OEM 702/703 to BE Bearings

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by pbsonalb

I'd put the mechanical knowledge of the average bmw customer as very low. There are a bunch of knowledgeable people contributing here, although you disparage them as if you have some axe to grind against them. I do agree that BMW engineers are smart and aware of a growing number of engine failures. But they are not weighing in. Not sure why -- could be because they do not think there is a problem, because there is a problem they can't do anything about, or because lawyers and accountants are stopping them.

Yet he's totally silent as Joe and his previous screen name(s) about VAC stealing RG's work, making their own "re-spec'ed Clevite bearings," and doing zero development or testing to back them up. Couldn't get a more clear example of personal agenda at play here disguised as a "technical concern."

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Yet he's totally silent as Joe and his previous screen name(s) about VAC stealing RG's work, making their own "re-spec'ed Clevite bearings," and doing zero development or testing to back them up. Couldn't get a more clear example of personal agenda at play here disguised as a "technical concern."

Capitalism at its finest. If you don't have a patent its not your work.

No one representing or working at BMW would ever comment publicly would open themselves up to litigation. Furthermore the guy that owns this forum is a lawyer and deeply rooted with BMW NA, it's their job to keep things quiet here.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Truth apparently doesn't matter when there's a more important personal agenda to pursue. I'd like to see that hard pushing selling pitch. Got any links to it?

Your posts in this thread have been that of a watchdog defending the interests of friends or maybe you are just one of them.

I have no personal agenda against anyone, I have no prospects for profiting from RB failure but i understand someone is desperately trying to make a case for selling re-spec'ed Clevite bearings.

Uprooting false technical claims and exposing the spread of fear tactics as a sales pitch for a miracle fix is protecting the community of M3 owners.

Swapping bearings is just buying time. I am pointing directly to the real cause of bearing failure, ethanol in the gasoline.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I'd put the mechanical knowledge of the average bmw customer as very low. There are a bunch of knowledgeable people contributing here, although you disparage them as if you have some axe to grind against them. I do agree that BMW engineers are smart and aware of a growing number of engine failures. But they are not weighing in. Not sure why -- could be because they do not think there is a problem, because there is a problem they can't do anything about, or because lawyers and accountants are stopping them.

I have no axe to grind. I keep my contribution to this topic on a technical level with people who do. I filter out people who try to derail the discussion into personal scuffle (I am not talking about you).

There is a solid reason why BMW engineers have not weighed in and have not been able to fix the problem either. BMW only started to specifically investigate ethanol related engine wear in 2011. A couple of years back you may have heard a few disgruntled owners being accused of using "poor gas" by BMW who resisted engine replacement. E10 is poor gas compared to E0. To get the same octane grade from a gasoline fuel without adding ethanol requires more refinery and purification of the petroleum compounds. MTBE and lead additives of bygone days were also poor octane boosters compared to ethanol. It's why high octane E0 was and is significantly better gasoline (and is less profitable).

BMW is tongue tied, there is a note on every M3 gas tank that says " up to 10% max ethanol content". If BMW publicly pointed at the ethanol problem they would dig their own financial hole. Instead they have kept the lesson confidential and they have started to coat their bearings in new cars. The recently released 340i has IROX coated bearings. IROX is a polymer that [bmw]: "makes the bearing shell surface so hard that material abrasion is no longer possible. It also contains a solid lubricant that replaces the oil film".
Oil looses lubricity when diluted with ethanol.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

LOL make your mind up...are the VAC bearings too tight or too loose.

I think that it is not the clearance either way that made the difference but the coating.

VAC bearings used CALICO CT-1 coating which is Molybdemum Disulfide (MoS2). it reduces friction, wear and heat and reduces corrosion. That is the next best thing beside not using ethanol fuels. MoS2 will protect the bearing from oil lubricity breakdown as long as it stays on.
The SC engine with VAC bearings trial proved with pictures that the coating was still visible after 33k miles.

When the car is sitting around the oil film leaks out of the bearings, the coating helps protect against dry starts. An oil that was diluted by ethanol will break film protection faster.

