Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I have no idea about how to find out production numbers for California but lets make a very optimistic guess at just under a quarter of all USA M3s are sold in California so say 6000 cars. Number of M3s sold in the UK is funnily enough 6000 cars.
Widely reported failure rate in California is high. Widely reported failure rate in UK is low.
As there are lots of UK based M3 forums its pretty fair to say that a rash of E9x M3 engine failures would not have gone un-noticed.
The same can be said for all the big European markets.
If your theory can't account for the discrepancy between high failure rates in the USA (especially the apparent California spike) relative to worldwide rates then the model is flawed since if bearing clearance was the single cause then failure/high wear rates would be even across all markets. The model needs at least one other major factor to account for the difference between markets.
A tight rod bearing clearance in a high reving, high compression engine in combination with the use of low octane fuel produces a model in which all the failure/high wear data fits. Principally It explains the low failure rate in the big European market where low octane fuel is unavailable and the high rate in the USA where it is.
If a USA owner can put low octane fuel in a supercharged M3 having been explicitly told not to and blow up his engine then you can be certain that plenty other stock USA M3 owners will have used low octane fuel on occasion for whatever reason..simple mistake, availability, cost or whatever. How many tanks of 87 octane fuel would you have to run in a high compression engine at high revs before it caused rod bearing wear?

Fair call ...

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I have no idea about how to find out production numbers for California but lets make a very optimistic guess at just under a quarter of all USA M3s are sold in California so say 6000 cars. Number of M3s sold in the UK is funnily enough 6000 cars.
Widely reported failure rate in California is high. Widely reported failure rate in UK is low.
As there are lots of UK based M3 forums its pretty fair to say that a rash of E9x M3 engine failures would not have gone un-noticed.
The same can be said for all the big European markets.
If your theory can't account for the discrepancy between high failure rates in the USA (especially the apparent California spike) relative to worldwide rates then the model is flawed since if bearing clearance was the single cause then failure/high wear rates would be even across all markets. The model needs at least one other major factor to account for the difference between markets.
A tight rod bearing clearance in a high reving, high compression engine in combination with the use of low octane fuel produces a model in which all the failure/high wear data fits. Principally It explains the low failure rate in the big European market where low octane fuel is unavailable and the high rate in the USA where it is.
If a USA owner can put low octane fuel in a supercharged M3 having been explicitly told not to and blow up his engine then you can be certain that plenty other stock USA M3 owners will have used low octane fuel on occasion for whatever reason..simple mistake, availability, cost or whatever. How many tanks of 87 octane fuel would you have to run in a high compression engine at high revs before it caused rod bearing wear?

Is there something different about the fuel between the UK and the rest of the EU? There have been numerous problems in Germany and one of the M5Board members changes bearings in 2 cars/weekend on average. He's the one who really brought it to our attention in the S85 community.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...tures-s85.html

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Maybe Kawasaki can answer that, I can't. If I saw evidence in these photos that said most failures occurred in places that only had 91 octane, I'd say it's something to look at closer. But many of these photos are coming from the eastern US and Canada where they run 93 and 94 octane. So to me, the evidence doesn't suggest a connection to fuel.


I read online once that there's a type of detonation near bottom dead center that is especially destructive to bearings. Once I read that, I've never been able to find the article again. Maybe Kawasaki can shed some light on that topic to say if it's true or pure BS.

If it was a non adjustable ignition system it can show up but in todays cars the only way one would see such a thing is if the system does not work correctly.

Some of the old waste discharge systems will fire the plug more than one time during the 4 cycles. I know some old dodges do this and they are known for eating everything but a copper core spark plug. This could be where some people get the firing on the exhaust stroke. As far as destructive BDC firing, that is not something I have ever run into as a factor for beating up rod bearing.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Thanks ... I was always under the impression that the Diesel engine oil turned black doesn't matter how old it is and it was the opposite for petrol engines. I was surprised because an article that was linked under this discussion said that the oil should remain translucent, and hence the decision to raise it.

Kawasaki is the oil expert here and may chip in with his opinion.

I have noticed this in the past. When I changed oil earlier in the year I only had the tws in for about 4k miles and it was the blackest and stunk like I have never seen before. I was actually baffled by how bad it looked. I know everyone else notices it too but I feel it is not normal, it smelled of lots of gasoline dilution and it had the same smell as when we run oil up in the 300 degree range.
I am draining out the 0-40 today as it is time for a change and I will post a picture of what it looks like for comparison.

