Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[chris719]

S54 engines in the UK have experienced rod bearing issues (post recall) and show the same wear pattern as the pics you sent to Clevite.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The problem is that as soon as you use the word detonation, most people immediately think of the extreme end of the spectrum, pistons with holes in them etc. Also interesting that the rod bearing photos from a stock engine showing high wear from this thread page 1 that I sent to Clevite were diagnosed as being caused by detonation.
Given that with the M3's ionic current system, the ECU holds the combustion at the edge of detonation when using fuel with insufficient anti knock qualities to allow it to reach its target timing advance.
And that it is my understanding from posts regarding S65 M3 ECU tuning that the minimum octane that the stock ECU is calibrated to adjust for is 90 Aki.
What would do you think be the effect of running 87 octane in this environment?
Would it be unreasonable to assert that in this case the combustion process might produce elevated cylinder pressures?

I dont think that is unreasonable at all, from what I see with the current parts 87 would be pretty bad for the engine.
Also remember our fuel rating is not the same as yours. Our 93 is equal to your 97.
IMHO ethanol is another factor is the fuel quality, running ethanol fuel is like running one step lower crappier gas. Running 89 no ethanol is about the same as running the 91 with ethanol.
Running higher octane fuel retards timing so if crappy fuel is used it adds timing and increases the percent of cycles that get to peak cylinder pressure before tdc
You cant look at a set of rod bearings and say that detonation is bad unless you see the rest of parts. I explained this with the pictures of the back of the shells and the pinbores.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I dont think that is unreasonable at all, from what I see with the current parts 87 would be pretty bad for the engine.
IMHO ethanol is another factor is the fuel quality, running ethanol fuel is like running one step lower crappier gas. Running 89 no ethanol is about the same as running the 91 with ethanol.

You would expect that the anti-knock system should take care of the worst of the detonation but the piston/rod/bearing is still being subject to increased cylinder pressure....Which is one of the Clevite Oil starvation / marginal oil film causes "High cylinder pressure causing reduced oil film thickness". Would increased wear due elevated cylinder pressures over a long period have to be visible as detonation? The piston crown was interesting...I sent a picture from the set to an engine builder and he wondered what was going on with the deposits around the edge of the crown

Its interesting that if you search the M5board S85 forum using the keyword "pinging" you get a surprising number of hits, especially considering the engine had the first generation ionic current antiknock system. As best as I can tell the Vanos and slipping SMG clutch were cited as the fix most likely to resolve the issue. Explains why BMW invested so much in revising the Vanos and antiknock for the S65.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

You would expect that the anti-knock system should take care of the worst of the detonation but the piston/rod/bearing is still being subject to increased cylinder pressure....Which is one of the Clevite Oil starvation / marginal oil film causes "High cylinder pressure causing reduced oil film thickness". Would increased wear due elevated cylinder pressures over a long period have to be visible as detonation? The piston crown was interesting...I sent a picture from the set to an engine builder and he wondered what was going on with the deposits around the edge of the crown

Its interesting that if you search the M5board S85 forum using the keyword "pinging" you get a surprising number of hits, especially considering the engine had the first generation ionic current antiknock system. As best as I can tell the Vanos and slipping SMG clutch were cited as the fix most likely to resolve the issue. Explains why BMW invested so much in revising the Vanos and antiknock for the S65.

Even if it was knocking a marginal amount that doesnt cause the parting lines to wear as they show. The bulk of detonation/ extreme cylinder pressure is shown at the top of the assembly not the bottom. The first two pictures I showed are a good example of the extreme cylinder pressure. The back of the shells and rods are the tell tell sign if there is enough to cause damage.

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its interesting that if you search the M5board S85 forum using the keyword "pinging" you get a surprising number of hits, especially considering the engine had the first generation ionic current antiknock system. As best as I can tell the Vanos and slipping SMG clutch were cited as the fix most likely to resolve the issue. Explains why BMW invested so much in revising the Vanos and antiknock for the S65.

Unfortunately, the majority of forum members over the early years of the S85 who experienced problems with their engines were at the mercy of their dealerships for diagnosis. As years have gone by and engine builders and enthusiasts capable of rebuilding their own S85 have shared more information, we know that much of the noise associated with the S85 VANOS were a result of the VANOS HP pump failing (resulting in several component redesigns), rattle on the chain driving the Main Oil Pump from the VANOS HP pump (tensioner redesigned in 12/05 IIRC to no longer require precision slack adjustment), air trapped in the VANOS system due to improper or insufficient venting/bleeding (often cured with multiple iterations although not widespread knowledge) or finally excessive normal and torsional backlash of the helical gears in the VANOS acuators. This latter cause has been thought mostly harmless and cureable only by wholesale actuator replacement as unlike the VANOS HP pump drive gearing, there is no lateral adjustment to set the backlash.

