is there a "hard" compound 2.2 rod bearing???

been meaning to ask this one for years

I know I can get soft vs hard bearings for most any old V8 project but I've yet to come across any mention of a hard 2.2 rod bearing


the basic clevite engine rebuilder rod bearings just don't make the grade for me and never did

six years , six rebuilt '85 heavy rod NCB motors .. all ended the summer with spun or burned up rod bearings

problem stopped with the 86 lightweight rod motors - I actually like those motors for 200 ish hp a LOT more - I've had three, successfully, all unrebuilt to boot

and yeah , part of the issue (part lol) is me I know
driving my old turbo converted turismo I did learn where the power loss lamp ... STARTS to light up

not bright , just a dull red glow outta the cluster at the top of third...only ever noticed it at night

I'm going to use JE pistons and my BC rods so stuff should be "light" , whatever that turns out to be but I'd like to also remove the chance for distortion and squeezing at the rod bearings too

crank bearings have never been an issue other than rod bearing trash

wanna do laps all day .. not wait in line to make passes - so the merciless auto beatings shall be resuming

I have no issue with "refreshing" the right parts but I don't want to constantly replace the wrong parts and make repairs which it seems is what I was doing back then

goal is 450-480 hp -- drivable, all day
well , for an hour or so at a time anyways ..

Mosport is about an hour from home including stopping for coffee
and it's in the opposite direction of the morning rush hour
sounds perfect for a retired guy's early start to the day lol

at the gate when it opens ...first thing in the morning
probably knowing me , with something I just spent all night finishing

... needs a "test drive"

I'm responding more to see what others say. I personally have never had an issue with either Clevite (Tri-Metal) or Sealed Power. However, one could argue that I didn't make all that much power, either.

Have you ever had an oil analysis done? Just wondering if there's something there. Recently followed a post by Ray Pampena where he's rebuilding his DD 3.0TT that makes a ton of power (known for wiping out rod bearings). His bearings looked great. I attribute that mostly to his tune, but he did mention running 20W50 oil. I'm not usually a fan of running that heavy of an oil, but it might actually need it. He never replied about his oil temperatures. Just thinking maybe something with more film strength might help you out.

The original Mopar bearings were a hard bearing, no longer available unfortunately.

Had a little trouble following all of your post Johnny, but if I understood you correctly your using BC Neon rods. If so, the 'H" series rod bearings are the HP rod bearings for the 2.4 rod. CB-1813H is what you are looking for. That is what I used for my 16V Masi build.
Todd

I've never had issue any issue with Clevite bearings personally.

Todd, are you saying those rod bearings work with the Masi 16v crank?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iTurbo

I've never had issue any issue with Clevite bearings personally.

Todd, are you saying those rod bearings work with the Masi 16v crank?

---

No, work with SRT rods with TII/TIII/TIV crank.
Todd

thanks guys .. always great info

yes oil was an issue it seamed .. or rather castrol was an issue

5-30, 10-30 and even 20-50 castrol would not cling to the dipstick at operating temp

yeah I'd have to check it cold to get a reading off the stick

quaker state solved that .. and I've used nothing but q-s since in EVERYTHING

- harder o-e bearings would explain some of the issue with all my rebuilds vs the original build motors

and thanks for the part number Todd !! I'll have a lookie see at those

mazzi 16 v crank

I think maybe I see something different from youse guyz when I see one

I see a need for a new bank account to pay the machine shop

because I see the "billet" for the sweetest little 2.2 crank I could think of

narrower rod bearings are easily solved .. have that same guy whose drilling holes and cutting chunks off it make the journals wider.. pretty simple

and probably about 4K cdn lol

if/when I can find a good crank for less than $1000 to start with...

biggest pain .. they didn't sell the TC up here - I could have scored two complete 16v motors back in '93 for 6 hun each - wish now I hadda

pic is just a sample teaser .. but looks right

Looks very similar to the billet 2.0L one I have.

eah I guess I should say it
I'd do 5-6 hun US for "one of them cranks nobody can use"
GLADLY..

so IF any you know of / have a decent one that someone would REALISTICALLY like to sell ...I'd do it

and I'd be willing to do it before year's end to boot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iTurbo

Looks very similar to the billet 2.0L one I have.

---

MAN, I WISH that ^ said 2 point 5 LOL

I'd swear I saw an add here for a billet 2.5 crank maybe 2-3-4 years ago - like it got posted and almost immediately deleted

I have 2 16V Masi cranks that have spun rod bearings. Dunno if either could be saved. I personally want to run Honda size journals/bearings.

