OEM 702/703 to BE Bearings

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by OM VT3

Since you have the inside scoop with VAC on testing, remind me again what kind of testing did VAC do themselves?

I don't know why you think I have any connection to VAC or the slightest interest in their products...but then again you seem to think I am "Benvo" in disguise.
Seeing a set of wear free rod bearings pulled from a supercharged car after 33,500 miles at least show the results of some real world usage of the product.
IIRC BE initially suggested they would be testing their bearings before release but instead jumped to letting the early adopters do their testing for them.

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

I don't know why you think I have any connection to VAC or the slightest interest in their products...but then again you seem to think I am "Benvo" in disguise.
Seeing a set of wear free rod bearings pulled from a supercharged car after 33,500 miles at least show the results of some real world usage of the product.

Even though you got your facts wrong and drew faulty conclusions, you're still pushing those VAC bearings over BE. You must have a reason. I'd like to hear it as long as it doesn't contain any more misinformation about either party.

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

IIRC BE initially suggested they would be testing their bearings before release but instead jumped to letting the early adopters do their testing for them.

I think everybody here realizes if you had IIRC'd, you would have posted direct quotes and links instead of constructing your comments with a way out if proven wrong. Go find those comments and post them here.

[tdott]

Wow some people are a few years late to the party and think a 3min call to someone makes them an expert and that company has nothing in it or is in any way bias? Of course they are going to say they have a solution, they want business. How about they design a solution present some facts and then let consumers decide?

Most guys who understand engines know the bearings with more clearance aren't the 100% solution but it is the best solution without dropping the motor and doing a full rebuild. They buy you more time than the factory bearings and if treated like a wear item has a better chance of surviving for more miles.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by tdott

Wow some people are a few years late to the party and think a 3min call to someone makes them an expert and that company has nothing in it or is in any way bias? Of course they are going to say they have a solution, they want business. How about they design a solution present some facts and then let consumers decide?

Most guys who understand engines know the bearings with more clearance aren't the 100% solution but it is the best solution without dropping the motor and doing a full rebuild. They buy you more time than the factory bearings and if treated like a wear item has a better chance of surviving for more miles.

You make a good point...I directed the bearing wiki thread to one of our IT vendor engineers who also rebuilds engines. In short he suspects that the weakest link is the rod bearing clearances but he was recommending to polish the crankshaft to acceptable clearances and either machine the crank throws to have more side clearance or machine the rods to have more side clearances or both. I'm no mechanic/auto eng so just regurgitating what he said after looking into for me. He did agree that replacing the RBs with same or a bit more clearance will help for now. Like I said I'm no mechanic so take this for what it's worth.

Edit: All this talk, i just sent him the pic and said this:

Wow!
That looks like insufficient clearance / oil starvation to me. As you can see they are wiped at what would be TDC and BDC of the stroke because there wasn’t enough oil film.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by JRV

You make a good point...I directed the bearing wiki thread to one of our IT vendor engineers who also rebuilds engines. In short he suspects that the weakest link is the rod bearing clearances but he was recommending to polish the crankshaft to acceptable clearances and either machine the crank throws to have more side clearance or machine the rods to have more side clearances or both. I'm no mechanic/auto eng so just regurgitating what he said after looking into for me. He did agree that replacing the RBs with same or a bit more clearance will help for now. Like I said I'm no mechanic so take this for what it's worth.

Since you are no mechanic by your own admission, did you ask your IT vendor "engineer" what was involved in working the crank or rods to a different clearance? Essentially rebuilding the engine, the IT guy should say. Then you would ask, what does that cost? After he gave you a frightening number, you would say, are there any alternatives? And he would suggest bearings with more clearance.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Since you are no mechanic by your own admission, did you ask your IT vendor "engineer" what was involved in working the crank or rods to a different clearance? Essentially rebuilding the engine, the IT guy should say. Then you would ask, what does that cost? After he gave you a frightening number, you would say, are there any alternatives? And he would suggest bearings with more clearance.

