Bearings were not the problem looking at that con rod, but lack of lubrication was.
Steve
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Bearings were not the problem looking at that con rod, but lack of lubrication was.
Steve
100% the problem in my opinion, they give too much clearance (3thou! which is about 0.85mm in modern) when fitted, swap to normal and you get 1.5thou, checked it on Arrow's CMM machine, but plasti'd up fine (hate that too!)
182FF
Chip, isn't the hole in the big end in the crankshaft and not in the shell itself? So there's no lining up to worry about like there is with a main. You won't get starvation if the big end spins a touch.
Ive heard cheaper rods can often be out of round on the big end, and cause such problems. Part of the reason i was urged to buy catcam rods rather then bargain barrel china ones.
#cadpro
Yes mate, the big end bearings only have a hole if its to supply a squirter hole in the rod, but the crank will still have the hole in it in all cases. Its the main spinning that is the big problem.
Badly worded post from me there caused a small amount of confusion where Ive used the term bearing for both the shells and the journals, apologies that was sloppy, it should really have said:
Its a quite ingenious re-use of readily available cheap stainless that.
Shame the lengths arent equal but that would be a big ask given the starting point!
I think it would be quite a big ask to try and get equal length plus the turbo above the gearbox. Where you'd need to loop the shortest runner to gain length is where the starter motor sits. Plus the downpipe needs to be ran back through there as well so its really tight on space. I wonder (if you were using a custom inlet) if you could use the RStuning megane manifold and have the turbo on the top instead?
http://www.rstuning.co.uk/exhaust-s...d-p-201.html?zenid=adi85f7h2qjefnjh5mmh18hgu5
http://www.rstuning.co.uk/exhaust-s...d-p-201.html?zenid=adi85f7h2qjefnjh5mmh18hgu5
172 cup, Impreza P1
IMO on top is the way to go. Keep the hot stuff away from thing that dont like it.
Nice manifold the RS tuning one. Might try and make something myself like that.
Yeah the RS Tuning one is lovely, I'd quite like one but not sure I can justify the cost given my relatively basic turbo with internal gate.
321 is a decent grade too.
Wonder if its nortech made or if he is getting them done somewhere else, looks lovely either way.
These look equal length to me:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RENAULT-5...arts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM&hash=item3386ae4ff2
I think even using that you would struggle to get a 3" downpipe back past and squeezed between the manifold and bulk head. Lets be honest if you go to the extent of a tubular manifold you'll be running a gt30+ and will need a big downpipe. Fives have a lots of space at the back of the engine as normally it has both the inlet and exhaust running off the back of the engine plus they don't have a flat bulk head like a clio.
If they measured up 3thou clearance did you use the extra clearance bearings ?
3 thou would give you low oil pressure did you not see that ?
I do not like ACL but they do the job.
There would have been enough oil for the rod but not if the main bearing spun blocking oil supply.
Steve
no they were standard ACL's, they caused "the issue" on both PEC and Arrow (and i assume they'll do the same on others!) bearings are basically too big!
Ive never had a problem with ACL Race bearings either.
no use then!
don't shoot the messenger! Arrow are as surprised as i am!
Yes, although if you have taken many engines apart you will see there is always at least a tiny bit of contact occaisonally, as the bearings have always got some tiny evidence at least that they have been used, and if the oil film always perfectly did its job 100% it wouldnt show any signs of use at all on the bearings.
Got a pic from my mate of the big end bearings we took out. No hole in these either...
Unless you're referring to the hole as where the two meet?
Big end bearings don't. Main bearings do.
Got a pic from my mate of the big end bearings we took out. No hole in these either...
As I mentioned earlier mate the hole is in the bearing journal on the crank, not in the shells for the big ends.
Oil flow goes:
Gallery for mains
through main bearing shell
through main bearing journal
through crank
through big end bearing journal
Apologies.
Entirely my fault mate, I did a terrible job of wording it, hence I posted again to correct myself on post 331:
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?649042-172-Cup-Turbo&p=9899014&viewfull=1#post9899014
Some shiny bits appeared 
There may be an opportunity to get a GT3076-WG turbo, rid it of the T25 flange and fit a T3 one, but because it started life as the "WG" turbo it has a slightly compromised 56.5mm 90 trim turbine instead of the normal 60mm 86 trim turbine, but they may not be a bad thing. But it might not happen at all anyway. None the less, exciting
There may be an opportunity to get a GT3076-WG turbo, rid it of the T25 flange and fit a T3 one, but because it started life as the "WG" turbo it has a slightly compromised 56.5mm 90 trim turbine instead of the normal 60mm 86 trim turbine, but they may not be a bad thing. But it might not happen at all anyway. None the less, exciting
Some shiny bits appeared
There may be an opportunity to get a GT3076-WG turbo, rid it of the T25 flange and fit a T3 one, but because it started life as the "WG" turbo it has a slightly compromised 56.5mm 90 trim turbine instead of the normal 60mm 86 trim turbine, but they may not be a bad thing. But it might not happen at all anyway. None the less, exciting
Saw this pop up on FB, wondered if you were on here!
Surely not on a T2 flange? I am trying to get away from these elevated EGT's assosiated with high power on the T2 flange?
No real power goals but just north of 400bhp would be nice, but then i can imagine a 4 paddle wont cope so a whole new ball game for another clutch then. If the 3076 comes though then 500 with a different box solution (+clutch). Ill probably never own another nutty car like this so may aswell get it out my system now before i find walnut interior trim more appealing than a powerful engine.
People turn around and say you may aswell be piling the money into an EVO or something, but i drove an EVO8 the other day and besides its awsome grip, its not "fun", terrible gearbox, gash seating position, accelerator felt numb, super s**te on fuel e.t.c Jump back in the clio and instant smile.
Yep, not that its what I would personally choose.
If you actually peer into the turbo, its hard to see the flange as the restrictive bit at that level even on a T2 TBH, but Ive not personally done back to back testing, I do know of plenty of cars well over 400 on a T2 flange though.
4 paddle probably ok if you have the uprated cover too, starts getting dear for twinplate though, my one in the nova was about 800 quid inc flywheel.
Agreed, they are a laugh!
LYV6, 182, R5GTT
:dapprove: See I told you Martin lol
