Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Best looking set of bearings posted yet that have been changed as preventative maintenance. Way, way better than mine at 65k miles and mine were better than most.

If we have seen 25 examples of bearings changed as preventative maintenance, I am not at all surprised 1 of the 25 has been nearly perfect. I would have expected at least 20 of the 25 to be nearly perfect, but that has not been the case.

The samples are not random, they are concentrated. That might be why.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

It would be fascinating to know what the bearing clearances were on this car...whatever they were, its clearly working. ISTM to make far more sense to use a clearance from cars that reach a good mileage in excellent shape than guessing at one based on cars that don't (for the new bearings).

Spot on !
Remember what I was saying...
The problem starts when the S65 leaves the German factory but possible also not...
When clearance is optimal when leaving the factory ... bearings are in condition like in the pics of MilehighM3 , car from 08 with 102K miles on it and easily he was able to run another 100K with those bearings !
And always used the 10W60 TWS/Castrol...?!?! => ( For the M1 guys )
That's why I was saying ... The S65 is actualy a German lottery....
In other words...some are already crap when leaving the factory with only a few miles on it and predestined to blown, and others are outstanding such as MilehighM3 !
And exactly this is going on with the S65 engine !

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by chadwick

They all look pretty nice, except for the top of #5?

#5&7 showed a spot from irregular wear.

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Thanks for sharing. And there was no knocking/noise I guess but you changed simply to be on safe side?

Correct. He's been contemplating adding a supercharger and wouldn't let him move forward without a little preventative maintenance. Not because I believe there's a problem with the S65, but because it makes sense to do on any engine if adding 50% additional power at 100k. Especially on an engine with elevated lead on the last blackstone. Apparently that lead was mostly all fuel related.

[SYT_Shadow]

Welcome back RG, it's good to have you back

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by MilehighM3

One more

Congrats !

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

It would be fascinating to know what the bearing clearances were on this car...whatever they were, its clearly working. ISTM to make far more sense to use a clearance from cars that reach a good mileage in excellent shape than guessing at one based on cars that don't (for the new bearings).

I would've liked to measure it accurately, but I am not equipped with the proper tools for that. I can tell you that they were the 088/089 bearings, which was to be expected given the production date. The looked a little better than the last set of S85 bearings I replaced, but even those weren't what I would consider worn. They are still far better than any set of the S54 bearings I've replaced over the years in relation to the recalls on that engine. Although they were known to have a much higher failure rate than the S65.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by MilehighM3

I would've liked to measure it accurately, but I am not equipped with the proper tools for that. I can tell you that they were the 088/089 bearings, which was to be expected given the production date. The looked a little better than the last set of S85 bearings I replaced, but even those weren't what I would consider worn. They are still far better than any set of the S54 bearings I've replaced over the years in relation to the recalls on that engine. Although they were known to have a much higher failure rate than the S65.

Conclusion ... there is no problem with the S65 or 10w-60. Follow the sticker on the windscreen and warm up the car and drive like you stole it!

Bearing failures are a myth

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by aussiem3

Conclusion ... there is no problem with the S65 or 10w-60. Follow the sticker on the windscreen and warm up the car and drive like you stole it!

Bearing failures are a myth

Read above # 2246 . That's the problem .

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Read above # 2246 . That's the problem .

I know Philippe

[Mvy]

Kawasaki and Regular Guy,
For those of us with the VAC bearing replacement, we are wondering what the photos look like of your tear downs as compared to Maliks. I know you are busy but please let us know when you post those up so we can go back and look.