Ultimately, he said bring it to a machine shop that really knows the issue to be certain....its sound advice thats they way engineers work. He rebuilds engines and does so til now but he works with American cars and redid his 1969 Firebird 400 Ram air III. He wouldn't know the cost with BMW. I just dont see why the rules would be that different but like i said just regurgitating and just told me that its a good thing i at least went to replace RBs for now.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by JRV

You make a good point...I directed the bearing wiki thread to one of our IT vendor engineers who also rebuilds engines. In short he suspects that the weakest link is the rod bearing clearances but he was recommending to polish the crankshaft to acceptable clearances and either machine the crank throws to have more side clearance or machine the rods to have more side clearances or both. I'm no mechanic/auto eng so just regurgitating what he said after looking into for me. He did agree that replacing the RBs with same or a bit more clearance will help for now. Like I said I'm no mechanic so take this for what it's worth.

Edit: All this talk, i just sent him the pic and said this:

Wow!
That looks like insufficient clearance / oil starvation to me. As you can see they are wiped at what would be TDC and BDC of the stroke because there wasn’t enough oil film.

Look someone who knows what inertia is. And tell me how rod bearings resolves physics? But wait they "sampled" many cranks and did "r&d (rip off and duplicate)" and they come in various shapes and sizes to meet customer demand.

This is sounds like a infomercial for the slap chop. Seriously.

Rod bearings will never ever in a million years fix the problem. Only prolong it.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

Look someone who knows what inertia is. And tell me how rod bearings resolves physics? But wait they "sampled" many cranks and did "r&d (rip off and duplicate)" and they come in various shapes and sizes to meet customer demand.

This is sounds like a infomercial for the slap chop. Seriously.

Rod bearings will never ever in a million years fix the problem. Only prolong it.

Wrong on infomercial...do what you want or dont...just glad i did. I have no affiliation with anyone here, i just met Izzy, great guy, and never spoke with the "3 dudes" but i am convinced there is a problem and if replacing the weak link for now works, then I feel better. I appreciate they did all the work and looked into it.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by JRV

Wrong on infomercial...do what you want or dont...just glad i did. I have no affiliation with anyone here, i just met Izzy, great guy, and never spoke with the "3 dudes" but i am convinced there is a problem and if replacing the weak link for now works, then I feel better. I appreciate they did all the work and looked into it.

Pull them in 50k miles let see what they look like.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

Pull them in 50k miles let see what they look like.

Yes I actually want to pull after 3 years to see what they look like. Only problem. Is the way I've been driving now for last year it would be like 15k miles by that time .

[AutoTalent]

Originally Posted by JRV

Wrong on infomercial...do what you want or dont...just glad i did. I have no affiliation with anyone here, i just met Izzy, great guy, and never spoke with the "3 dudes" but i am convinced there is a problem and if replacing the weak link for now works, then I feel better. I appreciate they did all the work and looked into it.

Glad you're enjoying your BE Bearings!

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

Rod bearings will never ever in a million years fix the problem.

The whole RB saga has been an epic example of confirmation bias. Every narrative is shaped, twisted or altered to fit the initial theory while any competing contra evidence ignored. Most especially why the cooler areas of Europe with good quality fuel have a very low level of engine failures attributed to a lack of rod bearing clearance compared to the USA. Why instead would a tight RB clearance (combined with overly viscous oil) create a peak of failures in warm/hot climates, more so with lower quality fuel? If BMW's blueprint specification for RB clearance is indeed tight enough to cause early engine failure why are only ~1% of engines failing?
Nothing wrong with a pre-emptive RB swap just don't be expecting under sized bearings to increase reliability.

[kawasaki00]

I see we have a few veteran people with new screen names.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

The whole RB saga has been an epic example of confirmation bias. Every narrative is shaped, twisted or altered to fit the initial theory while any competing contra evidence ignored. Most especially why the cooler areas of Europe with good quality fuel have a very low level of engine failures attributed to a lack of rod bearing clearance compared to the USA. Why instead would a tight RB clearance (combined with overly viscous oil) create a peak of failures in warm/hot climates, more so with lower quality fuel? If BMW's blueprint specification for RB clearance is indeed tight enough to cause early engine failure why are only ~1% of engines failing?
Nothing wrong with a pre-emptive RB swap just don't be expecting under sized bearings to increase reliability.

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

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

[JRV]

Originally Posted by AutoTalent

Glad you're enjoying your BE Bearings!

Thanks! Second time I drive it since swap, always feels exciting to get back in it.

[pbonsalb]

I think the E10 fuel issue explaining rod bearing failures on high rpm motors is interesting. Not yet sure I buy into it since it depends on a certain amount of fuel leakdown into the oil. But would like to read more.

[m3aviator]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I think the E10 fuel issue explaining rod bearing failures on high rpm motors is interesting. Not yet sure I buy into it since it depends on a certain amount of fuel leakdown into the oil. But would like to read more.

Enough to cause bearing wear? Its plausible but a stretch. Plus all the forum "experts" are staying quiet. They don't wanna reveal any trade secrets.

Oh and to correct a post I made in a different thread, company making all the stroker cranks is Marine Crank.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by m3aviator

I don't think fuel has anything to do with it.

Looking at the commonality in engines failures gives the following to a greater or lesser degree:
Higher air intake temps (location)
Lower quality fuel (location)
Greater usage of higher rpms (tracking).

One of the features of the S65 is the use of fairly unique (at least to BMW) coil on plug ionic sensing anti knock technology....combined with a target based ignition system. The system strives to reach its ignition target relying on the CoP ionic sensing system to pull ignition whenever the system detects knock. Its a great system but it requires 100% efficiency of the components of the system for 100% of their lifetime.
Either higher air intake and/or lower fuel quality will greatly increase the intervention of the anti knock system such that in extremis it will be operating nearly full time. ...whereas in a cool climate with higher quality fuel the anti knock system will be triggered far less (if at all).
A combustion related cause for accelerated bearing wear has at least the benefit of fitting in with the various trends in engine failures that have been noted elsewhere. Its also far more credible that the application of fairly new immature technology could have an unexpected impact on reliability as opposed to a fairly straight forward easily adjustable rod bearing specification.

[m3aviator]

Every pic I've seen looks like wear not detonation. Plus enough leakdown for the fuel to deteriorate the oil. It's possible.

[Rajmun340]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Thanks VT. So three different crank and two different bearing shell, and still doesn't provide expected reliability, we see similar percentage of bearing issues over 2008-2013? This is confusing at least for an engine novise, but maybe the re-design targets had nothing to do with improving reliability, do you know?

Cheers

Yes, three different crank and it did not fix it, then in 2011 BMW assembled a joint research team with Daimler to specifically study the effect of ethanol on engine wear but forget it that does not matter in this forum when a group of opportunists are pushing hard their selling pitch to turn money reselling some re-spec'ed Clevite bearings. Who would have thought that BMW engineers working years could not fix the issue but a bunch of no-names engine builder shop floor crew can. That is discounting the intelligence of the average bmw customer and bmw M GmbH

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

Yes, three different crank and it did not fix it, then in 2011 BMW assembled a joint research team with Daimler to specifically study the effect of ethanol on engine wear but that does not matter in this forum when a group of opportunists are pushing hard their selling pitch to turn money reselling some re-spec'ed Clevite bearings.

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

Yes, three different crank and it did not fix it, then in 2011 BMW assembled a joint research team with Daimler to specifically study the effect of ethanol on engine wear but that does not matter in this forum when a group of opportunists are pushing hard their selling pitch to turn money reselling some re-spec'ed Clevite bearings.

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

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by JoeM3SSII

That is discounting the intelligence of the average bmw customer and bmw M GmbH

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