Quote:
Originally Posted by 4corners
I want to see every single one you take apart to see the good and bad. Not just the bad. Then maybe I'll consider it. Do it right with analysis.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by REP1KRR
Also interested in seeing other bearing samples. It would be very helpful in making a decision to replace.
|
This. I mentioned this in the Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki thread, but right now IMHO it's unclear whether this is a widespread problem or a bunch of FUD, and I think that's mostly because, like many other issues we discuss on these boards, information is heavily negatively biased, which isn't conducive to making informed decisions. It would be immensely helpful if vendors like Tom@EAS and others who perform several bearing inspections on our cars would comment on what percentage of cars have bearings that look just fine, along with other information like model year, mileage, operating climate, driver habits, modification status, and oil change intervals to help identify trends where problems are occurring. I understand that if the answer is that a fair number of cars have bearings that look fine, that would be bad for business, but it would sure go a long way toward either reducing the FUD or supporting the argument that owners intending to keep their cars long-term should consider this.
And with respect to this bearing issue specifically, I have yet to see photographic proof that any of the proposed solutions (thinner oil, WPC-treated bearings, or the VAC coated bearings suggested here) actually result in reduced or eliminated bearing wear. Has anybody who had bearing problems, especially after relatively low mileage, and implemented one of these solutions gone back and rechecked them after the same number of miles to determine whether their solutions are actually providing any benefit?
