BMW S65 MT in a 1933 Ford Roadster

[M3PO]

This is awesome!

DON'T put in the coated bearings! The S65 already has clearance issues and the coated bearings exacerbate the problem. Put in WPC bearings. Contact Tom @ EAS.

[BetterLate]

Very impressive! Subscribed and good luck with the build.

[kwality]

AMAZING!

subscribed!!

[In33anity]

Productive couple of weekends of work.

With the supercharger going into the S65, consensus was change the connecting rod bearings. As a 14, 600 mile engine (5/08 vintage), I thought I was doing so prophylactically. A friend who’s a BMW dealer tech came by to help. We couldn’t believe the bearings were totally shot. He’s bringing them to work to show the regional manager.



Replaced with the VAC Motorsports/Carillo teflon coated bearings and ARP bolts. VAC also did their baffle magic to the pan.









Picked up a genuine 1954 Bridgeport off Craigslist. Super tight and just in time! Although was surprised to learn no 230 neutral to my garage. An inverter and a trip from the electrician last week-end allowed me to mock up the alternator (March) and modifying the brackets to the Active Autowerke Level 2 SC kit.








Rotrex C38



Blower bracket extras!!!




But before I could mount the blower, I needed to chop out the driver’s side angle bracket up front to provide clearance for the tensioner and belt. I had already cut out the lower back-half of the X-brace and replaced with a crossmember. This time I opted for gussets.

Before



After



The modified Active brackets






Decided on the Chassisworks removable sidebar brackets and fabbed up the sidebars.





Ordered a fuel cell to drop down from FuelSafe. With the flanges was going to be tight to get in with the body rail across the back. Converted to a removable brace, adjustable with set screws to the correct height. Still need to clean up the sides.



Finally got in two hoops for the E-brake and shift linkage, Started milling a bracket for the linkage, but just ran out of time.

[Phanto///M]

Amazing work man. Thanks for the update!

[M3PO]

I guess you didn't see my warning about the coated bearings...

[In33anity]

Originally Posted by M3PO

I guess you didn't see my warning about the coated bearings...

I do appreciate the heads up. Did make me rethink and go back and ask more questions. Awful lot of conflicting opinions out there. I've read all the threads, spoke to a bunch of different folks. Ultimately had to make a choice.

[jagman]

This is awesome! Looking forward to your journey!

[sterile stork]

Originally Posted by M3PO

I guess you didn't see my warning about the coated bearings...

Do go on....

[M3PO]

Originally Posted by sterile stork

Do go on....

Long story short, the S65 eats rod bearings because the clearances are too tight. The coated bearings further reduce the clearance and exacerbate the issue.

[sterile stork]

Originally Posted by M3PO

Long story short, the S65 eats rod bearings because the clearances are too tight. The coated bearings further reduce the clearance and exacerbate the issue.

Thank you. I was able to track down your thoughts. Certainly valid!

[In33anity]

I've been struggling with how to support all that extra weight of the Intercooler and custom radiator as well as the Grille in an aesthetically correct way as the FFR brackets are not close to up to the task. As going without hood, side panels and fenders, look was important. Finally decided needed to sit on a solid base. Bought a set of repro frame horns for a '32 Ford and I think I've settled on an old school look. Ignore the cardboard box simulating the IC and radiator.







Also managed to get the pulleys rearranged, and added one, to the Active kit to clear the frame for the blower as well as finished the mount for the shift linkage.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by M3PO

Long story short, the S65 eats rod bearings because the clearances are too tight. The coated bearings further reduce the clearance and exacerbate the issue.

Have measurements been taken of the coated newer bearings vs the previous stock bearings?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Its worth noting:
Clevite would call that rod bearing wear normal....The lead layer is extremely thin and the copper layer is not exposed.
The revised rod bearings with the slightly larger clearance statistically show no benefit in failure rate.
The coatings on these treated (assumed to be the revised version) bearing shells is extremely thin and will simply wear away with any contact.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its worth noting:
Clevite would call that rod bearing wear normal....The lead layer is extremely thin and the copper layer is not exposed.
The revised rod bearings with the slightly larger clearance statistically show no benefit in failure rate.
The coatings on these treated (assumed to be the revised version) bearing shells is extremely thin and will simply wear away with any contact.

