|
|
01-12-2014, 01:00 PM | #1893 | |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
9548
Rep 10,844
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-12-2014, 01:16 PM | #1894 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
From very early on this discussion I provided the following:
Quote:
~20 out of ~26k is a whopping ~0.1%. RG claimed earlier here in the thread there is anecdotal evidence of a MUCH larger number of failed US cars from discussions with various BMW dealer service departments. Also, as far as the numbers by year, there is clearly NO statistical correlation. The numbers are way too small, subject to too little confirmation as to whether bearings were the cause and subject to uncertainty as to which bearings are in which cars. It's still my opinion that there is some significant "mountains out of molehills" going on here, despite the fact that BMW M very clearly made (or permitted required) changes in the bearing clearances and eccentricities. Other confounding factors include: -Modded cars -Not following a conservative warm up procedure -Poor gas -Extended oil change intervals (~15k mi recommended by BMW) -Mileage vs. year correlation The only way to make more firm conclusions is a very long term consistent tracking effort and/or get data from BMW. The term required is likely much longer than the attention span of all of us... A bearing replacement somewhere around 100k mi, using the newer 702/703 bearings (which are the only ones available) along with using a good 0-40W all seem like reasonable insurance.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | Last edited by swamp2; 01-12-2014 at 03:57 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-12-2014, 02:45 PM | #1895 | ||
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
2008: 5860 vehicles 2009: 5878 vehicles 2010: 5883 vehicles 2011: 5865 vehicles If this is true, it suggests the production of US M3s wasn't affected by the economic crisis. I find that hard to believe but that's what this data says. Last edited by catpat8000; 01-12-2014 at 04:26 PM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-12-2014, 07:29 PM | #1896 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
427
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Here's three sets of bearings recently added to my collection.
S65, 33000 Miles (30k) Naturally Aspirated, 3000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 06-Medium/Heavy
S65, 60000 Miles (55k) Naturally Aspirated, 5000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 08-Near Catastrophic Description: Auto Talent estimates this engine had less than one week to live with the bearings found in this condition
S65, 106000 Miles (92k) Naturally Aspirated, 14000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 08-Near Catastrophic Description: Part of the EAS Ongoing Rod Bearing Journal Thread
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
01-12-2014, 11:21 PM | #1897 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Wow does set #8 stand out from the rest. Not only that it has much more wear but more more equal wear between the top and bottom shell. Quite a bit dissimilar to the somewhat established asymmetric wear pattern with most wear on the top shell.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 01:44 AM | #1898 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
RG, it seems a bit like you want to have you cake and eat it too. You make a wide variety of claims about NOMINAL values (i.e. "the clearance", "the eccentricity", etc.) but then also claim that tolerance stack up is to blame. A change to a nominal value would likely reduce failures or prolong lifetimes, but tolerance stack up would still occur. Tolerance stack up always occurs in all parts. However, if the nominal value is "good" then BMW could also "fix" a "problem" simply with the same nominal value and a tighter manufacturing tolerance (although that would likely be a more expensive solution). On this point the tolerances on all parts, especially rod journals, are exceptionally tight, on the order of your (relatively high end) equipments ability to measure. Also, as I've pointed out earlier, your effort to stack tolerances in the worst way possible only produced a couple of tenths (tenths of a thousandths) of total clearance variation (with the older, tighter 088/089 bearings). Thus from these measurements, there is very little evidence of significant tolerance stack up. Now that being said, based upon empirical failure rates, we might have to individually examine and measure thousands of bearings and journals to find a case of observed and excessive tolerance stack up. However, what would a critical value for a clearance (in in/in) be with a tolerance stack "issue", 0.0006, 0.0005, 0.0004, etc. We just don't know what "line in the sand" value will produce certain and early failures. Also, as others have been mentioning, if BMW truly "fixed" most or all of these issues with the bearing redesign, we would not still be continuing to see failures on 2011, 2012 and even 2013 motors. Rod side clearance has been measured on how many engines? One. Not much conclusive there exactly. As much as the data collected thus far firmly and unequivocally indicates dimensional changes to nominal bearing design dimensions, there are far too many unknowns to firmly conclude most of your "opinions" above. There are some indications, by some loosely applicable metrics, that the bearings are "tight". There is clearly a flow rate difference under constant pressure through a larger vs. smaller "orifice" and that flow rate is absolutely affected by oil viscosity. But are the values we've observed here "tight" enough to cause oil