Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday March 4, 2021
Home Forums Images WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Built Motor Discussion

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2011, 05:42 PM   #1
Team Scream
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 121532
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
06 FXSTi, 06 FXTAT
06 STi Wide Body Wagon

Default ACL vs King (rod bearing) comparo

I decided to throw this up here because my findings were significant enough to me, that I thought someone else could benefit from this information.

If you like it, let me know. If you need more info, let me know.

As with my other test threads, I waited until my garage got as close to 68f as I figured it was going to get today and then I started in with my measurements. If you notice the thermometer in one of the pictures, the top number is the remote sensor in my attic, and the bottom number is the temp where the display is sitting (66f).

Some of you may know that I use what I consider to be good tools, and I am anal about how I store them. The precision measuring tools I own have never been dropped or damaged in any way, and if they had, I would have dropped them off with my good friend who is an inspector at a major aerospace corporation (where I used to work as well) to have them re-calibrated.

So, here is what prompted this thread.

I had a set of ACL HX series race bearings that I installed on a set of Manley H-Beam rods that were brand new in the box.

I measured the crank I am using for this build and determined that all 4 rod journals were within .0002" of each other.

The largest rod journal is 2.04667" the smallest is 2.04665" as indicated in the pic with the micrometer and the crank.

With the rods clean and the ACL (HX) race bearings installed I had what I considered to be excessive variation in bearing clearance(s).

The clearances I measured ranged from .0008" to .0014"
I cross checked these measurements and then proceeded to swap individual bearing halves among rods, to try and get closer to the .002" clearance I was shooting for with this particular build.

While swapping halves moved the numbers around a bit, I was unable to get a single rod to yield anything looser than .0014" with the ACL (HX) series bearings.

Then I decided to bust out the King Race Bearings.
I have used King in the past on V8 and V6 builds I have done for different platforms, and had nothing but fantastic results with them. I have never had a spun bearing on an engine using King bearings, so I know what to expect with them.

King's (XP) Race series bearings have not been available for Subaru engines until recently, and even today, you can only get rod bearings, and the rod bearings only became available a few weeks ago. I may have actually been one of the first people in the country to get a set because I called them weekly for over 2 months begging them to get me a set ASAP.

Anyway, the part # for the EJ257 rod bearings is CR4125XP.
You can get them in STD and + sizes.
The set I ordered and am demonstrating today is the STDX version which is +.001" so you would order part# "CR4125XP STDX"

Anyway, I installed the King bearings as they came out of the box into each rod, and torqued the ARP 2000 bolts to 60 ft/lbs as indicated on the Manley sheet that came with the rods EXACTLY as I had done when testing the ACL bearings.

Long story short all 4 rods came out nearly perfect and yielded .002" clearance. EXACTLY what I wanted, and would consider usable for my blueprinted engine build.

The largest clearance was .0022 and the smallest was .0020"

I feel that this is a significant find because I have read and heard of people having moderate to severe discrepancies with ACL recently, and in my own tests in the ARP case bolt thread, I found that the ACL (main) bearing tolerances were all over the place.

The most significant find here is that the ACL HX series bearings I received brand new in the box were FAR short of being +.001" yet the King bearings were right on the money.

The ACL (had I used them) would have given me less than .001" on one rod and .0014" on the biggest one. To me that is just wholly unacceptable.
They would have required significant massaging of each of the individual bearing shells to get the .002" on my blueprint, or I would have had to have the journals all polished to some odd # just to get me there.

Here are some pics of the set up. I did not take pics of each of the rods being measured because my daughter was not available to help me out today.
Hopefully those reading this will know by now that I am pretty anal about my set ups and how I measure things.... Nothing changed with this set up.





* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Team Scream is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 11-03-2011, 05:57 PM   #2
B.R.E.D
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 289606
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Atlanta
Vehicle:
06 WRX
white

Default

Its good of you to post this info for the community. We found the exact same thing. We have now made the switch to kings in all of our engines. I just wish they would hurry up with the mains. I think they are out of rods right now as well we cleaned them out last week. Matt
B.R.E.D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 05:59 PM   #3
wrxsubiemod
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 165104
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Riverside CA
Vehicle:
E85 SoCalPorting
Owner

Default

http://www.raceeng.com/p-12970-main-...-jrnl-set.aspx. I was just googleing around and found some main bearings. I wonder if these are out yet. Good review, let us know how they hold up
wrxsubiemod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 06:32 PM   #4
Copper Rex
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 53721
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Jersey
Vehicle:

Default

hmm...this is an interesting thread. My manley h-beams and calico coated ACL HX bearings all measured .0018-.0019 when I built my shortblock 4 months ago. The ACL std. mains werent as consistent however. I guess its been a crap shoot lately with ACL. I will definately look into the kings bearings on my next build as they seem to be getting great reviews.
Copper Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 07:25 PM   #5
Crystal_Imprezav
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 84105
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: I'm a Newbie
Vehicle:
2005 Super Slow STi
CGM

Default

60 ft/lbs is kind of excessive for those size ARP's. Even on the turbo tuffs, they only recommend 45 ft/lbs. Either way, you should retry it off bolt strech and see if the clearances are still too tight.
Crystal_Imprezav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 08:10 PM   #6
3MI Racing
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 200987
Join Date: Jan 2009
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: VA
Default

^^true story

3/8" ARP 2000 bolts I'd stick in the 45-50 lb-ft range.
On the plus side, I'm looking forward to attending a King Bearing seminar next month!! I've been interested in trying a few sets but have never bit the bullet...yet
3MI Racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 08:40 PM   #7
B.R.E.D
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 289606
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Atlanta
Vehicle:
06 WRX
white

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3MI Racing View Post
^^true story

3/8" ARP 2000 bolts I'd stick in the 45-50 lb-ft range.
On the plus side, I'm looking forward to attending a King Bearing seminar next month!! I've been interested in trying a few sets but have never bit the bullet...yet
I much prefer the bolt stretch method its much more accurate

I assume that means you will be at PRI as well. If you want a set of kings and you can't find any let me know we have a couple of extra sets.
B.R.E.D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 09:07 PM   #8
Team Scream
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 121532
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
06 FXSTi, 06 FXTAT
06 STi Wide Body Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal_Imprezav View Post
60 ft/lbs is kind of excessive for those size ARP's. Even on the turbo tuffs, they only recommend 45 ft/lbs. Either way, you should retry it off bolt strech and see if the clearances are still too tight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3MI Racing View Post
^^true story

3/8" ARP 2000 bolts I'd stick in the 45-50 lb-ft range.
On the plus side, I'm looking forward to attending a King Bearing seminar next month!! I've been interested in trying a few sets but have never bit the bullet...yet
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.R.E.D View Post
I much prefer the bolt stretch method its much more accurate

I assume that means you will be at PRI as well. If you want a set of kings and you can't find any let me know we have a couple of extra sets.

Just going off of what was published in the instructions that came with the Manley rods (the green highlighted section represents the bolts that are on my rods) :

Team Scream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 09:23 PM   #9
Homemade WRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 33782
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Mooresville, NC
Vehicle:
96 3MI Racing
search FIRST, then PM!!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B.R.E.D View Post
I much prefer the bolt stretch method its much more accurate

I assume that means you will be at PRI as well. If you want a set of kings and you can't find any let me know we have a couple of extra sets.
Now you see why I put a torque range on it. Most guys have a torque wrench

Yes, I'll be at PRI and I'll let you know about a set. I'm gonna be tossing a 2.34 in my DD shortly and I might make that the guinea pig.
Homemade WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 10:25 PM   #10
Surb00
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 27132
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Vehicle:
1999 2.5 RS-T
Rally Blue

Default

I always thought it was funny how people would list ACL bearings as an asset to their engine build. Not that they're all bad, but nothing to brag about I don't think. I've been using standard (non-race) Kings and have had great results and consistency. Kings have a great reputation in the American iron crowd and it's only a matter of time before the tuner crowd starts embracing them like they have the ACLs. FWIW I torque Manley H-beams to 45 ft-lbs. This was recommended to me by a builder who has been using Manley stuff longer than most of us have been alive. I thought 60ft-lbs seemed excessive and he confirmed that. Measuring stretch would be ideal. YMMV

Last edited by Surb00; 11-04-2011 at 10:30 PM.
Surb00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 10:57 PM   #11
fog
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 35911
Join Date: Apr 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: PTM!
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Gutted
White

Default

I have a had a set of the Kings here for a couple of months and havent had a chance to put the engine together that I want to test them in. I agree that ACL has not been the same as of late. I will check them against a set of acls and see if I get similar results to you. I havent had quite as large a swing as you are showing with the acls, but I have seen measurable differences.

