BMW (finally) publishes S65 Rod Bearing Clearance Specs

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by DrFerry

What is the source of information posted by Paul Gros? Sorry for not reading his entire thread. Not that it matters, but over the last 14 years of contributing to this forum I developed quite a negative view of the U.K. based m3cutters forum (and some of its members) especially with regard to the entire S65 rod bearing saga. Paging "Green-Eggs".

Here's the full post

OK, so my favour bank is well and truly empty..... But I have factual information on the S65 rod bearings from the original drawing.

Firstly the original bearings are NOT Clevite. They were 100% produced in Trento, Italy by MAHLE / Glacier Vandervell (MAHLE acquired them in around 2007). Previously DANA owned Glacier Vandervell as well as Clevite. The OE bearings are marked with the CL marking as well as 113- this does not indicate Clevite manufacture, but the internal material code CL113. At this time my understanding is all DANA material codes started CL. If there are any doubts on this information I can also confirm the original drawing is in 100% Italian with no English. For obvious reasons I cannot share the drawing, but I have attached a screengrabs showing the material code / bearing markings and you can see the drawing is in Italian. Note this drawing will NOT be shared, so please retrain from asking

The original bearings were manufactured in 2 grades (blue & red), which is normal for OE bearings. Running the data on housing size, crank size and all possibilities of bearing grade being used gives the following information:

mean clearance was 0.046mm and the grading scheme allowed a total range of 0.029/0.062mm

In reality I would not expect the engines to have left the factory with both thicker grades if the clearance was at the lower end of the range - but this is an assumption on my part

Hopefully this will help end (or fuel!) the debate on these bearings

[Assimilator1]

Originally Posted by Adam M

I started the initial discussion thread over on m3cutters and after a private email conversation with paulgros, I found myself hanging on his every word. His engineering and specifically bearing knowledge is almost encyclopedic.

The key point is that the numbers that started this thread are definitely the correct ones for con rod play and con rod play is very much not the same as clearance.

It seems that a lot of people have been taken in by an incorrect assumption.

The oem nominal clearance is certainly bigger than is being touted here. Main reason for UK skepticism is the disproportionate number of failures you have had compared with us. It suggests there’s something else going on, other than just slightly lower than normal rod bearing clearance.

Hi Adam
As I mentioned in the m3cutters thread, MaximumBob's claim that there are more engine failures in the US than the UK, is, so far, unfounded.
He has not produced any numbers to substantiate that idea, again, so far. [belated edit] On the 4th MaximumBob did actually post some data on this (see here). Interestingly it's a slightly updated version of the list started by SeniorFunkyPants here in 2014, last updated 2015.
Although this is some supporting data to his theory, a major problem with this dataset is that most people posting here and thus of engine failures are from the US, so the data is inevitably skewed towards US engine failures.

Even were he to, that doesn't change the fact that nearly every single OEM lead/copper bearing removed is knackered to some degree, this seems to be routinely 'forgotten' over at m3cutters for some reason.
Even the later tin/alu/copper bearings are routinely pulled out showing some excessive level of wear (even though, so far, none seemed to have gone through the babbitt).

Originally Posted by DrFerry

What is the source of information posted by Paul Gros? Sorry for not reading his entire thread. Not that it matters, but over the last 14 years of contributing to this forum I developed quite a negative view of the U.K. based m3cutters forum (and some of its members) especially with regard to the entire S65 rod bearing saga. Paging "Green-Eggs".

His post (my 2nd link earlier) and above, only takes a few minutes to read .
Btw those clearance numbers from BE wiki are measured clearances from an unknown(?) number of shells, but even if it were a couple of dozen, it still wouldn't have told us what BMW's target/nominal clearances are.

Originally Posted by 2226cc

Interesting to see the difference in chosen oil thickness, I’m running a high quality 5w40 in my s65 and really curious how the bearing will look, probably doing them next winter

What bearings have you got? And have those bearings been running 5/40 since new? If not you'll have no idea whether that oil has had any bearing (no pun intended!) on their condition.

[2226cc]

What bearings have you got? And have those bearings been running 5/40 since new? If not you'll have no idea whether that oil has had any bearing (no pun intended!) on their condition.