starvation and overheating? I would say we just don't know. The basic cause and effect postulated here by our "experts" doesn't jive very well with the observed failure rates nor year over year differences. For those that want to hold on to their cars for an extended period of time, nothing beats a conservative approach. All of this data/evidence and speculation, along with the very small overall numbers of failures, leads me to advise a conservative but level headed approach: -Listen for bearing noise -Always run good gas (knock can damage bearings) -Warm up the car conservatively -Run an approved LL-01 0-40W oil -Change oil significantly more often than the BMW service interval (very loosely 3-8k miles) -Stay away from supercharging (there's clearly many supercharged engines that have failed, on the flip side there are many also that have lasted a lot of miles under hard use...) -Last but not least to be extremely conservative, have a bearing inspection and replacement (using the only available new 702/703 bearings), very loosely sometime around 75-100k miles. Nothing here will do a speck of harm and many, perhaps combines may help either a problem with nominal values or maybe a problem with a mild tolerance stacking problem. Most if not all of us will probably loose interest in this topic before enough time has passed or data collected to gain much more certainty. The soonest events yielding any "experimental" data (even if such "experiments" are poorly controlled at best) are probably those who had/will have engines disassembled, they showed significant wear, changed to a 702/703 bearing (or some of the other treated bearing option), perhaps along with a change to 0-40W and then let 10's of thousands of miles pass, finally opting for another disassembly and inspection. In other words multiple years at best... This situation is far from firm resolution and probably never will be.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 01:57 AM | #1899 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
For completness sake here is some reference material on the European Union ELV (End-of-Life Vehicles) Directive and how it relates to the S65 rod bearing change.
This is relevant as the initial (088/089) S65 rod bearings used a lead based compound whereas the newer (702/703) are a lead free design. The initial directive, way back in 2000, was simply to reduce the quantity of waste and hazardous waste that occurs when motor vehicles are junked or totaled. The reason the part changes at BMW occurred in 2011 is because many exemptions were included where the use of certain hazardous materials were industry critical and without viable alternatives. Lead bearings fell in this category. According to this summary information here bearing shells in engines were exempt until July 1, 2011. On a loosely related point lead in valve seats were only exempted until July 1, 2003. Thus E9X M3s with a production date after July 1, 2011 almost certainly do not have 088/089 rod bearings but instead have the 702/703.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 03:03 AM | #1900 |
Brigadier General
2510
Rep 4,381
Posts |
Its still my feeling that BMW would have stayed with the 088/9 lead faced bearings to the end of production if they could have...if for nothing else they knew where they were with them in terms of engine life.
The given start date of 2010 for the production of the new 702/3 while the old 088/9 bearings remained in production until March/October 2011, doesn't make things any clearer - its possible that the bearing versions were made by different companies (there is a picture showing boxes with different countries of origin for the two bearing part numbers (Italy and Germany)). They could even have been using the two types in parallel from 2010 onwards to see if the new version was going to be problematic. I do agree that it is likely that a couple of the bearing failed cars that are counted as 2011 MY cars were probably built in 2010 with 088/9 bearings. Easiest would be to take cars with a factory build date of 2010 as having the old bearings and 2011 builds as having the new. Lastly when do USA owners owners consider the start date for a MY for Euro produced cars? Back in the day when I worked for VW/Audi the factory holidays were in August when the assembly lines were retooled for the following model year and production restarted in September. Latest. Anon are users who gave details via personal message but preferred to remain anonymous online. Blank entries are where no data was provided. Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 03:36 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 06:48 AM | #1901 | |
Brigadier General
2510
Rep 4,381
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 06:52 AM | #1902 |
Lieutenant Colonel
231
Rep 1,673
Posts |
In this area they did not follow the trend of the M5, for the last couple years the m3 was very hard to find and similar year and mileage was way more expensive than the equivalent M5. They were just about giving away M5/6 in this area and the 3's were flying out of the used lots as well as the new lots.
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 06:54 AM | #1903 |
Lieutenant
378
Rep 413
Posts |
The E60 M5 was recently declared "one of the 10 least reliable vehicles of all time". I wouldn't be surprised if the reputation had started to set in at that time and impacted sales. Additionally, the gaining popularity of the M3 may have played a part in that sales decline as well with the E90 available.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 08:02 AM | #1904 |
Brigadier General
2510
Rep 4,381
Posts |
No its simply that Pat misunderstood the figures.
