RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So my 99 3.9l rr was burning oil so decided to replace rings & big ends in situ over winter ( NZ) & heads to machine shop for skim & rebuild . everything kept in order it came out & labeled Bore showed little wear &measure using a ring showed less than 3thou so just gave it hone & pistons ok .but #4 had broken ring But after torqing up the bottom end she wont turn over , took them all out & did it again checked & rechecked but still wont turn . Ive done this before on many vehicles ive owned incl a race engine so no stranger to it . . Help couldnt be wrong bearings ???? they were King bearings ex USA labeled for landrover 4.0 L CR890CP 010 Ihave the RR workshop manual on file but it doent cover doing bearing /rings replacement so no help
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
201 Posts
Given the part number you have they are 10 thou under size. If you have a standard crank it will never turn over and it will seize if you try to start it. Given the part number, you need CR890CP (no 010) if you have a standard crank.

I did a similar job on a 2.6 Landrover years ago and as the crank wasn't flash I installed 0.002 undersize bearings. It was lovely and quiet when I started it, but as soon as it got hot, it seized and wouldn't turn over until it was cold again, so a thou makes a huge difference.

If you want to check, get some Plastigauge and check your bearing clearance should be between 0.0006 and 0.002 thou, so about 1 thou would be nice..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Ok took them out . Checked the shells & your right says..010 on them & comparing with old its obvious now they were still pretty good for 280 K & journals still spotless Didnt spot it working under the car lying on my back on cold concrete floor . So now the argument with Bearmach over whos paying for replacement . The part # on the box by Bearmarch is correct but the manufacturers part # (king usa ) says 010 after it & shell say 010 Guess theyl say my fault for not checking first . but these days of computer control & well known company dont expect this these sort of mistakes so didnt check first . being in Nz they cost me over $100 set all up inc frieght . i ll post results if i get a reply
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
201 Posts
Very annoying when you order the right thing and something different turns up. Looking at the BM site it is not well identified either. STC1426 and STC14261 both say con rod bearing set without the 14261 number being identified as 010" under size (where as the 0.20" set is clearly identified). Not saying you didn't order the right part at all, but easy to see how Bloggs at BM might screw something up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yes theyve admitted their mistake & says 1426 is what I should have ordered but isnt on the catalouge page so now im out of pocket NZ107 $ & have now got set coming from King agents in Australia . Not a good look for them if they cant get their catalouge right . so cross them off my xmass card list
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
At long last got & fitted new BE shells but engine hardly turn on the starter motor heads still off . I wouldnld have damaged anything when put the wrongly supplied shells in ? . Just just to be sure the caps go on with the tags on the same side as tags on the rods ?
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
201 Posts
Most unlikely you have damaged anything there.

The boss on the connecting rods face to the front on the RHS and to the rear on the LHS. The rib on the cap goes on the same side as the boss.

Did you do them up to the correct torque? 15 ft/lb + 80 degrees (or 35 ft/lb in old money).

I assume they are well lubricated? How about the rings? Did you get the correct size? Did you check the gap before fitting?
 

·
Registered
1995-2002 Range Rover P38A
Joined
·
259 Posts
How bout the engine rebuild? All working now?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top