Quote:
Originally Posted by tonichristi
In other words, James didn't choose this fix, so it must be wrong.
1) A hole punch doesn't actually punch out a slug of material, but deforms the metal to stretch out a hole.
2) The slot is parallel to the torsional forces exerted on the shaft, therefore not likely to promote failure. Were it perpendicular to the exerted force, then you should worry.
Let me guess: you like the LNE fix, so anything else is inferior and wrong? Yeah  |
No one has ever proven with quantifiable facts that LNE bearings deteriorate from inadequate lubrication. No one to my knowledge has ever put any verifiable facts on the table to prove their 'forced' lubrication approaches last measurably longer than LNE bearings in real world applications. So it doesn't matter what one believes. It's all just marketing puffery until someone puts serious money on the table in terms of a warranty to back up their claims.
BTW: I choose the IMS Solution for two reasons. LNE has a great, implicitly verifiable, track record in selling IMS fixes that either don't fail (double row retrofit) or fail far less than the OEM design (single row retrofit). More importantly, my gut instinct caused me to believe that the plain bearing Solution will reduce the likelihood of catastrophic engine failure should the bearing itself degrade. Admittedly, I don't have any facts to back up my gut instinct, but that was my risk calculus. So I chose it.