Manley Rods and Bearing - Defective or Normal

[kidrabbit84]

I started assembling my new motor today and noted the following issue between the Manley connecting rods and the rod bearings. See attached picture. I purchased these rods from Slowboy and would call them, but they are closed for today, and would hate to lose 2 days of assembly time if this is not an issue at all.

Problem:

The cut out in the rod to accept the nipple on the bearing is .035” too large. Has anyone encountered this? I measured the Mitsubishis rod, Mitsubishi bearing nipple, and ACL Bearing nipple, and have confirmed that the Manley rod cut out in both the rod and cap is oversized and not the bearing being under sized.

Is this normal of Manley Rods? My experience with engine bearings is that this nipple (shear feature) is a snug fit.

Adam

[architechnik]

Are these the ones that the vendor spec'ed out or were they purchased separately?
It seems odd that they wouldn't match, but it could even be an inventory mislabel. I would say wait for a return message from Slowboy.

[kidrabbit84]

I called Slowboy today and they had no clue. So I called Manley's tech dept. They informed me that the tang cut out for the bearing should be .125-.130 wide. Hence the full set I have are all defective at .155"...NICE...

Hence a word to the wise:
If you are looking at getting 4340 Manley H-Beam Rods PN: 14022-4 measure the bearing tang feature in the rod and cap. If they are out of spec send them back!

Another 2 weeks of twiddling my thumbs...

Adam

[1g_tsi_awd]

Twiddling your thumbs is better than rebuilding your engine again. Best of luck with the build though!

[Defiant]

That tang should have no consequence, so long as it's present. It's only to hold the bearing in place against spinning in the journal. It's the steel backing, and as you see on assembly it sticks out to the flat part of the mating surface.
Other than the spec -which I'm not clear what it's calling out- what did Manley have to say?

[kidrabbit84]

Originally Posted by Defiant

That tang should have no consequence, so long as it's present. It's only to hold the bearing in place against spinning in the journal. It's the steel backing, and as you see on assembly it sticks out to the flat part of the mating surface.
Other than the spec -which I'm not clear what it's calling out- what did Manley have to say?

The tang location is important for other than spinning of a bearing. It also locates the bearing side to side and ensures the center line of the two bearing halves are in line. If they are not aligned along the axis you can produce a leading edge (parallel to the axis of the journal) which could act as an oil scraper which could act to unseat it from the rod/cap, or you could start to produce a funky moment across the journal.

As far as what Manley had to say...re-read my second post. In summary...they said they are defective and to send them back for exchange. The slot should be .125" to .130" wide along the axis of the crank journal. The ones I got were .155" long...therefore they are out of tolerance.

[Defiant]

(I think you meant 1.55 wide) Does Manley call for any specific company's bearings?

Once crushed in assembly, there should be no side loads sufficient to displace the inserts. They're tapered at the joint to prevent formation of a scraping edge.

Keep us posted on the outcome.

[kidrabbit84]

No I don't mean 1.55 wide. I am talking about the 0.155" wide groove cut into the rod to accept the bearing tang. Hence the whole bearing can shift to the right in the picture. I butted the bearings all the way to the left in the pics, but either can go to the right. There is a 0.035" wide void between the right side of the bearing tang and the rod tang cut out. This is circled in red in the picture- I guess I should have zoomed in more on the circled areas.

Manley does not make these rods bearing company specific. Thats why they said send them back, which I did on Monday.

Hence if DSMers are thinking of getting these rods measure the tang width as soon as you get them.

Adam

[kidrabbit84]

I realize that there is a little gap between the top of the bearing and the rod, I am not concerned with that...I am concerned about the side to side gap. The dimensioned gap should not be there.

I will post a pic of the correct rods...I would have re-took this one, but they are gone.

[Defiant]

I followed you. Your last sentence in Post #6 was "The ones I got were .155" long...therefore they are out of tolerance.". You meant "wide".

[kidrabbit84]

Why are these cars surrounded by friggin IDIOTS!!! I have come to the conclusion that too many tools own these cars and even more tools are selling performance stuff for them. Put Manley up on that list.

I am not a moron here…Manley is. So I don’t care to see posts of “you must of explained something wrong” or “they must be right because Manley made it”.

I got a call 2 weeks ago from the Manley tech department stating that they inspected my rods and they are fine. The revolving door of specs now states that the gap width should be .155” not .125-.130”. Keep in mind the same tech department stated the width should be .130” and my rods were defective and to send them back. Hence they wrapped them back up and sent them back to me…at least I got a refund on shipping.

So to conclude if you get these rods and have the same problem I noted, you need to do the following:

1. Ensure you have a tang width cut into the rod and cap of .150-.155” wide
2. Butt the bearing tang toward the center of the rod on the rod and cap.

Also take care to ensure the bearing did not slide back over when installing the rods and pistons into the block for final assembly. I had one scoot that needed to be readjusted.

I got the motor in the car this past Sunday and should fire her up this weekend…we will see how these rods do.

Adam

[TwoLiterLaser]

I hear you on your concern of bearing shift. Imagine that bearing shifting out of center while your engine is at, oh, say 6500 RPM. That is some crap for them to tell you .135 one day then switch to .155 the next, what a bunch of morons. I understood what you were talking about, Defiant took what you said for it's exact meaning without allowing a little English language lee-way. I doubt he meant to say you do not know what you are doing, he only got tied up on the wording. Good luck to yah!

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by kidrabbit84

Why are these cars surrounded by friggin IDIOTS!!! I have come to the conclusion that too many tools own these cars and even more tools are selling performance stuff for them.

Have you been sneaking into the Moderators Only forum?

[Turbo Monk3y]

Is this for a 6 bolt or 7 bolt rods? I noticed on my eagles when I opened the box they have a sticker saying to use 89-92 early bearings on their rods, Well it just so happens that Stock 6 bolt Mitsu bearings do not fit those rods as the Tang on the bearins is TOO WIDE... Thank god I had bought Calico Coated ACL bearings, Although the width of the bearings were smaller (exactly like your ACLs in your pics) they fit the Rods just Fine.. The weird thing is would be that the ACLs are 89-92 Early 6bolt rod bearings but have the same Exact width specs of a 7 bolt rod bearings.. They are 21.1mm wide or so instead of 23.5mm like the stock 6 bolt bearings.. I really didnt care that much since the Thickness is the same.. Here is a pic of what im talking about(from evoM forums)... The 6 bolt rod bearing tang is TOO big... but the ACLs fit which are smaller and = the width of a 7 bolt rod bearing..
But yeah I think your tang on those manleys are too Big UNLESS YOU RUN 6 BOLT mitsu rod bearings which are a thicker Tang..

Notes:
ACL 6 bolt Rod Bearings are Exact width of 7 bolt rod Bearings
Manley Rods machined Their tang to accept STOCK 6 bolt MITSU rod bearings
Eagle Rods Even Though they are 6 bolt Rods they are machined to accept 7 bolt Rod bearing Tangs or the Weirded up ACLs..