Jump to content
SAU Community

Need help/advice with bearing taper clearance, eccentricity and arp studs.

Desean Strickland
 Share

Recommended Posts

Desean Strickland Contributor

Desean Strickland

Posted
Posted

Hey lads 

so im finally putting together my rb30 forged bottom end and ran into an issue. I measured my main bearing clearance with arp main studs torqued to 60 ft-lbs using ACL H series STD size bearings and standard, un-ground crank shaft journals and got an oil clearance reading of about 1.3 thou measuring straight up and down and about 2.8 thou measuring at a 45 degree angle (just above and below the parting line). My machine shop said they measured the main tunnel and it was all within spec (they didnt say the actual measurement) and to go with a standard size bearing, which i have done and the clearance is too tight, I'm guessing because of the extra clamping force from the arp studs distorting the main tunnel. I was wanting to run about 2.5 thou main bearing clearance. 

My questions are:

1. could i just use the HX extra 1 thou clearance ACL bearings? that would fix my straight up and down clearance making it about 2.3 thou, but then would the side to side clearance be too big at around 3.8 thou?

2. what actually is the recommended main bearing clearance for measuring near the parting line / side to side. i know its supposed to be bigger as the bearing has some eccentricity built into it but how much more clearance should there be compared to the straight up and down measurement? at the moment there is about 1.5thou difference, is that acceptable or should it be less?

3. If i took the engine block + girdle back to the machine shop and got them to line bore the main tunnel (like i told them to do the first time, but they said it didnt need it) what bearing size would i buy? the STD size bearing shells already slide in fairly easily with no real resistance, some even falling out if i tip the girdle up-side-down. If im taking material out of the main tunnel would i need a bearing with extra material on the back side to make up for it?

this is probably confusing af to read so if something doesn't make sense let me know and ill try explaining in a different way. My machine shop doesn't come back from christmas break until mid January, hence why i'm asking these questions here.

TIA for any help or info 

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted

I can't help with the clearance question, I've always taken my machine shop's advice on that. It is worth considering that a shop that does that every day for road cars will be looking for as good as they can get off the shelf, not perfect. If you want more careful race style "blueprinting" then you need a race shop to measure/machine the engine.

I do have an opinion on line boring the block though....don't do it unless you have to. The crank centre moves higher but the oil pump stays in the same place when you line bore the block.

  • Like 1
Desean Strickland Contributor

Desean Strickland

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I can't help with the clearance question, I've always taken my machine shop's advice on that. It is worth considering that a shop that does that every day for road cars will be looking for as good as they can get off the shelf, not perfect. If you want more careful race style "blueprinting" then you need a race shop to measure/machine the engine.

I do have an opinion on line boring the block though....don't do it unless you have to. The crank centre moves higher but the oil pump stays in the same place when you line bore the block.

Thanks for the response. I get why line boring the block could cause issues with a spline drive oil pump but I’m just using an extended flat drive collar, u reccon it could still cause issues? 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • PranK
      New Skyline will be RWD and manual

      By PranK · Posted

    • GTSBoy
      Nismo GT Pro LSD configurations

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      No, you're wrong, and you've always been wrong about this. The Nismo has 2 sets of openings. One is a real 2-way, and the other is a 1-way. There is no 1.5-way possible with the ramps that they offer. A real 1.5-way does exist. That Cusco stuff I posted is a prime example. If the forward drive ramps are, say 55°, and the overrun ramps are, say, 30°, then you will get about half as much LSD effect on overrun than you do on drive. It is real, it realy works. OK, you're slightly right. The Nismo has 55° and 45° ramps on the 2-way, so it does offer less LSD effect on overrun. But, I think that just means that they've (probably) sensibly established that you do not want actually equal LSD effect on overrun. You just want "quite a lot, but not quite as much as the drive LSD effect".
    • DraftySquash
      Newbie from VIC

      By DraftySquash · Posted

      Just wanted to unearth this and post my baby with the new front ❤️😝 Took her to my wedding rehearsal today. Next up is getting wide skirts (after wedding)
    • Kinkstaah
      Nismo GT Pro LSD configurations

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      Yea, that is what I was getting at in my ramblings too. The nismo one actually is a 1.5 way and a 1 way. They don't do a *2* way because a true *2* way would have equal ramp angles. Or is that a true 1.5 way? Realistically I think a "1.5 way" does not actually exist. A diff can either lock in two directions or one. It also doesn't help that a LOT of people in Australia speak about 1.5 way diffs are referring to their 1 way diff.
    • GTSBoy
      Nismo GT Pro LSD configurations

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Well, the trouble with that ^^ is: The configuration shown is absolutely a 1-way, not a 1.5-way. There is no way that a 1.5-way can be said to offer LSD action only on acceleration. If Nismo cannot get that right, then it is impossible to believe their documentation. That ^ is not a 1.5 way setup. That is a 1-way.   And so now I have allowed all doubts to flourish and have gone back to look at the MotoIQ video. I originally made the mistake of believing him when he said "this is a 1.5-way" at the ~6:10 mark. Because what he did was take the gear assembly out of the 2-way opening and just rotate it one place to the left to drop it into the 1-way opening. When he dropped it in there, the cam was "backwards" compared to the correct orientation shown in all other photos of that config. The flat shold have been facing the 1° ramp side of the opening, not the 55° ramp side. And I thought, "gee that's cute", but I was concerned at the time, when he put the other ring back on, that the gap between the rings looked like it was wider then in the 2-way config. And then I said a lot of things in my long post on Tuesday that could only make sense if the guy from MotoIQ was correct about what he'd done. BUT... I have now done my homework. I grabbed a frame of the video with the 2-way config, and then grabbed another with the "1.5-way" config, snipped out the cam and opening of that frame and just pasted it direct on top of the 2-way config. I scaled it so that the triangular opening was almost exactly the same height in both. AND.... the gap between the plates is wider with the cam installed in the triangualr opening backwards. That is.... it cannot go together that way. There would be massive force on the plates all the time, if you could even reassemble it.  So, My statement on the matter? The Nismo diff is actually only a 2-way and 1-way. There is no 1.5-way option in it, regardless of what they say. Here's a photo of a real 1.5-way ramp opening from Cusco (along with the 1 way option). And the full set of 1 through 2 way options from their racing diff, which is not same-same as what we'd typically be using, but...the cams work the same. A little blurry, but it comes from this Cusco doc, which is quite helpful. AND.... Cusco do in fact do what I suggested would be sensible, which is to have rings that do 1 and 1.5, and 1.5 and 2. Separately.  
×
×
  • Create New...