![]() |
|
![]() |
09-23-2013, 11:15 PM | #1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
![]()
Table of Contents:
Engine and Clearance Specifications:
Crankshaft History and Part Numbers
Connecting Rod Bearing History and Part Numbers
Comparing the S65 Clearances to other BMW Engines The BMW TIS DVD set is a good source to gather lots of technical data on various BMW engines. Unfortunately, it is missing the data I want most from the S65. The data presented below shows how bearing clearance has changed over time on various BMW engines. It's not enough to just look at bearing clearance unless you also look at journal size. It's the ratio of clearance to journal size that is the all important piece of information we want out of this. Some people also want to know how the clearance and maxRPM match up. So I've included a column to calculate the RPM to Clearance ratio. Columns are as follows:
There's a few things that jump out from this data.
BMW ///M Engines (Main Bearings) Sorted by Model
BMW ///M Engines (Rod Bearings) Sorted by Model
Last edited by regular guy; 06-16-2015 at 09:54 PM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09-23-2013, 11:15 PM | #2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Historical Background of S65 Bearing Issue
Three truths of S65 bearing/side clearance
There are three things we seem to know for a fact:
Notes: 1. Artitle: Clevite Bearing Clearance White Paper, Pages 16-18 2. Article: Geometrical parameters of engine bearings 3. Interactive: Clevite online/interactive bearing failure diagnosis web site Historical Background of S65 Bearing Issue It was very easy to ignore the very first blown motors because most seemed to originate from highly modified cars. Very early there was one blown NA motor from a guy in Thailand "custom tuned" by a local tuner. His motor blew and it cost a lot of money to replace it. Tuning by a local, unknown tuner was another reason to ignore this blown motor. But about the same time, the first one or two blown motors showed up on bone stock M3's as well. These cars were totally stock with very low mileage. As time went on, more and more blown motors showed up, again NA motors with low miles. It seemed if you made it past 25,000 miles, then your motor would likely survive the warranty period. Various theories were discussed to explain this phenomena. The theories ranged from inferior oil pump design to bearing clearance issues. But nobody had any data to support one argument over the other. Discovering S65 Bearing Issue
The bearings shown above came from a supercharged stroker motor. The engine was 4.6L and ran a very modest 6.0 PSI boost. After 24,000 miles, the engine was disassembled in July 2010 to rebuild as a low comperssion 4.7L motor. The bearings were photographed and stashed away. I always thought the bearings looked pretty "ratty" but at the time, nobody thought anything else about it. Today these photos might be ground-zero, exhibit-one in the discussion of rod bearing clearance. By September 2011, the engine was ready to be reassembled when the race shop made the discovery. Van Dyne Engineering in Huntington Beach called to explain that the engine couldn't be reassembled because the bearing clearance was too small. They measured as little as 0.0011 inch rod bearing clearance, which Van Dyne said would lead to oil starvation and potentially catastrophic engine failure. To confirm these measurements we gathered one more factory crankshaft, and samples of two sets of connecting rods from different engines. Van Dyne confirmed the measurements all matched, and the factory BMW clearance was dangerously too small. Van Dyne explained that the industry standard clearance should be 0.001" clearance per inch of journal diameter. The BMW factory measurements were approximately half those standard values. Van Dyne proposed a solution to send the crankshaft out for machining to have the journals resized to allow proper clearance. By November 2011, the machining had been completed, and the engine was ready for reassembly. During the engine assembly process, the clearances were all checked and verified to ensure the clearance problem was fixed. Connecting Rod Side Clearance Issues Discovering rod bearing clearance issues wasn't the only adverse discovery we made while assembling this motor. In addition to measuring bearing clearances, Van Dyne also measures connecting rod side play, crankshaft end play, valve opening/closing angles, valve spring seat pressure, and many other things. Connecting rod side clearance is measured by sticking a feeler gauge between the connecting rods to see how much space is between them. Engine builders like to see the connecting rod side clearance in a very specific measurement range. The measurement is taken when the bottom end is mostly assembled: the crankshaft is in place, and the pistons and connecting rods are attached and torqued down. If the side clearance is too little, then oil cannot escape and extra heat is generated by the friction of the connecting rods colliding against each other. The crankshaft itself can be damaged as well. When the rod side clearance is too tight, as the engine heats up, the rods will swell and the crank will shrink. The tight clearance gets smaller and smaller until the rods collide and start riding against the crankshaft journal fillet. The fillet can be worn down, and damaged by this process, and the metal shavings it produces will damage the connecting rod bearings and other engine parts as well. To measure the connecting rod side clearance, Van Dyne instinctively grabbed the feeler gauge for the normal, industry-accepted side clearance measurement. The feeler gauge wouldn't fit. Van Dyne grabbed the next feeler gauge half the thickness of the first: it still wouldn't fit. He then grabbed the next feeler gauge half that size: it still wouldn't fit. After four different tries, Van Dyne finally found the feeler gauge that fit. The side clearance was approximately 1/4 the size of industry expected clearance. The clearance was the thickness of two human hairs. Without hesitation, Van Dyne grabbed our spare set of Carrillo rods that had been in the motor previously. He grabbed them as if he expected to find evidence of possible damage. Within a split second, Van Dyne pointed to the side of the Carrillo rod and said: See that tiny blue spot? That's caused by heat from these two rods rubbing together because they are so tight. See that scrape mark? That's also caused by these two rods rubbing together.As Van Dyne (and kawasaki00) explained, proper rod side clearance is essential to allow oil to escape. As the engine heats up, the connecting rods grow and the crankshaft shrinks until the connecting rods are touching each other. The oil can't escape, and extra heat is generated by the friction of the connecting rod collisions. The side of the crankshaft journal could also be damaged by the collisions as well. To me, the situation sounded pretty serious, and I thought it was going to mean another multi-week setback for the project. Van Dyne deemed the situation so serious that he asked if we could go 60-minutes across town and bring back a factory BMW crankshaft (ours was a billet "stroker" crankshaft) and some factory BMW connecting rods (we were working with two sets of Carrillos). Van Dyne wanted to measure the factory journal width, and factory connecting rod thickness to see if the stroker crankshaft or Carrillo connecting rods were to blame. Measuring Connecting Rod Side Clearance Almost in disbelief, Van Dyne started taking measurements. First he measured with a set of calipers. Then when he realized the measurement didn't lie, Van Dyne knew he had to take accurate measurements with micrometers so he could make the necessary calculations to fix the problem. To make sure the measurements are accurate, first the micrometers were calibrated to a known good thickness. Van Dyne then started to measure both crankshafts: our billet crankshaft, and the factory crankshaft. The journal thickness measurements both matched. Next, we need to check the connecting rods to see if the Carrillo's were machined thicker than factory rods. Following the crankshaft measurements, Van Dyne measured the connecting rods to see how they compared. Van Dyne measured both Carrillo and factory connecting rods. The measurements showed the Carrillo and factory connecting rods are the same thickness. This is positive proof that the factory BMW crankshafts are machined without enough rod side clearance AND without enough rod bearing clearance. It's a double-whammy against proper engine oiling and operation. Finally, Van Dyne set out to "fix" the clearance issue. I was relieved when Van Dyne said he could fix the issue immediately – as I feared project would suffer another long delay. Without hesitation, Van Dyne pulled out the bottle of DYKEM and started color coating one side of the connecting rods. This would be the side he planned to machine, and the DYKEM would serve as a visual reminder which connecting rods were finished, and which ones weren't. Van Dyne's machine shop was able to grind down each connecting rod to the exact specification he wanted. When he reassembled the bottom end a few hours later, the measurements all agreed. The rod side clearance issue was now fixed. What does this mean to you? To get second opinion of the seriousness of this issue, I emailed kawasaki00 and I shared the actual specs with him (I'm not sharing them here). I asked if this was a big issue or not. Without hesitation, kawasaki00 agreed with Van Dyne that this was indeed a big issue, and he thought I was lucky to have an engine shop capable enough to measure and fix this problem. As he said, we really dodged a bullet. I'm not an engine builder -- so I'll let kawasaki00 and BMRLVR chime in to answer questions on this topic. But I can put the pieces of the puzzle together and tell you what they mean to me. BMW gave you the thickness of two human hairs to let the oil squeeze out of the connecting rods. I don't think it takes an engine builder to realize that oil can't escape with side clearance that small. It makes me wonder how heated that trapped oil might get and how fast it might wear out my bearings -- bearings that already suffer from too little clearance of their own. Then with the connecting rods scraping against each other after they swell and the crankshaft shrinks, I can also see how metal shavings could get generated to destory the bearings and other engine components. Here's some photos of the micro "blue marks" and abrasive scuff marks left on my Carrillo connecting rods from the previous engine build with improper side clearance.
A few of the photos above are recreations because I didn't take actual photos of the calibration process, nor the actual scuff marks on the day of the engine build. I took those photos today to show what the process looks like. The scuff marks are the actual scuff marks on the same Carrillo connecting rods. Complete photo library on this issue: More photos are available at the following links. Instrument Calibration and Connecting Rod Measurements Side Play Clearance Measurements Side Play Clearance Adjustments Side Play Scuffing Evidence Mahle-Clevite White Paper on Bearing Clearance Issues This quote comes directly from a Mahle-Clevite white paper on bearing clearance, then I'll summarize at the end. For most applications .00075 to .0010” (three quarters to one thousandth of an inch) of clearance per inch of shaft diameter is a reasonable starting point.Here's what this means to you. If you run high horsepower and high RPM, then you need extra bearing clearance, not less of it. The coated bearings are great, but you have to size your journals for them; and as Alekshop mentioned in a previous thread, you shouldn't have coated parting lines. If you have coated parting lines you must remove the coating in this area before using these bearings. Mahle-Clevite recommends adding an extra 0.0005 for good measure for high horsepower, high RPM, and coated bearing applications. To see some numbers in real life, please see the following examples. Factory clearance: 0.00125 Factory clearance with Calico coated bearings: 0.00085 - 0.00105 (16-32% smaller). Factory clearance with TriArmor coated bearigns: 0.00075 - 0.00095 (24-40% smaller). Recommended clearance for mains (60mm journal): 0.00100/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00286 0.00075/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00182 Recommended clearance for rods (52mm journal): 0.00100/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00205 0.00075/inch + 0.0005 = 0.00153 So there you have it: ideal mains should be 0.0018 - 0.0029 and ideal rods should be 0.00153 - 0.00205. You're given 0.00125 clearance from the factory and some may be thinking of reducing it another 16-40% with coated bearings without sizing the journals because they believe it gives them extra protection. The extra protection is true if you kept all things the same including the bearing clearance; but reducing the bearing clearance by 16-40% to get the extra protection of the coating is not recommended. Some Photo Evidence of Oil Starvation Time to add some pictures to the discussion to see what a bearing looks like due to lack of clearance. The first few pictures come straight from Mahle-Clevite. Thanks to BMRLVR for posting the B&W version of the Clevite bearing failure guide. I found the color version of the same thing. It looks like the color version has better pictures, but the B&W version might have some better illustrations and explanations. So here's both versions for reference. B&W: http://www.wilmink.nl/Clevite/Clevit..._tech_info.pdf Color: http://catalog.mahleclevite.com/bearing Using the color bearing failure guide, see example #12 "Oil Starvation / Marginal Oil Film Thickness." The two pictures below come from this example. According to Mahle-Clevite, the number-one cause of failure of this type is too little oil clearance. Next, let's compare these reference photos to some actual S65 bearings from various engines. Where possible, the mileage and circumstances will be mentioned. These photos are all found in other threads on this forum. Engine-1: Modifications unknown, stock internals, Mileage: 24,000. Engine-2: Bone Stock, stock internals. Mileage: ~4,000 This bone stock engine suffered from main bearing failure. Notice the wear spot on the main bearing and the appearance of a channel the oil made to get around it. The connecting rod bearings aren't much better. Many of the connecting rod bearings show signs of excessive wear due to oil starvation (too little clearance). Engine-3: Upgraded internals, supercharged, Mileage: 24,000 Engine-4: Stock internals, supercharged, Mileage: 72,000 Engine-5: Stock internals, supercharged, Mileage: 90,000 The connection between these pictures and the reference Mahle-Clevite pictures is obvious. Even though there can always be multiple causes of oil starvation and bearing failure, the number one cause of the damage shown in these pictures is listed by Mahle-Clevite as too little bearing clearance. I have more photos that I will post in the Bearing Photo Database. I've got at least one set, maybe two sets of photos of broken (snapped) S65 connecting rods with the big end of the connecting rod turned blue due to excessive heat (oil starvation due possible bearing clearance). I hope these photos have been helpful to see with your own eyes what this problem looks like, and why it's happening. Last edited by regular guy; 06-19-2015 at 09:49 PM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
4
|
09-23-2013, 11:16 PM | #3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Confirming S65 Bearing Issue
Confirming the S65 Bearing Issue
For the next two years, word of the bearing clearance issue began to spread slowly, and understandably met some resistence. Since the 2011 discovery, many more engine failures have occurred, and many of them are on low mileage engines. Now that many engines are outside of warranty, the number of failures is beginning to accelerate on higher mileage engines. When bearings photos are posted, they seem to have all the same tell-tale signs seen in the photos above -- signs of oil starvation due to inadequate journal/bearing clearance. With a few upcoming engine builds in planning or already in process, I thought it would be a good idea to confirm the original 2011 findings. I would take two factory crankshafts, two sets of connecting rods, fresh factory bearings, and two sets of used bearings from disassembled engines. We would convene at Van Dyne Engineering and see if we could duplicate the results. Testing Methodology: Tests would be conducted in the Van Dyne engine clean room, at room temperatures (approximately 74 degrees). To ensure measurement consistency, all crankshafts, rods, and measuring equipment sat in this environment for two hours before any measurements were taken. Three micrometers were calibrated using a 2-inch x 1/2-inch calibration block. All three micrometers would test the same crankshaft journals. All micrometers confirmed the same measurements. Each measurement was taken three times each to eliminate any possible variance due to equipment position, angle, etc. Once the three micrometers each validated the crank journals, the rod bearing "bore gauge" was calibrated to the micrometer. Each rod and bearing combination was torqued to exact factory specifications with new rod bolts, and proper rod bolt lubrication. Each rod bore was measured and verified three times to eliminate possible variance. The Confirmed Results: We confirmed the following results with the used bearings (same bearings removed from the engine with the same crankshaft). Keep in mind, these are the exact bearings that came out of this engine. This is what the clearance measured on the running engine with 30,000 miles.
Notice Cylinder #3 and Cylinder #4. These two are at the opposite ends of the clearance spectrum. As a verification process, we swapped the bearings between these two rods, retorqued them to factory specifications, and took the measurements again. This would guarantee whether or not we had an anomaly with rod journal bore, or bearing thickness. Our measurements after swapping the bearings showed the same exact values and proved the rod bearing bore and not bearing thickness was causing these clearance variances. In our next test, we replaced the Cylinder #4 rod with a brand new factory bearing. We re-torqued and remeasured. Then using our measurements, generated this table of clearances as if all cylinders had new bearings.
Still using Crank #1, next we tested Carrillo connecting rods and another set of used bearings. This test is much less scientific than the previous one, but it provides a good cross reference to see if the Carrillo's have a similar bore size variance as the factory connecting rods. Since the Carrillo rod bolts are different, we made sure to follow the Carrillo torque specifications and use the exact thread/head lubricant they recommended.
For completeness and redundancy, here's the same measurements with Crankshaft #2.
Detonation vs. Bearing Wear: Could this be the cause? By Kawasaki00 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. Great Bearing Measurements of 2014 Preparation for clearance measurements I wanted the clearance measurements to be as controlled as possible. To me, this meant following the manufacturer’s specification and maintaining a proper and controlled temperature environment. Each bearing was installed in the rod and the rod bolts were properly stretched. The fitted rods were placed out on an open table along with the measuring equipment for two hours before measuring. The room temperatures were set to approximately 74-77 degrees Fahrenheit to match the conditions at Van Dyne Engineering during the original tests. (To be honest, I didn't have my portable weather gauge with me at Van Dyne during the original tests, so I'm only guestimating the original temperature.) I am hoping these procedures will gain uniformity between all of the temperatures, measurements, and measuring equipment. Selecting bearing pairs to match rod bearing bores I wanted to simulate the possible effects of tolerance stack up. So before beginning to assemble the rods and bearings, I had previously measured all of the rod bearing bores. These measurements were as follows:
To simulate the tolerance stack up, I wanted to select bearings as described below. Since it might not be possible to simulate all combinations, the following table describes my order of preference.
Using these criteria above, I came up with the following rod/bearing combinations.
Stretching rod bolts and installing bearings Both sets of bearings (702/703 and 088/089) were given new rod bolts so the tests would be as equal as possible. New S65 rod bolts must be stretched before use. The stretching procedure is very specific. You must torque and release two times prior to final torque and use. The following procedure is documented in the BMS TIS guide for building the S65 engine.
