transfer housings
Turbo Mini Forums

ive got a feeling that when my engine was built up the bloke that did it was in a rush and may have very roughly ground some material off the housing to get some clearence for the drop gear thrust washers (me:$) so when i strip my engine ill need a new one i think.

so this is my question. can a non turbo casing be machined bigger where the bigger bearing goes or does it need to be a turbo casing. as i have a spare non turbo housing but no spare turbo one.

cheers

no longer a series, but still 1.3 turbo.

Why not change the bearing to match the housing you want to use
Regards
Dave

I have a spare casing if you need it, just PM me!
Shane.

no longer a series, but still 1.3 turbo.

shaneyboy pm sent

no longer a series, but still 1.3 turbo.

Maybe because it was there for a reason?

Not trying to be argumentative, espescially being a new boy here, but if you think about it in a logical manner there is absolutly no overall advantage in a larger outer bearing for the first motion shaft without upgrading the poxy small idler gear needle roller bearings. The same increased turbo torque is transmitted through all three transfer gears. The first motion shaft should not need a larger bearing. Has anyone had one Fail?
All this in just my own opinion. Shoot me down if I am totally wrong.
Regards
Dave

Edited by danboy on 29th Dec, 2006.

The idler - especially when in SC form, doesn't need huge bearings - the larger A+ ones are already significantly larger than the older bearings.
It is afterall, a simply supported gear, that sees no twist and the force and reaction from the primary and 1st motion gears are almost opposed, hence the radial loads on the bearings is very small aswell (in sc form).
In stock configuration, the force and rection are again opposed, and only the helical form and the axis of the three gears not being in a straight-line will generate higher radial loads.


The way i see it is - the guys working at the cash-starved AustinRover wouldn't have done the larger bearing just for a laugh. A group of engineers made a conceous descision to have a new - non catalogue - bearing made up (never a cheap solution) aswell as a different transfer case to get round a problem that they were aware of, or had a significant enough concern over, even with the reduced '85/90 lb ft' that the engine was de-tuned to....

The face they didn't change any other bearings, at least suggests they highlighted and concentrated on the weakest point in the transmission.

It is not easy to guess at the 'next' weakest point however...

Edited by turbodave16v on 29th Dec, 2006.

Still asking- Has anyone had an outer first motion shaft bearing Fail / collapse? In any engine / gearbox combination?
Regards
Dave

Edited by danboy on 29th Dec, 2006.

I've only ever used the large one, and have never had a failure.

what are the od size differences in the two.




carl

WWW.FORCE-RACING.CO.UK PLEASE CLICK HERE

the normal one may well be upto the job. but as TD says the way i look at it is it must be there for a reason. the rover engineers obviously thought it were needed and as im running a lot more bannas and curely wurleys than it were designed for id ik to stick with the larger one. oh and thats a new bearing which was very expensive.

if the day comes when only the small one is available then ill use that.

no longer a series, but still 1.3 turbo.

erm, im using the smaller one

admitedly though thats because i dont have a turbo casing, if i had one when building the car i would of put it on

Fast carl, From memory I think the difference in OD is 6mm But I will have to measure it in the morning to confirm. Perhaps someone can help out now?
Regards
Dvae

TurboDave,Carl, Come on guys Rover / BL engineers always are right!!!, Maxi, Maestro, Allegro, Marina, 1950's Oil filtration that put's gear chippings straight to the oil pump, 1950's oil pick-up that cost more than a central oil pick up. Dont think because a specialist bearing costs a fortune now it cost leyland the earth, it's just that now the supplier/manufacturer has you by the short and curley's and they know it. Just because it's bigger and better and costs more does not mean it's necessary.
Sorry for the rant I have Johnny Walker helping me.
Regards
Dave

I have the pleasure sometimes of designing things, and I know we avoid, like the f**king plague, anything other than catalogue bearings. When it is neccesary to use a special, it isn't just a question of one person making the descision - it is a lengthy process proving why you need a special, and then working with the suppliers to make the 'special' the ceapest way possible.

Maybe things are/were different in BL's time, but let me assure you that the engineers you seem to be derising had/have forgotten more then you or I could want to know...

The bearing has always cost 3x the price of the stock bearing btw.

A long time ago I sized up the bearing in the two layouts - ie the roller diameter, number of rollers and the ID of the outer bearing races. I can't find the post, but it was something like a 20% increase in dynamic load carrying capacity I recall.

Edited by turbodave16v on 29th Dec, 2006.

TurboDave, I am not deriding BL/Rover engineers I am just trying to be objective. Perhaps it was the accountants that controlled them?
I still can't accept that the bearing would have cost rover 3X the cost of the previous bearing even though it does now. Like you I am a trained engineer and because of that I always ask why or how and that is the reason I queried why they saw the need, and, asked has anyone experienced a failure?
Regards
Dave
Let's wait and see.

I have had a failure, many years ago admitedly, with a 160BHP turbo lump and the "std" bearing.(edit .... forgot to say that the bearing was an aftermarket one from a Mini specialist and not in Rover packaging ...but then I trust that specialist so I am guessing the quality was good .... also it was a while ago on my first turbo lump and, shall we say, I wouldn't be happy with that transmission build now....)

I have to agree with Turbo Dave on this one, especiallt about non standard bearing sizes. I had to specify one on a common rail diesel pump recently (due mainly to the fact that a large german manufacturer's engineers seem to have no clue about anything much!!!! I was shot down all the way and they went against my recomendations ... of course all the pumps failed and they had to take the no stock bearing.....

It is never a choice to take a non stock item into mass production lightly ... the bean counters will always try and have a say even if they don't know shite.....

For me a big bananas motor will always have the bigger bearing, even if I have to machine the case to take it....

A light boost motor can live on the standard bearing though. It's the same as most things .... what are you going to use the motor for and how is it going to be treated????

Edited by RogerM on 30th Dec, 2006.

Every day is a school day ...........

How fast and how expensive ...... the same question...

to put it simple as i see it , the engineers designing that particular area on the turbo would have looked at how long the normal one was lasting on there then most powerfull A series, engin,[MG metro] worked out the increase on torque and power increase , do some simple maths as dave did, and voila, come up with a new bearing dia that would not have been to hard to convince the powers at be was almost certainly a neaded to maintain the ratio of load cabilities and load applied.

.i hate overengineering,!!!, but then i would .


carl

WWW.FORCE-RACING.CO.UK PLEASE CLICK HERE

Carl PM sent
Shane.

well its not arrived,lol

WWW.FORCE-RACING.CO.UK PLEASE CLICK HERE

hold on ,which carl , the" scouse one" or the good looking one "from Leeds"

WWW.FORCE-RACING.CO.UK PLEASE CLICK HERE

hold on ,which carl , the" scouse one" or the good looking one "from Leeds"

WWW.FORCE-RACING.CO.UK PLEASE CLICK HERE

hold on ,which carl , the" fast one" or the "slow one". lol

any way im not a scouser. im a manc! just live in liverpool.

no longer a series, but still 1.3 turbo.