[Ozzie335i]

"Because is understood. I would expect anyone able to carry conversation about rod bearing installation to know that assembly lube is used."

What a condescending thing to say. Are you the guy that used a plate to tie his differential to the frame? Steve of Fuel It had a few words to say about that practice.

[feuer]

Originally Posted by Ozzie335i

"Because is understood. I would expect anyone able to carry conversation about rod bearing installation to know that assembly lube is used."

What a condescending thing to say. Are you the guy that used a plate to tie his differential to the frame? Steve of Fuel It had a few words to say about that practice.

I'm sorry if this become personal for you. I didn't mean to insult. If you don't know you don't know but is like discussing DIY oil change. Do I need to emphasize that you need to pour oil in? I don't think so. And Steve who? What plate? I have no idea what are you talking about.

[Pladi]

Originally Posted by Ozzie335i

"Because is understood. I would expect anyone able to carry conversation about rod bearing installation to know that assembly lube is used."

What a condescending thing to say. Are you the guy that used a plate to tie his differential to the frame? Steve of Fuel It had a few words to say about that practice.

Man ur funny. Ozzie let us when when ur going to replace urs to save ur car. I wanna see those bearings !! lool

[Ozzie335i]

Feuer, I was talking about a plate that I thought that you designed, and were selling for about 125 here. It ties the differential to the frame to minimize wheel hop and maximize traction. If that wasnt you, my apologies. Regardless, Steve Jenkins, owner of Fuel-It said it was a dumb idea.

Pladi, the parts for my swap out were ordered this morning. About 450. So along with my mechanic's labor it'll be less than a grand. Regardless of how many people that proactively change these things out only to find out the original set is ok it does not minimize anyone else's risk. Sorry, but I believe that the damage is cumulative, versus a one time event. Having problems after the OFHG may just be the final big straw. Are they not generally done at > 50 K miles?

A new engine, oil cooler and Pure 2 + install would easily set me back ten large. No lol matter. Not having the means or wherewithal to either have someone else swap them for a grand, or 500 to DIY is something I'd cry about. As the man said "Pay me now, or pay me later."

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by Ozzie335i

Feuer, I was talking about a plate that I thought that you designed, and were selling for about 125 here. It ties the differential to the frame to minimize wheel hop and maximize traction. If that wasnt you, my apologies. Regardless, Steve Jenkins, owner of Fuel-It said it was a dumb idea.

Pladi, the parts for my swap out were ordered this morning. About 450. So along with my mechanic's labor it'll be less than a grand. Regardless of how many people that proactively change these things out only to find out the original set is ok it does not minimize anyone else's risk. Sorry, but I believe that the damage is cumulative, versus a one time event. Having problems after the OFHG may just be the final big straw. Are they not generally done at > 50 K miles?

A new engine, oil cooler and Pure 2 + install would easily set me back ten large. No lol matter. Not having the means or wherewithal to either have someone else swap them for a grand, or 500 to DIY is something I'd cry about. As the man said "Pay me now, or pay me later."

Can't wait to see your bearings! I'm curious, I know we will only have seen 2 by now so it's nothing a lot but hey...

Yeah I also think it's like you say the killer that the OFHG just starves oil or something for that much to completely go bye bye.

Because we haven't seen new N55s "commonly" (issue isn't that common but you get what I mean) rip after OFHG as we do now right?

Buuut at the same time the thing is if we go by that theory N54 rod bearing are the same (unless I am wrong) so... why not happen on N54 "commonly" now. I've did searches and I fail to find as much fails N54 335i than N55 335i ofhg like these and they probably have much more miles and beatings.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by TheMidnightNarwhal

Buuut at the same time the thing is if we go by that theory N54 rod bearing are the same (unless I am wrong) so... why not happen on N54 "commonly" now. I've did searches and I fail to find as much fails N54 335i than N55 335i ofhg like these and they probably have much more miles and beatings.

Don't take comments out of context. N54/N55 have the same bearings, clearance, and crank geometry. I will argue that all day. That does not mean that N55 might not have particular traits related to maintenance and driving habits that produce more wear... There is evidence to suggest that the superior PCV system on the N55 results in a lot of oil contamination on cars that see frequent short trips that doesn't allow the contamination to burn off like expected.

[Pladi]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Don't take comments out of context. N54/N55 have the same bearings, clearance, and crank geometry.

but................... they are also different. They do have different cranks. (material composition) And you never know that might be a factor because different metals have different coefficients of expansion.. So i dont like how we keep saying same same same.. not quite the same.

[feuer]

Originally Posted by Ozzie335i

Feuer, I was talking about a plate that I thought that you designed, and were selling for about 125 here. It ties the differential to the frame to minimize wheel hop and maximize traction. If that wasnt you, my apologies. Regardless, Steve Jenkins, owner of Fuel-It said it was a dumb idea.

Oh Ok I see, and how is Steve Jenkins the relevant expert in the matter? Why don't you start a poll of how many have solid diff bushings which will have if not identical very similar effect or possible adverse effect as I assume that is what you imply but you just used different terminology. We need to tell Turner about what Steve thinks lol https://www.turnermotorsport.com/c-3...ts-and-upgrade. Don't forget AKG https://www.akgmotorsport.com/produc...5-328-330-335/ BimmerWorld too https://www.bimmerworld.com/Suspensi...-Bushings.html

[Kevin39]

Originally Posted by Ozzie335i

Feuer, I was talking about a plate that I thought that you designed, and were selling for about 125 here. It ties the differential to the frame to minimize wheel hop and maximize traction. If that wasnt you, my apologies. Regardless, Steve Jenkins, owner of Fuel-It said it was a dumb idea.