This procedure would normally require two different tools. First you would need to use the torque wrench to torque to 6 NM then 20 NM. Second you would need to change to the torque angle gauge. The pictures below show the procedure with a normal (albeit electronic) torque wrench + torque angle gauge. The normal procedure shown above is good, but is prone to minor errors. That type of torque angle gauge is can slip a little -- making the torque angle less accurate. This error happened to me repeatedly while stretching the rod bolts. So before the final rod bolt stretch, I decided it was time to upgrade my torque wrench anyways. I bought the all-in-one electronic Snapon ATECH3FR250B TECHANGLE torque wrench/torque angle gauge. This is a very nice torque wrench that is capable of switching between torque and torque angle. The electronics in the device make it possible to switch between units of torque at the press of a button (ft-lbs, in-lbs, Nm, dNm, Kcgm, and torque angle). The wrench supports different pre-sets too. So I was able to set the 20 Nm on one setting, then hit the button and switch to 130 degree torque angle. With this tool, there is no need to switch between two different devices. Before the final stretch, all the rod bolts were completely removed. Each bolt was re-oiled, and the rod bolt under-cap was re-oiled as well. This ensures no galling could take place and an accurate final setting. The vice is also fitted with hard rubber boots to prevent damage to the connecting rods when they are clamped in. Final Preparations I'm almost ready to begin measuring. There's just a few more things I need to do. I promised to provide eccentricity measurements, so I need to mark the connecting rods at 5, 45, 90, 135, and 175 degrees. Before measuring, I let all of the rods sit for two hours in the open air room temperature with thermostat set to ~76 degrees. The measuring equipment sits at the same location at the same temperatures. The Kestrel 4500 portable weather station is the small green device sitting on the lower left near rod #5 in the first photo, and upper left near rod #1 in the second photo. You see these on TV shows like Deadliest Catch. They are very nice and very accurate. This particular model will data log all environmental conditions and allows me to take individual snapshots in addition to a continuous data logs. Last but not least, after letting everything sit for a few hours, I re-measured the crankshaft journals. No surprises here, they measured exactly the same as before, although in a different order. By that I mean, the measurement spread was identical to before, but the measurements seemed to change order on the journals. When you're talking about measuring tenths (0.00010 inch) and half-tenths (0.00005 inch), I'm told this is quite normal. Just to make sure, I called Van Dyne for advice. Van Dyne told me: "If you try to understand it and don't ignore it, you'll never get anything done."
The Results: 088/089 Bearing Clearances Calibration and set up: ![]()
Official 088/089 Bearing Thickness and Clearance Specifications
Notes: (1) Includes previous measurement results from Van Dyne Engineering When comparing to the original Van Dyne measurements, there seem to be no surprises here. The crankshaft journals measured within the same ranges, as did the connecting rod + bearing assemblies. With the addition of the newer virgin 089 bearings, I have changed the "official" estimate of 0.00125 inch clearance to 0.00140 inch clearance. That's a 0.00015 inch increase over the previous nominal measurements. That increases the nominal clearance-to-journal/inch ratio from 0.00061 inch/inch to 0.00068 inch/inch, which is still lower than the minimum Clevite recommendation of 0.00075 inch/inch. 702/703 Bearing Clearances Calibration and set up: ![]()
Official 702/703 Bearing Thickness and Clearance Specifications
For me, there were no surprises here as well. Kawasaki00 had measured a full set of 702/703 rods with better equipment and detected a 0.00030 inch increase in clearance. The measurements above confirm that, and found a 0.00025 inch increase in clearance (effectively the same thing as kawasaki00's findings). Conclusions This was an enormous amount of work. I tried to be as meticulous as possible. I was willing to let the data show, what the data shows. There are some slight inconsistencies and deviations from the previous measurements, but those deviations are in the noise (0.00005 differences). All in all, everything turned out the same. Putting together the charts and tables is very time consuming work. There was a lot of cut-paste from one table to another. Even though I tried to cross reference very data entry with photos, it's very possible I made some mistakes here when I cut-paste some entries. If any such errors are found, please point them out and I will fix them. Last edited by regular guy; 04-04-2014 at 01:46 AM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
6
|
09-23-2013, 11:17 PM | #4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Proposed Solutions: VAC Bearings
Bearing Eccentricity
Article: Geometrical parameters of engine bearings Article: Hydrodynamic Bearings Article: Fundamentals of Fluid Film Journal Bearing Operation and Modeling I've got to be honest, I didn't know anything about bearing eccentricity when I created this thread, and I doubt I'll be able to add any insight into the subject. As I learned, the bearing is not round, it is slightly oval shaped. The bearing clearance is the smallest at 90 degrees to the parting line, and largest at the parting line. This ratio between the two is called "eccentricity" and as I understand it is designed to allow oil to escape and be replenished. If there is too little eccentricity, it would be harder for oil to esscape. If the oil doesn't escape then the trapped oil can become super heated and cause both bearing and connecting rod damage. This could be one explanation why connecting rods such as the ones below shows signs of super heating that lead to catastrophic failures. ![]() ![]() ![]() According to the first article above, these are values one could expect to measure for bearing eccentricity: For passenger cars: 0.0002 - 0.0008” For high performance cars: 0.0006 - 0.0012”The values above represent a fixed value, not a ratio of rod journal diameter or surface area. So to me, that spec above doesn't make sense. I would expect it to be more of a ratio of journal surface area instead of a fixed value. Regardless, the information above is valuable for our understanding. Where to measure According to the article above, I should measure eccentricity at 3/8 inch above the parting line for journals between 1.6 - 3.4 inch diameter. At first, this is not what I did. I had completed the measurements and I had already written 90% of this article and prepared 100% of the charts and graphs. But the perfectionist in me wouldn't let it go. The 702/703's were still installed in the rods, so I quickly took the measurements. The following night, I replaced the 702/703's with the 088/089's and took those measurements too. Marking and Measuring For this article, I had measured at 5, 45, 90, 135, and 175 degrees on 088/089 and 702/703 bearings. To capture the "official" eccentricity measurements according to the abovementioned article, I also measured at 20 and 160 degrees as well. Before taking any measurements, I did some quick calculations and marked the connecting rod locations as shown below. 088/089 Bearing Eccentricity (while measuring) 702/703 Bearing Eccentricity (while practicing) Data Results 088/089 Bearing Results Bearing Bore Measurements by Angle
