BMW M3 Forum
BMW M3 Forum BMW M3 Gallery BMW M3 Reviews BMW M3 Social Groups BMW M3 Chat M3Forum Sponsors >>
Loading


Mobile M3forum
Go Back   BMW M3 Forum.com (E30 M3 | E36 M3 | E46 M3 | E92 M3 | F80/X) > BMW M3 Discussions > E46 M3 (2001-2006)
Tire Rack Buy Winter Tires Now!
Not a member? Register Now!
Register Gallery All Albums Garage Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Calendar FAQ

E46 M3 (2001-2006) Engine: S54 - Max Hp: 333 hp at 7,900 rpm / 262 lb/ft at 4,900 rpm
Total Produced: 45,000+ - Years Produced: 2001 to 2006.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 04:31:06 PM   #11
///M Dream
Real Madrid C.F.
 
///M Dream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 29
Posts: 5,124
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 ///M Dream is on a distinguished road
Location: Phoenix

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

__________________

Current: 2006 Interlagos Blue ZCP ///M3
Past: F80 M3. E46 330i ZHP. B8 S4. E92 M3. E46 M3.
Jump to top ///M Dream is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Register now and remove these ads
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 04:31:57 PM   #12
Obioban
Moderator
 
Obioban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 35,720
In the garage:
Reputation: 54 Obioban has a spectacular aura about
Location: SE PA

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by nowanker View Post
Wow, very cool.
If only they had done that for the S54...
I'm sure they did...?
__________________

Current Cars: 2005 IR/IR M3, 2001 LMB/blk M5, 03 530i, 04 M3 wagon, and some boring stuff
Past cars: 04 M3, 96 M3, S50B32 e36 M3 CM race car
Jump to top Obioban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 05:26:09 PM   #13
Volke
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 239
Reputation: 0 Volke is on a distinguished road
Location: Chicago

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewster View Post
This presentation essentially explains the simulation of the engine to account for all of these dynamic states, and how they optimized the engine internals to not only reduce the rotating mass of the engine, but reduce the stress on bearings, etc.


...granted, based on the actual lifespan of a BMW V10, I kinda wish they were simulating for a lifespan beyond 1 warranty period.. but hey, it's cool engineering
This analysis just looked at minimizing the radial forces on the main crank bearings through crankshaft design. Rod bearing width, and ultimately their ability to cope with those forces was totally out of scope on this particular analysis. Whatever they did to "optimize" the rod bearing width, they didn't do a very good job there as evidenced by the actual lifespan of the S85.
__________________
Peter
Mechanical Engineer
Jump to top Volke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 05:29:45 PM   #14
Obioban
Moderator
 
Obioban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 35,720
In the garage:
Reputation: 54 Obioban has a spectacular aura about
Location: SE PA

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
This analysis just looked at minimizing the radial forces on the main crank bearings through crankshaft design. Rod bearing width, and ultimately their ability to cope with those forces was totally out of scope on this particular analysis. Whatever they did to "optimize" the rod bearing width, they didn't do a very good job there as evidenced by the actual lifespan of the S85.
From what I've seen, the s85 mains don't seem to have the same random failure as the s65 mains.

... rod bearings, though...
(though that seems to maybe be more of a clearance issue than width issue)
__________________

Current Cars: 2005 IR/IR M3, 2001 LMB/blk M5, 03 530i, 04 M3 wagon, and some boring stuff
Past cars: 04 M3, 96 M3, S50B32 e36 M3 CM race car
Jump to top Obioban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 05:51:06 PM   #15
oceansize
Registered User
 
oceansize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 165
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 oceansize is on a distinguished road
Location: TN

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Sidebar for those, and I think there are some in this forum, in the know. In what part of the process does the breakdown occur when the R&D, testing, and mathematical rigor fails? Management? Timelines too short? We are all aware of some of the mechanical woes that plague various BMW models with regard to engine internals (and structural for that matter).

Not being a smart ass either, I know you guys are talking about the dummies who do not apply any mathematical rigor and testing to highly complicated subjects.
__________________
2003 M3 Convertible SMG w/Hardtop
KW V2 Coilovers
ESS VT1-475 Gen 3 Supercharger
Stoptech Brakes
MRR GT-1 Wheels
TTFS SMG Tune
Rogue Eng. Diablo Exhaust w/ SS Tips
Rogue Eng. Rasp Pipe
Redish Reinforcement Plates
Polyurethane Rear Subframe Bushings
Polyurethane Differential Bushings
Beisan Oil Pump Disk
Jump to top oceansize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 05:52:55 PM   #16
M3_Pilot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 502
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 M3_Pilot is on a distinguished road
Location: OC

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
This analysis just looked at minimizing the radial forces on the main crank bearings through crankshaft design. Rod bearing width, and ultimately their ability to cope with those forces was totally out of scope on this particular analysis. Whatever they did to "optimize" the rod bearing width, they didn't do a very good job there as evidenced by the actual lifespan of the S85.
I donít think you have a strong argument considering many e60 M5ís on the market have over 100k miles with some even closer or past 150k miles. In relative terms, Iíd say it has a pretty good lifespan.
__________________