Stretch is honestly the only proper way to insure you are correct when assembling rods. It is well worth the slight time investment.

Rich
fog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 12:24 PM   #12
mick_the_ginge
Citizen Mick
 
Member#: 27646
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
2003 Sleeved 2.5
Oil Dry Sump Goodness

Default

Did you measure the rods themselves?

Did you use a ball mic to measure the bearing thickness?
mick_the_ginge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 02:45 PM   #13
maxpowr
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159243
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: medford nj 08055
Vehicle:
5/01 bugeye
Hakt Ecu is back!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fog View Post
I have a had a set of the Kings here for a couple of months and havent had a chance to put the engine together that I want to test them in. I agree that ACL has not been the same as of late. I will check them against a set of acls and see if I get similar results to you. I havent had quite as large a swing as you are showing with the acls, but I have seen measurable differences.

Stretch is honestly the only proper way to insure you are correct when assembling rods. It is well worth the slight time investment.

Rich
RICH!!!
i am using a new machine shop locally. we are almost done blueprinting my build. i will be bringing by the heads, shortblock and documentation for your inspection asap. we will be using king bearings on the next build.

big up to team scream for his insight.
maxpowr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 03:56 PM   #14
Team Scream
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 121532
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
06 FXSTi, 06 FXTAT
06 STi Wide Body Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fog View Post

Stretch is honestly the only proper way to insure you are correct when assembling rods. It is well worth the slight time investment.

Rich
I agree, but I dropped my stretch gauge and it landed right on the top of the dial, so it is basically worthless right now. New one on order.
However, manufacturers cannot rely on everyone having a stretch gauge, and that is why they put a torque value or range in the instruction set.
One should be able to rely on torque value to be shy of the yield of the individual fastener, and still provide adequate clamping load.
Will it be precisely 75-80% of yield? maybe not, but will it provide enough clamping load to do the job effectively? I would think so.

You cant measure stretch on case bolts, head studs, or a host of other fasteners that use a torque value, rod bolts are no different from that perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mick_the_ginge View Post
Did you measure the rods themselves?
Yes sir, nice and round when torqued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mick_the_ginge View Post
Did you use a ball mic to measure the bearing thickness?
No sir, have not done that yet. I went quick and dirty on this test.
My thought was lets just see what 2 different sets of bearings would yield.
I was not trying to discover why the ACL's seem to be a bit on the inconsistent side.

I find that the ACL mains are also quite inconsistent so far for me.

Also, I am of the mindset that a $100.00 set of (4 cylinder) mains should be consistent across the board. If I can install set (A) and be on the money, or set (B) and have to massage them to get them to work, then I would choose set (A) every time.

Obviously, this was a small sample test, but it is not the first set of ACL's that I have found to be "weird". Others seem to be having similar results, so I do not think my sample set is unique?

Whats funny (and maddening at the same time) is that ARP does in fact publish 42 ft/lbs for the 260-6302 bolts that come on the Manley rods WHEN USING ARP Ultra Torque lubricant , yet as I show in the sheet I received (from Manley) with these rods they indicate 60 ft/lbs USING 30wt oil.

That's a 15 ft/lb discrepancy. Guess I will go out and measure the bolts to see if they yielded or not. If not, I will use ARP lube and 42 ft/lbs and start over. If they did stretch, I will be calling Manley on Monday and requesting that they send me a new set of bolts (free) because of the erroneous data in their instruction set.... Let's see how far I get with that request. lol.

Interestingly enough, Manley indicates .0058 - .0062 for stretch, while ARP indicates .0070 - .0075, This makes me wonder if the Manley value of 60 ft/lbs yields less stretch than ARP's .0070 - .0075 ? Also the ARP lube probably provides a lot less friction, and when using it @ 42 ft/lbs might just be close to 60 ft/lbs with 30wt oil ??

Last edited by Team Scream; 11-05-2011 at 04:31 PM.
Team Scream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 05:44 PM   #15
jesterjames
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 252663
Join Date: Jul 2010
Chapter/Region: HIIC
Location: Bellingham, WA
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Scream View Post
I agree, but I dropped my stretch gauge and it landed right on the top of the dial, so it is basically worthless right now. New one on order.
However, manufacturers cannot rely on everyone having a stretch gauge, and that is why they put a torque value or range in the instruction set.
One should be able to rely on torque value to be shy of the yield of the individual fastener, and still provide adequate clamping load.
Will it be precisely 75-80% of yield? maybe not, but will it provide enough clamping load to do the job effectively? I would think so.

