Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

2000 Express 3500 5.7 I'm confused on the rod bearings. All are marked GM A-100 on one end. But on the other end some are marked A926 and some are marked A921? What am I missing

20240705_174049.jpg

20240705_174006.jpg

Posted
17 hours ago, FlHermit said:

2000 Express 3500 5.7 I'm confused on the rod bearings. All are marked GM A-100 on one end. But on the other end some are marked A926 and some are marked A921? What am I missing

20240705_174049.jpg

20240705_174006.jpg

 

 

 

Going off pictures on eBay of the bearing p/n 10120990 (which is the current main bearing #), the ones with the "GM" look to be GM bearings.  The ones with the A921 and A926 are likely aftermarket bearings, so I'd say someone might have been in that engine before.  

 

Here's a picture of one out of a fairly new box and its stampings:

 

NEW OEM GM GENUINE MAIN CRANKSHAFT BEARING 10120990 - Picture 2 of 2

 

 

Here's the stampings from some older stock:

 

NOS OEM 1982-02 Chevy 5.0L V8 crankshaft main bearing GM #: 10120990 - Picture 1 of 2

 

 

If you look at the second bearing half from the left its stamped like your first picture.  

 

Here's some evidence of the "GM A-100" on factory bearings in an older engine.  The bottom numbers are date code so your "GM A-100 8-01" is a factory GM standard bearing, August 2001. 

 

What rod bearings do i have GM SBC 350 | Hot Rod Forum (hotrodders.com)

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm just trying to figure out this noise? Gonna put in a set from O'Reilly's and see what happens 

noisea.vpj

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • This video may not be the exact content for the joke thread but its a lot of laughs so here it is, I've only watched a portion of it so far but if anyone is looking for some light hearted good soap box driving action, its here. As a note in the upper left of the screen it shows the number out of 100 to refer back to any particular vehicle for comment !.    https://www.facebook.com/reel/1351928276956715
    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...