[Shotimes] rod bearings

[Carl Prochilo]

I was on a local road (double lines) here a few months ago, car was in 4th
gear and turning around 2K.  A Mustang Mach 1 decided I was going too slow
and proceeded to pass me.  I wasn't happy and decided to harass him, but I
must have been half asleep and didn't downshift.  Obviously the car wasn't
very responsive and he got around me without too much trouble.  A classic
lug-head move on my part.  I'm sure that was a good example of how to
abuse rod bearings...

Cheers,
Carl Prochilo
92 Ultra Red Crimson

> I concur, lugging a car engine doesn't do anything to damage the bearings.
> One of the points that I have disagreed on that is popular on the list is
> that you shouldn't run it under 2000 RPM.  Heck, 2000 RPM in 5th is barely
> 55 MPH.  I can't believe that they would design a car that was "lugging"
> at
> what the maximum posted speed limit was in those days.
>
> Jim
> '93 MTX
> replaced rings and bearings at 200K
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net
> [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of John Weidenbenner
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:34 AM
> To: 'David Schultz'; shotimes@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] rod bearings
>
>
> The 3.2 oil pump capacity is 25% greater than the 3.0 pump. This has to be
> a
> major reason why the 3.0 is so hard on rod bearings. Not everyone believes
> that lugging the engine kills the rod bearings. Lugging the engine on a
> worn
> engine will sometimes make the oil pressure light flicker at near stall
> speed, but that's just showing you the condition of the lubrication
> system.
> I believe its just an old wives tail. Anyone have any real proof?
>
> Sometimes just rod bearing replacement will increase the oil pressure
> enough. To do it right replace the rod & main bearings and the oil pump.
>
> John W.
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: [Shotimes] rod bearings
>
>
>> Yeah, the rod bearings on my '95 were trashed at 86K miles. See Rod
> Bearing
>> Job:
>>
>>  http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=rsporter
>>
>> But, this was an MTX.
>>
>> One of our suspicions is that MTXs can have more wear if the engine was
>> lugged around, with poor maintenance playing a lesser role.
>>
>> Now, you are doing a 3.2, which I assume has spent it's life in front of
>> a
>> ATX. What did the rest of the engine look like? Was the oil ever changed
> in
>> 90K+ miles??
>>
>> Ron Porter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net
>> [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
>> On Behalf Of David Schultz
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:18 PM
>> To: shotimes@autox.team.net
>> Subject: RE: [Shotimes] rod bearings
>>
>>
>> This is true.  I am in the process of rebuilding a 3.2l, and have
>> replaced
>> the main and rod bearings.  Where as the rods had considerable, but even
>> wear, the main bearings had considerably less visible signs of wear and
>> probably didn't need replacing.  The rod berings however, did not have
> much
>> life left in them.  This on an engine '94 engine with 90,xxx miles on
>> it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> >I see it as the other way around. Rod bearings, by design, take more
>> >punishment and are more susceptible to failure. Mains have a rather
>> easy
>> >life (relatively speaking). I see the loss of oil pressure due to wear
>> on
>> >rod bearings.
>> >
>> >Ron Porter
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes