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.

Hi everyone,

EBS is my machine shop, and they have been very responsive and helpful. They sell sets of these exact bearings every day and haven't had issues from customers for awhile. They will either send another set to me, or I can upgrade to Clevite 77. Leaning toward the Clevites. I promised myself I would be mindful of slippery slope, but alas, here we are. On the forums, of course you only hear about the instances of quality problems. You don't hear about the 100's of sets sold every year of Glyco's that work just fine. If there were any builders that use or have used Glyco bearings made in S. Africa, it would be great if you mentioned it...

As a note, I did go ahead and install the original bearings, and they line up perfectly. Never mind the scratches. they have been all floating around in a ziplock bag.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547667195.jpg

I had to go with clevite rod bearings on my last two builds (3.6 and 2.4) as the clyco bearings originally ordered had issues. don't remember where they were made. mains were fine.

john

Do not install any third world glyco branded bearing unless you have the ability to do a full fitment and quality check. If you're not able to use a bore gauge and really check them for clearance you're doing yourself a disservice trying to save a few bucks. The OEM Porsche branded shells have never been associated with quality debacles, and you can actually see marks on them where they have been through some quality control process. From a quick check it looks like you could get a set of 6 from my local dealer for $250. Well worth the increase when compared to the known quality problems of the low end parts.

It's good that you've narrowed down the smoking gun...

I posted a bunch of various bearing pictures in this thread.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/825748-rod-bearing-controversy.html

The quality control check marks that smokintr6 refers to are in post #75

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/825748-rod-bearing-controversy-2.html#post8286903

My new #8 was so out of spec on the ID you could drive a Mack truck through it. Ended up coating the in-spec used bearing.

So, Danner
You have concluded that the issue was bad dimensions on your first set of replacement bearings? Because the old ones lined up as they should?

Hi Walt,

I didn't measure any dimensions as there was a major issue with the alignment of the non tang ends. I'd really be curious to know how they are manufactured. Three sets all exhibited the same phenomenon.

I am going to go with Clevite 77. Can only assume the issue will go away. Will update the thread when complete.

Thx

Did you try 3 sets of Glycos? Or were there other brands tried?

I got a set of Glyco GT3 rod bearings (coated, made in germany), and was really pleased with the thickness measurements. They were consistent and within spec to .0001. I was really impressed.

But!!!! I went back and looked for misalignment of the shells as pictured in this thread and find the same thing with mine. To make matters more interesting the Glycos I took out were from 2002 and they have exactly the same width measurement - 17.6mm. Same amount of misalignment.

The shell is approximately 1.15-1.25mm too narrow. From what I can tell by measuring the bearing shell width should be about 18.75mm.

I could not find any specs in any book about bearing shell width, only rod/journal width (22mm nominally).

For what it's worth the bearings that came out of the motor look great, even though the misalignment is there.

So the big question is, does it matter? Why is this happening? If Glyco is making GT3 bearings for Porsche are they similarly narrow? I bought these Glyco GT3 bearings to measure them for size but I guess they are going back, but will the genuine GT3 bearings be any better or different?

Pics
 

Pictures to go with above post
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1548874842.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1548874842.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1548874842.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1548874842.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1548874842.jpg

I am NO EXPERT, but this bearing package does NOT say they are for a 3.2L engine, correct me if I am wrong.
From the picture, I do not see 3.2L listed. It starts with 3.3L, 3.4L, etc., etc..

Hope this helps. Good luckSmileWavy

I measured the Glyco mains tonight, and they also seem well made, bus alas they are .0004" to .0006" thinner. Adding .0008 to .0012" to my bearing clearance is not part of the plan.....

They are getting sent back as well.

Try the mains from the dealer.... NOT cheap, but I'd bet they'll be in spec.

3.2 and 3.3 share the same journals as they are virtually the same engine on the low end.

I measured some 3.0 SC and GT3 rod bearing shells for Jonny042. The three pairs of shells pictured below are, left to right:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1549132573.jpg

• Aftermarket Glyco SC (like red boxes pictured elsewhere in this thread) with 10-12 date code and a box sticker made in S Africa,
• Aftermarket Glyco red box GT3 "R” bearings (no date code I can see, not even on box decals) made in Germany
• OEM Porsche GT3 (996.103.121.94) bearings I got from a Porsche dealer. No date code on them bearings but do have 99612194 number (no zeros) and the einmalig triangle on the back. They also have the QC tick marks on them in six places each where you can see they were measured for QC/QA

The measured width of all are the same. All measure between 0.793” - 0.794” = 20.14mm - 20.17mm. Edit: NOPE, that's incorrect. I read the dial calipers wrong. I should have said 0.693" to 0.694" = 17.60mm to 17.63mm. See post #81 for my correction

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/1017939-rod-bearing-alignment-edges-off-3.html#post10372061

I placed each pair in an SC rod and they all line up evenly in the rod. Sorry I didn't take a picture of the bearing alignment in the rod but you can trust me on this.

Unfortunately I haven't yet put them in any rods to check them for bearing clearance against my crankshaft. That engine ain't getting built any time soon so that's why I don't have those numbers. Sorry..... :(

Thanks again, Kevin. This is a big help. It's shocking to me that both the bearings I removed and the new ones I bought are supposed to fit the SC rods/crank but are "off" by that much. At this point my only option is to order the same GT3 part number 99612194 from the dealer and be done with it. For the rods, at least.

Mains are a different story....

Here's a picture of the issue from a different angle:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1549298723.jpg

There's a good 14% difference in bearing area due to the width difference, not to mention the force would not be centered along the middle of the journal, causing some side loading. Of course the bearings pictured were installed in 2002 or so and only had maybe 10,000km on them but still.

Glad to help and sorry to see your difficulties. I agree it doesn't make sense why the bearing width would be off. Seems like a manufacturing mistake. Once again Glyco aftermarket shows big quality decline?

I would say so. I wonder who makes the GT3 bearings (these days)? I'm thinking of ordering a pair of shells to see how they look before committing to the whole 12.

I bought my shells one each (not pairs) at the dealer network. So you can buy just one if you want to do that for investigative/reconnaissance purposes

I figured I'll get a pair so I can throw them in a rod and easily check for sizing with the bore gauge. I found them for $20/half-shell so that's actually not too bad.