Originally Posted by rantarM3

If the problem is due to tolerances of the parts involved then changing the bearings could either exacerbate or improve clearance issues, no? If so, is there any way to go about making sure the shells don't decrease clearances beyond what was originally installed? I suppose one alternative would be to use the ground bearings that had been posted (by kawasaki?), right?

It is a long process but one of my buddies just acquired a huge shop. Some of these services are going to be offered in the coming future.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by jcolley

Is there something different about the fuel between the UK and the rest of the EU? There have been numerous problems in Germany and one of the M5Board members changes bearings in 2 cars/weekend on average. He's the one who really brought it to our attention in the S85 community. ]

I'm working off the S65 data that there is available here...hearsay anecdotal data is somewhat harder to work with.

Edit: Sorry forgot to add link: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=786615

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I have no idea about how to find out production numbers for California but lets make a very optimistic guess at just under a quarter of all USA M3s are sold in California so say 6000 cars. Number of M3s sold in the UK is funnily enough 6000 cars.
Widely reported failure rate in California is high. Widely reported failure rate in UK is low.
As there are lots of UK based M3 forums its pretty fair to say that a rash of E9x M3 engine failures would not have gone un-noticed.
The same can be said for all the big European markets.
If your theory can't account for the discrepancy between high failure rates in the USA (especially the apparent California spike) relative to worldwide rates then the model is flawed since if bearing clearance was the single cause then failure/high wear rates would be even across all markets. The model needs at least one other major factor to account for the difference between markets.

This doesn't sound like any theory I've presented, so maybe there's a misunderstanding. Not saying this to challenge you, but could you give me some pull quotes of what I said that sounded like this? Hopefully we can see if it's a simple misunderstanding.

BTW, just so you know, I tend not to make conclusions about things I'm not involved with. That's why I'm a bit surprised if I started drawing conclusions for blown motors that I didn't have some direct knowledge or photos. As far as I know, I've tried to limit my theories to blown motors in early life (< 25000 miles), and motors I have some involvement and/or photos.

A tight rod bearing clearance in a high reving, high compression engine in combination with the use of low octane fuel produces a model in which all the failure/high wear data fits. Principally It explains the low failure rate in the big European market where low octane fuel is unavailable and the high rate in the USA where it is.

Does all the data fit? If it does, you haven't attempted to explain the multiple blown motors in the Eastern US, or Canada, or Hong Kong? How do you also explain the BMW shop in Germany replacing two sets of rod bearings per week?

If a USA owner can put low octane fuel in a supercharged M3 having been explicitly told not to and blow up his engine then you can be certain that plenty other stock USA M3 owners will have used low octane fuel on occasion for whatever reason..simple mistake, availability, cost or whatever. How many tanks of 87 octane fuel would you have to run in a high compression engine at high revs before it caused rod bearing wear?

To be honest, I don't personally know anybody in Cali who has ever used 87 octane, but I do know three people in Cali with blown motors. None of these people ever ran anything less than 91 octane. I also know people in Cali who have never run anything less than 91 octane and replaced their bearings. Their bearings are part of the photo database here and with EAS. The EAS shop car is a good example if you want to explain your theory further. The EAS shop car never ran anything less than 91 octane, and it showed signs of bearing wear due to too little bearing clearance.

Here's a few more questions for your theory: 1) Do you have any expert sources who would corroborate it? Any articles in trade journals? Any white papers of the same magnitude as those I've provided? Anything? 2) Can you explain why low octane isn't on the list of possible causes of bearing starvation in the Clevite bearing failure guide?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I'm working off the S65 data that there is available here...hearsay anecdotal data is somewhat harder to work with.

Could you please start providing links to your data so it can be verified?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Could you please start providing links to your data so it can be verified?

Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=786615

A quick look gave locations as:
Ca, Reno, Lithuania, SF, USA, Ca, Ca, Cal, Singapore, Ny, Ny, Montreal, Cape Coral, Ca, Socal, Florida, Vegas and Long Island.
Some cars maybe need to be excluded:

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I'm working off the S65 data that there is available here...hearsay anecdotal data is somewhat harder to work with.

TBH mate, I think you are flogging a dead horse here.

Let's be honest, if there was actually a bearing clearance problem, BMW could instruct Clevite to make the bearings a few microns thinner in 5 minutes. Absolutely no need to regrind the crank at all.

Then again, I don't have around 50 spare cranks to sell,

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

This doesn't sound like any theory I've presented, so maybe there's a misunderstanding. Not saying this to challenge you, but could you give me some pull quotes of what I said that sounded like this? Hopefully we can see if it's a simple misunderstanding.

Well AIUI you postulate that bearing clearance is the sole cause of S65 bearing wear/failures...if that was true then all markets would suffer an equal failure rate. The geographical spread doesn't seem to support that.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Does all the data fit? If it does, you haven't attempted to explain the multiple blown motors in the Eastern US, or Canada, or Hong Kong? How do you also explain the BMW shop in Germany replacing two sets of rod bearings per week?

I only glanced at the examples of bearing wear/failure illustrated at the beginning of the thread and none seem to include their geographical origin. I have been forced to take data from this thread: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=786615 which is most likely incomplete but does shown a clear trend....and exactly why I said earlier that the data available is poorly collated and presented (which you dismissed). The failure in Singapore was a bent valve, low octane fuel is available in Canada (AFAIK) which leaves the Lithuania car as the single failure that falls outside the model. In any case, any engine is subject to random failures, its the nature of materials production. A few failed engines that don't fit the overall trend is to be expected.
And do you really accept third hand reports of a garage in Germany replacing S85 engines on a regular basis as good data for the S65?

Originally Posted by regular guy

To be honest, I don't personally know anybody in Cali who has ever used 87 octane, but I do know three people in Cali with blown motors. None of these people ever ran anything less than 91 octane. I also know people in Cali who have never run anything less than 91 octane and replaced their bearings. Their bearings are part of the photo database here and with EAS. The EAS shop car is a good example if you want to explain your theory further. The EAS shop car never ran anything less than 91 octane, and it showed signs of bearing wear due to too little bearing clearance.

To start with, there are hundreds of thousands of misfueling events every year. Your personal experience can hardly be extrapolated to cover every M3 owner. There have been threads where owners have noted using low octane fuel when it was the only fuel available - and no I'm not going to go looking for them.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Here's a few more questions for your theory: 1) Do you have any expert sources who would corroborate it? Any articles in trade journals? Any white papers of the same magnitude as those I've provided? Anything? 2) Can you explain why low octane isn't on the list of possible causes of bearing starvation in the Clevite bearing failure guide?

BMW recommend 93 octane for use in the M3, 91 is listed as being acceptable. Octane below 91 is not to be used otherwise the engine could be damaged.

EDIT: Apparently low octane (lower than 91) IS available in Lithuania. So that car also fits the model.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

TBH mate, I think you are flogging a dead horse here.

Let's be honest, if there was actually a bearing clearance problem, BMW could instruct Clevite to make the bearings a few microns thinner in 5 minutes. Absolutely no need to regrind the crank at all.

If we're being TOTALLY honest, then you already know BMW would get an instant class action lawsuit if they did what you suggest without issuing a recall on the people who didn't get the updated bearings. We already discussed this, so you should already know this.

Then again, I don't have around 50 spare cranks to sell,

Who besides Dinan has 50 cranks to sell? I get the feeling you're trying to mislead people here again by implying I have 50 cranks to sell and thus an ulterior motive for spending all this time to collect and present all this data. You already know I don't work in the auto industry nor own a shop nor have a business that makes any money off of this. I don't care for an explanation, but I'm not blind to what you're doing.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Well AIUI you postulate that bearing clearance is the sole cause of S65 bearing wear/failures...if that was true then all markets would suffer an equal failure rate. The geographical spread doesn't seem to support that.



I only glanced at the examples of bearing wear/failure illustrated at the beginning of the thread and none seem to include their geographical origin. I have been forced to take data from this thread: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=786615 which is most likely incomplete but does shown a clear trend....and exactly why I said earlier that the data available is poorly collated and presented (which you dismissed). The failure in Singapore was a bent valve, low octane fuel is available in Canada (AFAIK) which leaves the Lithuania car as the single failure that falls outside the model. In any case, any engine is subject to random failures, its the nature of materials production. A few failed engines that don't fit the overall trend is to be expected.
And do you really accept third hand reports of a garage in Germany replacing S85 engines on a regular basis as good data for the S65?