Sales numbers for the E90 M3 by model year: 2008 2280 2009 964 2010 453 2011 2170 The % numbers in the pdf are a % of the total E90 M3 sales not the total of all M3 sales. The M5 and M6 follow a similar pattern.. E60 M5 2006 - 4762 2007 - 1225 2008 - 2828 2009 - 272 2010 - 404 E63 M6 2005 - 5 2006 - 1135 2007 - 1629 2008 - 635 2009 - 194 2010 - 289 E64 M6 2007 - 2005 2008 - 1016 2009 - 227 2010 - 264 Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 08:16 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 10:32 AM | #1905 | |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
At very the top of the page, the document says: "E90 M3 ONLY PRODUCTION - US/CANADA MARKET" The only other labels on the page are these: Production__# of cars___% of US/CAN Production 2008_________2280________38.9 2009_________964_________16.4 2010_________453__________7.7 2011_________2170________37.0 I took this to mean 453 was 7.7% of US/CAN production of M3s. I agree this seems unlikely but that how I read the labels. What do you think this 7.7% means? If it was total sales of E90 M3s, that would disagree with the column label, no? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 10:34 AM | #1906 |
Brigadier General
2510
Rep 4,381
Posts |
The % numbers are out of total E90 production not total E9x production.
ie 453 is ~7.7% of 5867 (the total E90 production). 2280 is 38.9% of 5867 etc. Its definitely poorly labeled as I read it the same way as you at first. Its only when I came across the M5/6 figures did it occur to me than something was a bit off. Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 10:48 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 10:50 AM | #1907 | |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
Thanks for double checking this stuff! Pat |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 10:58 AM | #1908 |
Brigadier General
2510
Rep 4,381
Posts |
I think the label should say: % of Total US/CAN E90 production
(which is 5867 cars) 2008_________2280 = 38.9% of 5867 2009__________964 = 16.4% of 5867 2010__________453 = 7.7% of 5867 2011_________2170 = 37.0% of 5867 I've looked around for the total USA/CAN E9x M3 production numbers by model year but can't seem to find them. If we had those, you could calculate a failure rate per 1000 cars by model year which might be a little more linear than just looking at the failure figures alone. Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 11:27 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 02:43 PM | #1909 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
427
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 04:08 PM | #1910 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
231
Rep 1,673
Posts |
Quote:
The new bearings have some funky marking that they have never seen before, one of the guys in the shop has order mass bearings from King and they were quite similar but I am not for sure. We know it is not a Clevite, Pankl, or Daido. There are only a few left that could make bearings on a scale like that with OEM quantitys
__________________
Electronics Junkie, Engine Builder.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 04:29 PM | #1911 | |
Brigadier General
2510
Rep 4,381
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by SenorFunkyPants; 01-13-2014 at 04:58 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 05:52 PM | #1912 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
427
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
EDIT: Clevite has an aftermarket parts catalog and an OEM parts catalog. Clevite reps don't have access to the OEM parts catalog and that's why they can't find BMW factory bearings (even though they make them). If King is the manufacturer of the 702/703 bearings, it's possible they have the same separation of aftermarket and OEM catalogs. Last edited by regular guy; 01-13-2014 at 09:25 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2014, 09:13 PM | #1914 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
427
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Today I sent six sets of bearings to Clevite for analysis. I'm hoping they will be able to analyze the bearings for signs of clearance, detonation, and anything they can tell me. I'm not sure how comprehensive Clevite will be, or what they will allow me to publish. It will take a few weeks before before I have any results.
Here's the six sets I sent. S65, 30000 Miles, Bone Stock, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 04/05-Moderate Description: Bone stock engine disassembled to make stroker motor. S65, 31000 Miles, Naturally Aspirated, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 04-Moderate Description: 27,000 Miles Naturally Aspirated, 4000 Miles Supercharged S65, 33000 Miles (30k) Naturally Aspirated, 3000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 06-Medium/Heavy
S65, 47000 Miles, Naturally Aspirated, 1.8k Miles Supercharged, 2008 More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 05-Moderate Notes: The #3 bearing was not wiped to copper when it was removed from the engine. The shop replacing the bearings sanded it to copper for testing purposes. S65, 60000 Miles (55k) Naturally Aspirated, 5000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 08-Near Catastrophic Description: Auto Talent estimates this engine had less than one week to live with the bearings found in this condition
S65, 106000 Miles (92k) Naturally Aspirated, 14000 Miles Supercharged, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 08-Near Catastrophic Description: Part of the EAS Ongoing Rod Bearing Journal Thread
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|