for my 3.4L XJ engine and to my suprice I received a box form Mahle Jaguar 279 HS 21284 200 and they don’t fit, because it was devided in two ; Upper and Lower. First Upper was looking oké, but the Lower did not fit in the little space of the main bearing caps. Al so were the bearings a little thicker so the crankshaft won’t spin ad al.I searched on the internet for this problem/number and with a little translation from Polish, the bearings are for 0.020 crankshaft space.
I thought it was just STANDARD Bearings from Barrett. Can you help me?
You need to check what you ordered and if they are wrong they need to supply the correct ones. I had a similar occurrence whenI ordered big ends from an e bay supplier, I received mains. Due to my location in NZ they supplied the correct ones and said to keep the incorrect bearings as the return freight made it unprofitable.
Also it pays to check that you have received the correct bearings before assembly.
Yes, indeed I checked it twice, they are good bearings from Mahle for all engine’s, but Barrett is difficult now. First you consider that these bearings are a little thicker to adjust some space between crankshaft and bearing, so I worked all day to machined the crank down a little and also the bearings caps, tried again. Almost all the bearings caps installed, but two of them had an other form so the oil line was nearly blocked. I told Barrett but they don’t know anything about this problem, see photo’s.
Frank.
Andrew, the fitting or slot is in the wrong place, did they changed it in the 4.2L engine. The big bearings does fit in the Upper part, but in the Lower it does not fit in the “slot”, so the oil line is nearly blocked, see photo’s.
Oversized bearing are fitted in conjunction with a crankshaft grind to a new specific dimension - grinding the shaft to fit the bearings is a…hm… somewhat unusual procedure! Shells come in ‘standard’ and three oversizes - one being indeed 0.020"…so
The ‘slots’ are there to precisely locating the bearing shells, and keeping them there during assembly - including ensuring the line-up of the oil ports. In the shown position this will not work, repeat ‘not’…
You may get away by repositioning the shells to fully open the ports - if the crankshaft grinding was done to specs for the standard oversized shells, and indeed give the specific running clearances…
The manuals shows no difference in this area between the various xk engine variants - though that does not prove that there isn’t one. Like many Jaguar suppliers Barrett depends on suppliers - which may or may not adhere strictly to original Jaguar specs. Were all the shells delivered of the same width…?
The two halfshells should fully fill the width of the caps and should all be identical - if they don’t, it is highly suspicious…
Whether makeshift arrangements will work is dependent on precision of the work done - but it may have been less work to pursue the idea of wrong shells…?
So you have bearings for a 4.2 +.020 that you are trying to fit into a 3.4 Standard crank. They don’t fit so you are grinding on the main caps. No way the bearings will fit both because they are for an undersize crank that is different from a 4.2. Now you have main caps that have been ground so you don’t have round holes. At a minimum, a line bore and check the crank for size is required along with the proper bearings. The bearings are marked on the back of the shell with STD, .020 or whatever depending on the size.
The bearings are different. As such, the tabs and width are different so you won’t mix them up (if you pay attention). Not sure which parts manuals you are referring to as they carry different part numbers.
Hi Frank, yes I had a lot of discussions with the manager of Barrett, he told me that I ordered the wrong bearings so it’s my fault, end of discussion. Little angry, because the site was for Jaguar XJ series 2 and the bearings where STD and should fit in many engine’s, I checked that. I polish the crank so it does the bearings, but remain the two big shells on there different “slot’s”. But I remember that one time I had to fix a Daimler 4.2L series 2, where one drive shaft bearing was melted on the crank, so I restored that and changed all the bearings, no difficulty there with the “slot’s”.
Drove to Belgium this weekend to help my friends family with there car’s (Mercedes, Bmw, Vw) and on the way back, I put the bearings in the mail box from Barrett. They will sent it to Mahle in Poland, I believe.
Engine Tuning data - 3.4 Litre, Journal diameter 69.855 to 69.842 and…
4.2 Litre, Journal diameter 69,85 to 69.86 .
Frank.
**
I assumed that as the journal diameters were the same, Frank - so would be the shells.