You cant measure stretch on case bolts, head studs, or a host of other fasteners that use a torque value, rod bolts are no different from that perspective.



Yes sir, nice and round when torqued.



No sir, have not done that yet. I went quick and dirty on this test.
My thought was lets just see what 2 different sets of bearings would yield.
I was not trying to discover why the ACL's seem to be a bit on the inconsistent side.

I find that the ACL mains are also quite inconsistent so far for me.

Also, I am of the mindset that a $100.00 set of (4 cylinder) mains should be consistent across the board. If I can install set (A) and be on the money, or set (B) and have to massage them to get them to work, then I would choose set (A) every time.

Obviously, this was a small sample test, but it is not the first set of ACL's that I have found to be "weird". Others seem to be having similar results, so I do not think my sample set is unique?

Whats funny (and maddening at the same time) is that ARP does in fact publish 42 ft/lbs for the 260-6302 bolts that come on the Manley rods WHEN USING ARP Ultra Torque lubricant , yet as I show in the sheet I received (from Manley) with these rods they indicate 60 ft/lbs USING 30wt oil.

That's a 15 ft/lb discrepancy. Guess I will go out and measure the bolts to see if they yielded or not. If not, I will use ARP lube and 42 ft/lbs and start over. If they did stretch, I will be calling Manley on Monday and requesting that they send me a new set of bolts (free) because of the erroneous data in their instruction set.... Let's see how far I get with that request. lol.

Interestingly enough, Manley indicates .0058 - .0062 for stretch, while ARP indicates .0070 - .0075, This makes me wonder if the Manley value of 60 ft/lbs yields less stretch than ARP's .0070 - .0075 ? Also the ARP lube probably provides a lot less friction, and when using it @ 42 ft/lbs might just be close to 60 ft/lbs with 30wt oil ??
That kit isnt the same as what comes with the manley rods, the kit you list is for subaru ej257 rods. Either way let me know what you come up with for an answer. I thought 60 ft lbs was high.
jesterjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 06:41 PM   #16
maxpowr
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159243
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: medford nj 08055
Vehicle:
5/01 bugeye
Hakt Ecu is back!

Default

this info is money in the bank team...i will chat this up with my machinst on monday.

my build required acl hx and h rod bearings joined. h on one side, hx on the other. i thought that was strange for top dollar bearings to begin with.

then when i came to measuring my mains we found 4 out of 5 in spec while one main was way out. i will have more concrete numbers on monday. we are looking at a line bore on my used ej257. maybe not now...

i hope to learn and contribute to this thread for sure! thanks for taking the time to share your findings.
maxpowr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 09:01 PM   #17
Copper Rex
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 53721
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Jersey
Vehicle:

Default

The ARP bolts on the manley h-beam rods absolutely need to be torqued to 60ft. lbs. using 30wt. oil. If you call up manley they are going to tell you that torque value using that weight oil is the most accurate way of coming up with the proper bolt stretch. I know this because I called them asking all these questions. They told me they had better and more accurate results using the 30wt oil then the ARP lube. I also asked them what should I torque them to because on the manual it says 55-65ft. lbs. I wanted an exact number. They told me 60ft. lbs because thats what manley assembles them at before boxing them. Like i said before I also used ACL hx bearings on my manley h beams and they all came out to .0018-.0019, so my findings were different than yours.
Copper Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 09:22 PM   #18
MartinSTi05
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 145145
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Rockford, Il
Vehicle:
2006 wrx STi