2004 Jet Black/Cinnamon 6MT
Jump to top M3_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 07:24:17 PM   #17
Drewster
Registered User
 
Drewster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,831
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 Drewster is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
This analysis just looked at minimizing the radial forces on the main crank bearings through crankshaft design. Rod bearing width, and ultimately their ability to cope with those forces was totally out of scope on this particular analysis. Whatever they did to "optimize" the rod bearing width, they didn't do a very good job there as evidenced by the actual lifespan of the S85.
True - looks like main bearing optimizations
Jump to top Drewster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 07:46:34 PM   #18
Volke
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 239
Reputation: 0 Volke is on a distinguished road
Location: Chicago

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceansize View Post
Sidebar for those, and I think there are some in this forum, in the know. In what part of the process does the breakdown occur when the R&D, testing, and mathematical rigor fails? Management? Timelines too short? We are all aware of some of the mechanical woes that plague various BMW models with regard to engine internals (and structural for that matter).

Not being a smart ass either, I know you guys are talking about the dummies who do not apply any mathematical rigor and testing to highly complicated subjects.
From my engineering experience, it varies on a case by case basis. There really is no one right answer to this.

Sometimes the testing you do on your component doesn't exactly replicate the conditions it will be operating in, so you don't catch all the failure modes. Other times you don't run the test long enough because of project timelines or budget constraints. Sometimes you only find out about an issue after the manufacturing tooling has been bought or the product is already in production and you are limited on what you can change on the design to help make it better without incurring significant costs purchasing new tooling. Heck, sometimes everything on the design side is done 100% correct, but there is a defect in the manufacturing process that isn't caught right away. A lot of components you just buy from a supplier, so you don't have much visibility to what they did when designing it, and you just have to trust that they did their due diligence.

If I had to guess, when the E36 and E46 were designed, they either didn't run any FEA at all on the subframe mounting location because it was still new technology, or they made some bad assumptions about how much load would be transmitted to those locations which led to false good results from the FEA. There are various stages of test mules, but none of them are driven long enough to catastrophically fail the RACP.

For rod bearing issues on the various engines, I think it's pretty obvious they wanted to make high performance engines for M cars and pushed the boundaries of rod bearing design to get there. The engines obviously passed their testing process, so either the test duration wasn't long enough, severe enough, or maybe even their target for how long the engines had to last wasn't that high. For all we know, the S54, S62, S65 and S85 rod bearings all met BMW's target for life cycle at the time.
__________________
Peter
Mechanical Engineer
Jump to top Volke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 07:59:48 PM   #19
Drewster
Registered User
 
Drewster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,831
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 Drewster is on a distinguished road

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
From my engineering experience, it varies on a case by case basis. There really is no one right answer to this.

Sometimes the testing you do on your component doesn't exactly replicate the conditions it will be operating in, so you don't catch all the failure modes. Other times you don't run the test long enough because of project timelines or budget constraints. Sometimes you only find out about an issue after the manufacturing tooling has been bought or the product is already in production and you are limited on what you can change on the design to help make it better without incurring significant costs purchasing new tooling. Heck, sometimes everything on the design side is done 100% correct, but there is a defect in the manufacturing process that isn't caught right away. A lot of components you just buy from a supplier, so you don't have much visibility to what they did when designing it, and you just have to trust that they did their due diligence.

If I had to guess, when the E36 and E46 were designed, they either didn't run any FEA at all on the subframe mounting location because it was still new technology, or they made some bad assumptions about how much load would be transmitted to those locations which led to false good results from the FEA. There are various stages of test mules, but none of them are driven long enough to catastrophically fail the RACP.

For rod bearing issues on the various engines, I think it's pretty obvious they wanted to make high performance engines for M cars and pushed the boundaries of rod bearing design to get there. The engines obviously passed their testing process, so either the test duration wasn't long enough, severe enough, or maybe even their target for how long the engines had to last wasn't that high. For all we know, the S54, S62, S65 and S85 rod bearings all met BMW's target for life cycle at the time.
I'd definitely agree that it's a case-by-case thing. Some scenarios likely fall down to subcontractors not meeting requirements. It's not uncommon knowledge that a good deal of parts are really the auto manufacturer saying "Hey, ATE, we need a part that does X, Y, and Z for less than $$". If you ask any "prime contractor", their opinion would be that their engineering is perfect - it's just sub-contractors not meeting requirements.

When things normal humans call "failures" after ~100,000 miles happen, I think a good deal of automotive engineers would say that's perfect - the design met requirements, no more, no less.

Specifically in regard to BMW, I think they make a good deal of assumptions on the kind of roads and conditions their product will be used on. For example, rather than saying "man, we didn't design these strut towers properly", BMW says "you're driving on rough roads that aren't what we consider normal... here's a 'rough road package' with plates to keep that from happening on your shitty non-German roads." Ditto with bearings - my understanding was that BMW first blamed owners for not warming up the car properly.
Jump to top Drewster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Jun-19-2018, 08:41:59 PM   #20
oceansize
Registered User
 
oceansize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 165
In the garage:
Reputation: 0 oceansize is on a distinguished road
Location: TN

United States




Default Re: A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volke View Post
From my engineering experience, it varies on a case by case basis. There really is no one right answer to this.

Sometimes the testing you do on your component doesn't exactly replicate the conditions it will be operating in, so you don't catch all the failure modes. Other times you don't run the test long enough because of project timelines or budget constraints. Sometimes you only find out about an issue after the manufacturing tooling has been bought or the product is already in production and you are limited on what you can change on the design to help make it better without incurring significant costs purchasing new tooling. Heck, sometimes everything on the design side is done 100% correct, but there is a defect in the manufacturing process that isn't caught right away. A lot of components you just buy from a supplier, so you don't have much visibility to what they did when designing it, and you just have to trust that they did their due diligence.

If I had to guess, when the E36 and E46 were designed, they either didn't run any FEA at all on the subframe mounting location because it was still new technology, or they made some bad assumptions about how much load would be transmitted to those locations which led to false good results from the FEA. There are various stages of test mules, but none of them are driven long enough to catastrophically fail the RACP.

For rod bearing issues on the various engines, I think it's pretty obvious they wanted to make high performance engines for M cars and pushed the boundaries of rod bearing design to get there. The engines obviously passed their testing process, so either the test duration wasn't long enough, severe enough, or maybe even their target for how long the engines had to last wasn't that high. For all we know, the S54, S62, S65 and S85 rod bearings all met BMW's target for life cycle at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewster View Post
I'd definitely agree that it's a case-by-case thing. Some scenarios likely fall down to subcontractors not meeting requirements. It's not uncommon knowledge that a good deal of parts are really the auto manufacturer saying "Hey, ATE, we need a part that does X, Y, and Z for less than $$". If you ask any "prime contractor", their opinion would be that their engineering is perfect - it's just sub-contractors not meeting requirements.

When things normal humans call "failures" after ~100,000 miles happen, I think a good deal of automotive engineers would say that's perfect - the design met requirements, no more, no less.

Specifically in regard to BMW, I think they make a good deal of assumptions on the kind of roads and conditions their product will be used on. For example, rather than saying "man, we didn't design these strut towers properly", BMW says "you're driving on rough roads that aren't what we consider normal... here's a 'rough road package' with plates to keep that from happening on your shitty non-German roads." Ditto with bearings - my understanding was that BMW first blamed owners for not warming up the car properly.
Thanks for the input as I've been pondering the RACP and bearing situations and how them came to be and these responses spurred new thoughts. I work in software development. Mostly analytics, big data (I've come to hate that term), and stats but do a fair amount of work on what I suppose could be best termed OLTP. In my world the "we didn't anticipate X set of conditions" is unacceptable although it certainly happens to me more often than I care to admit. For some reason I really hadn't considered the auto industry had starting parameters of what constituted an acceptable set of driving conditions or circumstances and anything outside of that was deemed not their responsibility or at least so far outside the norm they couldn't account for it within a reasonable cost. The more I think on it the more I believe that in the world of mass production coupled with this level of engineering it is likely unavoidable to a degree.
__________________
2003 M3 Convertible SMG w/Hardtop
KW V2 Coilovers
ESS VT1-475 Gen 3 Supercharger
Stoptech Brakes
MRR GT-1 Wheels
TTFS SMG Tune
Rogue Eng. Diablo Exhaust w/ SS Tips
Rogue Eng. Rasp Pipe
Redish Reinforcement Plates
Polyurethane Rear Subframe Bushings
Polyurethane Differential Bushings
Beisan Oil Pump Disk

Last edited by oceansize; Tue, Jun-19-2018 at 08:44:53 PM. Reason: a word
Jump to top oceansize is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
M3Forum.com and M3forum.net is in no way sponsored, endorsed or affiliated by or with BMW NA / BMW AG or any of it's subsidiaries or vendors.
BMW and M3 (E90 M3 | E92 M3 | E93 M3 | E46 M3 | E36 M3 | E30 M3) are registered trademarks of BMW AG.
M3Forum Terms of Service
Copyright ©1999-2017 M3Forum.com
Discussing A good example of why my engine internals have remained stock in the E46 M3 (2001-2006) Forum - Engine: S54 - Max Hp: 333 hp at 7,900 rpm / 262 lb/ft at 4,900 rpm
Total Produced: 45,000+ - Years Produced: 2001 to 2006. at BMW M3 Forum.com (E30 M3 | E36 M3 | E46 M3 | E92 M3 | F80/X)