Bearing Clearance Measurements by Angle
Complete 088/089 Bearing Specifications with Eccentricity
702/703Bearing Results Bearing Bore Measurements by Angle
Bearing Bore Measurements by Angle
Complete 702/703 Bearing Specifications with Eccentricity
Even in this manner, it's hard to get a feel for the data. So graphing is the only way to look at it to see what's really going on. Even though the charts and specifications all say there's a difference, just what does it look like on a graph? Graphs and Conclusions I created the graphcs as a scatter plot with a "best fit" polynomial line to follow the contour of the measurements. That's when the results really jumped out and you could visually see for the first time how these bearings have changed. Not only did the bearing clearance change between 088/089 and 702/703, but so did the eccentricity. The eccentricity didn't change by a little, it seems to have changed by a LOT! See for yourself. "Common" Eccentricity ![]() Conclusions and my $0.02 When I was asked to measure bearing eccentricity, I had no idea what I would find. I guess I presumed that 088/089 bearings would both follow the same guidelines and show the same eccentricity. Even when I was measuring and looking at the numbers, I was making that presumption and didn't notice any differences. It wasn't until I looked at the graph that it became very obvious that something radical had changed. The bearing eccentricity changed from 0.00085 inch on the 088/089 bearings to 0.00200 inch on the 702/703 bearings. That's a 2.5 times increase in eccentricity clearance which will allow the oil to escape the rods that much better. It wasn't too long ago that I thought there was only one bearing part number. But that proved wrong! Between the S85 and S65 lifespan there were a total of FOUR different bearing designs, but I believe only two of those ever saw production on the S65. The older designs are long gone and we'll never get a fresh set of those bearings to test and see how they differ from these (I already tried). After I discovered the new bearing designs (702/703's), I thought they shared the same dimensions as the originals (088/089's). But that proved wrong too. These new measurements proved that the 702/703 bearings changed material, clearance, and pretty radically changed eccentricity. By now I think I have a much clearer picture than when I started. Some will say (and have already said) that the 702/703 bearings changed dimensions because of the materials change. I've got to be honest, that sounds very compelling on the surface but there's one thing about it that really bugs me. Nobody has explained why the harder material would require extra clearance when 1) the bearing is never supposed to touch the journal, and 2) it would seem that it has less friction than the older lead/copper design. So to me, the dimensional changes of the new bearing weren't based on a simple materials change, but were much more deliberate. The S65 started production with 088/089 bearings. But something was wrong: relatively new engines were puking connecting rods. The clearances were too tight, the side clearance was too tight, the eccentricity was too tight, and the oil was too thick. As a result, it seems like tolerance stack up with a bad luck of the draw, and your engine might end up looking like the photos shown above. So BMW decided to do something about it. When BMW designed the newer 702/703 bearings to comply with lead-free regulations, they made changes. I believe they took steps to mitigate these problems. BMW increased the rod bearing clearance, and they increased the eccentricity by 250%. Those changes mean two of the four possible "trouble spots" I mentioned above have now been addressed. In August 2013, BMW-NA made a specification change to the oil allowed in the S85/S65. After five years of only allowing 10W60, BMW relaxed the specifications and is now allowing LL-01 approved 0W40, 5W30, and 5W40 weight oils. Three of the four potential trouble areas we identified in the S65 have now been addressed. The only thing that remains is the rod side clearance. With the help of some buddies down the road, I might be able to take measurements on a wide range of BMW S65 crankshafts to see if the rod side clearance has changed throughout the three different crankshafts manufactured for the S65. If that comes to pass, I'll be sure to post the results either way (changed side clearance or not). Van Dyne identified two of the four potential problems (journal clearance, rod side clearance), Kawasaki00 and BMWLVR were advocates for thinner oils, and we really kind of backed in to the eccentricity discussion and discovered a big change eccentricity clearances. Some will say it's all a coincidence. They are just as entitled to their opinion as I am mine. I don't think it's a coincidence. For whatever reason, BMW changed (coincidence or not), BMW had three years with old bearing; then three years with new bearings; then changed to allow thinner oils. Sure it may all be a coincidence, but to me, it seems like they were chasing something and were making incremental changes to mitigate what they saw as a problem. Blast away. VAC/Calico Coated Bearings One popular solution recently being discussed is use of the VAC/Calico coated bearings. Many engine builders frown upon the use of coated bearings because they add to the bearing thickness, and the coating wears quickly and unevenly. The Calico web site specifies the added thickness between 0.00020 - 0.00040 inch. For the S65 with a potential bearing clearance issue, this could be the wrong approach. On the flip side, hot rodders love them because they decrease the bearing surface friction. But until now, no data was available to know one way or the other. On my recent data gathering trip, Tom @ EAS was gracious enough to allow me to measure some VAC/Calico coated bearings he was installing on their shop/track car. I didn't measure all of the bearings; I only measured two. I also didn't have a chance to a proper clearance test on these bearings.. However I did measure the bearing thickness and compared it to a reference sample of factory bearing. Using the factory bearing as reference, it's easy to see whether or not the bearings are thicker, thinner, or relatively the same as factory. These are my measurements exactly as I wrote them down.
