Why don't you send him a PM.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by s85e90

Not true. My hondas that spun over 9k rpm were NEVER specd for a 20 weight oil. It was a 1030 If I remember. Hondas built will spin much more RPM that I have seen any s65.

New in production Honda and Toyota run 0-20. You read out of it what you wanted to, nowhere did I say a s2000 engine runs it. Furthermore the newer generation will run the new 0-12, including GM.

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

Please don't crop what Kawasaki typed, and totally distort what he's trying to say.

Which of your Hondas spin over 9k rpm?

True