Building a 4.7L low compression, supercharged S65 stroker motor - Page 7 - BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums
 12Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #61 of 71 Old 23rd May 2013, 12:10 AM
flipm3
Member, Sport: Off DSC: On (>50 posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 74
Thanks: 8
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PencilGeek View Post
I will be working on the project tomorrow. We're at the phase in the project that we can't post any more pictures for a while. The stuff we're working on right now will be sold as separate products. So until the time is right, the photos are taken, but not posted at my photo site. Sorry about that.
Totally understandable!! I'll save my popcorn for later, hehe.

All the best!
flipm3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 71 Old 14th September 2013, 10:47 PM Thread Starter
PencilGeek
Member, Sport: On DSC: Off
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Posts: 249
Thanks: 1
Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
Here's the latest (public) photos of the project. I'm going to use a standalone ECU. So the first set of photos are the ones show the work required to capture certain signals to create the base file for the standalone ECU. The second set of photos give hints where the project is headed.

So far we designed our own dry sump, designed our own head studs, and now we're working on the wiring and base programming for the standalone ECU. As part of the standalone project, we had to design our own crank fire ignition system for the engine dyno (see photos below).

The "long pole" in the project was designing the new supercharger bracket. So, after seeing Gintani had successfully stuffed two turbos near the wet sump, I talked it over with the guys and we decided to go that direction as well. And with us being dry sump, we have even more room for the turbos than Gintani did with the factory wet sump. Going twin turbo sure solves a lot of problems for us because it's much easier to make the turbo plumbing than it is to design and manufacture a supercharger bracket. The standalone ECU tuning process doesn't change whether it's supercharged or turbo (except boost control), so going twin turbo was a pretty easy decision.

Standalone ECU:













Turbo Mock Up:




Full build pictures:
Home > Car Porn > BMW M3 > Low Compression Build - Robert & Mary Ann Collins

Latest pictures since last update:
Capturing Crank Cam Timing Patterns - Robert & Mary Ann Collins
Turbo Mock Up Part-1 - Robert & Mary Ann Collins

Last edited by PencilGeek; 14th September 2013 at 10:55 PM.
PencilGeek is offline  
post #63 of 71 Old 14th September 2013, 11:06 PM
flipm3
Member, Sport: Off DSC: On (>50 posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 74
Thanks: 8
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
flipm3 is offline  
 
post #64 of 71 Old 15th September 2013, 11:06 AM
Revo
M5 Guru (>2000 posts)
 
Revo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Orange County, California, USA
Posts: 3,210
Thanks: 121
Thanked 357 Times in 277 Posts
Twin turbo!? Oh. My. God.

The M5 is my dad's - but I drive it more than he does!

Sold Sept '16. It was an amazing 7 years.
Revo is offline  
post #65 of 71 Old 7th November 2013, 09:39 PM
Bavarian Beast
Member, P500 Sport, DSC On (>700)
 
Bavarian Beast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: DE
Posts: 704
Thanks: 223
Thanked 117 Times in 88 Posts
Any updates?

Gone but never forgotten - 2007 M6 - Sapphire Black exterior, Indianapolis Red interior, Carbon trim, RPI scoops, BMS filters (carbon filter delete), Kelleners installed Schrick cams-100 cell race cats-chip tune, Evosport Headers and pulley, Dinan exhaust, Eibach springs.
Bavarian Beast is offline  
post #66 of 71 Old 29th December 2014, 05:55 AM Thread Starter
PencilGeek
Member, Sport: On DSC: Off
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Posts: 249
Thanks: 1
Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
I know many of you want to see an update to this build. I promise I'll get to that in the next few days. But before I do, I have some businesses I want to get out of the way and set the record straight.

I'll never understand why a guy with no knowledge or involvement in another person's business takes it upon themselves to try and discredit and refute everything they say. But that's the life of SenorFunkyPants has chosen for himself over on m3post. He knows I'm in a timeout over there, and everything he's already said has already been debunked. But he's got a new crowd now, and for whatever reason has decided to renew the charge, knowing I can't set the record straight over there. But I can set it straight over here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
The original stroker engine was build by Auto Talent for Regular Guy using an after market crank and Carrillo rods. Van Dyne pulled this engine down in 2011 http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...=386602&page=2
and noted several problems, one being an inadequate rod side clearance. They then proceeded to measure several BMW OEM parts to get a side clearance measurement which they used as a basis for the rebuild of the non OEM crank and non OEM rods.
By 2013 this had been completely rewritten to say that an OEM BMW crank and rods had been measured by Van Dyne and found to have an inadequate side clearance.
Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki
When someone is caught in a lie, it taints everything else written by that person.

...

The rods showing blue spots in this "Wiki" thread
Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki
are Carrillo after market rods NOT OEM BMW rods. These original Carrillo rods had suffered other problems and where replaced by Carrillo for some stronger ones. These new rods again measured up tight and were machined to fit as described in both threads.

-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post: Link
This seems like a good place to start.
The original stroker engine was build by Auto Talent for Regular Guy using an after market crank and Carrillo rods.
--- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK

The stroker engine was built by RD Sport. Auto Talent performed the installation. This was extremely well documented in multiple threads and hundreds of photos to back it up. Here's one photo showing the RD Sport engine builder (Antonio) checking the engine at Auto Talent right before installation.



Van Dyne pulled this engine down in 2011 http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...=386602&page=2
and noted several problems, one being an inadequate rod side clearance.

--- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK

The stroker engine was removed and disassembled by Auto Talent in July 2010, not Van Dyne Engineering. Auto Talent never measured any of the parts. The engine parts remained at Auto Talent for nearly 1-year before being transfered to Van Dyne approximately September 2011. During that one year at Auto Talent, there was an open invitation at multiple forums to allow forum members to inspect the parts for wear and/or damage. Again, this is all very well documented, with hundreds of photos, on multiple forums.

Here's a photo of the engine disassembly at Auto Talent:



They then proceeded to measure several BMW OEM parts to get a side clearance measurement which they used as a basis for the rebuild of the non OEM crank and non OEM rods.
--- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK

Really? That's news to me, even for my own build. I would like to see a quote, with attribution link where I said that. This thread, a similar one on m3forum, and the S65 bearing wiki thread all say exactly the opposite of SFP's claims. Both 2011 articles (here and m3forum) specifically stated: "For our application, we wanted a slightly different side-play tolerance. So we first had to measure the factory crank and connecting rods, then measure the stroker crank and connecting rods to see how they compare." SFP, should have this committed to memory by now because he's quoted from it many times. So let me ask him a simple question: why would we ever need to measure the OEM crank and rods if we were going to use our own, non-OEM specs anyways? Wouldn't we only need to measure our existing side-clearance, and subtract that value from the journal thickness we measured on the AFTERMARKET parts to come up with the necessary adjustments? Why would we drive across town, pick up factory parts, drive back, and measure them if we weren't concerned about the measurements we obtained with the aftermarket parts? This nuance goes way over SFP's head. He doesn't understand that we would never need to measure the factory parts if we weren't concerned with the side-clearance we measured on the aftermarket parts. Let me propose a much more logical explanation why we did this (the obvious being overlooked by SFP and replaced with a conspiracy theory). It's well known that I have a very good relationship with RD Sport. Wouldn't it seem more logical that I was feeding back all of this information and specifications we developed at Van Dyne to feed them back to RD Sport so they could use this to improve their stroker engines? Doesn't the simple truth sound quite a bit more logical than conspiracy theories?

The section on side clearance in the Wiki thread on the OEM rods having tight side clearance is completely opposite to the original and extensive engine strip down and rebuild journal that RG wrote. Van Dyne used the BMW parts to get a side clearance to use for the machining of the Carrillo rods.
--- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK


By 2013 this had been completely rewritten to say that an OEM BMW crank and rods had been measured by Van Dyne and found to have an inadequate side clearance.
Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki
--- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK

I would like to see SFP juxtapose these two sets of "contradictory" comments so we can all see what he's talking about. Many people have read all of these articles and like me, think they are completely coherent and consistent with each other. Why are is SFP having such problems with it? He can clear all of this up simply by quoting from both sources that he thinks are contradictory, and then explain why he thinks they contradict.

These original Carrillo rods had suffered other problems and where replaced by Carrillo for some stronger ones. These new rods again measured up tight and were machined to fit as described in both threads.
--- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK

None of that is true. Carrillo never replaced any rods. The entire set of rods were eventually sold to build another stroker motor. The original rods were designed for a naturally aspirated engine, not forced induction. Instead a completely new set of rods were ordered that were designed for forced induction and much higher horsepower. The new rods were purchased from, not "replaced by" Carrillo. Furthermore, the new rods never "measured up tight...(again)" because side clearance was never measured on the original rods in the first place. Not sure how or why SFP continues to misread, misquote, and change the meaning of everything I wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
And the other shoe finally drops:

Q. Who will be selling the new bearings?
A. Sales distribution will be announced at a later time. A sales channel is already in place.