First thing to notice are the VAC Uppers are thinner than VAC Lowers. It looks very clearly like the bearing shells are reversed becaused the uppers are supposed to be thicker than the lowers. But in these sample measurements, the lowers were thicker than the uppers. This is why I concluded the bearings were mislabled. In the chart below, I corrected the measurements to correctly correspond with the BMW upper and lower bearing shells.
Next thing to notice are the bearings are indeed thicker than factory bearings. Using these two examples, the extra thickness ranges between 0.00020 - 0.00030 inch, exactly where Calico specifications say they should be. Even though I didn't have a chance to place these bearings into a connecting rod and measure the clearance, using these measurements above, it's fairly clear to see how the clearance would be affected. I know this isn't a scientific test as the measurements are a mere approximation. Once actual measurements become available, the data below will be replaced with actual clearance measurements.
Before leaving, I was able to talk to Tom and Steve at EAS. I told them my findings. At first I thought the bearings were relatively unchanged versus factory. But after closer inspection, I could clearly see they were approximately 0.00010 - 0.00015 thicker than stock. Add the two half bearings shells together and you get the exact Calico specification of 0.00020 - 0.00040 thickness of their coating. I also alerted Tom and Steve to what I believed were the mislabeled bearing shells: uppers marked as lowers, and visa versa. Therefore as one final test, we put one of the VAC/Calico bearings into a factory connecting rod I brought with me. We measured 0.00290 inch clearance, which is far larger than anything I measured before; in fact it's too large. I'm still perplexed by this result, but it may have been because we didn't have time to remove the coating from the parting lines on the bearing shells -- which I'm told will invalidate the results. So until I get a full set of VAC/Calico bearings to measure, the full set of VAC results are somewhat inconclusive. Thanks to Tom and Steve @ EAS for letting me take these measurements and share them with the community. Comparison between Virgin 702/703 bearings and Calico Coated bearings
Notes:
Last edited by regular guy; 04-04-2014 at 01:47 AM.. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
2
Assimilator1647.00 |
09-23-2013, 11:17 PM | #5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Proposed Solutions: WPC Treated Bearings
WPC Treated Bearings
Pictures show factory bearings (left) compared to WPC treated bearings (right). Here's a possible solution I haven't yet seen discussed. The idea was first pitched to me by Auto Talent in Los Angeles. I forgot all about that, but then re-pitched by m3post user 'e92zero.' WPC has a micro shot peening process that they say reduces friction without changing dimensions of the treated surface. WPC uses this treatment on many surfaces including engine bearings. It's hard to imagine engine bearing thickness wouldn't be affected by the WPC treatment because we're looking at clearances in the ten-thousandths of an inch. E92Zero proposed to send my reference bearings to WPC for treatment then let me take proper measurements when they returned. But as pure luck would have it, Auto Talent had already sent out a complete set of bearings for the WPC treatment and they arrived while I was in the area collecting all of the data for this article. While on my way to EAS to measure the VAC coated bearings, Auto Talent was gracious enough to allow to measure two sets of bearing shells (two uppers, two lowers). I documented and photographed the results as follows:
Just as I had hoped, the bearings were thinner than stock. After collecting the measurements, Auto Talent allowed me to take the same two specimens to Van Dyne Engineering for our much more thorough bearing measurement tests. While at Van Dyne Engineering, we put the WPC coated bearings in our factory connecting rods to obtain proper clearance measurements. I torqued the WPC treated bearings into two factory connecting rods to obtain the data listed below.
Thanks to Sam and Zolti @ Auto Talent for letting me take these measurements and share them with the community. And another shout out to e92zero for bringing the WPC treatment back to my attention. Last edited by regular guy; 09-24-2013 at 02:31 AM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
3
DrFerry7427.50 Assimilator1647.00 |
09-23-2013, 11:18 PM | #6 |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Proposed Solutions: Thinner Oil
Proposed Solutions: Thinner Oil
I'll be first to tell you that I'm not an oil expert, but I'm very impressed with the information that kawasaki00 and BMRLVR have contributed to this discussion. I'll try to collect some of their best posts and weave it into a cohesive discussion. I am looking at the Rotella T6 for my car on the next oil change. The T6 must be a stout oil since it has the JASO MA rating on the back...... Not many passenger car/ diesel engine oils meet motorcycle certifications which is a testament to the base stock it is blended from. Motorcycles throw a whole different curve at oils since they have to deal with lubricating a transmission and a wet clutch as well as an engine that can spin upwards of 15000RPM......... But judging by your username I don't need to tell you anything about motorcycles! -- BMRLVR You are correct on the rotella in the motorcycles, along with my full-time job I also raced a zx-10r for a couple years. There have been some complaints over the last year or so about the t6 though, some of the high power bikes are having a touch of clutch chatter. The zinc and phosphorous levels have dropped from 1600 to about 13-1400 in the new t6. For engine bearings, flat tappet cams and the like that number is still plenty high. The tws oil is about 16-1700 on zinc numbers. BUT although it is higher that doesn't mean it is superior. Mobil 1 racing 4t is being sold as a motorcycle oil but it is really a normal engine oil with about 1500ppm of zinc and phosphorous. The problem is that it is a 10-30 so not really picking up much as far as our clearance problem. -- kawasaki00 Ok, then someone edumacate me. 10w-60 means SAE viscosity of "10" when cold, right? and "60" when at temp, right? soooo, what am I doing wrong here? -- Transfer http://www.upmpg.com/tech_articles/motoroil_viscosity/ According to the lubrication system schematic for the S65 on BMW TIS it appears as though the engine uses a pressure compensated variable displacement main oil pump. (There is a signal passage off of the main oil gallery in the schematic which is shown as a dotted line...... In my industry, heavy equipment, dotted lines almost always symbolize signal oil in hydraulic schematics). The fact that the pump is variable flow (variable displacement) it would lead me to believe that pump volume should not be an issue in the S65. Variable displacement pumps are used to ensure that max pump volume is available regardless of engine speed. To me this is great news for any of us looking to run additional clearance or lighter oil. This also helps to explain why VCM power claims that the pressure stays constant from 2000RPM on up to redline........ with a pressure compensated pump pressure can remain nearly constant and the system will never have to go over relief except in the event of a system malfunction. -- BMRLVR The 0w50 is a fantastic oil. The reason I dont bring it up is you need to be catless and be prepared to replace o2 sensors much quicker than normal. Although for most if the car has a supercharger on it they are not worried about a couple hundred bucks for sensors. The German castrol 0w30 is almost a 40 wt. however it is not a sn oil. The new belgium castrol 0w40 is really good and is a sn. The mobil 1 0w40 is the best of the bunch really. It is the heaviest of the 40 wt oils I have tested. I checked the 5w50 castrol has and it is higher in zinc but it will shear quickly to a 40 wt. From what I have gathered from some other tests is that the mobil is better hot and thicker with higher viscosity index but is still thinner cold. Really better all around. Only question is do we have enough oil pressure to run the 0-40. But, I know a couple guys already running it so I am going to put a gauge in the car. I have asked on a couple occasions for a pressure graph to be posted but no one wants to do it. So I am working on it. kawasaki00, One would more than likely see a pressure drop if that happens. Most gauges really dont react fast enough to see these drops in pressure. A logging system with a 100hz record rate might pick it up. Thank you for all of your contributions. Any opinions on Red Line Synthetic Oil and which would you recommend based upon "their" techincal properties? I've listed their 10W60 as well:BMRLVR, Kawasaki00, and others, I'm sure I missed many important posts of yours. If there's some more relevant posts, then please send me links and I'll add them to the discussion (or feel free to add them yourselves). Thanks to all the oil experts. Last edited by regular guy; 11-26-2013 at 02:02 AM.. |
Appreciate
2
DrFerry7427.50 |
09-23-2013, 11:18 PM | #7 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Crankshaft Machining
S65/S85 Bearing History:
Quote:
Quote:
Got a lot more information. There have apparently been three different S65 crankshafts, and two sets of connecting rods. Maybe somebody with better BMW connections (hint, hint, Tom@EAS) can fill in the blanks. You will be surprised, I even found +.001 bearings and they are currently available! Since I posted this, I ordered and received samples of each of these rod bearings including the oversized bearings. Yesterday, I measured and photographed all of the rod bearings. Rod Bearings: 11 24 7 838 089 Blue, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07890" Thick, Ended 11 24 7 841 703 Blue, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07890" Thick, Replacement for 089 bearing 11 24 7 838 091 Blue, 52.750 mm, +0.250 mm, 0.08370" Thick, Currently available 11 24 7 838 088 Red, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07875" Thick, Ended 11 24 7 841 702 Red, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07875" Thick, Replacement for 088 bearing 11 24 7 838 090 Red, 52.750 mm, +0.250 mm, 0.08370" Thick, Currently available Here's a photo of the old and new bearings side-by-side with part numbers shown. As seen in the photo, the bearing surfaces are quite different. More Photos Here. S65/S85 Bearing Hardness Issues: From Kawasaki00: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=246 Regular Guy was gratious enough to send me bearings to look at and measure and hardness test. What has been observed is the original 088/089 bearings are a copper/lead content while the 702/703 bearings are of an aluminized tin/silicon compound. Measurements with my mic are as follows, I am in no way saying what is right or wrong but there is always a tenth or two between different people, just because I measure one way is not to say another measurement is incorrect. What matters is the same guy measuring the crank and the clearance for the final outcome. 088 .07875 089 .07885 091 .0837 090 .0836 702 .07855 703 .07875 Measurements are pretty much in line with what others have documented up until they get polished. What is a MASSIVE change is the hardness of the bearings. I will not get into the difference of what is right or wrong here but just know the new 702/703 bearings are a huge jump in hardness The average hardness for the 088/089 bearings are the same at 16.2B Scale The average hardness for the 702-703 bearings are the same at 61.8B Scale This puts to rest the theory that one bearing is harder than the other relative to the old vs new ones. We can work bearings to get a few tenths when needed at our shop. The big one here is not only are we gaining on the average .0002-.0003 by going to the 702/703 but we are also gaining .0003 more by our polishing method. In essence a rod that was .001 clearance before with 088-089 can now be installed with the newer polished bearings and be AROUND .0016. Bearings that were in at .0013 should be able to get to .0019. It is not the end all be all but it will help. Also remember I have one smaple of each bearing. From our experience ther can be +-.0001 from shell to shell. Not every bearing will turn out the same as these measurements. Here are some pics for comparison. I did not do pictures of the before polishing sizes, they were measured but not photographed. ---- I have noticed this before also. The last time I changed the tws I only had 3k miles on it and it came out very black and smelled really bad. Couple thoughts I have are it is the high Ester package in the oil that breaks down pretty quick and turns black or maybe there is more to the rod side clearance thing and it really is baking the oil inside the rod bearings. The evidence is all over the place that they are cavitating. I am still looking into it. Here is a little teaser pic of a rod bearing I have been working on...I have multiple bearings that I am hardness testing and doing some processes that we do to our race bearings. Last edited by regular guy; 01-15-2014 at 04:00 PM.. |
||
Appreciate
2
DrFerry7427.50 |
09-23-2013, 11:19 PM | #8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Bearing Photo Database
S65, 4000 Miles, Bone Stock, 2009. More Photos
Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 03-Mild Description: When this engine opened to build stroker, main bearing failure was imminent. S65, 24000 Miles, Naturally Aspirated, 2009 More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 06-Med-Heavy Description: No other details given. ![]() S65, 24000 Miles, Supercharged, Built Internals, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 04-Moderate Description: Supercharged Stroker motor with built internals. 22000 miles NA, 2000 mile supercharged. NOTE: This engine has aftermarket crank, rods, and pistons. They are different designs from stock, have different mass and moments of inertia, possibly different materials, different manufacturing process, different tolerances, and different fasteners. Each of these key difference contribute to the overall stiffness in the connecting rod bore holding the bearing and may affect the observed bearing wear in the following photos. 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, 40000 Miles, Bone Stock, 2008. More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 09-Catastrophic Description: This engine suffered complete engine failure. No holes in the block, but all internals caked in metal shavings. 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, 72000 Miles, Supercharged, 2008 More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 06-Med-Heavy Description: Owner opted for rod bearing replacement at 72000 Miles during Supercharger Upgrade. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() S65, 90000 Miles, Supercharged, 2008 More Photos Factory Bearings: 088/089 Category: 06-Moderate Description: Owner opted for rod bearing replacement at 90000 Miles during Supercharger Upgrade. 1000 Miles later, oil line burst and motor suffered severe, but non-fatal damage. ![]() 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
Last edited by regular guy; 01-13-2014 at 10:16 PM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
2
Assimilator1647.00 |
09-23-2013, 11:19 PM | #9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Related Articles & Threads
Here's the latest BMW oil recommendations per engine. This data was downloaded from BMW ISTA program, database: December 2013. This is about as recent as it gets. I omitted diesel engine oils from the list.