The design of the VANOS HP pressure pump requires a backlash setting of .06-.08mm on the helical drive gears to optimize noise vs. wear and IMO results in a lot of the S85 "sounds like a diesel" effect on idle.

I always believed the high pressure system (120 bar) of the S85 was unnecessary, but according to BMW literature, was necessary for the high number of actuators and valves of the S85. Clearly, with a 0% reduction in the number of actuators and a 20% reduction in the number of cam-to-valve interactions, it wasn't necessary. That pump has to be nearly equivalent in parasitic drag to a supercharger with little of the benefits of the latter. I think the M5 design team as whole suffered a but of the USS Enterprise (CVN type, not starship) syndrome when designing it. Much as they felt 8 reactors would be "necessary", ///M felt we needed 4 oil pumps on the pan with 2 controlled by a lateral accelerometer.

INPA allows near-real-time monitoring of combustion quality along with timing information and injector pulse-widths. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to test that theory with someone willing to run various grades of fuel. Don't look at me...I don't even have time to put the front axle back under mine right now.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its interesting that if you search the M5board S85 forum using the keyword "pinging" you get a surprising number of hits, especially considering the engine had the first generation ionic current antiknock system. As best as I can tell the Vanos and slipping SMG clutch were cited as the fix most likely to resolve the issue. Explains why BMW invested so much in revising the Vanos and antiknock for the S65.

How do you explain the S54 bearing wear being identical in pattern to the S65 and S85 bearing wear, and the fact that it has occurred in the UK along with using a completely different type of knock sensor?

Sounds to me like your theory is a red herring.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by jcolley

INPA allows near-real-time monitoring of combustion quality along with timing information and injector pulse-widths. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to test that theory with someone willing to run various grades of fuel. Don't look at me...I don't even have time to put the front axle back under mine right now.

This was a post about Vanos and pinging which was interesting:
"This pre detonation lots of people are getting may well be down to the VANOS not moving fast enough.
Predominantly people complain about this at low rpm and sudden heavy load application.
The VANOS tries to move the cams quite a bit at low rpm. If the VANOS does not move fast enough for what ever reason (low oil pressure, weak solenoids) etc then the ignition target will be too high. The DME can only retard so much timing. If the valves are in the wrong position at any given time the timing will be too high and the system will not be able to retard fast enough.
If you are getting pinging then we would recommend getting a VANOS test done. Keep the oil clean and topped up also."

After that I came across at least one post where a vanos repair fixed the issue.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by chris719

How do you explain the S54 bearing wear being identical in pattern to the S65 and S85 bearing wear, and the fact that it has occurred in the UK along with using a completely different type of knock sensor?

Do you have some links?

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Even if it was knocking a marginal amount that doesnt cause the parting lines to wear as they show..

Which picture was this?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The piston crown was interesting...I sent a picture from the set to an engine builder and he wondered what was going on with the deposits around the edge of the crown

If he's an experienced engine builder, he would have been able to know exactly what he saw. Does your engine builder have a name or credentials worth talking about. What was his explanation for the second set of piston photos I posted. Bone stock and looking much worse (horrible really) than the supercharged ones. I didn't see any analysis of those photos. And I'm still waiting for you to circle the spot on the first pistons where you say you saw signs of detonation.

I hope you guy's a little more experienced than Rocco from Angel's Tuning Group.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Which picture was this?

That will come in the next segment when I post specs of the new bearing fitment, along with a few older ones

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

If these bearings were ok after 24k miles of supercharged use with .0008" less clearance than standard, why would you still think that oem clearance would cause a problem?

Didn't that car have an NA stroker motor for about 22k of the 24k miles? How did it get turned into 24k supercharged miles? And now it supposedly ran with 0.0008" less cleaerance than standard, which means it was running with about 0.0004" clearance. Wow!

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

This was a post about Vanos and pinging which was interesting:
"This pre detonation lots of people are getting may well be down to the VANOS not moving fast enough.
Predominantly people complain about this at low rpm and sudden heavy load application.
The VANOS tries to move the cams quite a bit at low rpm. If the VANOS does not move fast enough for what ever reason (low oil pressure, weak solenoids) etc then the ignition target will be too high. The DME can only retard so much timing. If the valves are in the wrong position at any given time the timing will be too high and the system will not be able to retard fast enough.
If you are getting pinging then we would recommend getting a VANOS test done. Keep the oil clean and topped up also."

After that I came across at least one post where a vanos repair fixed the issue.

That would make sense as the high pressure line was prone to failures early on and there was a recall on it. I just replaced mine again preventively since I already had it disconnected for the pump swap. They did themselves no favors in designing this piece as it places a strain on the flexible portion of the 200bar rated pressure hose when bolted to the pump as it forces the flex portion away from the helical drive gearing. Not so smart there...

There is a VANOS performance test in ISTA (DIS as well probably) which measures "spread too great" and "spread too small" which are stroke time tests for the individual actuators. These can be out of spec also be gumming/fouling of the actuators or degraded solenoid performance. Typically they will manifest themselves as VANOS bank control errors when the "ordered" value deviates by x amount from the "actual" value for more than y amount of time.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Didn't that car have an NA stroker motor for about 22k of the 24k miles? How did it get turned into 24k supercharged miles? And now it supposedly ran with 0.0008" less cleaerance than standard, which means it was running with about 0.0004" clearance. Wow!

I'm not really sure to be honest. It was your car and your measurements. Can you please explain how the engine ran with .0008" less clearance than stock

Can you also explain this 'slight mistruth' which was written by you about your own car that you appear to be falsifying data on. Or perhaps you were mistaken on thinking 9,000 supercharged miles were in fact only 2,000. Perhaps it was the Texas 7,000 mile

This quote is taken direct from your build blog on M5post that you wrote in answer to a question from Pea

Quote:
Originally Posted by pea
Impressive work Robert,how many miles did it take to cause the damage on the rods, perhaps i should check mine.

Originally Posted by Pencilgeek

20000 miles on the stroker + supercharged motor. I lost track of how many of those were pure stroker, and how many were stroker +supercharger. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was about 11000 stroker and 9000 stroker+supercharger. Included in those miles were two track days, the Mojave Mile, and Texas Mile.

And you wonder why I question your honesty.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

For you down under guys this might be the case but here in the states there is a SB and the website says it and the dealership is giving a choice now as to what you want.
Obviously different countrys are recommending different oil but you need to state that instead of a blanket statement that tells everyone they are running a non approved oil when in fact they are.

Kawasaki,
I was not aware of a SB and my only understanding was the change of oil was communicated through a web page. It was not scare mongering, but based on the information I had at hand. As far as I know, there hasn't been a SB on oil change released in Asia Pacific or Europe.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Kawasaki,
I was not aware of a SB and my only understanding was the change of oil was communicated through a web page. It was not scare mongering, but based on the information I had at hand. As far as I know, there hasn't been a SB on oil change released in Asia Pacific or Europe.

I'll bet you're right, it's probably just the web page and not an official SB. Maybe somebody with TIS access can look it up.

I stopped by the dealer today to see if I could get the official S65 bearing clearance specs and a list of LL01 oils. These specs don't appear in the official 2008 TIS DVD. The shop forman looked it up and said they still don't exist in TIS. I also asked about switching to LL01. He said their service center will use either LL01 or TWS10W60 on the S65 depending on the customer preference. I asked for the latest list of LL01 approved oils, and got 12 pages of something else. Oh well.

I didn't ask him about LL01 and warranty because I didn't think of it. I also didn't ask the foreman about an SIB for LL01 oils. But the foreman did casually mentioned they've recently rebuilt four S65's and had to change the rod bearings but he didn't say anything more about it than that. Not much info to go on.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I'll bet you're right, it's probably just the web page and not an official SB. Maybe somebody with TIS access can look it up.

I stopped by the dealer today to see if I could get the official S65 bearing clearance specs and a list of LL01 oils. These specs don't appear in the official 2008 TIS DVD. The shop forman looked it up and said they still don't exist in TIS. I also asked about switching to LL01. He said their service center will use either LL01 or TWS10W60 on the S65 depending on the customer preference. I asked for the latest list of LL01 approved oils, and got 12 pages of something else. Oh well.

I didn't ask him about LL01 and warranty because I didn't think of it. I also didn't ask the foreman about an SIB for LL01 oils. But the foreman did casually mentioned they've recently rebuilt four S65's and had to change the rod bearings but he didn't say anything more about it than that. Not much info to go on.

I was told that on certain ass covering things they will not issue a "official" bulletin because that admits to a problem. They were however officially "informed" that the LL01 is approved by correspondence from bmwNA. I saw it and another buddie of mine who is the service manager told me they are offering both as a option.
It is pretty much a dang mess.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Kawasaki,
I was not aware of a SB and my only understanding was the change of oil was communicated through a web page. It was not scare mongering, but based on the information I had at hand. As far as I know, there hasn't been a SB on oil change released in Asia Pacific or Europe.

