Printable View
Tdi shells fit backside dry, journal side lubed. There is no need for a hole in the bearing shell, they are oiled by a hole in the journal.
So it seems wrong to fit the 2.25 bearings with the hole, but supplier is convinced they are equally effective..
Hmmm. If truely no consequence, why did landrover delete the hole in the bearing, they could have continued using the old 2.25 bearings?Quote:
Originally Posted by justinc
Cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by manic
Ok ok. I was trying to dig up alternate opinion, but it seems the supplier is entirely right. Im still miffed I was given 2.25 bearings when I ordered OEM for tdi.
Final check, no one disagrees with this statement:
Swapping an OEM TDI bearing shell for the 2.25 bearing with a hole punched in it will effect absolutely no change in oil pressure or rate of bearing wear, is no more likely to fail or score the journal when flogged, and the hole is not going to allow oil to get behind the shell in a way that might cause any adverse effects.
Both the 200TDI & 2.25 are supplied oil through the hole in the journal. On the 2.25 the hole in the shell bearing is to supply oil up a drilling in the conrod to squirt oil up the bore/under the piston.Quote:
Originally Posted by manic
The hole should have no effect in the TDI but as suggested put the shell bearings with the hole into the caps not the conrods (shouldn't really make a difference anyway). The only difference is the loss of surface area due to the hole so less white metal to collect dirt particles.
Have the TDI shell bearings been discontinued or is it to do with supply & demand ? If the only difference is the hole then as time goes on the economics of producing two different sets of shell bearings when one covers both applications comes into play.
Colin
This is my next question also. The supplier claims it is harder to get the 2.5s in lead copper. But they rebuild both engines so I can see why they would be happy to only buy in the 2.25 bearings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromit
Im now on the hunt for lead copper bearings for the 2.5 RTC2993. Ive been led to believe the best option are the King Bearings made in Isreal (not india).
Best of luck, most supplier don't seem to list where they come from.
King Big End Con Rod Bearings CR4405CP STD For LAND ROVER 2.5 DIESEL | eBay
Turners list them as well.
Colin
Turners are sending out 2.25 bearings even if you order the 2.5, I've told them to update their site.Quote:
Originally Posted by gromit
Since last post I received OEM RTC2993, genuine King, supplied by Bearmach which I was assured would be confirmed as copper lead before shipment. But no, I received the aluminium variant - CR4405AM. Got to keep them with a refund. Any one want them?
Need some for a 2.25 but don't know the size until I drop the sump.Quote:
Originally Posted by manic
PM sent.
Colin
Hey Colin, will see what I have left over when jobs done. I might still use the copper 2.25 king bearings for the 300tdi seeing as Turner Engineering are doing it. Right now I only have the aluminium king 2.5 bearings to give away. STD size
For anyone interested a simple graphic shows merits between the two:
Aluminium based as supplied OEM Bearmach:
K-783
http://www.kingbearings.com/material-type/aluminium-based/
Copper based as supplied by Turner Engineering
K-794
http://www.kingbearings.com/material-type/copper-based/
Pros and cons there, but for my 200tdi, this time round at least, I'm keeping it copper.
Seeing as bearmach label them OEM and have seen them listed here in Auz for over $100, I guess they should be good enough for a couple of hundred thou. Any one want them?