Rod Bearing alignment of edges off
 

1989 911 3.2

Assembling Newly machined rods with new Glyco bearings to measure ID of big ends. What aligns / centers the bearing in the rod on the non-tang side? In pic below you can see that my bearings want to naturally sit not aligned. Prior to assembling halves together I can slide the bearing over a bit to center it, but it wants to move back. Has anyone seen this and is it normal? This is the first one that I have assembled, but want feedback before continuing on with rest of rods. Rod in picture has bolts torqued to about 20 foot pounds.

Thanks

Mark

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547343229.jpg

Something's very wrong there. Rod should have one bearing tang per half, and each bearing should have a corresponding tang.


My guess is you have the wrong bearings.

Hi Catorce,

Yep, rods have 1 tang per half, and bearings have one tang each. When you assemble rods correcty with the rod numbers on the same side, you end up with tangs together, and no tangs together. This is the side with no tangs. Correct bearings and original rods to my car. Don't think that's the issue.

Thanks,

Mark

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547402336.jpg

Ok now I'm actually a little concerned. Are these the right bearings for a 1989 911 3.2?

Catorce you may be right on part number, but fitment looks right except the alignment issue

Lets see a similar pic of the rod without the bearings.
Might just be the pic but something looks funky with the rod cap partline.

Rod bearings should be similar in width to the rods. The picture looks like they are both significantly narrower and staggered.

That does not look right.

Looks like maybe so much was taken off the cap that there is very little relief left in the cap for the tang to fit correctly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547413466.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547413563.jpg

Rods were in very good shape before resizing. Assume they didn't lick much off prior to resizing.

New bearings mic out same as originals in all dims. Engine never been apart before now so width correct.

I'll email shop regarding part number.

Any other thoughts appreciated

Thx

Mark

I should also point out that because I'm waiting for a rod bolt stretch gauge to arrive I did a plastigage experiment and gap looked about 0.05mm, so with in spec... that's why there are some markings on one of the new bearings...

Mark Henry, forgot to attach pic of rod without bearings.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547415580.jpg

Dauner,
Order a set of bearings from the Porsche dealer, or Porsche OEM bearings through our host and see if the fit is different. In the past three years or so there have been some pretty fantastic failures on glyco bearings made in third world countries. Yes Glyco makes the OEM bearings, but they have been proven to be not the same. When looking at the risk / reward I can't see a reason to not buy OEM bearings moving forward.

The finish on the bearing surfaces looks odd, normally you'll see more of a fine cross hatch pattern from the honing. Your new bearings appear to be the same width as your original example. I'd bolt the rod together without bearings, torque the bolts, and measure the big end for comparison to required dimension.

glyco was a well reputated source for all kind of bearing the older days. new glyco bearings are tricky. some can be used. others might not be used and others (south africa) should be thrown away without testing arround. worst quality you can imagine.

buy a set of other bearings and try again. that should solve the issue....

Are the stamped numbers on the same side of the rod? It does not look like it in the picture.

rod bearing
 

Your have a late 3,2 motor maybe you need the bearings from a 3,6 they are smaller.
look at my pictures when i put in some aftermarked rods in my 3,2 i have to buy bearings from A 3,6.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547591751.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547591829.jpg

Tangs grooves are on the same side which would be correct.

And of course the cap and rod have the same number,,,,maybe too obvious,,,but have to ask.

I'm no expert by any means... but on my rods, the numbers on the rods are both on the same side. The top piece and bottom piece line up so the stamped numbers are both on the same side.

That's making the assumption that the shop resized the rods with the caps in the correct place. Probably a safe assumption, but if the machine shop happened to mix the caps, you would either need to start over with the rod machining (probably at a new shop), or keep the caps in the new alignment.

My guess is that the number is actually on the rod, but you can't see it because of the camera glare in that spot.

I am somewhat...almost 30 years professionally and still learning, tang grooves same side, same as numbers same side. SmileWavy
Cap/rod numbers could be mixed up (I'm sure the OP has checked by now) but the orientation is OK. Not the issue.

My guess is incorrect bearings or mislabeled, doesn't happen often but I've seen this before.