Dick pointed out that the parts manuals show different part numbers - it is unusual for Jaguar to complicate matters by making incompatible differences to parts that have the same functions. But basically; if a part does not fit; it is the wrong part…
The 3,4 was introduced in the Series 2 range - so it should have appeared in the Barrett site. Including parts number differences - but ordering by part number is not questioned by any provider. I prefer to order by type, and let the provider sort it out - but that is not surefire either…
Frank
xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)
**
Of course, having ground the crankshaft (perfectly?) remember to order the 0.020 oversized shell - and you may get away with it…
Frank
xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)
As an aside; the 2,8 engine was not fitted to the Series 2 - so there is some excuse for Barrett to
Hi Frank, I wrote Mahle in Stutgart, but now I saw that the main bearings 279 HS 21284 200 is for a later type of engine “The Series 3”, year 1982 to 1987, maybe they changed the engine a little so these bearings fit only on 4.2L series 3, but the site from Barrett.sng I cannot show you,because it is protected site(cars XJ serie 2), but they have a range of cars form Mk 2 S type 3.4L,e type’s ,3,4L, 3.8L 420, Xj’s all series, but that isn’t right and I bought just Standard.
Frank.
Can it be that those main bearings are only for the later XJ6 series 3, because on the site of Mahle there is a year notice 1982 to 1987, maybe there is a change in the journals/shells.
Frank.
**
It’s the engine rather than the car type that is important for engine parts, Frank…
…so the 3,4 was what you should be looking for. The 3,4 used in the Series 2 had some changes to the engine block - which likely required alterations to the crankshaft bearings. ‘Standard’ is not really a valid parts description on its own - you need more specifics, or a provider may send what they sell most of…
At this stage; when you ‘machined the crank down a little’ - do you really have the proper equipment for precise machining to the proper tolerances. If not; you should have a machine shop check and rectify - to an available shell thickness. Otherwise, obtaining the proper running clearances will be a problem - and proper clearances are essential…
As an aside; way back I still remember the days of Babbit metal bearings - and scraping them individually to fit the journals individually. Theoretically; bearing shells can still be ‘adjusted’ to vary clearances - by removing material inside the shells. Clamping the shells inside two bearing caps allows some control…
Not that I suggest anything like that, it was the desperate actions in the old days when correct spares were unavailable - and money short. And more ‘reversible’ than machining crankshafts - by throwing away duds and get new shells…
Frank, I did only adjust some scoring which some fine paper to make it smooth again, it was looking perfect. The bearings of the 4.2L and 3.4L had to be the same, because the journals diameter is the same(69.855). Never touched the Babbit. The crank was turning normal which the other bearings from Mahle. It was just the two “slot’s” on the end and beginning that was a problem, but I could fix that, only want some compensation from Barrett for the wrong information on the site of the Jaguar XJ6 serie 2, - engine - cylinder block- crankshaft - second page and there they are ¨ 11622 Mahle “the best in the wold”, I liked that a lot.
Frank.
**
It’s common enough to use fine emery paper to remove minor journal blemishes, Frank - fair enough (and residue carefully removed from the surroundings and oil ports)
However, if you were delivered 0,020 and the crankshaft is ‘0,00’ - the crankshaft may still turn due to general wear, but the running tolerances may be too tight. It would be advisable to verify the actual diameter of your journals against the specs - just to make sure…
Also, using 4,2 shells on a 3,4 engine may be fraught, as Dick’s information indicates. In general; the shells should have the same width as the respective bearings - it’s a load issue.
As an aside; ‘original’ Mahle had a very good reputation - but moving production elsewhere, as many manufacturers do, may sometimes have affect quality either way. “It’s the quality that guarantees the brand” - not the other way around…
Yes, the widths of the bearing Front - Centre - Rear are the same of both engine’s, so is the crankshaft diameter the same. How can it be that one halve of the bearing shells are good, but the other halve is different. Made Coventry something different in the engine bearing caps, so they cannot mix the two engines bearings shells? But everything is the same, I do not understand it anymore. Lost my bearings, sent back to Stutgart and nobody explained to me, why this problem is with only the lower front and rear bearings “slot”.
Frank.
