When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
on pictures it is clear which bearing is used:
which is at least a good start as its a high rpm one,
but its main purpose is to hold the load in radial direction. The axial force from clutch will be very heavy on it, and will create huge wear. It is same as trying to use torrington bearings that is in there oem, but as a wheel bearing.... I'm really surprised EJ has released a product like such... Also radial bearings are not to be used to position an element in axial direction unless its a free spinning item with no, or low axial load. Otherwise at least conical roller bearing is to be used.
The front stationary suffers only if/when the belts are overtightened, and dooring startup before the oil pressure builds up. Even the radial capacity of this bearing is negligible compared to the force generated by the belts and rotor combustion / when compared to sleave bearing (estimating 20 times if not even more higher capacity)
on pictures it is clear which bearing is used:
which is at least a good start as its a high rpm one,
but its main purpose is to hold the load in radial direction. The axial force from clutch will be very heavy on it, and will create huge wear. It is same as trying to use torrington bearings that is in there oem, but as a wheel bearing.... I'm really surprised EJ has released a product like such... Also radial bearings are not to be used to position an element in axial direction unless its a free spinning item with no, or low axial load. Otherwise at least conical roller bearing is to be used.
The front stationary suffers only if/when the belts are overtightened, and dooring startup before the oil pressure builds up. Even the radial capacity of this bearing is negligible compared to the force generated by the belts and rotor combustion / when compared to sleave bearing (estimating 20 times if not even more higher capacity)
You almost sound like you know what you're talking about. Like it's your profession or something. I don't know enough to say either way. Ha.
With the EWP and AC delete, I'm only running one belt on an underdrive pulley for the Alternator. And if I understand you correctly, you are saying the clutch pushing forward is going to wear it out?
Yea, I'm a mechanical/structal engineeri with Masters in science. But I was to lazy to actually calculate the bearing load/life.
What I wrote is kind of basic principles of bearing use, so not needed to be an expert, just some basic engineering knowledge.
I wouldn't run it in mine, even with the aditional load of SC
I’m an ME too, but you don’t see me throwing it out at every opportunity trying to justify myself. To be honest, over the 18 years of being on the forum, I have stated it at least a few times. In the last year you most likely have me beat though.
Which that’s all fine in theory. in reality and as you then also admit, you don’t have any true understanding of the actual load to wear ratio. Which it was designed for drag racing, but has been used on various street cars for several years before being released.
You might try calling them first to consider their hands-on experience; which you personally lack, before making such a hypothesis. That‘s less dependent on a supposed education level, but more so on natural intelligence. Because perhaps what they’re thinking is that it proved to be good enough for the application.
Unlike a wheel bearing, it’s not under constant lateral loading and certainly the magnitude of the loading is not comparable at all, i.e. the force of a clutch diaphragm spring vs. the cornering/steering load of a 3,000 lb. car applied to the lever arm of the loaded tire radius.
Again being honest, I understand that now, having made the same mistake myself in the past and am passing it on for your own consideration. Because one ME to another, I disagree with a number of things you’ve stated on here. Including some of the comments above.
.
and as Fickert pointed out, the Davies pump ideally needs to be as low as possible, but in reality where you have/had it positioned appears to be at approx. the same height as the factory mechanical pump. Neither one of which is self-priming. They both depend on the coolant level in the system being higher than their position. Lower is always better though, but right at the radiator discharge is not an absolute requirement.
The Davies does need some orientation consideration to prevent air entrapment in the volute. Their documentation explains this and it should be adhered to. Yet this is also why having it as low as possible with as much coolant level head pressure above it is preferred.
.
and as Fickert pointed out, the Davies pump ideally needs to be as low as possible, but in reality where you have/had it positioned appears to be at approx. the same height as the factory mechanical pump. Neither one of which is self-priming. They both depend on the coolant level in the system being higher than their position. Lower is always better though, but right at the radiator discharge is not an absolute requirement. The Davies does need some orientation consideration to prevent air entrapment in the volute. Their documentation explains this and it should be adhered to.
.
Yep I attempted to keep it at or below the factory water pump level. It's about 2" below the factory pump. Also the pump is clocked at the approved orientation per the manual. Which is why I really really really don't want to relocate it. The mounting position, orientation and ease of installation is really nice. Mazda even has a hole in the firewall to pass the wiring thru on that side of the car covered by a bit of tape. Like it was made to live there.
Hardest part was plugging the bypass to remove the thermostat.
Considering the extra heat I'll be dumping into the system, the water cooling for the turbo and wg, and how much cooling capacity I got on the last track testing, where I had my co-driver and I really flog it and attempt to break track record times for the car...I'm seriously an EWP convert...it's got the overhead needed.
@TeamRX8
there are 2 possibilities for this bearing:
It either does nothing or
its going to wear...
I've designed enough assemblyes / systems that even without exact calculation, I have a good "feeling" for rough dimensions / load.
The load capacity of the journal bearing is more than 10x of roller bearing, possibly even 100x for radial load.
Due to the rpm requirement on such a large diameter the ball bearing has to be a "loose" fit on the shaft so the bearing is not.compressed. And also shpuld be at least C3 which is not visible.. All in all most likely in same tolerance as the e-shaft/journal bearing ie not being a help at cold starts.
As for axial load, yes I agree, It is not under constant one but than I just dont get the point off it except the possibility to be uncarefull fitting the front stack...
As for being tested on a street car, and year give me absolutely no value as for reliability or wear as most do less than 5k miles in a year, and stock bearings are OK on 100k engines.... For a comparison I averaged 15-20k a year, and took it regularely on 2000mile trips...
On a SC car I would apreciate a bearing on the front engine cover to reduce the bending moment in the the e-shaft but again....
.................... hands-on experience; which you personally lack, before making such a hypothesis.
Again being honest, I understand that now, having made the same mistake myself in the past.............................
.
12-21-2023, 10:27 AM