Replaced all my bearings over 5 years ago with the bmw ones and have been running 5w40 since.

Interesting to see Hondas F20 is running on 5w30 without bearings issue and S65 10w60 with bearing problems. Them having the same clearances makes me curious about mine in the 5w40

[e92dud]

Originally Posted by 2226cc

Replaced all my bearings over 5 years ago with the bmw ones and have been running 5w40 since.

Interesting to see Hondas F20 is running on 5w30 without bearings issue and S65 10w60 with bearing problems. Them having the same clearances makes me curious about mine in the 5w40

The check engine light doesn’t come on?

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Hi Adam
As I mentioned in the m3cutters thread, MaximumBob's claim that there are more engine failures in the US than the UK, is, so far, unfounded.
He has not produced any numbers to substantiate that idea, again, so far.
Even were he to, that doesn't change the fact that nearly every single OEM lead/copper bearing removed is knackered to some degree, this seems to be routinely 'forgotten' over at m3cutters for some reason.
Even the later tin/alu/copper bearings are routinely pulled out showing some excessive level of wear (even though, so far, none seemed to have gone through the babbitt).



His post (my 2nd link earlier) and above, only takes a few minutes to read .
Btw those clearance numbers from BE wiki are measured clearances from an unknown(?) number of shells, but even if it were a couple of dozen, it still wouldn't have told us what BMW's target/nominal clearances are.



What bearings have you got? And have those bearings been running 5/40 since new? If not you'll have no idea whether that oil has had any bearing (no pun intended!) on their condition.

Maximum Bob used to be here. He had a few different screen names. Each one would get banned. He was possibly the most dishonest person that we ever encountered in the bearing wiki thread discussion. It's odd that he's still peddling that theory about the US having more failures than the UK. That was resoundingly disproven in the bearing wiki thread by comparing the number of failures in both places on a per-capita basis. As soon as one of his theories would get disproven, he would invent a new theory, then we'd have to show him why that one was false as well. He once tried to disprove the bearing clearance problem with his own car. He got an oil analysis done, stored it in his cloud without protecting it...where others downloaded it and took a look. His oil analysis showed the second highest copper in oil on record. But instead of posting it and standing on his beliefs, he traded in his M3 for a new F series almost immediately. If he's watching this thread, he'll invent a new screen name and join the discussion. He's the sole reason we don't participate on M3Cutters any longer; it wasn't worth the trouble.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by DrFerry

What is the source of information posted by Paul Gros? Sorry for not reading his entire thread. Not that it matters, but over the last 14 years of contributing to this forum I developed quite a negative view of the U.K. based m3cutters forum (and some of its members) especially with regard to the entire S65 rod bearing saga. Paging "Green-Eggs".

Bert met Paul in the UK back in May, '23. I would completely trust his information here. When I compare his numbers to the BE Wiki measured numbers, they are surprisingly close; only about 3/10ths off at any given point. As others have said, the theoretical numbers that were derived from TIS, might be a different clearance that was mistakenly used here. Sometimes the TIS specs are not worded very well and it leave something to the imagination to know what it is. That might have happened here.

[charliev68]

Originally Posted by PaulGros

Here's the full post

OK, so my favour bank is well and truly empty..... But I have factual information on the S65 rod bearings from the original drawing.

Firstly the original bearings are NOT Clevite. They were 100% produced in Trento, Italy by MAHLE / Glacier Vandervell (MAHLE acquired them in around 2007). Previously DANA owned Glacier Vandervell as well as Clevite. The OE bearings are marked with the CL marking as well as 113- this does not indicate Clevite manufacture, but the internal material code CL113. At this time my understanding is all DANA material codes started CL. If there are any doubts on this information I can also confirm the original drawing is in 100% Italian with no English. For obvious reasons I cannot share the drawing, but I have attached a screengrabs showing the material code / bearing markings and you can see the drawing is in Italian. Note this drawing will NOT be shared, so please retrain from asking

The original bearings were manufactured in 2 grades (blue & red), which is normal for OE bearings. Running the data on housing size, crank size and all possibilities of bearing grade being used gives the following information:

mean clearance was 0.046mm and the grading scheme allowed a total range of 0.029/0.062mm

In reality I would not expect the engines to have left the factory with both thicker grades if the clearance was at the lower end of the range - but this is an assumption on my part

Hopefully this will help end (or fuel!) the debate on these bearings

Attachment 3379158

Attachment 3379159

BMW bearings are Glyco

“So there are two camps:

Federal Mogul, which owns Glyco and Goetze and Fel-Pro.

