BE bearing review?

[Logodude]

Sorry if the subject is misleading. Wasn't sure what to put.

I see several people doing preventive rod bearing maintenance and posting pics of OEM bearings after replacing them after xx,xxx miles. They typically show excessive wearing even after multiple OEM bearing replacements. I see the majority of people doing this approx. 30-50k (I know some people replace outside this threshold) and the next sets typically look the same as the original ones.

So I'm looking for people that have installed the BE bearings and later taken them out to inspect and post there findings after a good amount of miles. I want to know if these bearing show the same wear characteristics of oil starvation. They claim to fix this issue and I'm looking for evidence to back it up. (If it exists.

I searched around and didn't find what I was looking for so if you know where to find it, please direct me towards it.

[jamba]

subscribed

[pbonsalb]

Come back in a few years when people are replacing bearings a second time as preventative maintenance. Only a few track cars or broken motor cara have been taken part again at this point. MFL seems to have taken apart the most, uses VAC bearings and reports good results.

I am at 20k on wpc treated stock bearings. Ill probably replace again in another 20k to be safe. Its too big of a job to do just for curiosity or to inspect but not replace.

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Come back in a few years when people are replacing bearings a second time as preventative maintenance.

+1 ... early days!

[admranger]

Doc Oc had VAC bearings in his motor when it grenaded. The VAC bearings had 19k miles on them and were flawless. Similar clearances between the BE Bearings and VAC bearings iirc.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by admranger

Doc Oc had VAC bearings in his motor when it grenaded. The VAC bearings had 19k miles on them and were flawless. Similar clearances between the BE Bearings and VAC bearings iirc.

Not quite. VAC bearings were originally advertised as same clearance as stock until they were measures and found VAC was incorrect. Not sure why VAC didn't know the specs of their own bearings and needed people to buy and measure on their own before changing their advertising.

Regardless, VAC bearings are a small bit more clearance than stock. They are closer to stock than closer to BE Bearings. So I'd say no, they're not similar clearance to BE but similar to stock.

Measurements of both appear at the BE Bearings wiki page.

[squartus]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Not quite. VAC bearings were originally advertised as same clearance as stock until they were measures and found VAC was incorrect. Not sure why VAC didn't know the specs of their own bearings and needed people to buy and measure on their own before changing their advertising.

Regardless, VAC bearings are a small bit more clearance than stock. They are closer to stock than closer to BE Bearings. So I'd say no, they're not similar clearance to BE but similar to stock.

Measurements of both appear at the BE Bearings wiki page.

VAC had a older bearing and has the newer ones now, the newer ones are more in line with BE clearances though.

[Logodude]

Quick question. When did the BE bearing hit the market? Sounds to be more recent than I thought.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by squartus

VAC had a older bearing and has the newer ones now, the newer ones are more in line with BE clearances though.

I am aware of this. I am speaking of the new VAC Clevite ones, not the old ones which were coated OEM bearings that reduced clearance.. Everything I said was documented at real time as the discoveries were made in the s65 bearing wiki. The measurements also don't support this notion that VAC is more in line with BE than OEM. Out of curiosity, has VAC ever published any of their own data? I haven't seen any if they have.

[deansbimmer]

I have installed BE bearings in 6 S65 client engines. None have reported back with any issues. BE are the only ones which are measured proven to increase clearance. To be fair, before BE came around I used WPC/OEM bearings and I haven't heard back on any of those engines either. Who knows how many miles any of those engines have by now.

Once the aftermarket started making copper/lead bearings I dropped OEM/WPC bearings. When the BE supply dried up for a while I installed the Clevite VAC bearings in my wife's M3 which sees daily driver duties and so far so good. Not many miles on them though so I'll monitor with Blackstone and report if anything happens.

[Nihilation]

BE Bearings were just installed in mine at 124k miles. Sub'ing.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

I am aware of this. I am speaking of the new VAC Clevite ones, not the old ones which were coated OEM bearings that reduced clearance.. Everything I said was documented at real time as the discoveries were made in the s65 bearing wiki. The measurements also don't support this notion that VAC is more in line with BE than OEM. Out of curiosity, has VAC ever published any of their own data? I haven't seen any if they have.

According to BE the factory bearings offer .0015" of clearance. VAC clevite give .0019-.0021. BE is .0022-25 right? Looks VAC are right in-between OEM and BE if those #'s are right...

[Doc Oc]

If it helps, this is what the Vac's looked like after 13.5k miles. BE has a similar coating and even more clearance so I'm sure you can expect similar results.

[drwankel]

This is the thing we all really need to understand. When we have many consistent reports of what the bearings look like after extended use, its easier to make an informed decision.

Currently you have no freaking clue as to what the bearings are going to look like after 100K on them other than what the seller claims. That's not good enough IMHO.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by drwankel

This is the thing we all really need to understand. When we have many consistent reports of what the bearings look like after extended use, its easier to make an informed decision.

