Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

AGAIN I searched Google for information on Clevite bearings and opinions from other forums in case they could provide some insight... that TP forum came up because it satisfied the search criteria. It is hardly "digging for dirt" to quote you from that forum just because you don't want those particular quotes from Clevite repeated

Let's not reinvent history here. From your very first posts you were digging up as many quotes as you could from other forums trying to prove inconsistencies in what I've said. Call it what you want...most people call that digging for dirt you can use for your agenda.

I never mind quoting what I said, when it's done honestly and in context. When I looked at the quotes you made a few days ago from TP site, I went to look what I said. Immediately I noticed you cut-paste only a portion of what I said, leaving out the bulk of it. No surprise, it's what you left out that changes everything, including the message itself. It's a similar objection to the times I caught you "cut-paste" quoting from other sites and changing the words in between; and therefore changing the meaning of what I said.

So whatever your agenda is, it's obviously an agenda because it's both persistent and dishonest.

Let Clevite make one for me:
"long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"
A point I tried to make for months early in this thread.

That's your theory? All of it? Including your proof? I can't wait for swamp to respond. Oh, and what's your credentials and expertise in this area?

[Z K]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Let Clevite make one for me:
"long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"
A point I tried to make for months early in this thread.

This makes no sense at all. Knock sensors detect detonation and retard timing accordingly. With the advanced knock detection in the M3, this is a non-issue.

You aren't a scientist and do not have any experience in testing and actually putting together useful information besides the stuff you've gathered from the internet. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by Z K

This makes no sense at all. Knock sensors detect detonation and retard timing accordingly. With the advanced knock detection in the M3, this is a non-issue.

You aren't a scientist and do not have any experience in testing and actually putting together useful information besides the stuff you've gathered from the internet. Please stop spreading misinformation.

How so? No one here knows if BMWs advanced knock system even works well. All cars knock but how quickly they pull timing is what's key. Again after bad 93 octane I have heard audible knocking in a few separate m3 and if you can hear it it means the ecu isn't pulling timing. One should not hear any knocking.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Z K

This makes no sense at all. Knock sensors detect detonation and retard timing accordingly. With the advanced knock detection in the M3, this is a non-issue.

So you can believe that BMW can make such a basic mistake as getting the rod bearing clearance wrong twice on the same engine design - an easily correctable mistake at any time at no cost.
Yet have 100% faith in their application of fairly recent ion sensing anti knock technology using new hardware. A fairly complicated anti knock system that has to account for variations in fuel octane quality, air intake temperature, air pressure, humidity, degrading parts etc over a wide range of rpms.
Why? if either can cause the same rod bearing wear pattern why believe the least likely answer? It could even be a combination of the two.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

What about the cold hard fact that you are 100% wrong in that NONE of the bearing clearances you measured are 3 sigma away from the mean? You and those in your camp sweep challenges, requests and corrections of fact right under the rug as well.

I just re-read this and realize it's all wrong. I didn't measure any clearances and make any statements about 3-sigma. My comments refer to measurements of journals, not clearance calculations. In fact, post #2201 makes it quite clear I didn't measure clearance.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=2201

Like I said earlier, it's hard to answer your questions then they're not even formulated correctly. So am I still 100% wrong in what I said, or is your question 100% wrong in how it's formulated? Let's see how your camp handles this challenge, request, and correction of fact.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

So you can believe that BMW can make such a basic mistake as getting the rod bearing clearance wrong twice on the same engine design - an easily correctable mistake at any time at no cost.
Yet have 100% faith in their application of fairly recent ion sensing anti knock technology using new hardware. A fairly complicated anti knock system that has to account for variations in fuel octane quality, air intake temperature, air pressure, humidity, degrading parts etc over a wide range of rpms.
Why? if either can cause the same rod bearing wear pattern why believe the least likely answer? It could even be a combination of the two.

You're still assuming you know what BMW designed for rod bearing clearance in their original bearings? Got any proof to back that up?