Q. What is the cost?
A. "the cost will be a little more expensive, [than the original BMW price].

kerr-ching.
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
For people who are interested, SFP is quoting from a Clevite bearing thread I started on m5board. Here's the full post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PencilGeek
Here's some questions and answers about the bearings.

Q: If BMW doesn't publish the rod journal specs, how did you come up with one?
A. Twelve crankshafts were measured, 96 journals, three sources, three people measuring with three sets of instruments. This approach helps identify and account for rod journal size variance. It also guarantees that any differences in instruments, calibration, or measuring techniques are identified as well.

Q. What were the results?
A. The 96 journal measurements did not deviate from the measurements of "S65 Bearing Wiki" thread, but did help identify the manufacturing tolerance limits of the crankshaft.

Q. What was the distribution of measurements?
A. 17 pcs. -0.00010 inch, 53 pcs. nominal, 14 pcs. +0.00010 inch, 9 pcs +0.00020 inch, 3 pcs +0.00030 inch.

Q. Does this shed any light on the bearing clearance issue?
A. You be the judge. The measurements distribution tells the tale.

Q. Who selected the new bearing clearance, and how was it chosen?
A. I did not personally choose the bearing clearance. Three separate engine builders were consulted. Other than Van Dyne Engineering (Indy-500 winning), I don't have permission to name the other two. One of the other two is one of the most successful BMW race engine builders; the other is one of the most successful NASCAR engine builders.

Q. Who designed the bearings, and who reviewed the design?
A. Clevite (BMW OEM manufacturer) designed the bearings. Once the blueprints are completed, the same three engine builders mentioned above will review and approve. The original BMW S14 engine designer will review and approve them as well.

Q. How many sets will be made?
A. The initial manufacturing run will be 2000 shells, 125 sets (V8), 100 sets (V10).

Q. Will there be over sized bearings available for reground crankshafts?
A. No, not at this time.

Q. Who will be selling them?
A. Not me, I'm not a business. Sales distribution will be announced at a later time. A sales channel is already in place. Most of you will recognize the sales business.

Q. Will you also sell to the S85-V10 guys?
A. Yes, of course.

Q. What is the cost?
A. I really don't know the cost because I'm not the guy selling them. It's my understanding the cost will be a little more expensive, but very much in line with the original BMW 088/089 (lead-copper) bearings.

-- PencilGeek, m5board, LINK

I'd like to point our how he changed or omitted certain words to change the meaning. I've annotated these changes in red to highlight their difference.

Q. Who will be selling the [new] bearings?
A. Not me, I'm not a business. Sales distribution will be announced at a later time. A sales channel is already in place. Most of you will recognize the sales business.

SFP has been saying for more than a year now that we hyped this bearing problem specifically so we could profit from it. But he removed the part that says I'm not a business, and not the guy selling them. So he removed the part that isn't consistent with his conspiracy theory. According to this scenario, we started this "scheme" back in 2011. Then in 2013 started the bearing wiki thread, so that we could come to the rescue two years later in mid-2015 with replacement bearing and make a "kerr-ching" profit. Yeah, he's got me, we're such brilliant businessmen we planned this back in 2011 just so we could make money on it four years later. I also noted he removed the reference to the well known distribution channel.

Q. What is the cost?
A. I really don't know the cost because I'm not the guy selling them. It's my understanding the cost will be a little more expensive, but very much in line with the original BMW 088/089 (lead-copper) bearings.

That's quite a change from my original and it changes quite a bit of meaning. SFP removed the section that says I'm not the guy selling them because it's not consistent with his conspiracy theory that I invented the problem just so I could profit from it. These new bearings, are made from Clevite lead/copper PLUS an additional non-friction coating directly from Clevite. By removing this section, SFP bolsters his conspiracy theory that all of this was invented to make a profit with a "fix." The current 702/703 bearings are cheap in comparison to the last lead/copper 088/089 bearings I purchased from BMW. It's my understanding, these aftermarket bearings will be almost identically priced to their BMW 088/089's lead/copper counterparts, but will indeed be a tiny bit more expensive (~9%). Keeping the price within 9% of the originals is quite impressive considering BMW gets volume pricing from Clevite, makes bearings by the hundreds of thousands -- while ours are are custom made and have an additional non-friction coating on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecklessfool
If you read a bit further down it describes how the aftermarket and factory rods share the same dimensions:
Yeah, a bit of post editing, that wasn't there in the original version....I note later in the thread that the using problems with side issues with Carrillo rods can't be used to demonstrate clearance issues with BMW rods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecklessfool
I did edit the quote, but only to remove extraneous information that was unrelated to the rod side clearance. The post was long and would have been a waste of space in this particular discussion to carry over to this thread. So yes, edited, but not in a way to sway the discussion one way or another. Just wanted this to be clear.
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
I wasn't saying that you edited it...the original post was frequently edited by RG and in this case, the part about measuring the width of the Carrillo rods to say that they were the same thickness as OEM was added over two months later while disingenuously making out that it was contemporaneous.
The Carrillo rods as supplied had problems with measurable width variance, enough that they had to be selectively machined to produce the desired side clearance.
When the only people noting a problem (tight rod side clearance) may have a vested interest in there being one, then some caution should be exercised.
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
I wasn't saying that you edited it...the original post was frequently edited by RG and in this case, the part about measuring the width of the Carrillo rods to say that they were the same thickness as OEM was added over two months later while disingenuously making out that it was contemporaneous.
-- SenorFunkyPants - m3post, LINK


The S65 bearing wiki thread was started on September 23rd, 2013. The side clearance portion was added in Post-83 on September 26th, 2013. That's three days, not two months later. Post-83 shows no edits or updates. SFP claims I made edits to this post to change its meaning by adding the part about OEM thickness the same as Carrillo. Clearly not true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Better to use a clearance from a car thats lasted 160K miles than RGs random guesstimate of what the clearance ought to be, which will be as likely to be less reliable as more reliable (the actual clearance chosen by RG will remain a secret apparently for some reason).
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
Here's another example where SFP picks what bolsters his conspiracy theory, and ignores what doesn't. The following answers are found in the Clevite bearing Q&A that I posted on m5board. He's already quoted from this source once, so why didn't he correct himself once he saw he was wrong? No doubt because it's evidence against his conspiracy theories.

Q: If BMW doesn't publish the rod journal specs, how did you come up with one?
A. Twelve crankshafts were measured, 96 journals, three sources, three people measuring with three sets of instruments. This approach helps identify and account for rod journal size variance. It also guarantees that any differences in instruments, calibration, or measuring techniques are identified as well.

Q. What were the results?
A. The 96 journal measurements did not deviate from the measurements of "S65 Bearing Wiki" thread, but did help identify the manufacturing tolerance limits of the crankshaft.

Q. What was the distribution of measurements?
A. 17 pcs. -0.00010 inch, 53 pcs. nominal, 14 pcs. +0.00010 inch, 9 pcs +0.00020 inch, 3 pcs +0.00030 inch.

Q. Does this shed any light on the bearing clearance issue?
A. You be the judge. The measurements distribution tells the tale.

Q. Who selected the new bearing clearance, and how was it chosen?
A. I did not personally choose the bearing clearance. Three separate engine builders were consulted. Other than Van Dyne Engineering (Indy-500 winning), I don't have permission to name the other two. One of the other two is one of the most successful BMW race engine builders; the other is one of the most successful NASCAR engine builders.

Q. Who designed the bearings, and who reviewed the design?
A. Clevite (BMW OEM manufacturer) designed the bearings. Once the blueprints are completed, the same three engine builders mentioned above will review and approve. The original BMW S14 engine designer will review and approve them as well.


SFP also knows that tolerance stack-up is one of the possible theories which explains why some motors last a long time and others fail early. When you look distribution of measurements posted above, the implications to tolerance stack-up theory is pretty clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
When someone is caught in a lie, it taints everything else written by that person.
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post: Link
I couldn't agree more. I wasn't counting, but I wonder how many lies I caught him making in all of the comments above (which are only a small sample of the many others he's spread throughout the bearing wiki thread)? And why is he lying at all? What does he have to gain by misleading people, and why is he trying so hard to mislead them? I wish I knew.

Last edited by PencilGeek; 29th December 2014 at 06:26 AM.
PencilGeek is offline  
post #67 of 71 Old 29th December 2014, 06:02 PM Thread Starter
PencilGeek
Member, Sport: On DSC: Off
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Posts: 249
Thanks: 1
Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
For whatever reason, SFP continues to hide at m3post and repeat his conspiracy theories and ignore anything that rebuts them. He knows I can't respond there. An honorable person wouldn't do what he's doing, or at least would have the honor to come and address these comments directly on this forum instead of hide at a place where he can say whatever he wants without a rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Jeez what are you RGs side kick? You posted almost straight after RG made that post on a completely different forum.

Anyway for the record these are verbatim extracts from the engine rebuild stories..

Original 2011 engine build story at Van Dyne:
"This is another one of those areas where BMW doesn't publish any specifications, so without measuing a few crankshafts and connecting rods, it's impossible to know what BMW intended. A typical measurement is 0.010" (ten-thousanths of an inch). For our application, we wanted a slightly different side-play tolerance. So we first had to measure the factory crank and connecting rods, then measure the stroker crank and connecting rods to see how they compare.
Even though Carrillo connecting rods are made to the highest standards, we did find a few of them were 1/2 of a thousanth of an inch different than the others (0.0005"). Since Van Dyne already planned to use his own tolerance specifications, this was our opportunity to make the necessary corrections. To ensure that Van Dyne machines the correct face of the connecting rod, each rod is marked with dye. The dyed face is the side that gets machined."


By 2013, in the Wiki Bearing thread, the above is completely rewritten to become:
"Almost in disbelief, Van Dyne started taking measurements. [...]
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."

Note:
No mention that the OEM BMW parts measure up tight in the original 2011 write up.
No mention that the Corrillo and OEM rods measure up the same in the original 2011 write up
In fact the shock horror moment gets no mention at all.

-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
Congratulations to SFP for juxtaposing two quotes together like I asked. Now I'd like to see him explain the alleged contradiction. He gets 50% credit for finding two quotes and putting them side-by-side. But he still gets an "F" because he can't find or explain his alleged contradiction.

Note:
No mention that the OEM BMW parts measure up tight in the original 2011 write up.

No mention that the Corrillo and OEM rods measure up the same in the original 2011 write up
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK

If there wasn't a problem with side clearance, we would never need to measure OEM parts in the first place. At this point, it's painfully obvious SFP is neither an engine builder nor mechanically inclined. SFP's clearly very far over his head in this conversation. LSx said on m3post, this is a measurement you almost take for granted because it's rarely wrong. But when you do find it wrong, if you care to know the answer, you need to find out why it's wrong. We did care to know the answer because I had promised RD Sport the full set of measurements to help improve their product. If I didn't care to know the answer, we wouldn't need to measure OEM parts to compare. A lengthy "process explanation" isn't necessary because the process is self-explanatory to anybody with engine building knowledge. This is all lost on SFP because he's not an engine builder and by now he's too heavily invested in his conspiracy theory that he can't let simple facts get in the way that might disprove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
But if you guys think some bloke on the internet with no access to any of the TBs of data that BMW have on the S85/65 can pull a better (but secret) rod bearing clearance out of his hat then definitely go with that.
I'm sure if your engine with the new undersize bearings lets go at 20K miles, Regular Guy will be straight there to pick up the cost.

-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
Even though his own comments are already disproven, SFP continues to repeat them as if he never noticed. He already knows I didn't select the bearing clearance. He should know that TB's are all available from BMW with a simple subscription service. He continues to ignore the Q&A that already clarified this. Here's the part he ignored as if it was never said.

Q. Who selected the new bearing clearance, and how was it chosen?
A. I did not personally choose the bearing clearance. Three separate engine builders were consulted. Other than Van Dyne Engineering (Indy-500 winning), I don't have permission to name the other two. One of the other two is one of the most successful BMW race engine builders; the other is one of the most successful NASCAR engine builders.

Q. Who designed the bearings, and who reviewed the design?
A. Clevite (BMW OEM manufacturer) designed the bearings. Once the blueprints are completed, the same three engine builders mentioned above will review and approve. The original BMW S14 engine designer will review and approve them as well.