So now we have some tear downs with VAC bearings that look good, and others RG said not so good. Based on what I have read, VAC coated bearings success seem to be a bit of a crap shoot depending on your tolerance stack. If you are on the high end of the stack, you just made your life worse off as the bearings wear you will likely do crank damage and you might still be a grenade waiting to happen. If you are in the middle of stack, you might get away with this for a while until a better solution can be found but you risk some main bearing/crank damage due to hardness or coating coming off and circulating in the motor before it gets picked up by the filter. If you were on the low end of the stack, you could be good for life with this set of bearings and maybe a shift to lighter weight oil. Am I interpreting this correctly?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I have a engineering degree

Your prior and ongoing blatant denigration of engineering and science in general, along with prior egregious errors in how bearing loads scale with rpm causes me to strongly question this claim. Perhaps you can elaborate. Tell us which field of engineering and which school. This is not an attack. If you make a claim, be prepared to discuss.

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Skepticism is great but all you seem to do is crap on the hard evidence and numbers generated by multiple people.

This is part of a scientific approach. If you recall I helped fund RGs investigations with cold hard cash. Criticism just isn't "crapping on". You are so wound up as being THE expert here you can't take a single criticism, even when it is not as to YOUR bloody conclusions or data. You also still can't seem to understand the difference between the key concepts of data, hypothesis and theory.

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

When you find over a 50% variation in clearance on some engines, like a few rods are .0012 then down the line they are .0019 then I guess you will never be convinced of anything. Clevite makes a book that has all these numbers for hundreds of different engines. It gives rod/main journal sizes and clearance measurements, bore measurements. All kinds of hard info from manufacturers that they deem as ok for a engine. If you want to flex your fantastic reading skills why don't you read that for a hot minute and you will see what acceptable deviations are for crank sizes, rod bore sizes etc.

KEY POINT. Do they discuss NOMINALS or STASTISTICS!

We have recently been discussing statistics, either standard deviations or more simply just min/max deviations. I've asked for such data probably a dozen times here in this thread. Summarize the results and cite a source or post a scan or a link. What is an "acceptable" standard deviation (or even just the maximum spread) in a bearing clearance (and or for rod journal sizes). It's no surprise that industry insiders like you may know how and where to get such data. Me and most of the other folks here don't know where to get this. If you really understand this issue then you can also pretty well immediately tell us all - if the spread or tolerance stack in clearance is the real "issue" or if it is variation in journal sizes or variation in bearing thickness? A standard deviation of 1/10th of a thou in rod journal sizes seems like a pretty well controlled manufacturing tolerance to me... One that is probably produced using standard techniques of statistical process control.

[kawasaki00]

Just going to let everyone know that a test has been completed on Rod Bolt clamp load of the new stock bolts vs 2 different Carrillo, the WMC and the really expensive CARR bolt. Will try and get the data posted later this weekend. Just another tool to help in the problems we see with rod bearings.

[BrewRifle]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Just going to let everyone know that a test has been completed on Rod Bolt clamp load of the new stock bolts vs 2 different Carrillo, the WMC and the really expensive CARR bolt. Will try and get the data posted later this weekend. Just another tool to help in the problems we see with rod bearings.

Are there going to be any tests done with the ARP2000 bolts by chance? I'm just wondering which bolts to use when the new bearings are released. I've already got a set of the ARP2000 waiting thinking they are the best to date (given what I've read on here).

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Just going to let everyone know that a test has been completed on Rod Bolt clamp load of the new stock bolts vs 2 different Carrillo, the WMC and the really expensive CARR bolt. Will try and get the data posted later this weekend. Just another tool to help in the problems we see with rod bearings.

In testing the stock bolts, did you do the prestretching? The instructions I used were to go through the 3 stage tightening sequence once, then loosen and do a second time, then loosen and do a third and final time.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

In testing the stock bolts, did you do the prestretching? The instructions I used were to go through the 3 stage tightening sequence once, then loosen and do a second time, then loosen and do a third and final time.

Yes official sequence was used

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by BrewRifle

Are there going to be any tests done with the ARP2000 bolts by chance? I'm just wondering which bolts to use when the new bearings are released. I've already got a set of the ARP2000 waiting thinking they are the best to date (given what I've read on here).