It sure sounds like you know a lot about the ion knock control system. So tell us everything you know about the ion knock control system. Please provide a flow chart of both S85 (MSS65) and S65 (MSS60) and not only explain how they are different, but how why that difference matters to the ECU. Be sure to include your knowledge of the ECU itself, its design, its microprocessor(s), integer calculation ability and floating point unit calculation abilities as well. Then tell us how the ECU programming would change with temperature, air pressure, humidity, and degrading parts. Then tell us how the ECU is programmed to account for the degrading parts. Then tell us which parts degrade and must be accounted for. Then tell us why BMW didn't fix it if it's all in the tuning, and specifically which of these factors meant they couldn't program around without making the bearings look worse (why this tuning is as good as it will ever be). Then tell us why Clevite said it was unlikely to be tuning related. Then tell us why you're right and Clevite's wrong. Then tell us your credentials for such detailed knowledge. Let us finally judge if you know what you're talking about.

You got this...right?

[debom3]

Maybe its the engineer in me, but has anyone attempted or thought to attempt to try to perform any calculations regarding this? I would think, that these issues that are being seen should be predictable by calculations.

The bearing rubbing velocity can be calculated pretty easily based on RPM and some crank shaft dimensions. The oil properties are a given. The oil pressure and temperature should be known by those running aftermarket gauges. I think we could get our hands on some bearing coefficients relatively easily... maybe not?

I would assume it would be smart to run a bunch of different cases but maybe start with the two extremes?

1. Cold oil, Loose Tolerance
2. Hot Oil, Tight Tolerance

After this, if we were able to prove that bearing temperatures elevated to a point where the oil looses its viscosity, we would have effectively proved that the tight clearance is the problem.

We could then do some runs at different clearances to determine at what point the oil temp stays within an acceptable range.

I don't have access to Matlab anymore but it looks like this software has some bearing coefficients embedded in it.

http://www.ricardo.com/en-GB/What-we...-of-Solutions/


I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to swap out OEM bearings and blindly put in ones with a different clearance without knowing they were going to work. I understand a lot of engineering and innovation is "trial and error". I just don't want to be the trial...

Thoughts?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by debom3

Maybe its the engineer in me, but has anyone attempted or thought to attempt to try to perform any calculations regarding this? I would think, that these issues that are being seen should be predictable by calculations.

The bearing rubbing velocity can be calculated pretty easily based on RPM and some crank shaft dimensions. The oil properties are a given. The oil pressure and temperature should be known by those running aftermarket gauges. I think we could get our hands on some bearing coefficients relatively easily... maybe not?

I would assume it would be smart to run a bunch of different cases but maybe start with the two extremes?

1. Cold oil, Loose Tolerance
2. Hot Oil, Tight Tolerance

After this, if we were able to prove that bearing temperatures elevated to a point where the oil looses its viscosity, we would have effectively proved that the tight clearance is the problem.

We could then do some runs at different clearances to determine at what point the oil temp stays within an acceptable range.

I don't have access to Matlab anymore but it looks like this software has some bearing coefficients embedded in it.

http://www.ricardo.com/en-GB/What-we...-of-Solutions/

Would you be willing to volunteer for this if we could get you the data you require? I'll volunteer to help on the data collection side if you can handle the analysis side.

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to swap out OEM bearings and blindly put in ones with a different clearance without knowing they were going to work. I understand a lot of engineering and innovation is "trial and error". I just don't want to be the trial...

Thoughts?

Dinan's been running these clearances for about six years now. They've built well north of 100 engines with this specification. They're not the only ones running this clearance. No failures that I know of.

[debom3]

I think I will take a stab at it. The CFD software I have available is SolidWorks Flow Simulation. I have some experience using it, but I am by means not an expert. The company I work for has a couple of different types of bearings that we analyze we have a special CFD guy that does all of our bearing analysis. We do tapered land journal bearings, and rocker back tilt pad bearings for high speed machinery (rubbing speeds near 300ft/s) so its a completely different ball game.

Rod bearings are straight journal bearings which are very unstable for our type of machine, so we don't use them.

There's so much info in this thread, I think I have enough to start. I may need some info later. Ill post up if I need something. =)

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by debom3

I think I will take a stab at it. The CFD software I have available is SolidWorks Flow Simulation. I have some experience using it, but I am by means not an expert. The company I work for has a couple of different types of bearings that we analyze we have a special CFD guy that does all of our bearing analysis. We do tapered land journal bearings, and rocker back tilt pad bearings for high speed machinery (rubbing speeds near 300ft/s) so its a completely different ball game.

Rod bearings are straight journal bearings which are very unstable for our type of machine, so we don't use them.

There's so much info in this thread, I think I have enough to start. I may need some info later. Ill post up if I need something. =)

Just tell me what you need for data collection. I have lots of data logs, but not sure if I have what you need. So don't hesitate to ask and I'll see if I have it and if not, I will see if I can get it.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

So you can believe that BMW can make such a basic mistake as getting the rod bearing clearance wrong twice on the same engine design - an easily correctable mistake at any time at no cost.
Yet have 100% faith in their application of fairly recent ion sensing anti knock technology using new hardware. A fairly complicated anti knock system that has to account for variations in fuel octane quality, air intake temperature, air pressure, humidity, degrading parts etc over a wide range of rpms.
Why? if either can cause the same rod bearing wear pattern why believe the least likely answer? It could even be a combination of the two.

Yet you are inferring knocking is an issue even without any proof other than some quotes online.

Yes, I do believe BMW makes mistakes on engine design. They have budgets to maintain and targets to hit. I'm sure they ran into this issue in their calculations and it was more cost effective for them to repair cars under warranty rather than redesign the engine. Those out of warranty would be screwed but BMW wouldn't have to pay anything for those cars. And BMW has fixed the rod bearing issue! Buy their new turbo M3! No more rod bearing problems.

Subaru has turbo engines that have bad pistons due to design and supplier issues, Porsche has IMS issues, Ferrari has glue that catches fire, VW/Audi has carbon buildup issues and coil packs that go bad... every manufacturer has skeletons in the closet.

All we can do as enthusiasts is fix the issues the manufacturer hasn't addressed.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Ask him, not me. Don't address a question to me with his name on it.

You guys are for many practical purposes one and the same. You have pretty well the exact same opinions on this whole situation and are IN BUSINESS together. Sure there may be nuanced differences in your opinions but there are not substantial. Since your business partner will not answer my questions, you get them. Simple.

Originally Posted by regular guy

SFP's statement is with respect to BMW's original design, not production bearings. How does he know what BMW's original design was, and why didn't you catch this and call him on it a long time ago? Perhaps you could learn from the data posted in this thread and realize it's been there for more than 1+ years now. It's even on page-1, post-1. All it takes to figure this out is to be able to read part numbers, dates of manufacture, and perform simple addition and subtraction -- all of which is posted on page-1, post-1.

If you want me to keep you and Kawasaki separate, keep me and SFP separate as well. I honestly have no idea what this whole pre-production/original bearing thing is all about. I just had a quick look at page 1, it changes somewhat often and I still have no idea. I'm especially confused by over sized bearings seeming to have a smaller diameter on page 1. I also have no idea why there is reference to S65 bearings for the year 2004. Please clarify, concisely, at a very top level if you want to continue this sub-topic.

Originally Posted by regular guy

I agree, let's cut to the chase. Does the scientific method mandate that you draw conclusions in the absence of data? Just because somebody doesn't answer your question, does the scientific method allow you to just make up your own answers and assumptions as if they were fact? Before making criticisms based on your own home-grown assumptions, why don't you seek to ask questions. Bullying and badgering isn't a viable method to get cooperation or answers. So come back another day with a better attitude and ask in a polite way and I might answer if I feel like it. Or you could just wait and see what gets posted, then offer a criticism.