I totally understand, I asked a guy I know in the racing world to check that lives in Germany, the dealer there told him the 10-60 is only approved for the M cars, yet he also said the tech told him they were aware of the us going to the LL01. As much as I can gather we here in the good ol usa are the only ones that can switch and not doink your warranty.
Once again what a dang mess.

[speedaddictM3]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

running ethanol fuel is like running one step lower crappier gas. Running 89 no ethanol is about the same as running the 91 with ethanol.
Running higher octane fuel retards timing so if crappy fuel is used it adds timing and increases the percent of cycles that get to peak cylinder pressure before tdc.

I thought ethanol acts as an octane booster and that higher octane advances ignition timing

[regular guy]

I'm not really sure to be honest. It was your car and your measurements. Can you please explain how the engine ran with .0008" less clearance than stock.

If it is my car (engine actually), then I guess I should know more about it than somebody not involved in the project and now trying to tell people what was in the engine and how it was measured. I can't answer your question because the data we measured doesn't support your conclusions.

[regular guy]

Detonation vs. Bearing Wear: Could this be the cause?
By Kawasaki00

Reformatted here, posted on opening page

Regular Guy sent me a complete set of rods bearings and pistons to document out of a STOCK engine.

The purpose of this post is to address the detonation. What was found is that there is no significant detonation leading to bearing wear on this engine. Not saying some engines may not have it but this engine does not.

Examples of bearing wear due to detonation:
The first two pictures are reference from another type of engine that has too much timing and detonation. The shiny spots on the rod and silver specs on the back of the bearings are what happens to a rod bearing when it is moving around in the rod under load. The bearing actually lifts off the rod, oil gets behind it and then when it is slammed back down again this is what causes the silver specs from fretting.





Comparing to this motor:
You can see the picture of the complete set of rods that the oil stain has not penetrated the back side of the bearing and discolored the rod. This means that at no time has the rod bearing deformed to the point that is lifts out of the rod itself. The back of the rod bearing also shows the same thing, there is also no fretting on the back of the bearing.





Where does detonation show?
The first place that detonation will show up is in the pin bore of the piston and the bushing of the rod.





There is no evidence of heat in the pin bores nor rainbow effect in the bushings. What I have circled on the rod pinbore is the area where when the engine is detonating it will beat the brass out the side like mushing the filling out of a doughnut. There is nothing to show this engine has been detonating to the point that is would cause any type of rod bearing wear.

Do the piston tops show detonation?
As far as the piston tops, well they have alot of build up. This can be from one of two things, too much blowby due to loose rings or on a street engine from the emission system dumping oil back into the intake side. Without having the entire engine to look at it is hard to say. I have noticed in the past that certain oils also do this. I wont place judjment on that as that will certainly erupt a brand war on here.



The second ring shows very good seal as it is only worn about 1/4 of the ring. When there is poor sealing that second ring will wear all the way across the face.



Conclusions:
In conclusion there is no detonation in this engine. Failure analysis and teardown documentation is something we do regularly. The findings are conclusive with other people and they are what they are to put it into a nutshell.

In the next couple days i will post the specs from the older rod bearings and will also post the numbers from a fresh set of bearings that are fit up ready to run.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I just checked the journal measurements of the factory and aftermarket cranks we measured. I have the full set of main journal measurements on the aftermarket crank, but I don't have the full set of connecting rod measurements. But I do have the max and min rod journal sizes on the aftermarket crank.

Factory main journals: 2.36142 +/- 0.00018"
Factory rod journals: 2.04655 +/- 0.00005"

Aftermarket main jouernals: 2.36115 +/- 0.00005"
Aftermarket rod journals: 2.04720 +/- 0.00005"

The mains factory vs. aftermarket mains differ by 0.00013" and the rods differ by 0.00065" -- I'm not sure if this is due to temperature differences or not; and I'm not even sure how significant this is. I will assume it's due to temperature differences because when we measured the two crankshafts side by side on the same day (see discussion in post #2 of "Connecting Rod Side Clearance Issues"), we measured the journals identical to each other. I do notice the journal variance is much worse on the factory crank mains than it is on the aftermarket crank.

Originally Posted by regular guy

If it is my car (engine actually), then I guess I should know more about it than somebody not involved in the project and now trying to tell people what was in the engine and how it was measured. I can't answer your question because the data we measured doesn't support your conclusions.

Very sorry to have assumed it was your car when it was actually only the engine.

Anyway just in case you carry on accusing me of falsifying figures, I've quoted your sizes which you wrote.

That's a maximum journal size of 52.011mm. And you have the nerve to accuse BMW of getting cranks wrong. (BMW grind to 51.981mm)