You mean like the one BMS now sells? http://www.burgertuning.com/BMS_Diff..._E9x_335i.html

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by Pladi

but................... they are also different. They do have different cranks. (material composition) And you never know that might be a factor because different metals have different coefficients of expansion.. So i dont like how we keep saying same same same.. not quite the same.

I've never seen an N55 with crank bearing issues though have you? There has never been any indication that there is any issue with the crank or block geometry.

[Pladi]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

I've never seen an N55 with crank bearing issues though have you? There has never been any indication that there is any issue with the crank or block geometry.

Going back to ur comment. Comparing n55/54. You are are saying the crank geometry is the same. Thats true and not true. It will be different at different temps for different metals. Since they different in the metals they are used they will not be expanding and contracting the same.. which can have an impact on performance and clearances. Thats all i am saying. You cant say they are the same. They are not. Regardless of rod or main journal area... Crank is not the same.

The same means ;same metal, same physical dimensions. One of those components is not the same.

We can even get into how some metals attract oil additives differently.. and so many other variables..

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by Pladi

but................... they are also different. They do have different cranks. (material composition) And you never know that might be a factor because different metals have different coefficients of expansion.. So i dont like how we keep saying same same same.. not quite the same.

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Don't take comments out of context. N54/N55 have the same bearings, clearance, and crank geometry. I will argue that all day. That does not mean that N55 might not have particular traits related to maintenance and driving habits that produce more wear... There is evidence to suggest that the superior PCV system on the N55 results in a lot of oil contamination on cars that see frequent short trips that doesn't allow the contamination to burn off like expected.

Ah okok. I know the PCV system was different but thought most of the internal were similar I was wrong!

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by Pladi

We can even get into how some metals attract oil additives differently.. and so many other variables..

Yeah... I admit at this point it's starting to beat a dead horse with the amount of variables the further the subject is discussed.

oh well.

[feuer]

Originally Posted by Kevin39

You mean like the one BMS now sells? http://www.burgertuning.com/BMS_Diff..._E9x_335i.html

Steve works with Terry. So there is that We just polluted this thread.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by Pladi

The same means ;same metal, same physical dimensions. One of those components is not the same.

We can even get into how some metals attract oil additives differently.. and so many other variables..

That is way too granular. Dimensions are the same. You can argue theory all you want but unless you can quantify for me some significant difference then we go back to the empirical data which shows that there are no main bearings issues which would indicate an issue with the crank. Doesn't cast expand less anyway? The crank expanding less would mean the cast crank maintains better/wider oiling clearances as it heats up.

[Pladi]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

That is way too granular. Dimensions are the same. You can argue theory all you want but unless you can quantify for me some significant difference then we go back to the empirical data which shows that there are no main bearings issues which would indicate an issue with the crank. Doesn't cast expand less anyway? The crank expanding less would mean the cast crank maintains better/wider oiling clearances as it heats up.

Dude the cranks are not the same. End of story.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by Pladi

Dude the cranks are not the same. End of story.

Don't take comments out of context. N54/N55 have the same bearings, clearance, and crank geometry.

I never said they were did I? Please apply what has been said to the context of the fking thread... In what way, shape, or form does it appear that the composition of the crank shaft is playing a role in rod bearing failure? NONE. "End of story," is right. N54/N55 are the same in regard to the rotating assembly playing any kind of role in rod bearing failure. If you don't think so then please enlighten us all to what is indicating otherwise because I am not seeing it.

Not sure why I even bother replying to these threads lol. Waste of time when people can't even be google part numbers to verify for themself that both engines use the same bearings.

[Pladi]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

In what way, shape, or form does it appear that the composition of the crank shaft is playing a role in rod bearing failure? NONE.

You dont know that ... you dont know what role it plays.. its different.. obv different metals. One is 3KG lighter. (to make it lighter you have to change composition) geometry is not all the story.. if it was we would make engine blocks from wood.. so RELAX

I did not take your comment out of context at all. Because your overall point is that the bottom end between the two engines is the same.. And its not the case. And you are asking how that is going to impact the bearing ? I am not a mechanical engineer or a metallurgist so i cant answer you but i know that different metals expand differently with heat. All you are doing is saying it desont have an impact. But you dont know. Dont make conclusions.

If you think you are too good for these threads dont reply. lol like wtf

[lwgrenier]

I didn't know the crank in the n55 was cast. There's overwhelming evidence supporting forged cranks vs cast. A forged crank might have slightly higher coefficient of thermal expansion but that is easy to factor into the design of other components.

[Pladi]

Originally Posted by lwgrenier

I didn't know the crank in the n55 was cast. There's overwhelming evidence supporting forged cranks vs cast. A forged crank might have slightly higher coefficient of thermal expansion but that is easy to factor into the design of other components.

true say you used different rod bearings LOL but they are the same.

[9krpmrx8]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

I never said they were did I? Please apply what has been said to the context of the fking thread... In what way, shape, or form does it appear that the composition of the crank shaft is playing a role in rod bearing failure? NONE. "End of story," is right. N54/N55 are the same in regard to the rotating assembly playing any kind of role in rod bearing failure. If you don't think so then please enlighten us all to what is indicating otherwise because I am not seeing it.

Not sure why I even bother replying to these threads lol. Waste of time when people can't even be google part numbers to verify for themself that both engines use the same bearings.

Bruh, noobs got theories and shit.

[9krpmrx8]

Originally Posted by lwgrenier

I didn't know the crank in the n55 was cast. There's overwhelming evidence supporting forged cranks vs cast. A forged crank might have slightly higher coefficient of thermal expansion but that is easy to factor into the design of other components.

Yours is, but not all are cast.