Honestly, I'm lost here again. I have no idea in this babble what you are trying to say. I'm not bullying nor badgering anyone. If you don't think you owe potentially paying clients test results before they make a purchase that's your prerogative. If you'll do otherwise all the better and hats off to you. I'll be the first to embrace the transition of your hypothesis to a full blown theory and give you a big genuine congratulations.

Originally Posted by regular guy

I just re-read this and realize it's all wrong. I didn't measure any clearances and make any statements about 3-sigma. My comments refer to measurements of journals, not clearance calculations. In fact, post #2201 makes it quite clear I didn't measure clearance.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=2201

Nonsense, patently false. Here is your prior 3 sigma "conclusion":

Originally Posted by regular guy

Here's some updated clearance specs and measurements.
...
To me, that table says it all. Just like a bell curve, you see 53 measurements right in the center, and the deviations going down almost in parity at 1-sigma, and fewer deviations at 2-sigma, and even fewer deviations at 3-sigma. There were 3% of all measurements at 3-sigma too large. That means 3% of all crankshafts will have 3/10000ths an inch less rod bearing clearance than nominal. Coincidentally or not, this seems to come pretty close to the number of engines that fail early.

Is the tolerance stacking theory nonsense or not? These are the numbers, you decide.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Like I said earlier, it's hard to answer your questions then they're not even formulated correctly. So am I still 100% wrong in what I said, or is your question 100% wrong in how it's formulated? Let's see how your camp handles this challenge, request, and correction of fact.

Absolute, simple mistake on my end of substitution. This is not an error in analysis or conclusion or fact on my part, it is one of simple word substitution. I stated "clearances" in my second round of questioning your 3 sigma conclusion, but meant "journal diameters", however, my conclusion is exactly the same as it was right after you posted that information and I replied. Either way it is all the same thing, size variation in journals and bearings both contribute to the more fundamental dimension here, clearances. In your sample NONE of the measured journal sizes are 3 sigma or more away from the mean value.. You reading my original reply, immediately after your "big breakthrough" on these terrible tolerances in BMWs journal sizes should have made this painfully obvious. Now, again, on the flip size, your statistics, data analysis and likely conclusion on this point are all incorrect. Of course if/when your business partner Kawasaki posts a reply about the voluminous trove of data he has on statistical variations on journal sizes, I might have to reverse one very small part of this. Not the 3 sigma part but perhaps that BMWs tolerance for crank journals are significantly larger then industry norms.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yes I could leave and take my 1.5 million page views worth of articles to another site.

Couldn't resist...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by debom3

I think I will take a stab at it. The CFD software I have available is SolidWorks Flow Simulation. I have some experience using it, but I am by means not an expert. The company I work for has a couple of different types of bearings that we analyze we have a special CFD guy that does all of our bearing analysis. We do tapered land journal bearings, and rocker back tilt pad bearings for high speed machinery (rubbing speeds near 300ft/s) so its a completely different ball game.

Rod bearings are straight journal bearings which are very unstable for our type of machine, so we don't use them.

There's so much info in this thread, I think I have enough to start. I may need some info later. Ill post up if I need something. =)

Sounds great. I think you and your company's experts could make some significant contributions here. More engineering can help understand potential issues here and potential solutions. Please get involved!

I also work for a major engineering analysis software provider (including CFD) and I'm sure you know, but CFD is notoriously easy to have garbage in, garbage out. Also the CFD tool embedded in Solidworks is generally regarded in the industry as quite low end and and often inaccurate. I hate to be blunt, but this really is the general reputation of this tool. I'm certainly not implying that one can't get good results from it for some types of problems. I would be willing to offer an extremely high end tool for this effort. However, even with that, I don't expect it would be anything less than a big PhD thesis type of project to determine the difference in clearance of a few 10 thousandths of an inch in bearing clearances. Also, one of the most important inputs into such an analysis would come from a rigid body simulation analysis to determine the transient journal loads (this was discussed prior in this thread, with some significant debate between me and Kawasaki). This in turn will require some considerable detail as to combustion chamber pressures vs. time and a reasonably accurate CAD model of the crank/rods/pistons. Also, combustion chamber pressures could be much larger than nominal if there is any knock at all. These complications are why this type of work is not often done outside of the big OEMs who have huge software budgets and sophisticated labs...

[MilehighM3]

It seems as though someone is harboring some serious anger issues accumulated during his ban. It also seems that he's headed for another one if he can't at least make an attempt to be professional here.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

If rod bearing wear was an issue that could be improved with a bigger clearance, it would have cost BMW essentially zero $ to do that.
So why spend $$$$ on modifying the VANOS, the anti knock system and the lubrication system (when developing the S65 from the S85) and not a $ on a phone call to the bearing supplier?.
BMW are smart enough to design and build this brilliant engine but too stupid to notice that a simple bearing spec change would save them $millions in warranty costs?

Don't underestimate "common sense", it is highly unlikely that the BMW M division chose the wrong rod bearing clearance for that design not just once (the S85) but twice with the S65.
Yet most everyone believes "tight bearing clearance"...which just goes to show that if you repeat something often enough and with enough conviction people will believe anything.
Try and suggest that there could be a different cause or a combination of causes for the accelerated upper bearing wear (even supported with quotes from Clevite) and you can expect to be derided and shouted down.

I know, I get ridiculed every time I disagree with the majority.

BMW had her reasons, and to be honest, with fail rates seeming to be no more than 1% and seemingly much less, BMW got it right. Sorry, but it's not BMW's job to build an engine that looks good when it's torn down. It's her job to build an engine that lasts 100,000 miles during normal use.

Also, one must understand that no ///M engine is meant to last or cost the same maintenance wise as a regular series production. Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too.

That being said, the work by many forum members to find a solution for those who want to keep our cars and keep them working great long in to the future, IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!!!!

Cheers,
e46e92

[debom3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I also work for a major engineering analysis software provider (including CFD) and I'm sure you know, but CFD is notoriously easy to have garbage in, garbage out. Also the CFD tool embedded in Solidworks is generally regarded in the industry as quite low end and and often inaccurate. I hate to be blunt, but this really is the general reputation of this tool.

For sure, our CFD guy has told me the same. I spent the rest of the day reading papers about connecting rod loads. I started a spreadsheet doing the kinematics of the crank/rod/piston assembly. I'll post up once I'm done.

I think I can calculate the rod loading making some assumptions. As you say, the combustion loads are the hard part. I found a bunch of published papers so maybe I can do something fairly accurate.

The really hard part is going to be modeling the oil film. Right now I not entirely sure how to do it, but I'll work on it.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by debom3

For sure, our CFD guy has told me the same. I spent the rest of the day reading papers about connecting rod loads. I started a spreadsheet doing the kinematics of the crank/rod/piston assembly. I'll post up once I'm done.

I think I can calculate the rod loading making some assumptions. As you say, the combustion loads are the hard part. I found a bunch of published papers so maybe I can do something fairly accurate.

The really hard part is going to be modeling the oil film. Right now I not entirely sure how to do it, but I'll work on it.

Just be very careful where you get your raw data from. Some of it is heavily biased.

Then, if per chance you find nothing at all wrong with the BMW bearings, don't let the forum bully put you down.

Good luck.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Z K

Yet you are inferring knocking is an issue even without any proof other than some quotes online.

If you don't believe what Clevite say then I certainly won't be able to convince you.

Originally Posted by Z K

Yes, I do believe BMW makes mistakes on engine design. They have budgets to maintain and targets to hit. I'm sure they ran into this issue in their calculations and it was more cost effective for them to repair cars under warranty rather than redesign the engine. Those out of warranty would be screwed but BMW wouldn't have to pay anything for those cars.

True, all manufacturers make mistakes...but again if it was an easy " lets resize the rod bearings" type of fix then its absurd to think that BMW, with all those dismantled broken engines to examine, couldn't have figured it out for themselves.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

You're still assuming you know what BMW designed for rod bearing clearance in their original bearings? Got any proof to back that up?

No idea what you are on about. Maybe try making a point and we can see where it goes?

Originally Posted by regular guy

It sure sounds like you know a lot about the ion knock control system. So tell us everything you know about the ion knock control system.

One step at a time.
Do you agree with Clevite when they say:
"long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"
Lets get that agreed then we can move on to discuss whether the S65 anti knock system is 100% infallible or not.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Then tell us why Clevite said it was unlikely to be tuning related.

Do you have a quote where Clevite say it was unlikely to be tuning related?
I only know of this that you posted on TP:

"He [Clevite] didn't include detonation in his possible causes, he said because he know 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 (I'd have to check my emails to see what type he was talking about...I don't remember now). So 10 emails later, we hashed it all out, and it all boiled down to detonation really could be a cause, but the pathology to get there would suggest the ECU wasn't doing its job. But yes, he acknowledged that long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear, but he suggested it could only happen if the ECU wasn't doing its job."

Weird that you didn't feel like sharing this crucial information on M3post when at the exact same time in this thread, talk of detonation was being "thrown out the window"
But anyway, so we are agreed then?

And what is it that Clevite see when they look at the worn bearing sets that make them want to blame it on detonation and not tight clearance but are only held back because someone has told them that detonation is impossible.
Is it the typical absence of wear on the bottom bearing shell?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

No idea what you are on about. Maybe try making a point and we can see where it goes?

Of course you don't. But you're the one making the claim and now you say you don't know what it means. Go figure.

Question: What is your theory, what is your proof, and what do you know about ion knock dectection?

One step at a time.
Do you agree with Clevite when they say:
"long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear"
Lets get that agreed then we can move on to discuss whether the S65 anti knock system is 100% infallible or not.

Do you have a quote where Clevite say it was unlikely to be tuning related?
I only know of this that you posted on TP:

"He [Clevite] didn't include detonation in his possible causes, he said because he know 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 (I'd have to check my emails to see what type he was talking about...I don't remember now). So 10 emails later, we hashed it all out, and it all boiled down to detonation really could be a cause, but the pathology to get there would suggest the ECU wasn't doing its job. But yes, he acknowledged that long term, low level detonation could cause that exact type of bearing wear, but he suggested it could only happen if the ECU wasn't doing its job."

Weird that you didn't feel like sharing this crucial information on M3post when at the exact same time in this thread, talk of detonation was being "thrown out the window"
But anyway, so we are agreed then?

Answer: None. None. Nothing.

Question: What is your credentials and expertise in this area?

And what is it that Clevite see when they look at the worn bearing sets that make them want to blame it on detonation and not tight clearance but are only held back because someone has told them that detonation is impossible.
Is it the typical absence of wear on the bottom bearing shell?

Answer: None.

SFP, all of this has been covered here. It may not be the same exact words, but it's all here on m3post with the same meaning. I don't mind discussing your topics, if you could actually state what they are, without the agenda, and without these manipulation tactics.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You guys are for many practical purposes one and the same. You have pretty well the exact same opinions on this whole situation and are IN BUSINESS together. Sure there may be nuanced differences in your opinions but there are not substantial. Since your business partner will not answer my questions, you get them. Simple.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this just speculation? I think you're speculating; actually I know you're speculating. How do you know I'm even in business in this? Didn't I already state elsewhere that I'm NOT in business, and not the business behind this? How do you know he's in business in this? Did he state that somewhere or is this just your own speculation? This doesn't sound like the scientific method to me. So...

Using scientific methods, tell us what you know, test your hypothesis, then revise it as necessary. Let's see how close you get. I would advise you to only change one variable in between because I will only give you a single answer (right or wrong) to whatever you say. I'll leave it up to you to figure that out. But I promise to give a truthful answer. Let's see how close you come and let's see how long it takes to turn your hypothesis into a theory.

