BE Bearings - Extra Clearance bearings for BMW S65/S85

[tdott]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

It's pretty entertaining there are people who think there is not a bearing issue on S65s. What more evidence is needed? Over 90% of the bearings that come out of s65s before failure are worn at levels that makes no sense for their mileage

There is no quick source for the info I guess, no one likes reading. I thought bebearing.com and the wiki did a good job, I have no idea what else people are reading or reading half of.

Also I wish I had stuff saved, like the example of WPC bearings showing heavy wear after around ~14k (IICC). Yet people still think they are the best solution.

[deseroner]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

It's pretty entertaining there are people who think there is not a bearing issue on S65s. What more evidence is needed? Over 90% of the bearings that come out of s65s before failure are worn at levels that makes no sense for their mileage

I bought my 2013 brand new and followed the best warming up and oil change procedures, as well as break in, on the planet. Never driven in winter. Always bmw oil.
I changed my bearings at 31k miles and they were completely fucked.

Someone may think 'oh well but you tracked the car'. Yeah but, i tracked my E46M 10x more and the bearings at 130k miles looked way better than my 30k mile E92.




To someone else who said they got arp bolts and there is no proof of what bolts are better: i remind you that the fact that you don't search for it doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Since the E46 there has been data which shows the arp bolts distort the bore more than the oem ones. On the e92, be published detailed data on the arp bolts.
Either use be-arp bolts or oem ones. This is well established with data behind it. End of story.

[Green-Eggs]

I think some of is people want to believe the guy they know is smarter or more trusted than the guy they don't know. I think that's a natural thing for most people. But how do you argue with all the cumulative experience on this subject then ignore that BMW, specifically BMW's M engines are the only known outlier of too tight clearance and too thick oil -- and the failures follow BMW and not other equally high HP/Liter and high RPM engines? How do people reconcile that? How do they also reconcile denying a problem by calling bearings a maintenance item for this engine when bearings are never a maintenance item on engines. Calling bearings a maintenance item is admitting there's a problem. Or how about rod bolts and bore distortion? There's only one set of data out there and it's by BE and nobody else and it's done very well. There's been claims that non-BE ARP bolts don't cause bore distortion, but then there's never any proof or measurements to back that up and if there were it would contradict BE's own measurements that were published a long time ago. And this gets back to what I think is really going on here. Instead of really researching the issue and trying to see if there's any holes in what they hear, people tend to trust people they know over people they don't know -- regardless of anything else. I think it's just the way it is and probably nothing will change that.

[Sephiroth]

Those who are genuinely interested in finding the data and coming to a decision can search and get to a conclusion. We just have a lot of people who still want to deliberate and argue in these threads, and i think thats fine. There is no point in getting frustrated over an issue that is IMO a big deal.

[ImolaMoop]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I think some of is people want to believe the guy they know is smarter or more trusted than the guy they don't know. I think that's a natural thing for most people. But how do you argue with all the cumulative experience on this subject then ignore that BMW, specifically BMW's M engines are the only known outlier of too tight clearance and too thick oil -- and the failures follow BMW and not other equally high HP/Liter and high RPM engines? How do people reconcile that? How do they also reconcile denying a problem by calling bearings a maintenance item for this engine when bearings are never a maintenance item on engines. Calling bearings a maintenance item is admitting there's a problem. Or how about rod bolts and bore distortion? There's only one set of data out there and it's by BE and nobody else and it's done very well. There's been claims that non-BE ARP bolts don't cause bore distortion, but then there's never any proof or measurements to back that up and if there were it would contradict BE's own measurements that were published a long time ago. And this gets back to what I think is really going on here. Instead of really researching the issue and trying to see if there's any holes in what they hear, people tend to trust people they know over people they don't know -- regardless of anything else. I think it's just the way it is and probably nothing will change that.

Yes, how can anyone be apprehensive over re-dimensioning engine internals with minimal field data. Obviously they are just lazy and haven't read BE's website or this internet forum.

You are correct that nothing will change with me until more field data is available. You can either approach that as a reasonable position, which it is, or you can get defensive like you're doing.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by ImolaMoop

Yes, how can anyone be apprehensive over re-dimensioning engine internals with minimal field data. Obviously they are just lazy and haven't read BE's website or this internet forum.

You are correct that nothing will change with me until more field data is available. You can either approach that as a reasonable position, which it is, or you can get defensive like you're doing.

Only the comment about maintenance was referencing you, and only barely referencing you because you're not at all the first person to say that. It really had nothing to do with you or being defensive against anything you said. Sorry if it sounded that way. If anything, I'm just trying to get you to think a little more about it and even challenge your own thinking. I've got lots of questions I could do that with, but as you said, your mind is made up anyways.

Hope to see you in a few years anyways. BTW, we're the shop that told people to use WPC treatment in the first place.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by ImolaMoop

It is pretty amazingly complex stuff. I'm more of the "metal masher" variety of mechanical engineer, but I know enough to tell this isn't as simple as turning a knob (the clearance knob in this case) and arriving at a surefire answer.

Yes, it's a very complex mechanical engineering system to analyze, no matter how much you break it down. There are good reasons for running a tight bearing clearance such as a better load distribution from the fluid film across the bearing face, higher load capacity in total, ...; however, of course at the same time you have to have a very high level of manufacturing tolerances and in use tolerances (i.e. crank deflection versus bearing mount deflection for one) including lower and lower values of Ra, surface roughness on the crank, etc.

The wiki on the subject is a bit light on actual understanding of the fluid dynamics and mechanical dynamics of a hydrodynamic bearing, so it is not a good source to look to for understanding the design of a bearing from a detailed standpoint. For example, the statement is made: "If our theories are correct about too little bearing clearance, then increasing the bearing clearance will show up as increased oil flow. But we had no idea how much, if any, that would be." I'm not sure why one would think otherwise since there are no ifs/ands/or buts about it -- the flowrate through a hydrodynamic bearing varies with the cube of the clearance; there is no magic theory here, it's a fact, and it has nothing to do with "too little bearing clearance" before now magically increasing flow. The engineer in me immediately would want to carefully analyze the main bearings now to see what this downstream modification has affected; so far I see no such focus in the analysis.

So anyway, very complicated subject and huge amounts of opinion and I would assume non-intentional but misleading statements throughout this thread.

There is definitely a trade-off opening up the clearance as you give up what a tighter clearance provides; of course it also appears likely those tradeoffs are worth the breathing room the larger clearance provides for bearing life. Time will tell for sure, and there appears to be a lot of focus on in-use results, so that's great to see.

[pure opinion on] Personally, if I was going to replace my rod bearings, I would use the BE solution at this time too. It's highly unlikely that running the BE bearings will result in catastrophic failure of any sort assuming they are installed properly [pure opinion off].

[dozaiya]

just an off topic question, did any of you also order the valve springs that BE offers? is this something i should also replace?

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by dozaiya

just an off topic question, did any of you also order the valve springs that BE offers? is this something i should also replace?

I haven't yet, but when I do cams I'll do the springs as well

[BrewRifle]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I haven't yet, but when I do cams I'll do the springs as well

Would they provide any benefit over stock if one didn't change anything else? I'm curious to know if they would have any impact on a supercharged M3.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by BrewRifle

Would they provide any benefit over stock if one didn't change anything else? I'm curious to know if they would have any impact on a supercharged M3.

The cams or the springs?

I only think the springs will be helpful with a raised redline

[BrewRifle]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

The cams or the springs?

I only think the springs will be helpful with a raised redline

The springs. That's what I figured - more so for NA applications.

[Richbot]

I'm very curious about how well these engines hold up to leakdown over time. An engine with a couple weak holes is better than one with a hole in the block, but sometimes I wonder how much useful life most people will gain from doing the bearings when, to keep these things operating their best, they might already need a topend refresh and a ring and hone to keep making the rated output at 150,000+ miles. People drive these cars, they rack up a ton of miles because people love them and use them, and I can't imagine these engines are immune to the normal wear that sucks the life out of engines slowly as well as ventilating their blocks just for fun. Just a thought I had as I swiped my credit card multiple times to get my bottom end job parts together in case I get another iffy oil reading, heh

Anybody done a leakdown on one of these with some mileage?

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by Richbot

I'm very curious about how well these engines hold up to leakdown over time. An engine with a couple weak holes is better than one with a hole in the block, but sometimes I wonder how much useful life most people will gain from doing the bearings when, to keep these things operating their best, they might already need a topend refresh and a ring and hone to keep making the rated output at 150,000+ miles. People drive these cars, they rack up a ton of miles because people love them and use them, and I can't imagine these engines are immune to the normal wear that sucks the life out of engines slowly as well as ventilating their blocks just for fun. Just a thought I had as I swiped my credit card multiple times to get my bottom end job parts together in case I get another iffy oil reading, heh

Anybody done a leakdown on one of these with some mileage?

I don't know, so far M engines seems pretty durable

My E46M has 173k miles and is a dedicated track car now. Previously, it was double-tracked within an inch of its life.
Only 'rebuild' style thing done is the rod bearings.

After 150k miles we got it dyno'd at 300whp, which is pretty good.

[AutoTalent]

Here's a new article on bearing selection and clearance found in Hot Rod Magazine. Clevite plays a significant contributing role in the article.

How to Select and Install High-Performance Engine Bearings
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/selec...gine-bearings/

Here's a few highlights:

The trade-off between bimetal and trimetal is the expected service length versus resistance to extreme loads. The modern aluminum bimetal bearing is hard, so it wears slowly for a lifetime of moderate duty service. But on high-power engines subject to lots of horsepower and twisting cranks, you don’t want too hard a bearing. That’s where the softer, more forgiving, trimetal comes in.

BE Bearings are TriMetal

H-series: The H-series Clevite-77 high-performance bearing 90 percent of Clevite’s performance bearing sales. It uses the same babbit formula as a P, but at about half the thickness to hold up better under heavy loads typically encountered in high-performance engines.

BE Bearings are H-Series

Such tighter clearances must correlate closely with engine oil viscosity. Thinner oils that reduce friction (whether for more power in racing or better gas mileage on the street) work best with and are intended for tight-clearance operating environments. Even old-school engines can tighten up their clearances if they’re running modern thin oils.

Seems Clevite hasn't changed their mind about this in the last 10 years.

How tight should the bearing clearances be in a high-perf or racing application? When running SAE 30 or thinner straight viscosity oil as well as modern multiviscosity oils, McKnight recommends a minimum 0.001-inch clearance for every 1-inch of shaft diameter:

Minimum Clearance = Shaft Diameter × 0.001

For example, McKnight says an “LS Chevy has a 2.100-inch rod journal, so around 0.0025 would be a very good clearance to strive for.” And on an old-school, big-journal engine like a 460 Ford with its 3-inch mains? “That calls for 0.003-inch minimum clearance—which seems loose, but it’s still tight relative to such a large journal. If you are running the engine hard and are relatively new at this, add 0.0005-inch more for starters. As you learn from experience and by observing the bearing condition when you teardown the engine, you can start reducing clearance.”

These are the exact design criteria chosen by BE Bearings

Once you get down to 0.002 or less—not atypical with Pro racing engines using small bearings or today’s OE engines designed from the ground up for tight clearances—oil may have difficulty getting into the journals to establish the wedge. That’s where the really thin new-tech synthetic oils come in: Some Pro Stock engines run 0W-7 or 0W-10 viscosities—but they preheat a cold engine before startup.

You mean don't use 10W60 weight oil?

Many hard-core engine builders are so exacting they use slightly different-size upper and lower shells on a given journal to “split the hair” on clearances. “I’ve recently been working with some NHRA motorcycle teams,” relates McKnight. “They use very small rod journals, make 200 hp per cylinder, and use 0W-10 oil, which means we must have the clearance as tight as possible.” It’s OK to mix bearing sizes if less than 0.001-inch clearance adjustment is needed. Mixing standard with 0.001-inch oversize (denoted by an “X” in the part number suffix) or undersize shells respectively decreases or increases clearance about 0.0005 inch.

BE Bearings does exactly this to tightly control the clearance every customer should receive.

A relatively recent innovation, Clevite has offered coated bearings for about 14 years. A blend of polytetrafluoroethylene, graphite, and molybdenum disulfide, its “TriArmor” coating protects the bearing in marginal oiling-film situations that may occur in circle-track, Sportsman racing, Pro Stock drag racing, and even enthusiast street vehicles.

Clevite dark gray TriArmor coating (denoted by a “K” in the part number suffix) protects the bearing under extreme stress. The bearing shown here (PN CB-663HNK-1) is a 0.0001-inch undersize, H-series, narrowed, and coated small-block Chevy rod bearing. Note that on a coated (K) bearing, the K may not be embossed on the shell, but will be present on the packaging. Even on a street car, McKnight says a coated bearing is “really, really, good insurance if your car’s parked all winter.”

BE Bearings are TriArmor coated.

Choosing the right bearing, oil, and clearances will all be for naught if care is not exercised during assembly. McKnight says, “40 percent of bearing failures are caused by dirt, most often left in when you build the engine.

Very important information for installers to know.

----

The gist of the article is that Clevite double and triples downs on their recommendations on bearing clearance and oil selection. Clevite still recommends the same clearance used by BE Bearings even for today's modern vehicles. It seems that nothing has changed for them to reevaluate the situation and change many decades of automotive engine design methodology.

[tdott]

The only part that isn't clear is the oil recommendation, aren't they saying that a thinner oil should be used?

[pbonsalb]

Yes, for factory clearance. But BE opens up the clearance to industry standards so thinner oil is not needed.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Yes, for factory clearance. But BE opens up the clearance to industry standards so thinner oil is not needed.

But then, doesn't that give the impression that using thinner oil with factory clearance is okay?

[Browntrash]

Have we heard of any product quality or qc issues with BE? or all their batches are top notch upon production and delivery to installer?

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

But, VAC bearings are still ok right? All the installers near me only carry VAC. And some people had VAC and no wearing after being removed to right?

[deansbimmer]

Originally Posted by Browntrash

Have we heard of any product quality or qc issues with BE? or all their batches are top notch upon production and delivery to installer?

I've never had any problems with BE bearing QC. They hand check each one and size bin them into sets so each lot we get has consistent dimensions.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by tdott

But then, doesn't that give the impression that using thinner oil with factory clearance is okay?

Sort of. But BMW disagrees. I run WPC treated stock bearings with stock bolts and 0W40 oil. 3 years and 27k miles so far. 87k total on my 08M3. My original bearings were not as bad as the worst ones that have been posted.