The S65/S85 conundrum still exists. The S85 recommends LL-04 light weight break in oil for the first 2000 Km, but the S65 has no such recommendation. Enclosure 3 to SI 11 07 96 (138) 3.1 Specified engine oils for BMW Group engines 3.2 Specified engine oils for petrol engines:
Notes:
Enclosure 4 to SI 11 07 96 (138) 4.1 ”Longlife-04” Approved for the following BMW engines: Please refer to Enclosure 3. Longlife‐-04 oils are only approved for petrol engines in Europe (EU plus Switzerland, Norway and Liechtenstein). They must not be used outside this area as problems are often encountered with fuel grade. 4.2 Longlife‐-04 engine oils available from BMW Parts: Longlife-04 engine oil SAE 0W-40 ![]() Longlife-04 engine oil SAE 5W-30 ![]() 4.3 Names of approved Longlife-04 oils:
Enclosure 5 to SI 11 07 96 (138) 5.1 ”Longlife-01” Approved for the following BMW engines: Please refer to Enclosure 3. 5.2 BMW Longlife-01 oils available from BMW Parts: BMW Quality Longlife-01 SAE 0W-40 (fully synthetic) ACEA: A3/B3, EC II ![]() MINI Quality Longlife-01 SAE 5W-30 (fully synthetic) ACEA: A3/B3, EC II ![]() Note: Discontinued from Parts Catalogue. Superseded by Longlife‐-04 SAE 5W-30 5.3 Names of approved Longlife-01 oils:
Links on m5board complements of jcolley: Quote:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=906732 Last edited by regular guy; 01-24-2014 at 09:44 PM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appreciate
4
|
09-24-2013, 01:16 AM | #12 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
Done for the night. Engine and Clearance Specifications Historical Background of S65 Bearing Issue Discovering S65 Bearing Issue Confirming S65 Bearing Issue Proposed Solutions: VAC/Calico Coated Bearings Proposed Solutions: WPC Treated Bearings Still to come: Clevite White Paper Proposed solutions: Thinner Oil Proposed solutions: Crankshaft Machining Bearing Photo Database Related Threads Last edited by regular guy; 09-24-2013 at 02:21 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
1
DrFerry7427.50 |
09-24-2013, 02:23 AM | #13 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 215
Rep 874
Posts |
Quote:
Thank you so much so much for taking the time to gather, record all the info and letting us all know. ![]() Last edited by e92zero; 09-24-2013 at 02:31 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-24-2013, 02:36 AM | #14 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 479
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
1
DrFerry7427.50 |
09-24-2013, 03:47 AM | #15 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 922
Rep 9,032
Posts |
Amazing thread.
Leave it to AutoTalent to be up on this stuff. ![]() .
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
![]() |
Appreciate
0
|
09-24-2013, 04:44 AM | #16 |
First Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 7
Rep 311
Posts |
How does the size between the parting lines compare to a regular lower revving BMW motor such as an M54?
The S65 shells only give a .0016" clearance across the smallest point ie 90 degrees to part line. The clearance across the part line is at least .002" greater, thus giving an oval bore with .0035" - .004"clearance at the widest point. From this I'm assuming that BMW did some stress analysis at 8,400rpm and found the rod bore stretched by .001". This would mean the bearing bore would be perfectly round at 8,400rpm resulting in a clearance of approx .0025" all around the bearing? Last edited by Yellow Snow; 09-24-2013 at 05:43 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-24-2013, 04:53 AM | #17 |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 915
Rep 3,255
Posts |
Awesome thread! Thank you for putting it up.
__________________
Current Mods:
2004 E46 M3cs JB/CSL 2010 E70 X5M AW/BLACK 2011 VW Golf R DSG White/Black IG: @060Motorsports |
Appreciate
0
|
09-24-2013, 04:59 AM | #18 |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 30
Rep 1,789
Posts |
Excellent write up! Thank you for taking the time.
I was a little confused on why the WPC treatment would be thinner since it sounded like a coating at first, but after a quick google search it makes sense. Looking forward to the rest. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-24-2013, 06:56 AM | #19 | |
Colonel
![]() ![]() 288
Rep 2,673
Posts
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|