To start with, there are hundreds of thousands of misfueling events every year. Your personal experience can hardly be extrapolated to cover every M3 owner. There have been threads where owners have noted using low octane fuel when it was the only fuel available - and no I'm not going to go looking for them.



BMW recommend 93 octane for use in the M3, 91 is listed as being acceptable. Octane below 91 is not to be used otherwise the engine could be damaged.

You seem to have a very strong desire to put words into my mouth and connect me to unrelated threads on this forum. I have an equally strong desire to let people know they're being mislead this tactic. I would prefer you answer my questions directly and directly address my points specifically. If 91 octane is acceptable, then I think we can both agree that BMW designed and tested the engine for 91 octane.

The minimum approved fuel grade is 91 AKI.
BMW M3 Owners manual, page 205. Part number 01 41 0 0014 958

If you have any credible evidence that running the M3 on the fuel that it was designed and tested to run could cause bearing clearance issues, then please present it. Articles, white papers, anything would be a good start to putting your jigsaw together.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Yet I build winning race engines for a living and you dont. Goes back to that ol' statement you made about people and there dead end jobs posting on the internet or however you worded it.
We will just disagree on a few things.

Perhaps you want to explain in more details your use of the word "build". What is your personal involvement? I never said anything akin to "dead end". So stop right there with putting words in my mouth.

Surely folks at your company have specializations? Do you design, test, run simulations, machine parts, assemble, etc. If you want to appeal to expertise you should also be willing to clarify.

Let's revisit my exact statement that has you so worked up as to credibility.

Originally Posted by swamp2

And if you or Kawasaki could DESIGN engines from the ground up, as successful as the huge range of award winning engines made by BMW, year after year, you would not be slugging away at your current positions nor would you likely be bothering to debate such topics here at m3post.com...

I stick by that statement as I'm positive you don't design your companies engines from the ground up. BMRLVR is a heavy diesel engine repair specialist. No design, no engineering. He sometimes works with engineers whom he likes to poke fun at some of them for being clueless about some obvious/practical facts of engines.

Again, what is your role?

I've already established your fundamental lack of understanding and false statements about connecting rod stresses, loads and how they scale with rpm. Based on those pretty basic mistakes it is clear to me you are not actually involved in the design and engineering aspects of the great race winning engines your company is producing. I've got great respect for how high-tech NASCAR has made carbuerated (I guess now finally fuel injected) push rod, 2 valve per cylinder engines. I think many engineers working on passenger vehicle engines might conclude that your engines shouldn't even run or last one full load run to redline. NASCAR engines are impressive despite effective attempts to ban all innovation and modern technology from the series (across the car, not just the engines).

[SenorFunkyPants]

I think I must be explaining myself badly.
When I say low octane fuel I mean fuel that has an rating lower than the minimum recommended by BMW, ie below 91 USA rating.

ALL failures listed in the thread "Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry" are cars from markets where low octane fuel (ie lower than the minimum 91 USA rated) is available. No failures are from markets where the minimum octane fuel available is 91 USA rated or above.

Note: Low octane (88 USA rated fuel) is also available in Lithuania (and Singapore), I've added this to my post above.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I am draining out the 0-40 today as it is time for a change and I will post a picture of what it looks like for comparison.

It will be interesting to compare ... thanks.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Perhaps you want to explain in more details your use of the word "build". What is your personal involvement? I never said anything akin to "dead end". So stop right there with putting words in my mouth.

Surely folks at your company have specializations? Do you design, test, run simulations, machine parts, assemble, etc. If you want to appeal to expertise you should also be willing to clarify.

Let's revisit my exact statement that has you so worked up as to credibility.

I stick by that statement as I'm positive you don't design your companies engines from the ground up. BMRLVR is a heavy diesel engine repair specialist. No design, no engineering. He sometimes works with engineers whom he likes to poke fun at some of them for being clueless about some obvious/practical facts of engines.

Again, what is your role?

I've already established your fundamental lack of understanding and false statements about connecting rod stresses, loads and how they scale with rpm. Based on those pretty basic mistakes it is clear to me you are not actually involved in the design and engineering aspects of the great race winning engines your company is producing. I've got great respect for how high-tech NASCAR has made carbuerated (I guess now finally fuel injected) push rod, 2 valve per cylinder engines. I think many engineers working on passenger vehicle engines might conclude that your engines shouldn't even run or last one full load run to redline. NASCAR engines are impressive despite effective attempts to ban all innovation and modern technology from the series (across the car, not just the engines).

What is your role? You never once put your credentials out there! Do you have a background in engineering in the automotive industry or are you just another textbook engineer!?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I think I must be explaining myself badly.
When I say low octane fuel I mean fuel that has an rating lower than the minimum recommended by BMW, ie below 91 USA rating.

ALL failures listed in the thread "Blown motors, Bearing failure S65 Registry" are cars from markets where low octane fuel (ie lower than the minimum 91 USA rated) is available. No failures are from markets where the minimum octane fuel available is 91 USA rated or above.

Note: Low octane (88 USA rated fuel) is also available in Lithuania (and Singapore), I've added this to my post above.

Never heard of rod bearing wear from detonation before, other parts will likely fail first. This fuel theory makes zero sense. Not to mention that the engine will adjust timing with low octane fuel.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by chris719

Never heard of rod bearing wear from detonation before, other parts will likely fail first. This fuel theory makes zero sense. Not to mention that the engine will adjust timing with low octane fuel.

Few notes here on detonation causing rod bearing failure:

http://www.agkits.com/bearing-failure-analysis.aspx

http://www.mikuni.com/tg_detonation.html

http://kingbearings.com/files/Engine...Avoid_Them.pdf

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by chris719

Never heard of rod bearing wear from detonation before, other parts will likely fail first. This fuel theory makes zero sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
"Octanes are a family of hydrocarbon that are typical components of gasoline. They are colourless liquids that boil around 125 °C (260 °F). One member of the octane family, isooctane, is used as a reference standard to benchmark the tendency of gasoline/petrol or LPG fuels to resist self-igniting. In a normal spark-ignition engine, the air-fuel mixture is heated due to being compressed and is then triggered to burn (relatively) slowly by the spark plug and ignition system. If it is heated and/or compressed too much, then it will explode when triggered (detonate), or even self-ignite before the ignition system sparks. This causes much higher pressures than engine components are designed for and can cause a "knocking" or "pinging" sound if light, or major engine damage if severe. This can break connecting rods, melt pistons, blow head gaskets, damage rod bearings, as well as damage other components. The octane rating is a measure of how resistant a fuel is to spontaneously or explosively ignite under such conditions. The higher the number, the more resistant the fuel is. Engines that have aggressive designs (high compression pistons, high intake density and/or temperature) or unusual operating conditions (low-speed, air-cooled engines such as small aircraft) require higher octane fuels."

If the engine design has the rod bearings as its weakest link then that is the part that is going to fail first. Any detonation event puts increased load on the piston, rod and rod bearings - even if the engine never failed you would expect to see elevated wear on the rod bearings.

Originally Posted by chris719

Not to mention that the engine will adjust timing with low octane fuel.

The lower the octane the more uncontrollable the point of ignition and the way the charge burns, you can only go so far by retarding the ignition and its not going to help at all if the charge is igniting before the spark plugs fire...its why the manual (never read read by numerous owners) states not to use fuel <91 octane (USA rating) to avoid engine damage.

OK so everything I've written could be a load of bollocks and some time in the future we will all be laughing at my stupidity....but at this moment in time the facts available (the changes in the ECU and anti knock system made to the S85 design when producing the S65, the geographical spread of failures and the mechanics of detonation/pre-ignition due to the use of low octane fuel) all fit the theory model perfectly.
The theory being that any increased rod bearing wear due to tight bearing clearance will be exacerbated (some times to the point of failure) by the use of low octane fuel (<91 octane).

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Few notes here on detonation causing rod bearing failure:

http://www.agkits.com/bearing-failure-analysis.aspx

http://www.mikuni.com/tg_detonation.html

http://kingbearings.com/files/Engine...Avoid_Them.pdf

Thank you for posting these links. The photos from these articles showing bearing damage due to detonation describe a phenomena known as "overlay fatigue." These photos don't resemble any of the ones posted thus far. This would be more proof that detonation is unrelated to the bearing wear photos posted thus far. I will have more analysis on this later.

[Yellow Snow]

Does anyone have a theory yet on why the standard bearings have so much eccentricity when compared to other cars?

Surely, dropping a new set of shells in at 75k miles isn't the end of the world? That shouldn't cost much more than a set of decent tyres.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

It is a long process but one of my buddies just acquired a huge shop. Some of these services are going to be offered in the coming future.

Hopefully he'll also be down for regrinding cranks for less than $8k