Anybody Noticed How Bearing MFG's Are Cheating Us On Materials Nowadays ?

[Southernman]

While going through my engine (big inch Hemi), I noticed a significant difference in the width of the new rod bearings when compared to the ones I removed.

The first set I tried was from King Bearings, and they were .030 narrower than the old TRW's that I removed, and the TRW's were already "undercut" for radiused journals.

I called King bearings and they claimed they've only narrowed the bearing for clearance at the journal radius, however, when I explained I had just removed TRW's that were also relieved, yet the King bearing was .030-.040 narrow than that, they changed their tune and stated, OK, but nobody has complained about it yet...

Pissed off, I order new TRW's from Mancini, and the bearing width was same as the Kings. Got the same song and dance from an engineer at TRW, claiming they were only narrowed enough to clear the radius on the crank pin and instructed me to draw an "imaginary" line along from the radius on the rod, and I would see the material removed "amounts to radiused material that was not used anyway." What a crock.

I've included some pics to make my point. Bearings being sold nowadays are being whittled down (much like food suppliers are doing with their products) and, because nobody is complaining, I suspect they will continue to "short" us on materials until "customers complain."

Anybody else observed this lately ?

 

[SUPERSTOCKRACER]

Thats totally unacceptable.
Did you ever check out Clevite bearings.
i use these bearings
MS 1795V Main Bearing/ Race Only
* CB743HND 2.2 Rod Bearing

 

[HEMI-ITIS]

It's monkey see,monkey do:munky2:Betcha they are all the same now:eusa_boohoo:

 

[Southernman]

Chris, I agree with you, and they were the high-grade Clevite bearings for the Hemi rod. I bought them from Mancini. The odd thing is, when I talked with the factory engineers they quoted me the correct dimension from their diagrams, but when I explained to them that's what the old TRW bearing measured, but the new bearings are .040 narrower, at first they couldn't believe it (denial), then later they claimed that "after checking", all bearings for the big block Mopars have been narrowed and, nobody's complained yet... To which I told them, "If I lose my Hemi bottom end with these skinny bearings, I'll be sending both the bill and a summons, if necessary, for rebuild expenses."

I guarantee you that some dim-witted, non-builder of an engineer, put in a "cost improvement" to suggest a savings on materials. I only share it with FBBO because I think it's going to become more of an issue, and to permit everyone here to CHECK their bearings [the ones that came out compared to the being used). If enough of us complain, maybe they'll stop playing games on our [very expensive] dimes...

Let the buyers beware. Evidently, descendants of the ancient coin-clippers have landed modern day jobs - in the bearing manufacturing industry no less.

Southernman

 

[SUPERSTOCKRACER]

Chris, I agree with you, and they were the high-grade Clevite bearings for the Hemi rod. I bought them from Mancini. The odd thing is, when I talked with the factory engineers they quoted me the correct dimension from their diagrams, but when I explained to them that's what the old TRW bearing measured, but the new bearings are .040 narrower, at first they couldn't believe it (denial), then later they claimed that "after checking", all bearings for the big block Mopars have been narrowed and, nobody's complained yet... To which I told them, "If I lose my Hemi bottom end with these skinny bearings, I'll be sending both the bill and a summons, if necessary, for rebuild expenses."

I guarantee you that some dim-witted, non-builder of an engineer, put in a "cost improvement" to suggest a savings on materials. I only share it with FBBO because I think it's going to become more of an issue, and to permit everyone here to CHECK their bearings [the ones that came out compared to the being used). If enough of us complain, maybe they'll stop playing games on our [very expensive] dimes...

Let the buyers beware. Evidently, descendants of the ancient coin-clippers have landed modern day jobs - in the bearing manufacturing industry no less.

Southernman

I see that you have put alot of time and effort into this and I applaude you for this. I can see your frustration and in the past I have noticed the same thing so I searched and changed manufacturers to try different bearings. I have also noticed that the quality of the bearing has been compromised as well.
It looks like I got the same thing as you in my GRP Aluminum Rods.
I did also have them in my Eagle rods in my Hemi and saw no excessive wear after 200 mpasses this season. I will however keep a close eye on them this year.
Thanks for posting all those awesome shots and detailed description and comparisons.

 

[HEMI-ITIS]

Your post made me remember on my last disassembly that I noticed that the bearings did look a little narrow.I do not remember what brand they were.

