Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Maintenance Spun bearings

Originally posted by btrautman:

---

Posted by Terry Haines...BUT if it were oil starvation that caused spun bearings 'due to design' then an engine would have it 'from new'....This is a progressive thing...most engines spin rod ends between 65-85,000 miles...if it had 'bad lube'/bad pan/oil retained in heads etc etc it would have been like that FROM NEW!....

---

In support of Terry's assertions, I think most of these failures are coming well into the lifecycle of these motors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a comulative effect that gradually takes out the bearing but, there is no denying that if the problem is a design one than it would therefore be present from new.

I'd also suggest that the record of Bob Bondurant's Racing School SVT Contours appears to be fairly good. I don't have info on the entire fleet but as of 02/2004 they had three SVT Contours and none have had an engine failure. Two have had their trans/diff replaced but I repeat none have had an engine failure. Surely, we can't be suggesting that street driven SVT's w/spun rod bearing would have been exposed to more frequent high G loads than these vehicles. All 3 are 98's and one with over 14k (this would be virtually all track miles)is serial # ...WK100012!!! It is my understanding that none of these vehicles have any sort of Accusump system, but I don't know for sure, perhaps someone else out there could add to this.

Our motors really don't have alot of racing background in NA compared to Europe so perhaps our fellow enthusiasts across the "Pond" could let us know if there has been a problem with spun bearings there and if they typically do or don't use any system like the "Accusump" one in the BTCC where I believe the Mondeos were quite abundant.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

---

Could the apparent lack of oiling problems in the 3.0L engines also but due to them being used in vehicles not likely to see high lateral G-forces (Taurus), or being mounted longitudinally (Escape)?

---

This appears to be no longer the case. My mechanic alone, has seen atleast half-a-dozen Escape 3.0L's with spun bearings in as many months. One had 4 bend rods!

Aside from the Zircon issue, there appears to be an issue of some failed rod ends being measured larger in size than stock. Does anyone know, for a fact, if this is something that could happen at the time of failure as a result of the failure.

Regarding the Zircon issue, while I completely follow Demon's logic that if it were due to a contaminant that the first place that would likely be affected would be the mains, followed by the rods next in-line, rather than those last in-line. This would make sense if the Zircon was large enough to "catch" on the main bearings or to fall out of suspension at that point. I have no idea what sizes we're dealing with here. Does anyone?

I also don't have my SVT Manual handy so perhaps someone can fill me in on the tolerances for the mains and the rods. Sometimes mains have more room than the rod bearing. The larger mains actually can be more forgiving of contaminants than the smaller rod bearings.

It is also possible that if there is "casting" sand finding its way into the oil that it creates a problem at the last bearing (does anyone know if these particles are small enough to go all the way through the system and finally be caught in the oil filter?

Finally, the absence of sand particles in the filter or in an oil analysis may not prove anything. If these particles are small enough to get all the way to #6, then the problem may be a cumulative effect that merely accelerates the wear at that bearing and the evidence could have been flushed from the oil/filter/system at some previous time but the damage had been done and the subsequent failure was a result of that previous damage.

I think a forgot to ask questions like I said I would and just rambled on. Hopefully this makes sense. (I've discovered that I sustained a concussion when I wrote-off the SVT and now have Post Concussion Syndrome - fancy phrase for saying my thinks is all mixed up - hopefully not too much of that here )

Regards, Alan

Originally posted by DemonSVT:

---

1. Generally speaking you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
6. They are the SAME [censored]-ING parts (rods, crank, bolts, studs, etc) Let me guess you heard this where you heard everything else right.

Doesn't that make it ZERO for 6...


Folks if you just don't know then please stop posting your _______ comments. Just sit back and learn something...

---

Originally posted by 99fordsvt:

---

Mostly correct, but the 2.5L and 3.0L do have different cranks. Yes, same stroke but a 2.5L piston is 296 grams and a 3.0L piston is 348 grams, thus requiring the crank balance to be different. Hence totally different parts, part #'s and applications.

---

Originally posted by zm830101:

---

as i recall, most (if not all) of the BTCC Mondy's used a 2.0l inline four. not the v6

---

Originally posted by DemonSVT:

---

Hence the exact same part to begin with, buy yes a different part number & applications. All of which I have stated before.

So what exactly was your point?

---

Originally posted by Lance Kinley:

---

That's my 'uneducated' stab at it.

---

speaking of those, I don't think the sprinkler example can be seriously applied to small passages and viscous fluid... And even if it can be, the fact that the last sprinkler will START last -- as TAH stated -- means that #6 will not be lubed for the longest time. I don't think it will fail on the first time ever either -- production engines are not built that way. at some point it will say that enough is enough.

Originally posted by Alan Coles:

---

It is my understanding that none of these vehicles have any sort of Accusump system, but I don't know for sure, perhaps someone else out there could add to this.

---