Default

I too had similar troubles with ACL bearings on a number of builds. Here is a thread documenting some of the issues I encountered. I too use what I would call good tools, Starret mikes/ sunnen dial more gauge, (all checked against a standard prior to each build.)
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2149607
MartinSTi05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 09:41 PM   #19
Crystal_Imprezav
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 84105
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: I'm a Newbie
Vehicle:
2005 Super Slow STi
CGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copper Rex View Post
The ARP bolts on the manley h-beam rods absolutely need to be torqued to 60ft. lbs. using 30wt. oil. If you call up manley they are going to tell you that torque value using that weight oil is the most accurate way of coming up with the proper bolt stretch. I know this because I called them asking all these questions. They told me they had better and more accurate results using the 30wt oil then the ARP lube. I also asked them what should I torque them to because on the manual it says 55-65ft. lbs. I wanted an exact number. They told me 60ft. lbs because thats what manley assembles them at before boxing them. Like i said before I also used ACL hx bearings on my manley h beams and they all came out to .0018-.0019, so my findings were different than yours.
FWIW, Manley send out loctite anti-seeze with the turbo tuff with from what I can tell is almost identical to the arp ultra torque. It makes little sense to me why they would say 30wt oil is more accurate than using a specified lube they actually send out with their rods...
Crystal_Imprezav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 11:12 PM   #20
Team Scream
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 121532
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
06 FXSTi, 06 FXTAT
06 STi Wide Body Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSTi05 View Post
I too had similar troubles with ACL bearings on a number of builds. Here is a thread documenting some of the issues I encountered. I too use what I would call good tools, Starret mikes/ sunnen dial more gauge, (all checked against a standard prior to each build.)
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2149607
Martin, I just read the thread you linked, and man what a coincidence!
At the top of the first post, you have a statement highlighted in RED that indicates a .001" difference in between the thrust and the rest of the mains, and that is EXACTLY the problem with the ACL set I am fighting with right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal_Imprezav View Post
FWIW, Manley send out loctite anti-seeze with the turbo tuff with from what I can tell is almost identical to the arp ultra torque. It makes little sense to me why they would say 30wt oil is more accurate than using a specified lube they actually send out with their rods...
A quick trip through googleland turned up a bunch of threads on other forums with the same debate. DSM guys using the same Manley rods asking the same questions. Clearly Manley publishes a torque spec using 30wt oil, but they also give a bolt stretch value for those using stretch gauges.

My inclination is that they (Manley) tested this enough with 30wt oil to come up with repeatable results and publish a torque value they are comfortable with.

If you look at the instruction sheet I attached above, the torque values are directly below the statement "90% of all rod failures are a direct result of incorrect fastener installation and/or maintenance"

If they felt that using a stretch gauge was the "only" way to do it, they would not include a torque value.

ARP even publishes a torque value, so it is a moot point really.
Either method, will work just fine. A stretch gauge is the preferred method, you will get no argument from me there.

Here, I simply followed published specifications.

Last edited by Team Scream; 11-05-2011 at 11:29 PM.
Team Scream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 05:34 PM   #21
mick_the_ginge
Citizen Mick
 
Member#: 27646
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
2003 Sleeved 2.5
Oil Dry Sump Goodness

Default

I assume you are using the king Tri-layer bearings? From the sound of it they are closer to the ACL race bearing construction. However I could not find any technical details on them, anyone have that?
mick_the_ginge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 05:53 PM   #22
IMPORTIMAGE
NASIOC Storefront Vendor
 
Member#: 79304
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: FL
Vehicle:
CALL 941-257-9618
www.ImportImageRacing.com

Default

Have you tried the Mahle Bearings? they have been a good alternative for us when the ACL's go on backorder (which happens to be frequently)
IMPORTIMAGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 06:28 PM   #23
reid-o
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 103631
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mililani, Hawaii
Vehicle:
2004 STI
Gray

Default

Aren't Mahles the same as Clevite? i believe they are the same corporation
reid-o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 02:39 AM   #24
cueballsi
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202736
Join Date: Feb 2009
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Vehicle:
2002 WRX- 6spd - MBP
1992 Civic VX 40MPG

Default

they seem to have the bearings here

http://www.maperformance.com/king-xp...-cr4125xp.html
cueballsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 05:23 AM   #25
lee586
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 212926
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Austrailia
Vehicle:
97 Wrx
Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reid-o View Post
Aren't Mahles the same as Clevite? i believe they are the same corporation
True
lee586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ACL vs OEM bearings - sizes and clearences ? Bad Noodle Built Motor Discussion 1 04-16-2010 07:38 PM
Lakers vs. Kings tonight! Who's down for a meet? phattyduck Southern California Impreza Club Forum -- SCIC 37 03-25-2004 11:51 AM
Videos for STI vs. EVO comparos mpgxsvcd STi Forum Archive 57 08-08-2003 02:15 PM
comparo? re 92 vs 730 wet traction sjt Brakes, Steering & Suspension 8 04-20-2001 08:36 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2021 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.