Keep in mind there are 2 different Masi cranks...CB and non-CB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reaper1

I have 2 16V Masi cranks that have spun rod bearings. Dunno if either could be saved. I personally want to run Honda size journals/bearings.

Keep in mind there are 2 different Masi cranks...CB and non-CB.

---

That reminds me of a TIII head I bought from a guy in Denver. He was really into Hondas.....said that the smaller bearings were actually better due to less rotational velocity, which makes perfect sense if you think about it...

I will find/post a picture of this crazy 2.0L billet crank. I won the lottery when I picked it up in Boise one day!

Attachment 64000Attachment 63998Attachment 63999

smaller bearings are better.. look at ford 351c.. and nascar engines.. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iTurbo

That reminds me of a TIII head I bought from a guy in Denver. He was really into Hondas.....said that the smaller bearings were actually better due to less rotational velocity, which makes perfect sense if you think about it...

I will find/post a picture of this crazy 2.0L billet crank. I won the lottery when I picked it up in Boise one day!

---

Yeah yeah...keep rubbing it in! ;) JK

Yes, the relative surface velocities are a lot less for smaller diameter bearings. This puts less shear stress on the oil. It also has the side benefit of reducing weight because not as much material is on the crank journal and the big end of the rod. All of the reasons I want to try it! (Not to mention Honda bearings come in VERY precise sizes and you can really dial in clearances pretty easily)

Reduced crank pin diameters violate OEM (GM) crank pin overlap edicts but they are no doubt extreme.

Many successfully run reduced diameters with no problems so established edicts are possibly excessive.

The evolution of the SBC clearly illustrates this successful but probably excessive standard.

It would be interesting to see where the new generation of Engines are overlap wise.

Thanks
Randy
Attachment 64002

first , I'd be/am lookin for a CB 16v crank - I have a 90 something 2.5 block and the 4 bolt caps

i was holding off buying pistons until I pulled my very low mileage but broken 2.5 apart
-back before I had to move, but that turned out to be redundant because one of the guys from T U happened to post out of the blue that you go 60 thou .. with the big isma valve
COOL THAT WAS the only thing I needed to know at the time

and still , until I have a crank I don't really need 'em

the harder o-e bearing might explain where I was thinking the thicker bearing shells in the re n re motors was the problem

like other o-e parts I wouldn't be surprised if they were never actually offered as replacement parts
- ford does that , a lot I found

and yeah I know the existing stuff works for people , the bearing question goes back thirty years for me
as for the crank idea , if I did everything everyone else does I have a camaro .. or a mustang ..
and it's a deviation I can consider having curbed input on my now defunct 383 coronet and 460 f150 projects
like the crank I wanted to do a lightweight o-e 383 steel crank , new rods and pistons .. and raised port long valve stage six mp heads.. just because ..SCREAMER .. and the blinking disbelieving eyes when I say yeah it's "only" a 383

plus it would just be interesting to try something different
if it still comes out heavy compared to what a regular 2.2 crank would then maybe look at as moving weight into the motor where it's better supported... when adding a lighter flywheel

the double weighted crank is also supposed to distribute that weight more evenly across the journals and maybe especially the main webs in the block which then become equally loaded at each side

a lighter flywheel could help turn left or right .. moving the weight inside and maintaining the reciprocating weight might help engine braking and maintaining engine speed not under power .. like the flywheel is supposed to do
but it probably won't seem to store energy "as long"

also I should add
whenever I had a bad rod bearing it was either #1 or #4
NEVER 2 or 3

all my 85 motors had high volume 86 pumps as I was aware of the difference back then

I had two head gasket fails - the o-e carb motor in my turismo and the replacement in it's later turbo motor
a mccord gasket with no metal divider between the fire rings
burned a nice deep notch into the head between the 1&2 chambers

my 2.5 ran for 2 years beaten hard with the original TII LM my shelby z came with
engine was new in car when I bought it .. new , parts counter new , not a rebuild

one day it started to knock .. hard .. something was broken
years later when I pulled it apart I found the #4 exhaust valve follower standing on end between the springs
ok
I pull out the adjuster for it
it won't squeeze down even 16 years later
so I put it in the vise and smacked it hard as I could
no give
huh??

I pull the head
opps
and lol

exhaust valve is hung open
there a big chunk of piston holding it open

and a big piece missing right below the exhaust valve .. kinda punched out the same shape as the valve
and you know .. some loose chunks

after two years it wasn't the 2.2 calibration that killed my 2.5
not quite sure what did to this day