Custom Clevite Rod Bearings

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Don't be so modest. Write a book about it and tell us how great you are in insufferably boring long winded prose. Let us know how smart you really are and much we need you to keep the thread on the right track. If you were a podiatrist who mixed up his feet, you would have more in common with a certain engineer.

:

[M3 Number 86]

Originally Posted by xiliy

Today I put left shoe on my right foot, and I am fine so far.

im confused which recaro goes on which side.

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Coincidentally, back in college (undergraduate) I was offered a position in NUPOC (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate Program) and although a technical/"engineering" position, it definitely is not anywhere close to the scientific and engineering capacity of the engineers and physicists who actually develop and design the reactors. In my view a NUPOC guy is more in analogy to an engine builder and the engine designer/engineer is more analogous to the engineers/physicists who actually design the reactors. Perhaps we see pretty well eye to eye on this as well?

I have no idea about NUPOC. I work for the second organization you referenced. There's a reason we send those guys to qualify operating the plants first.

Anywho, now that we've completely , if I find spare time for debate, I'll send you a PM.

[jcolley]

For the sake of research, I'm sending a full set of new rods to RG for measurement. Not sure which, but I have them, so might as well let them be of use until I need them.

[MiamiE93Vert]

Just installed these on my E93 at Active and will post pictures of my bearings shortly, which were pretty worn. Thank you for this solution!

[LangRacingDevelopment]

Originally Posted by LangRacingDevelopment

I bought a set of the Clevite bearings to check the clearances on. I just checked one rod with stock bolts and I got .0026". The eccentricity seemed pretty different compared to the stock bearing. The clearance on at 90 degrees was lot more open. more like .0045" or .005". These bearings seem to have quite a bit less crush than the factory bearings.

WPC treated factory bearings were .0025" and about .0035" at 90 degrees.

I just went back and measured the BE bearings I bought one more time. I am getting essentially the same clearance, within a tenth or so, as the stock bearing (702, 703). If the problem is that the clearance isn't open enough then why aren't these bearings any looser than stock bearings?

I see people referring to .0015" bearing clearance with stock bearings, I'm not seeing anything near that tight.

[nholmes]

TLDR:

Is the consensus to use OEM rod bolts or run the ARP 625 at a higher torque than recommended?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by LangRacingDevelopment

I just went back and measured the BE bearings I bought one more time. I am getting essentially the same clearance, within a tenth or so, as the stock bearing (702, 703). If the problem is that the clearance isn't open enough then why aren't these bearings any looser than stock bearings?

I see people referring to .0015" bearing clearance with stock bearings, I'm not seeing anything near that tight.

The stock clearances are indeed that tight in many cases, and in rare cases even tighter. A WPC bearing actually picks up a tenth or so of clearance over a virgin 702/703 so comparisons to virgin OEM bearings are important. This Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to be honest. I know for a fact that the bearings add clearance over OEM.

Please post some measurements/data including torqued rod bore ID, journal OD, installed bearing shells torqued in rod bore ID, shell thickness, torque specs and bolts used for your test parts so we can see what the issue is with the numbers you are seeing.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by nholmes

TLDR:

Is the consensus to use OEM rod bolts or run the ARP 625 at a higher torque than recommended?

ts;dr

ftfy

[nholmes]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

ts;dr

ftfy

Just trying to get some signal through all this noise.

[8600RPM]

So these apparently have minimally more clearance than the 702s?

[ASW338]

Ordered these bearings yesterday. Just need to know as I can't find any info on their website. Are these new design bearing have difference with the top and bottom shells? Or there is no difference and we can just install it either way? Also can it be used thinner viscosity 5w-50 for cold start up in winter?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

So these apparently have minimally more clearance than the 702s?

These bearings put the clearance at approximately 0.0025" on most engines. Of course with the tolerance stack up some engines will be a +/- this number by a few tenths due to the tolerance stack.

We now have one person who says that he measured OEM 702/703 bearings that were WPC treated at nearly the same clearance. Funny thing is that out of all the engines that have been measured before, this has never been duplicated with OEM shells. If Lang racing will post the numbers I have asked him for we can get to the bottom of how he got those numbers with the 702/703 WPC treated shells. Without this data his claims will remain without any weight to me.

Another thing to note, "EVERY" BE bearing shell will be measured for thickness and binned. There will be 100% quality control on these something that can not be said for any other bearing shell available for the S65. This is the reason why the shells where taking so long to ship, they had to be confirmed perfect before shipping. None of the people involved in making these shells were willing to put their name on them if they were less than perfect. The installed measurements of these shells have been checked by RG and then confirmed by Kawasaki in his shop, a shop that builds some of the best engines in the racing world with the best equipment and technicians available.

My spare engine is still being ran daily in California, collecting data with every mile (oil pressure, oil temperature, oil flow and RPM) using a new set of OEM 702/703 bearings with OEM 10W60 in the sump then the same data will be collected with BE Bearings and OEM 10W60 to confirm that these bearings are an improvement over OEM. Once this data is compiled for both bearing types it will be posted on the BE Bearings website for all to view.

So like I said above I can't confirm or dispute the numbers that Lang racing is claiming without more info, but I can tell you that when you buy a set of BE Bearings, you are getting support and quality control that is second to none in the industry. Anyone buying a set of these bearings can rest assured that they are the "BEST" bearing shells available for the S65 developed by people who wanted the S65 to be without the dreaded Rod bearing issues.

[8600RPM]

If they are that close to oem I'm just wondering if they really provide significant difference but I agree we need some measurements

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

If they are that close to oem I'm just wondering if they really provide significant difference but I agree we need some measurements

Did you not read all of the other data that was posted on here? OEM bearings don't ever show that kind of clearance, if they did these BE bearings would never have been made. It has been shown before that using other than OEM bolts can result in Rod bore distortion and will yield bigger clearance at 90 degrees from the parting lines. I'm not saying this is what happened but Lang racing is not posting any specifics of what was done when he measured these numbers.

These new bearings add about 0.0009" clearance over 702/703 shells on average. Until Lang comes back here to clarify his data this is all I can tell you.

[8600RPM]

Well lang seems to show otherwise.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

Well lang seems to show otherwise.

I never said he didn't get those numbers, I just said that no other individual or engine builder that has measured OEM bearings has seen those numbers.

I am hoping that Lang reports back with his testing data and that it can all be figured out as to why he saw those numbers with the WPC treated 702/703's. Lang is a reputable shop and they have done lots for the S54 and they seem to want to help do the same for the S65. All I want to find out is how and why he got these numbers so we can all benefit. I can confirm to you that the BE Bearings will yield more clearance, to the tune of about 0.0009" as I mentioned above.

Let's hope he comes in here soon to clarify.

[jcolley]

If it's of any use, my used WPC 702/703s are on their way to RG with a brand new set of 8 rods and bolts. The rods are for measurements, figured the WPC wear would be interesting as well. Perhaps he can measure those as well in the new rods.

Sure would be nice if he were allowed to post anything.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

Well lang seems to show otherwise.

They haven't shown anything yet.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nholmes

TLDR:

Is the consensus to use OEM rod bolts or run the ARP 625 at a higher torque than recommended?

Im not sure there is sufficient evidence against using the stock bolts.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Im not sure there is sufficient evidence against using the stock bolts.

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

It has been shown before that using other than OEM bolts can result in Rod bore distortion and will yield bigger clearance at 90 degrees from the parting lines.

That being said, I will say that when the time comes, I'll be using OEM bolts.

[BrewRifle]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

That being said, I will say that when the time comes, I'll be using OEM bolts.

Same here. Just waiting for the BE bearing group buy.