I don't think that with the limited mileage on that engine that the wear could be called normal. If the engine had 60,000 or 100,000 miles on it then you could call it normal.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I don't think that with the limited mileage on that engine that the wear could be called normal. If the engine had 60,000 or 100,000 miles on it then you could call it normal.

The (non supercharged) rod bearings that Clevite reported on in the bearing thread had ~30K miles.
The wear pattern on those looked worse than the ones in this thread.
They are certainly not "totally shot".

[M3Carbon]

Great thread. Actually cannot believe I did not see this earlier. I've always loved FFR cars and always dreamed of their Roadster (Cobra) with an S65.

Good luck OP! Subscribed for updates.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Have measurements been taken of the coated newer bearings vs the previous stock bearings?

Yes and no. Thickness measurements: yes, but installed in a connecting rod: no. The thickness measurements of two bearings are on page-1 of the bearing wiki thread. I have a complete set of coated bearings, but haven't made the time to measure them installed in connecting rods.

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its worth noting:
Clevite would call that rod bearing wear normal....The lead layer is extremely thin and the copper layer is not exposed.
The revised rod bearings with the slightly larger clearance statistically show no benefit in failure rate.
The coatings on these treated (assumed to be the revised version) bearing shells is extremely thin and will simply wear away with any contact.

When looked as a static measurement like "thickness" then yes 0.0002-0.0004 inch is extremely thin. But when looked as a percentage of available clearance, it's extremely thick. The saving grace here are the newer 702/703 bearings have slightly increased clearance. Just by the numbers (not measurements), nominal thickness of the coating is 0.00031 inch. On a nominal clearance of 0.00165, that's a 19% reduction in clearance on the 702/703 bearings.

It looks like this discussion won't go away and I'll need to measure the coated bearings and post the results in the bearing wiki thread.

OP: Please keep the updates coming. I promise I'll get back to your PM regarding cams...I just haven't made the phone calls yet.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The (non supercharged) rod bearings that Clevite reported on in the bearing thread had ~30K miles.
The wear pattern on those looked worse than the ones in this thread.
They are certainly not "totally shot".

No doubt they are far from totally shot, and would probably last quite a while longer. At the mileage on that engine the wear is significant though!

[Hujan]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yes and no. Thickness measurements: yes, but installed in a connecting rod: no. The thickness measurements of two bearings are on page-1 of the bearing wiki thread. I have a complete set of coated bearings, but haven't made the time to measure them installed in connecting rods.



When looked as a static measurement like "thickness" then yes 0.0002-0.0004 inch is extremely thin. But when looked as a percentage of available clearance, it's extremely thick. The saving grace here are the newer 702/703 bearings have slightly increased clearance. Just by the numbers (not measurements), nominal thickness of the coating is 0.00031 inch. On a nominal clearance of 0.00165, that's a 19% reduction in clearance on the 702/703 bearings.

It looks like this discussion won't go away and I'll need to measure the coated bearings and post the results in the bearing wiki thread.

OP: Please keep the updates coming. I promise I'll get back to your PM regarding cams...I just haven't made the phone calls yet.

Why take the risk? Do coated bearings offer any advantage over the WPC treated ones that it's worth taking the risk of using a bearing that, at least measured off the rod, is thicker than the OEM ones?

[In33anity]

Fuel cell in for mock-up. Need to get a rubber gasket for under the flange.





Also managed to get the oil block finished and mounted to remote the filter and, but for spacers, which is waiting on pulley arrival, alternator bracket finished too.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by In33anity

Fuel cell in for mock-up. Need to get a rubber gasket for under the flange.





Also managed to get the oil block finished and mounted to remote the filter and, but for spacers, which is waiting on pulley arrival, alternator bracket finished too.

You do very nice work. Keep the pictures coming.

Got any more info about the fuel cell? How many pumps? What pump(s)? What pressure? With or without return? With or without fuel pressure regulator?