Between these guys, they probably have over 100 race wins. The race wins include Indy-500, multiple championship titles, multiple 24-hours of Daytona, and multiple 24-hours of Lemans. The original BMW S14 engine designer still consults BMW from time to time, and helped them with the S65 race engine project. SFP continues to mislead his target audience on m3post by saying I'm the guy who chose the clearance. He knows he's providing false information and he knows he's misleading people. I'm confident his motives and actions would be obvious if he would tell us his true identity and the name of his employer. I'm pretty sure there's a reason and motive he's going this far to mislead people that would become obvious if we knew who he was and who employed him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
I wasn't going to bother replying to all the points RG made there but here are most.
So I mixed who built and who installed the engine boo hoo its hardly a federal offence.
Side play covered in my post above.
The original Carillo rods: "On three or four of the connecting rods, precisely where the connecting rod cap bolts together, three or four of the bearings were worn to the copper. At such high power and high rotational velocity (high RPMs), the connecting rod cap was deforming, becoming oval shape, and pinching the connecting rod bearings." (Got to feel for the motor that inherited these crappy rods). These were replaced with another set from Carrillo...as I said.
RG may not be the point of sale but that doesn't mean he will not profit from it - not that there is anything wrong from making a few $$$ from the project, other people are going to.
Still no mention of what the new clearance will be.
On tolerance variations: What happens if the tolerance variation means you are already at the wider clearance end of the spectrum and the new thinner bearings give even more clearance?
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK
I wasn't going to bother replying to all the points RG made there but here are most.
So I mixed who built and who installed the engine boo hoo its hardly a federal offence.
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK


Classic SFP at play here. First he tries to "educate" the masses about the evils of PencilGeek by acting as if he's an expert on the build. He cap's it by saying once you're caught in a lie, you can't be trusted. Then as quickly as the wind shifts away from his sails, he ignores his own mistakes and blows them off as completely irrelevant.

I was hoping he'd at least explain why he changed the quotes and answers from my Q&A to manipulate and twist it to support to his conspiracy theory. Why doesn't SFP explain himself on those matters? Why did he falsify what I said and how I said it? This isn't the first time I caught him doing this. He did it in the bearing wiki thread as well.

Still no mention of what the new clearance will be.
-- SenorFunkyPants, m3post, LINK


Get over it. Call Dinan and ask them to tell you their clearance specifications and see how they respond. Or buy a set of bearings when they come out, measure them, and post the results. That's what I had to do with BMW, and it cost me over $4k in equipment and parts. Feel free to do the same if you think this is that important.
PencilGeek is offline  
post #68 of 71 Old 29th December 2014, 11:17 PM
Bavarian Beast
Member, P500 Sport, DSC On (>700)
 
Bavarian Beast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: DE
Posts: 704
Thanks: 223
Thanked 117 Times in 88 Posts
Well, quite the drama. I think you are in the drivers seat here and if you are not in the business, but just building a beast then screw anyone who wants to talk trash. Hell, even if you are in the business screw 'em. Keep going and as with everything in life, the end result shuts down the posers.

Gone but never forgotten - 2007 M6 - Sapphire Black exterior, Indianapolis Red interior, Carbon trim, RPI scoops, BMS filters (carbon filter delete), Kelleners installed Schrick cams-100 cell race cats-chip tune, Evosport Headers and pulley, Dinan exhaust, Eibach springs.
Bavarian Beast is offline  
post #69 of 71 Old 22nd January 2015, 02:14 PM
bmwMcrzy
M5 Expert (>4000)
 
bmwMcrzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,197
Thanks: 833
Thanked 497 Times in 393 Posts
bmwMcrzy is offline  
post #70 of 71 Old 24th March 2018, 10:30 AM
dpaul9
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 49
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
dpaul9 is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E60 For Sale: FS: M5/M6 5.8L Dinan Stroker Motor and Mods darren_dallas Cars For Sale or Wanted 75 30th September 2011 06:10 PM
5,8L stroker motor, rev limit daytonaM5 E60 M5 and E61 M5 Touring Discussion 2 19th April 2011 09:33 AM
I need to be talked out of a stroker motor.. Streetking E60 M5 and E61 M5 Touring Discussion 75 25th July 2008 11:52 PM
HP rating, low compression tropical versions? Donati E34 M5 Discussion 1 11th June 2006 07:45 PM
3.6 LOW COMPRESSION ON 4&5 alpinaman E34 M5 Discussion 12 30th November 2004 04:46 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome