1.850" rod bearings
Moderator: Team
1.850" rod bearings
Looking at rod bearings for a new build, 1.850" journals. Mahle lists two bearings, the differences I can see is the 1664 is 0.100" narrower @ 0.655" and 0.032" larger OD than the 1798. Both are available with 0.001" extra clearance if required. Anyone have experience with either of these bearings? Application is drag racing, aluminum rods. I'm leaning towards the 1664 as it is narrow and thus lighter with less drag.
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
#1 What rods are you using?
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
Rods have not yet been ordered, journal width is 1.625", plenty of room for the 1798 bearing. This is a normally aspirated deal, max power around 900, engine rpm 10k, just because it's fun.clshore wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:04 am #1 What rods are you using?
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
Then ignore whatever minuscule weight difference there may be, and choose the bearing that's compatible with the best rod choice.
-
- Member
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:51 pm
- Location:
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
This subject is just On The Fringe of my comfort zone of knowledge so I am interested. From my limited understanding in this area on a small block Chevrolet shouldn't narrow bearing and connecting rod be for a piston pin guided Rod instead of a crankshaft thrust design rod
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
You can run a narrow bearing in a standard width rod and lose a little friction. As long as you are not overpowering the bearing area or uncovering a feed hole.
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
How about the oiling system?donclark wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:34 amRods have not yet been ordered, journal width is 1.625", plenty of room for the 1798 bearing. This is a normally aspirated deal, max power around 900, engine rpm 10k, just because it's fun.clshore wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:04 am #1 What rods are you using?
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
Six stage dry sump.Headguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:55 pmHow about the oiling system?donclark wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:34 amRods have not yet been ordered, journal width is 1.625", plenty of room for the 1798 bearing. This is a normally aspirated deal, max power around 900, engine rpm 10k, just because it's fun.clshore wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:04 am #1 What rods are you using?
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
If you have a set width. Just call up Pankl, Lentz whoever you choose, give them the width, included radii, journal and purpose. No sense in over thinking this. Are you using guided pistons etc.donclark wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:34 amRods have not yet been ordered, journal width is 1.625", plenty of room for the 1798 bearing. This is a normally aspirated deal, max power around 900, engine rpm 10k, just because it's fun.clshore wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:04 am #1 What rods are you using?
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
Don't run huge bearing clearances please.
Re: 1.850" rod bearings
GRP did not have a preference.MTENGINES wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:43 pmIf you have a set width. Just call up Pankl, Lentz whoever you choose, give them the width, included radii, journal and purpose. No sense in over thinking this. Are you using guided pistons etc.donclark wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:34 amRods have not yet been ordered, journal width is 1.625", plenty of room for the 1798 bearing. This is a normally aspirated deal, max power around 900, engine rpm 10k, just because it's fun.clshore wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:04 am #1 What rods are you using?
The 1664 fits a housing bore of 2.008"
The 1798 fits a housing bore of 1.976"
Which do you have?
Or are you going to rework the rods?
#2 Exactly how wide is the flat portion of your rod crank journal.
Not side to side, I'm talking about the flat portion between the fillets on each side?
If you have the room, the wider bearing will support a higher load than the narrow one.
The weight difference is really, really slight.
The load bearing difference is at least 10% more for the 1798.
Carter
Don't run huge bearing clearances please.
Not using guided pistons.
With that size journal, I'm thinking 0.002-0.0023"