Mahle, which owns Clevite, Vandervell, Victor Reinz.”

[2226cc]

Originally Posted by e92dud

The check engine light doesn’t come on?

Excuse me?

[Assimilator1]

Yea I wondered why he asked that, I'm curious.
I wouldn't have thought it would illuminate the EML, unless there was a severe drop in oil pressure!

Green-Eggs
That was resoundingly disproven in the bearing wiki thread by comparing the number of failures in both places on a per-capita basis.
Can you remember where that is?

Also, does the bearing wiki say anywhere how many OEM bearing sets were measured? I couldn't see that anywhere.
"Supporting measurements" list 12 engines, is that how many OEM bearing sets were measured? If so, how many of each type?

[e92dud]

Originally Posted by 2226cc

Excuse me?

The previous owner of my car had the oil changed with 5w-30 and the check engine light came on the next day according to him. Had them put the oem in it and it went off.

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by charliev68

BMW bearings are Glyco

“So there are two camps:

Federal Mogul, which owns Glyco and Goetze and Fel-Pro.

Mahle, which owns Clevite, Vandervell, Victor Reinz.”

The later lead free BMW bearings are indeed Glyco, the early type bearings were Glacier Vandervell. These were superceded to the lead free versions.

MAHLE don't own Victor Reinz. They used to use the brand under license for the US market only. Victor Reinz is still owned by Dana

[charliev68]

Originally Posted by PaulGros

The later lead free BMW bearings are indeed Glyco, the early type bearings were Glacier Vandervell. These were superceded to the lead free versions.

MAHLE don't own Victor Reinz. They used to use the brand under license for the US market only. Victor Reinz is still owned by Dana

I don’t know, but the picture is from a MY2010

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by charliev68

I don’t know, but the picture is from a MY2010

Around 2010 was the change date from memory. EU mandate banned lead in car production from, I think, 2011.

After this date all OEM / OES bearings were the Glyco lead free parts which superceded the earlier Glacier Vandervell parts containing lead.

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by PaulGros

Around 2010 was the change date from memory. EU mandate banned lead in car production from, I think, 2011.

After this date all OEM / OES bearings were the Glyco lead free parts which superceded the earlier Glacier Vandervell parts containing lead.

Thank again Paul. And to your knowledge also the 2nd version shell is based on the same/initial design?

[charliev68]

Glyco has been supplying BMW since the E30 m20 engines. It’s seems funny that they would go from Glyco to Glacier then back to Glyco. I have never seen anything other than Glyco come out of a OEM BMW. I could be wrong

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Yea I wondered why he asked that, I'm curious.
I wouldn't have thought it would illuminate the EML, unless there was a severe drop in oil pressure!

Green-Eggs
That was resoundingly disproven in the bearing wiki thread by comparing the number of failures in both places on a per-capita basis.
Can you remember where that is?

Also, does the bearing wiki say anywhere how many OEM bearing sets were measured? I couldn't see that anywhere.
"Supporting measurements" list 12 engines, is that how many OEM bearing sets were measured? If so, how many of each type?

The S65 Bearing wiki is thousands of posts. The discussion about locality-based failures is in there somewhere. Of, it could be in one of the many offshoot threads. So, I'm sorry, but don't have a link to the exact place.

At the time the S65 bearing wiki was created, BMW had already switched to Glyco, I think a few years back. Finding any virgin 088/089 shells was nearly impossible. We found one set left in BMW inventory, and it took phone calls up the chain of command for them to search and find them. So these measurements represent a single set. The 702/703 measurements come from a single set as well. Many people forget this, and get reminded when they claim that Bert "proved" the newer shells have extra clearance. That clearly was not the case.

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Maximum Bob used to be here. He had a few different screen names. Each one would get banned. He was possibly the most dishonest person that we ever encountered in the bearing wiki thread discussion. It's odd that he's still peddling that theory about the US having more failures than the UK. That was resoundingly disproven in the bearing wiki thread by comparing the number of failures in both places on a per-capita basis. As soon as one of his theories would get disproven, he would invent a new theory, then we'd have to show him why that one was false as well. He once tried to disprove the bearing clearance problem with his own car. He got an oil analysis done, stored it in his cloud without protecting it...where others downloaded it and took a look. His oil analysis showed the second highest copper in oil on record. But instead of posting it and standing on his beliefs, he traded in his M3 for a new F series almost immediately. If he's watching this thread, he'll invent a new screen name and join the discussion. He's the sole reason we don't participate on M3Cutters any longer; it wasn't worth the trouble.

Too funny....green eggs is such an inveterate liar.
My 2009 E92 M3 oil test results from Blackstone were posted in the Oil analysis thread (post#136) on 10-24-2013 where I inferred that it was one of the highest copper content recorded to date.
I kept my 2009 M3 for another year and then traded it in with ~60k miles for a 2013 E92 M3 with 3k miles.
I traded the 2013 E92 M3 in 2017 for an F82 M4 (a very disappointing car).

So now we finally have the official original BMW E9x M3 OEM RB mean clearance taken from the original drawings held by Mahle of 0.046 mm.
Not to be confused with side clearance obviously...as some clown did above. Lol.
An RB clearance that looks remarkably similar to the clearance quoted for a large number of other BMW engine in the wiki.
AFAIK none of which have suffered the same catastrophic RB wear.
What now for the tight bearing house of cards?...much obfuscation and deflection I would imagine.

On UK engine failures:
There continue to be very few UK engine failures as a function of productions numbers..not per capita as that would just be stupid.
What is the total number of USA engine failures at the moment...must be in the many hundreds by now.

On usernames...
You:
Pencil geek..banned
Regular guy...banned
OM VT3...shill username used to discredit other bearing suppliers
Green Eggs...hilariously pretending not to be part of BE bearings.

I can't believe I've been sucked back into this nonsense.

[DrFerry]

Why would Honda spec a 5W30 oil viscosity for their S2000 and BMW spec a 10W60 oil viscosity for the S65 E9X M3 when the rod bearing clearances are similar?

>>>
The Honda S2000
Honda S2000 (F22C1)
Engine capacity - 2 ltr
Engine power - 237 hp
Hp/ltr - 118.5
Redline - 8000 RPM
Preferred oil spec - 5w30
Rod bearing clearance variance - 0.02-0.06mm
Crankshaft pin/rod journal diameter - 49.988mm
Clearance to Journal Size Ratio - 0.008mm

S65 specs
Engine capacity - 4 lts
Engine power - 414 bhp
Bhp/ltr - 103.5
Redline - 8300 RPM
Spec'd oil - 10w60
Nominal rod bearing clearance - 0.0381mm (0.00150")
Rod bearing clearance variance - 0.0292 - 0.0508 mm (from BE's S65 wiki for the later Alu/tin shells, which apparently have a slightly higher minimum)
Crankshaft pin/rod journal diameter - 51.9786-51.9887 mm (official specs posted in the S65 wiki)
Clearance to Journal Size Ratio - 0.0007mm

Source Assimilator1 's thread:
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1827360

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by charliev68

Glyco has been supplying BMW since the E30 m20 engines. It’s seems funny that they would go from Glyco to Glacier then back to Glyco. I have never seen anything other than Glyco come out of a OEM BMW. I could be wrong

You are correct, Glyco has been supplying BMW bearings for many years. So has Kolbenschmidt, Glacier Vandervell and latterly MAHLE.

All early S65 bearings marked CL 113 (which is assumed incorrectly to be Clevite) were manufactured by Glacier Vandervell (now owned by MAHLE) in Trento, Italy.

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Thank again Paul. And to your knowledge also the 2nd version shell is based on the same/initial design?

Unfortunately I have no information on the Glyco bearings and no way of "acquiring" it either. I would expect that Glyco would design a new part based on their own data and not "copy" another bearing design. I've never known that to happen at OE level.

[Richbot]

Where did BMW get the cocaine they used when they wrote the specs

christ

[DrFerry]

What is the third commandment?