Currently you have no freaking clue as to what the bearings are going to look like after 100K on them other than what the seller claims. That's not good enough IMHO.

Lucky for you some of us are taking that risk and sharing results with the community, to make the solution "good enough" for everyone.

As far as I remember BE bearings were made available to the public late 2015.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

According to BE the factory bearings offer .0015" of clearance. VAC clevite give .0019-.0021. BE is .0022-25 right? Looks VAC are right in-between OEM and BE if those #'s are right...

This does not seem to match the data I find at the BE wiki page, and not sure why if you say it does. Here's what I find.

Factory OEM bearings:
Nominal: 0.00170 inch, range: 0.00135 - 0.00200 inch
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....5_Rod_Bearings

VAC:
Nominal: 0.00200 inch, range: 0.00160 - 0.00200 inch
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....ecifications_4

BE Bearings:
Nominal: 0.00240 inch, range: 0.00180 - 0.00280 inch
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....ecifications_3

Not sure why this doesn't match what you just said if it really came from BE.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by drwankel

Currently you have no freaking clue as to what the bearings are going to look like after 100K on them other than what the seller claims. That's not good enough IMHO.

Not really, it's only the people who don't understand how engines work and that there are industry accepted ranges for rb clearances. BMW went with a clearance outside that range, the very range that the manufacture of the bearing they used recommended. BE corrected that mistake, logic would tell you that this would fix that particular problem, having proof would be nice but it hasn't even been a year yet and it's hard to rack up that much miles in so little time. So in the absence of that you need to make an educated choice based on the information that is available and some logic.

....or wait until you spun a bearing waiting for this 'proof' you seek.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

This does not seem to match the data I find at the BE wiki page, and not sure why if you say it does. Here's what I find.

Factory OEM bearings:
Nominal: 0.00170 inch, range: 0.00135 - 0.00200 inch
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....5_Rod_Bearings

VAC:
Nominal: 0.00200 inch, range: 0.00160 - 0.00200 inch
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....ecifications_4

BE Bearings:
Nominal: 0.00240 inch, range: 0.00180 - 0.00280 inch
http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....ecifications_3

Not sure why this doesn't match what you just said if it really came from BE.

Straight from be:

Now with the addition of these new measurements being rolled up, and the fact that all eight of them were indistinguishable the new baseline for 702/703 bearings goes back down to 0.00150 inch clearance, making it virtually indistinguishable from BMW's original 088/089 bearing clearances we've measured.

Vac measured clearances from be:

0.00210
0.00190
0.00190
0.00210
0.00210
0.00190
0.00210
0.00210

This is all under the vac-clevite section.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by tdott

Not really, it's only the people who don't understand how engines work and that there are industry accepted ranges for rb clearances. BMW went with a clearance outside that range, the very range that the manufacture of the bearing they used recommended. BE corrected that mistake, logic would tell you that this would fix that particular problem, having proof would be nice but it hasn't even been a year yet and it's hard to rack up that much miles in so little time. So in the absence of that you need to make an educated choice based on the information that is available and some logic.

....or wait until you spun a bearing waiting for this 'proof' you seek.

To add to this, we really don't need to see what they look like at 100k. Sure it'd be nice, but we've seen them come out perfect with 13-40k miles...if tolerance stack up is the number one cause of bearing failure then the sample size we have is enough for me. If there is zero wear at 40k miles I doubt we would find anything different at 100k unless some other factor changed. Zero x anything still equals zero.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

Straight from be:

Now with the addition of these new measurements being rolled up, and the fact that all eight of them were indistinguishable the new baseline for 702/703 bearings goes back down to 0.00150 inch clearance, making it virtually indistinguishable from BMW's original 088/089 bearing clearances we've measured.

Vac measured clearances from be:

0.00210
0.00190
0.00190
0.00210
0.00210
0.00190
0.00210
0.00210

This is all under the vac-clevite section.

Let's start by getting on the same page. The BE Bearing wiki with official data is located here: http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....5_Rod_Bearings

I can't find that text under either the 702/703 section or VAC-Clevite section. I have a feeling you're referring to the bearing wiki on this site that is no longer maintained. That is not the BE Bearing wiki.

Another point about clearance ranges. Clearance measurements do not translate to clearance ranges as I think you have done. To develop a clearance range you calculate clearance from the smallest measured bore with the largest allowable journal size. That gives you the small range. You also calculate clearance from the largest measured bore with the smallest allowable journal size. This gives you the large range. I haven't checked your numbers,but I think you're just using those measured and looking at that range. That's not how it's done.

[Mvy]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

If it helps, this is what the Vac's looked like after 13.5k miles. BE has a similar coating and even more clearance so I'm sure you can expect similar results.

Doc,
Were these the older VAC or newer higher clearance VACS?

[Logodude]

Are there threads where people pulled these bearings out?