By comparison, clevite bearings (re-sold by BE) use Clevite "TriArmor®" non-friction coating. This is another dry-film lubricant made from graphite. Graphite is the highest form of coal and it's made from carbon atoms (There used to be a company called ARCO that sold engine oil with graphite additives directly in the oil, they went under). Graphite's lubricity is due to adsorbed water vapor between the interlamellar coupling sheets in the structure graphite, unlike other dry lubricants such as molybdenum disulfide that do not require water being present. MoS2 lubrication performance exceeds that of graphite. The important criteria however is how long the coating stays on. Callico coating proved to be good for at least 33k miles in the s65. I would like to see the same trial being done with clevite coated bearings.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

I don't think fuel has anything to do with it. If there was oil on the bearing it wouldn't wear.

Also a tremendous amount of speculation and a lack of fact. Clearly everyone isent going to pull their crank out and measure in the interest of science.

It is proven that ethanol degrades oil lubricity.
But it also microscopically corrodes and pits the bearing surface increasing friction and temperatures which causes premature wear.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

It is proven that ethanol degrades oil lubricity.
But it also microscopically corrodes and pits the bearing surface increasing friction and temperatures which causes premature wear.

Sure but if the clearance wasen't so tight there would be oil on the bearings during cold start. If it was purely ethanol content we would see bearing failures in all vehicle combustion engines. I'd really love to know what the oiling schematic on the crank is.

Top motorsports teams run tight engines with very low weight engine oils and aren't wearing the bearings.

[serranot]

The ethanol theory is BS. I guess every bearing on every car would have the same problem. But they don't. So stop with the BS.

[pbonsalb]

Bmw use of coated bearings is due to stop start feature from what i understand. Stop start is hard on the bearings.

[AutoTalent]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

By comparison, clevite bearings (re-sold by BE) use Clevite "TriArmor®" non-friction coating. This is another dry-film lubricant made from graphite.

According to the Clevite web site, they use a combination of moly (MoS2), graphite, and applied to a PTFE polymer base. This is undoubtedly where you obtained this information while leaving out the Moly and PTFE parts of their description. That's only for large volume production runs. For small volume production runs like BE Bearings, Clevite uses different process they simply call PTFE coatings. Whether it's pure PTFE or not, isn't known without writing Clevite and not sure they will tell. PTFE has a much lower coefficient of friction than Calico CT-1 (MoS2) coatings. MoS2 is typically 0.1, and PTFE is typically 0.05. The Clevite PTFE is considered superior to Calico MoS2.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

I have no axe to grind. I keep my contribution to this topic on a technical level with people who do. I filter out people who try to derail the discussion into personal scuffle...

Joe at least go delete post #26 before you say things like this. Very clearly you started it with an unprovoked and personal attack against people you never met, never worked with, but against whom you have an ax to grind.

Originally Posted by AutoTalent

According to the Clevite web site, they use a combination of moly (MoS2), graphite, and applied to a PTFE polymer base. This is undoubtedly where you obtained this information while leaving out the Moly and PTFE parts of their description. That's only for large volume production runs. For small volume production runs like BE Bearings, Clevite uses different process they simply call PTFE coatings. Whether it's pure PTFE or not, isn't known without writing Clevite and not sure they will tell. PTFE has a much lower coefficient of friction than Calico CT-1 (MoS2) coatings. MoS2 is typically 0.1, and PTFE is typically 0.05. The Clevite PTFE is considered superior to Calico MoS2.

If Joe were right and everybody else were wrong, he wouldn't need to falsify data to do it. He reminds of that guy from the UK, now banned, who had the same ax to grind and also filled the forum with false information and half truths.

BTW, Joe, I like your theory about ethanol, really I do. But you don't need to falsify information if you're right and you don't need to sound like a noble knight when you're the guy starting the fights in a thread that has no concern of yours. Seems you really want exposure for your ax grinding or else you would limit your comments to the correct thread and wouldn't spam all the others with the same ax grinding. Oh, and yes we figured out your an anti-capitalist. Good for you.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I do agree that BMW engineers are smart and aware of a growing number of engine failures. But they are not weighing in. Not sure why -- could be because they do not think there is a problem, because there is a problem they can't do anything about, or because lawyers and accountants are stopping them.

BMW would be well aware of engine failures from the original S85 platform - whose RB clearance spec was carried over to the S65.
Interestingly while the RB clearance remained unchanged for the S65, the S85's ion sensing anti knock system underwent a complete redesign for the S65.
A RB clearance adjustment could have been made at any time (most easily for the enforced materials change in late 2010) during the S65 production run without penalty and little cost whereas the cost of another extensive redesign or completely abandoning the ion sensing technology in the S65 would likely have outweighed the projected warranty cost savings (and/or potential legal issues)

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

BMW would be well aware of engine failures from the original S85 platform - whose RB clearance spec was carried over to the S65.
Interestingly while the RB clearance remained unchanged for the S65, the S85's ion sensing anti knock system underwent a complete redesign for the S65.
A RB clearance adjustment could have been made at any time (most easily for the enforced materials change in late 2010) during the S65 production run without penalty and little cost whereas the cost of another extensive redesign or completely abandoning the ion sensing technology in the S65 would likely have outweighed the projected warranty cost savings (and/or potential legal issues)

You already posted this two years ago. It's a repost x 20. While you were banned, unless you were able to go back in time and change the order the ecu's were designed, then the same responses and corrections you got back then still apply today. Quit reposting the same nonsense you posted two years ago.

[tdott]

Oh look a dead horse.....

Please stop beating it.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

You already posted this two years ago. It's a repost x 20. While you were banned,

First I'm Benvo now I'm banned - Dude I'm Spartacus.

Lets say these BE dudes are in fact not as smart as BMW and their RB clearance guess produces worse reliability...who is footing the bill when the early adopters start seeing rod shaped ventilation holes in the side of their blocks?

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

First I'm Benvo now I'm banned - Dude I'm Spartacus.

Lets say these BE dudes are in fact not as smart as BMW and their RB clearance guess produces worse reliability...who is footing the bill when the early adopters start seeing rod shaped ventilation holes in the side of their blocks?

Why don't you foot the bill for anyone thinking about changing rod bearings, but does not and experiences bearing failure?

[Klipper]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

First I'm Benvo now I'm banned - Dude I'm Spartacus.

Lets say these BE dudes are in fact not as smart as BMW and their RB clearance guess produces worse reliability...who is footing the bill when the early adopters start seeing rod shaped ventilation holes in the side of their blocks?

That's a question I'd like to see answered. What happens to all the poor souls who believe these bearings will sprinkle the fairy dust on their motors. I haven't seen any evidence at all that any cranks or rods are out of tolerance. There is nothing wrong with .0012" clearance. Any problem the S65 might have lies elsewhere.
Lots of cash being made out of these dubious bearings but with no guarantee of success tells me enough. I'm out.

[rcracin]

Originally Posted by Klipper

That's a question I'd like to see answered. What happens to all the poor souls who believe these bearings will sprinkle the fairy dust on their motors. I haven't seen any evidence at all that any cranks or rods are out of tolerance. There is nothing wrong with .0012" clearance. Any problem the S65 might have lies elsewhere.
Lots of cash being made out of these dubious bearings but with no guarantee of success tells me enough. I'm out.

You seriously believe .00012" clearance is ok?

[rcracin]

Ugh nevermind, just joined and this is your first post. More hidden names and theorists to go along with the other nonsense posted.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by rcracin

Ugh nevermind, just joined and this is your first post. More hidden names and theorists to go along with the other nonsense posted.

Yea what's up with that...it's so obvious. They don't like it, don't buy and don't participate. Going out of your way to derail...jeez.

[pbonsalb]

sneaky pete and Klipper are just old members with new screen names making anti bearing posts to stir up trouble. Check their join dates and other posts. That is a lot of trouble to go through, which shows they have an agenda.

[Klipper]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

sneaky pete and Klipper are just old members with new screen names making anti bearing posts to stir up trouble. Check their join dates and other posts. That is a lot of trouble to go through, which shows they have an agenda.

Stir up trouble?
I'm just asking what guarantee of success is there with these bearings? Simple question when they are charging more than Oem for an unproven product.