So let's get this started. First answer: wrong.

Revise your hypothesis and try again.

If you want me to keep you and Kawasaki separate, keep me and SFP separate as well. I honestly have no idea what this whole pre-production/original bearing thing is all about. I just had a quick look at page 1, it changes somewhat often and I still have no idea. I'm especially confused by over sized bearings seeming to have a smaller diameter on page 1. I also have no idea why there is reference to S65 bearings for the year 2004. Please clarify, concisely, at a very top level if you want to continue this sub-topic.

The specific material we're talking about here was posted right here: post #1628, dated Dec-12, 2013 (that's 15-months ago for you math majors).
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=1628

Everything appearing on page-1 always appears elsewhere in this thread. I did that to protect myself against people who say things like ^^ above as a way to sweep their own mistakes under the carpet. So let's test your hypothesis by looking at the actual modification dates of my posts on page-1:

Post-1: Feb-2015 (updated as noted in post #2190, previous change: Apr-2014)
Post-2: Jan-2014
Post-3: Apr-2014
Post-4: Apr-2014
Post-5: Sep-2013
Post-6: Nov-2013
Post-7: Jan-2014
Post-8: Jan-2014
Post-9: Jan-2014

It's time for a new hypothesis. Revise and try again.

Honestly, I'm lost here again. I have no idea in this babble what you are trying to say. I'm not bullying nor badgering anyone. If you don't think you owe potentially paying clients test results before they make a purchase that's your prerogative. If you'll do otherwise all the better and hats off to you. I'll be the first to embrace the transition of your hypothesis to a full blown theory and give you a big genuine congratulations.

I believe you throw out speculation and false accusations as a way to bully and badger people into proving you wrong, and therefore giving you the answers you seek. That approach doesn't work on me. Try a different approach; I'm willing to discuss just about anything openly and honestly when a gun's not pointed at my head.

Did you ask BMW for test results before you bought their car? Did you ask Dinan for test results when they changed the clearance on their stroker engines? I've asked you this before. What was the answer?

Nonsense, patently false. Here is your prior 3 sigma "conclusion":

Yep you caught me on the word substitution error: I meant to say "may have" instead of "will have." You must feel validated. But not funny how many other places I said it correctly that you ignored.

Absolute, simple mistake on my end of substitution. This is not an error in analysis or conclusion or fact on my part, it is one of simple word substitution. I stated "clearances" in my second round of questioning your 3 sigma conclusion, but meant "journal diameters", however, my conclusion is exactly the same as it was right after you posted that information and I replied.

Oh how the world turns. You made a word substitution error of your own. You sound strangely a lot more more conciliatory towards yourself than you did to me. It almost sounds like you expect "understanding" for your "honest and innocent" mistake. Oh the irony.

Either way it is all the same thing, size variation in journals and bearings both contribute to the more fundamental dimension here, clearances. In your sample NONE of the measured journal sizes are 3 sigma or more away from the mean value..

Well then I don't understand what 3-sigma means because I'm not a statistics guy. But I did show that to one statistics guy before posting and he had no objections. So I'm genuinely confused who's right and who's wrong. Call it whatever it is, and make the substitute in your mind for whatever I typed to whatever it is. Most people are able to do that.

There, problem solved.

You reading my original reply, immediately after your "big breakthrough" on these terrible tolerances in BMWs journal sizes should have made this painfully obvious.

Oh I love your sarcasm.

Now, again, on the flip size, your statistics, data analysis and likely conclusion on this point are all incorrect. Of course if/when your business partner Kawasaki posts a reply about the voluminous trove of data he has on statistical variations on journal sizes, I might have to reverse one very small part of this. Not the 3 sigma part but perhaps that BMWs tolerance for crank journals are significantly larger then industry norms.

You seem to confuse "opinions" for "conclusions." I can't help you there. I've tried explaining his repeatedly, but you just don't get it.