I did not have any 2000 bolts on hand. The WMC bolt is better than the 2000 though. The rank is CARR>WMC>2000

[e46e92love]

Great update.....more info is needed on rods.

Btw, funniest thing I have heard on the forums is SWAMP insinuating Kawasaki doesn't know what he is doing. PRICELESS. Reminds me of the days I first got banned when Shiv tried to claim he didn't blow up engines when one of his first blow ups WAS AT MY DEALER who I am friends with the SM. Since shiv paid lots of money to Bimmerpost, guess who got banned? Exactly.

This is why we lost guys like LeMans Blue....

Cheers,
e46e92

[Z K]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Great update.....more info is needed on rods.

Btw, funniest thing I have heard on the forums is SWAMP insinuating Kawasaki doesn't know what he is doing. PRICELESS. Reminds me of the days I first got banned when Shiv tried to claim he didn't blow up engines when one of his first blow ups WAS AT MY DEALER who I am friends with the SM. Since shiv paid lots of money to Bimmerpost, guess who got banned? Exactly.

This is why we lost guys like LeMans Blue....

Cheers,
e46e92

Shiv from Vishnu/Procede? Lol, that guy is well known to blow up engines. One visit to the Subaru and Evo forums where he started tuning and you'll see all the results of his work.

He's banned on the Evo forums!

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Great update.....more info is needed on rods.

Btw, funniest thing I have heard on the forums is SWAMP insinuating Kawasaki doesn't know what he is doing. PRICELESS. Reminds me of the days I first got banned when Shiv tried to claim he didn't blow up engines when one of his first blow ups WAS AT MY DEALER who I am friends with the SM. Since shiv paid lots of money to Bimmerpost, guess who got banned? Exactly.

This is why we lost guys like LeMans Blue....

Cheers,
e46e92

Thanks buddie, we have some pretty cool stuff in the Engineering Lab. Sure is nice to be able to have that branch over and help out on the street car stuff.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Btw, funniest thing I have heard on the forums is SWAMP insinuating Kawasaki doesn't know what he is doing.

I'm glad I can be your comedian. But I never said that and don't believe that.

All I can say that if you read the entire thread there are some key things Kawasaki got guaranteed, 100% wrong on relatively simple things concerning how engine internal dynamic loads scale with rpm. Things he go so very very wrong that it, along with his ongoing denigration of engineering and science, lead me to believe he is a very good engine builder, working for a very good company, but with no formal engineering education. Notice his claims and unwillingness to answer simple basic questions.

I just can't get over the irony of this whole situation...

1. Some problems observed with stock parts.
2. Folks rush in with the coated or peened bearing "solution".
3. Most jump on the band wagon that coated bearings the "the shit" and "the solution". All this despite the fact that they have less clearance.
4. I ask for ANY evidence whatsoever that these "solutions" are better and what happens from both the vendors and fanboys - UTTER SILENCE.
5. Engine(s) with coated bearings have now been disassembled at very low mileage showing no improvement to bearing wear. Surprise, surprise.
6. Now the sheep are lined up ready to purchase another "solution" with ABSOLUTELY ZERO TESTING of the parts and also no testing nor verification rigorously establishing the cause.

It sucks but real engineering and real testing are quite expensive and real engineering isn't being done here, not even close. Obviously folks are going to spend their money they way they wish.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by Z K

Shiv from Vishnu/Procede? Lol, that guy is well known to blow up engines. One visit to the Subaru and Evo forums where he started tuning and you'll see all the results of his work.

He's banned on the Evo forums!

Bingo.....that's how I knew of his work because a good friend is huge EVO guy (bye, great car).

But $$$ talks around here, I was called a liar since member of car would not step forward, obviously, because the dealer was covering under warranty....so why on earth would he sell the dealer out if he was being helped. But I was called a liar and told to stop causing problems....you know the drill around here.

Cheers,
e46e92