![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Enthusiast ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Joined Dec 26, '09 From Albuquerque, NM Currently Offline Reputation: 19 (100%) ![]() |
I'm replacing my wheel bearings soon, so I ordered some timken replacements. I got them (ordered part# 512137 x2 for rears) and they're different! Here are some pics.
Here are the two and their differences. ![]() Funny thing is, the only real difference are the locations of the smoothly-machined races. Height and inner diameters are exactly the same, give or take 0.0005", which is reasonably for bearing press-fit tolerances (had some calipers handy) and the bolt holes line up perfectly. Here's the stamped number for the bearing on the left: ![]() And here it is for the right: ![]() So are these the same? The spindle goes through the bearing and is secured on the other side... so could I actually use both of these? -------------------- taking too long to mod since '09
June '12 COTM '95 AT200 |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Enthusiast ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Joined Dec 26, '09 From Albuquerque, NM Currently Offline Reputation: 19 (100%) ![]() |
I couldn't find any correlation between NTN and Timken, other than an incident in the 80s where NTN was selling components too cheaply and Timken complained, saying they were undercutting the competition. Court found them guilty and they had to pay some relatively small fees.
Other than that, I've actually found that many forums/message boards hold NTN (and SKF) in higher regard than Timken! I also made sure that the NTN bearing I received is the correct rear bearing for the 94-99 Celica FWD application. I'll probably be fine with this bearing... -------------------- taking too long to mod since '09
June '12 COTM '95 AT200 |
![]() ![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: February 18th, 2025 - 3:36 PM |