911SC fitting 996gt3 bearing, findings?

[ahh911]

Hi Guys,

Replacing the rod bearings on 81sc. Measured twelve (996gt3) 99610312194 shells, all measure roughly .01 to .02mm less thick at about 3/4 inch from the ends as they do in the middle. The originals do not. Once in the rods this difference is seen as well, where the originals do not show this. I assume this is intentional, once in rod it just falls into bore spec as written by Wayne of 53.02 - 53.059 mm where at the 45 degrees axis it's closer to the larger 53.059 number and along the rod length axis (zero degrees) it's closer to the 53.020, it almost hits both limits. Again the old ones measured close to 53.015 roughly all around. Did anyone have an explanation or information they could share on this? I for one would very much appreciate some insight.

Phil

[jjeffries]

Phil, I used them when I refreshed my stock 82 SC engine four years and 12K miles ago. I did no measuring, but everything has been fine. Anecdotal only, I realize.

John

[ahh911]

Hi John,
I think it's fine too, but am not 100% sure, so hearing from others is always a relief. I read this link talking about eccentrical profiling of rod bearing shells. But the original design was not eccentric, even the replacement Glycos I bought had equal thickness dimensions the whole way around (but they did not sit true in the rods, they sat diagonally so i'm not using them, SA).

https://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/media/local-media-north-america/pdfs-&-thumbnails/cl77-1-205r.pdf

Link above talking about eccentricity in shells why it's designed that way and where to measure, was useful for the average guy like myself.

It's good to hear from those who've used them!

Phil