 

[msb0824]

I understand your concern on the narrower bearings, but I recently read an article that this is the trend in modern engine design. I don't recall where I read it, but the article explained that the bearing designs for these old engines were unnecessarily conservative to the point where it robbed horsepower via frictional losses. If this is the case, this would be a good thing as the engine would produce more useable power and waste less on overcoming frictional forces.

 

[SUPERSTOCKRACER]

I understand your concern on the narrower bearings, but I recently read an article that this is the trend in modern engine design. I don't recall where I read it, but the article explained that the bearing designs for these old engines were unnecessarily conservative to the point where it robbed horsepower via frictional losses. If this is the case, this would be a good thing as the engine would produce more useable power and waste less on overcoming frictional forces.

That is very logical. i'm going to research this matter in more depth and post results and conclusions.

 

[Southernman]

I've been through all of the literature on this subject and I can tell you that narrowing a bearing (which rides on a film of protective oil [does not touch the crank] - which means the only "friction losses" incurred would be from the viscosity of your oil, which won't add enough horsepower to offset the diminished load bearing capaicty of these skinny bearings.

Think about what you're saying and ask yourself this: if hydraulics are the only thing separating the crank pin from the journal, narrowing the bearing results in a smaller hydraulic "foot print" separating the two units. There's LESS protection for the journal and bearing. This ain't rocket science...

Manufacturer's are pushing this BS on us in an attempt to justify their cost improvement initiatives within their organizations (i.e. change the unit of measure to ease the impact to consumers of an outright price increase).

I can tell you this: if you reduce the width of a bearing, you also reduce it's load-bearing capacity; capacity that is needed in the event you briefly exceed rpm limits, or experience brief loss of oil pressure. Anybody that tells you otherwise is full of sh_t. If you're making any kind of real horsepower, you need all the bearing you can run, it's just that simple.

Hemi-itis, your bearings look even skinnier than mine ! I'm running RBRE (Manley) rods as well and the bob weight, combined with the rpm's these engines can attain, mean we need all the bearing surface we can get. It would be a different story if the bearings in my first photo (which were already "undercut") were the ones I received back (dimensionally), but the skinny bearings they're selling right now are downright inadequate. If I experience the kind of failure seen in your bearings, I'm gonna send 'em the bill.

Southernman

 

[poppaj]

They make them a touch narrower now because the cranks have radiused edges. It is necessary to still chamfer the bearing edges. The slightly narrower bearing hurts nothing. You need to worry more about the bearing surface than the width. poppaj

 

[Meep-Meep]

This is a very good observation and I will pay more attention from now on. What you say about load carrying ability being reduced is absolutely correct. The machinery handbook has a table or calculations to figure proper diameter to width ratio for plain oil lubed bearings. The only defense from these skinny bearings is to have oil with good film strength.

 

[HEMI-ITIS]

Hemi-itis, your bearings look even skinnier than mine ! I'm running RBRE (Manley) rods as well and the bob weight, combined with the rpm's these engines can attain, mean we need all the bearing surface we can get. It would be a different story if the bearings in my first photo (which were already "undercut") were the ones I received back (dimensionally), but the skinny bearings they're selling right now are downright inadequate. If I experience the kind of failure seen in your bearings, I'm gonna send 'em the bill.

Southernman

The bearings shown are Clevite and are 3 seasons old with maybe 10k miles and 50 passes.My bearing failure was from detonation plain & simple.Shot myself in the foot once again.Those problems have all been corrected and I'll can't wait to get my comp licence and really turn the wick up:munky2:

 

[Southernman]

Poppaj, I appreciate the feedback here, but what you're saying just isn't true. Here's why: the TRW bearings that came out of my engine were standard (already undercut) bearings which already/easily cleared the radius on my K-1 Crank journals - and the radius on their cranks is about as 'generous' as you can get. The other thing is, when the TRW engineer spoke to me, he swore that the bearings were just like the first photo I posted above, which means he was talking about the "OLD" bearings I was running. After I busted his chops for not even knowing how narrow the new bearings were he came back later and said they've had no complaints yet. Trust me, there is a point of diminshing returns and bearings ain't the place for mfgs to play that game. Time will tell.

When the new TRW, and King, bearings arrived, they were a full .040 narrower than the bearings I removed. Listen, I'm sure you guys come from the same 'old school' as me and I'm comfortable radiusing my own bearings, but for the manufacturer to claim they are somehow "doing us a favor" by removing even MORE material than is required to actually clear the radius, just doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather radius my own than to have the mfg "help" me - kinda like the govt - when they offer help, you know who's gonna get shafted in the end (and in which end...).

I'm going to keep a close watch on my bottom end just for verification, and I recommend other enthusiasts do the same. It's simply a 'heads up' and an attempt to make others aware that bearing mfg's are making changes and not informing the consumer. It's like the diesel additivie I run in my Cummins. Recently, where I used to buy my additive that would treat 300 gallons of fuel @ ~$12.00 per container, that same $12 container shrunk and now only treats 250 gallons of fuel. Ditto for our food items these days.

I've got entirely too much money tied up in my hotrod to have some bean counter at the bearing mfgs whittling my parts down to satisfy shareholders. Caveat Emptor - or Implied Warranty of Fitness? Time will tell.

BTW, I enjoy conversing with you fellas and I'm hoping to get the car out this year and maybe meet some of you in person and get to check out your cars, which are all top notch from what I've seen. Again, enjoyed the conversation.

Southernman

 

[poppaj]

Poppaj, I appreciate the feedback here, but what you're saying just isn't true. Here's why: the TRW bearings that came out of my engine were standard (already undercut) bearings which already/easily cleared the radius on my K-1 Crank journals - and the radius on their cranks is about as 'generous' as you can get. The other thing is, when the TRW engineer spoke to me, he swore that the bearings were just like the first photo I posted above, which means he was talking about the "OLD" bearings I was running. After I busted his chops for not even knowing how narrow the new bearings were he came back later and said they've had no complaints yet. Trust me, there is a point of diminshing returns and bearings ain't the place for mfgs to play that game. Time will tell.

When the new TRW, and King, bearings arrived, they were a full .040 narrower than the bearings I removed. Listen, I'm sure you guys come from the same 'old school' as me and I'm comfortable radiusing my own bearings, but for the manufacturer to claim they are somehow "doing us a favor" by removing even MORE material than is required to actually clear the radius, just doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather radius my own than to have the mfg "help" me - kinda like the govt - when they offer help, you know who's gonna get shafted in the end (and in which end...).

I'm going to keep a close watch on my bottom end just for verification, and I recommend other enthusiasts do the same. It's simply a 'heads up' and an attempt to make others aware that bearing mfg's are making changes and not informing the consumer. It's like the diesel additivie I run in my Cummins. Recently, where I used to buy my additive that would treat 300 gallons of fuel @ ~$12.00 per container, that same $12 container shrunk and now only treats 250 gallons of fuel. Ditto for our food items these days.

I've got entirely too much money tied up in my hotrod to have some bean counter at the bearing mfgs whittling my parts down to satisfy shareholders. Caveat Emptor - or Implied Warranty of Fitness? Time will tell.

BTW, I enjoy conversing with you fellas and I'm hoping to get the car out this year and maybe meet some of you in person and get to check out your cars, which are all top notch from what I've seen. Again, enjoyed the conversation.

Southernman

Didn't imply that is was good that they are doing this just that is their reasoning. I am sure that they have changed plenty more things to lower cost that we do not know about. I do believe that this is not a big issue with the bearing being narrower. I am much more worried about the quality of the metal they are using to produce these parts. I always run the coated "Black" bearings now just for that reason. Some of the bigger stroker motors can knock out a set of main bearings in as little as 50 runs. The coated bearings have a much better lifespan. So that is why I am saying the surface is much more important than the width. I am sure there are many other different opinions on this subject. poppaj

 

[DMR440]

Interesting thread guys. Perhaps this short article from Muscle Motor's may help clear a few things up.

http://www.musclemotorsracing.com/muscle-mike-blog/122-stroker-kits-101.html

 

[SUPERSTOCKRACER]

Well I am in agreeance with Southernman on this too.
I would want more surface area from my bearings to cover as much area as possible.
From my experience I have seen a few types of bearings really not holding up to the power of some high HP stroker kits.
I'm leaning towards the fact that the bearing material is not of the same quality that we are all used to from years ago.
I would have hoped that they made a better quality bearing in order to handle much more HP that we are making now compared to the past.