Babbitt Engine Rebuilder in Pennsylvania Area

[midman]

Hey Everyone,

 

Are there any recommendations for a decent Babbitt engine rebuilder in Pennsylvania. I ran my 31 Buick hot and wiped the bearings :-( at a minimum.

I dropped the pan and pulled a cap and sure enough.

I know there are a couple of places in New England and the Mid West but I'd like to be within reasonable driving distance if at all possible. I am in South Central Pennsylvania.

 

Any leads would be appreciated.

[29 franklin]

There is a company in Cazenovia NY called Reeve enterprises . They rebuild any engine and do all their own babbitt work. They rebuilt my Franklin engine.Nice people to deal with. 315 655 8812   

[Owen_Dyneto]

Automotive Restorations, Rte 22 West, Lebanon, New Jersey does all manner of vintage and classic engines.   908-236-6400, ask for Steve Babinsky.

[motoringicons]

Although not in Pennsylvania, Hart's in not too far away in Cecil, Ohio and does a great job. Their prices are very competitive and their turn around time is relatively fast. They are a good, professional shop with a great reputation:

 

http://www.hartsmachineservice.com/home.html

 

Another possibility is Schalwms in Pennsylvania. I know they specialize in Model T/A Fords, but they might also do other engines. Again, a great shop with a great reputation. If they can not help you, they might be able to refer you to someone in PA.

 

http://www.schwalms.com/

Edited April 22, 2017 by motoringicons (see edit history)

[midman]

I talked to most of the recommended shops. I decided to go with Reeve Enterprises in NY. They are 4 hours away but they seemed very knowledgeable and were OK with just doing the babbit and head work. They also walked me through pressure testing my block to check for any cracks.

 

I'll post how it all goes.

thanks for the help.

Chuck

[29 franklin]

Glad you went with Patrick and his Dad . You will not be disappointed. 

[broker-len]

      

Hercules Welding & Machine Co in Palmyra, NJ 08065

      near tycony bridge   

[PFitz]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:59 PM, 29 franklin said:

Glad you went with Patrick and his Dad . You will not be disappointed. 

 

 

I'll second that. I've used Reeve's shop for 20 years. Patrick and Mike have decades of experience and all the equipment to completely rebuild any engine - gas or diesel, antique or new, street, race, stationary, or marine. Everything but aircraft.

[Guest SaddleRider]

FAILED BABBIT CONNECTING ROD BEARINGS:

 

First question - bad news - when rod bearings fail, they usually damage the crankshaft.  Have you resolved the condition of your crankshaft journals?

 

I recommend using a "poured babbit" style connecting rod bearing if you have access to a time machine, to insure your long-stroke engine will be limited to driving with the engine speeds consistent with the roads of the era when your car was in service.

 

For an interesting article on what happens to cars equipped with poured babbit bearings when driven on later roads in later driving conditions,  I recommend researching what happened when the first stretches of the PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE opened in the late 1930's.  Hint - tow trucks got a lot of business those first few days...!

 

Let me qualify the above - perhaps your car is a "show-car".  In that event,  it need only run far enough from its trailer to where it will be parked for viewing, and, perhaps, in the case of the PEBBLE BEACH event, a few miles of driving on two-lane curved roads at very modest speeds.    "Poured babbit" rod bearings would be appropriate if you can limit your use for that purpose.

 

Should you want to actually drive your pre-World War II "long stroke" style motor on modern roads,  even at speeds modest by today's standards......   I recommend  "insert type" connecting rod bearings  (that came into common use in the mid 1930's. )

 

When I was a kid in the early 1950's....we used to go 'hunting" in wrecking yards for then current era wrecked Buicks (to get their connecting rods)   ,  (Buick was one of the last hold-outs - I believe 1952 was their first year for "inserts"  - so 'insert" style connecting rods were popular for those of us with older Buicks who wanted to go fast, and not have to hitch-hike home..;.....!)

 

 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Buick introduced inserts in 1949, I believe.

 

  Ben

[midman]

Update on my engine rebuild:

 

Reeves found a small crack in the block. He said it did not show up under pressure until he hit 70 psi. He said it would "probably" be OK. I told him to have it repaired. $$$

 

As suggested earlier he is going to machine the rods for insert bearings. The crank is OK, cam is OK.

 

Getting the cam bearings redone.

 

Need oversized pistons. I've been looking for more than a 2 months, nothing so I have to get them made. $$$$$

 

Head is good so just getting redone and new seats installed.

 

When Reeves is done I am going to do the final assembly.

 

I'll post the assembly as I go.

 

 

 

[C Carl]

As long as you're up , talk to Arias or Ross and see if you can get your compression ratio up to 7.00 : 1 , or even 7.50 : 1. Since you MUST go the new piston & ring route , balance and blueprint , cc it , and you will enjoy it so much that you will rationalize the entire event to have been a blessing ! And thank you for the update. Along with the other guys and gals , and as a driver of ancient iron , I have been interested to see how you are getting on. Very best of luck with your rebuild !   - Carl

[edinmass]

Aries and Ross are not that expensive, you get Pistons, ri Gus, and pins all for about 125 per piston. If a very fair price.

[PFitz]

Reeves orders Ross pistons for me. Both the Aries and the Ross are very strong and well made, but the Aries are much more expensive.

 

Paul

[C Carl]

You guys with much more experience than I have in these matters : what would be an ideal and feasible compression ratio ? In order to match the engine to run far better and more efficiently on modern 87 octane , could the piston tops be contoured to go to 8 or 8.5 ? This is why I suggested consulting with the manufacturers , who have vast engineering knowledge. Talking to the Stutz Tech Advisor at Hershey in 2013 , he said they bring Stutz up to 7 or 7.5. In the case of this '31 Bu' , with new high quality pistons and insert bearings , a significant boost in compression seems to be an opportunity not to be wasted. Naturally , cam profile is a huge factor , as compression pressure is not the same as compression ratio. This will still be a relatively slow turning engine , and would not have the duration and overlap , nor scavenging & volumetric efficiency characteristics of a modern high revving mill. I wish I could get my old Cadillacs up from 4.5 and 4.7.   - Carl

[cahartley]

On 8/5/2017 at 9:35 AM, midman said:

 

Reeves found a small crack in the block. He said it did not show up under pressure until he hit 70 psi. He said it would "probably" be OK. I told him to have it repaired. $$$

Need oversized pistons. I've been looking for more than a 2 months, nothing so I have to get them made. $$$$$

 

Where is the crack?

Nobody suggested sleeving and standard pistons rather than spending a fortune for custom pistons?

[midman]

The cylinders need to be bored, and I cannot find any pistons for this motor, standard or otherwise. If we could have found some standards than sleeving probably might have been the choice. So pistons need to be made anyway.

 

I hadn't thought about upping the compression ratio. I'll talk to them about it on Monday if it is not too late.

 

I am getting it balanced.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

Chuck

[C Carl]

Chuck , the first thing you will need to know is the combustion chamber volume , cc's. I do hope it is not too late to take advantage of an opportunity you are paying for anyway. Who are you having make the new pistons ?  I called Arias , and spoke with Steve Montrelli , who has been with Arias for going on 40 years now. He is one of the great old school guys , even older than I am. He is at extension 44 , 310-532-9737 for the record , and benefit of anyone needing the service of this esteemed company. See if you can take a little extra time in order to make the most of your situation. Flat top ? Dome ? Dish ? Dimples ? Hey ! You are getting FORGED Pistons ! Break out the clay !   - Carl 

 

P.S. : Also for the record , perhaps an overbearing spellcheck is trying to turn the name of Arias into some sign of the Zodiac. And I don't think it is Leo , or Capricorn. No it is not a goat. Ram , niether.  - CC

[C Carl]

Too late ?  - CC

[herm111]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:05 AM, SaddleRider said:

FAILED BABBIT CONNECTING ROD BEARINGS:

 

First question - bad news - when rod bearings fail, they usually damage the crankshaft.  Have you resolved the condition of your crankshaft journals?

 

I recommend using a "poured babbit" style connecting rod bearing if you have access to a time machine, to insure your long-stroke engine will be limited to driving with the engine speeds consistent with the roads of the era when your car was in service.

 

For an interesting article on what happens to cars equipped with poured babbit bearings when driven on later roads in later driving conditions,  I recommend researching what happened when the first stretches of the PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE opened in the late 1930's.  Hint - tow trucks got a lot of business those first few days...!

 

Let me qualify the above - perhaps your car is a "show-car".  In that event,  it need only run far enough from its trailer to where it will be parked for viewing, and, perhaps, in the case of the PEBBLE BEACH event, a few miles of driving on two-lane curved roads at very modest speeds.    "Poured babbit" rod bearings would be appropriate if you can limit your use for that purpose.

 

Should you want to actually drive your pre-World War II "long stroke" style motor on modern roads,  even at speeds modest by today's standards......   I recommend  "insert type" connecting rod bearings  (that came into common use in the mid 1930's. )

 

When I was a kid in the early 1950's....we used to go 'hunting" in wrecking yards for then current era wrecked Buicks (to get their connecting rods)   ,  (Buick was one of the last hold-outs - I believe 1952 was their first year for "inserts"  - so 'insert" style connecting rods were popular for those of us with older Buicks who wanted to go fast, and not have to hitch-hike home..;.....!)

 

 

I find this post not to be in the same line with Reality. From the first beginning of racing, all cars had Babbitt bearings, on up into the   1950's never had trouble with Babbitt.

There is a Guy on the Ford Barn that Posts, he runs the salt flats with a Model A , I think his last run was 196 MPH, and he has always run on Babbitt.

My Babbitt shop has Spun poured, Jig Poured, and machined over 33,000 Model T Rods, 38,000 Model A Rods, and Thousandths, and Thousandths of all other makes, Cars, and Tractors.

 

In 53 years this year, we have NEVER got a bearing back.

When you have a bearing, where the Babbitt falls out, it just about always bad workmanship.

 

Inserts in main bearings started in the 1920's, into the 1950's.  They were made of solid Babbitt, Bronze, steel, and light tin, such as Chevys starting in 1932. All the medal shell are first lined with Babbitt, roughed out,  grooves put in, if any, and finished to semi, that is .070-00 thousandths under your shaft size.  Then sent to the machine shop for them to finish Align Boring, or if the block was shipped in, we do it.

 

Herm.

 

KohnkeRebabbittingService.com

Edited September 13, 2017 by herm111 (see edit history)

[Guest SaddleRider]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:13 AM, C Carl said:

. This will still be a relatively slow turning engine ........ modern high revving mill...

 

You have it backwards.    Modern engines at any given speed spin far slower, due to their much "higher" ( lower numerically) gearing.

 

Even as later as the late 1930's (such as is the case with my own "collector car")   rear axle gear ratios of 4.5 or "lower" (meaning higher numerically)  were common.  

 

Modern cars have final drive ratios of about half that.    

 

For example,   even at the very slow  ( by today's standards...! )  highway speed of 60 mph,   if  it still had "stock" gearing,  my 'collector car" motor, including all the parts attached to it, would be thrashing around at about ONE THOUSAND RPM FASTER than my modern cars.

 

The "longer stroke" motors of the pre-war era put MUCH more stress on their crank pins and rod bearings at any given motor rpm than modern "short stroke" practice.

 

If you want to keep a typical  pre-war car "slow turning",   as slow as a modern car doing 60 mph,   then you wont be able to take it over 35 mph.  That's going to make you a hazard even on city streets these days.

 

 

[Guest SaddleRider]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:43 PM, herm111 said:

I find this post not to be in the same line with Reality. From the first beginning of racing, all cars had Babbitt bearings, on up into the   1950's never had trouble with Babbitt.

 

Looks like this 'herm" does very fine work.    Of course he is correct - the practice of "poured Babbitt" worked well within the  reality / constraints of earlier eras. As I suggested earlier,   if you are going to run your collector car within the limitations of the driving speeds of earlier eras.....,   the poured Babbitt insert concept will work just fine. ( for a while...!).

 

He is in error tho, in his stating that prior to the 1950's there was no trouble with the poured babbit concept.

 

By the early 1930's,  vastly improved roads enabled people to start driving much further, at much higher speeds.   Complicated by the horrid shock-loads of the long-stroke motors of the era,  failed rod-bearings (often resulting in catastrophic engine break up)  became common.  So common the phenomena of con rod bearing failure appears in American literature - read Steinbeck's novels describing automobiles of his era.   I respectfully suggest the  "reality" of this "herm" may support his shop practices,  but is far different than what was experienced in the real world.

 

I have some background in how the Packard Company, in the early 1930's TRIED to make the poured babbit rod bearing concept work in the new environment of much faster driving.   They failed.   As a side note, their unsuccessful attempts included full-flow oil filtering and cooling ( great idea - particularly helpful in making any motor last longer)  and finned "caps" on the connecting rods themselves.  Another good idea to dissipate heat from higher speed operation.   Trouble was,  it didn't stop poured Babbitt bearing failure when cars were driven at the higher road speeds.

 

Packard pioneered with Federal Mogul the idea of the so called "precision steel backed insert".  In late 1934,  Packard demonstrated the dramatic superiority of the then new "precision steel backed insert" by running its smallest engine available for the 1935 model year,  WIDE OPEN for 25,000 miles.   My recollection of reports at the time, was the average speed of this 1935 Packard Standard Eight was over 90 mph.  

 

Packard noted that upon disassembly at the end of that "run",  its engineers concluded "the motor could have been re-assembled and run the test again".

 

Again, I cannot fault a restoration shop for its recognition that the typical pre-war collector car will never see sustained driving at modern speeds. SO no reason to go to the extra expense and effort of up-dating connecting rods to take "modern"  (meaning starting with 1935) precision inserts.

 

Let me also note that if the "poured Babbitt" contains appropriate amounts of either copper and/or silver,  they will be more durable, superior to the way they typically did it in earlier times ( and, regretably, the way some shops still do it today).

 

 

 

 

[C Carl]

2 hours ago, SaddleRider said:

 

You have it backwards.    

 

 

 

I have nothing of the kind. The technical term for the automobile engines developed for use after WW2 is aptly : "The Modern High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine". Able to be so by means of short stroke , low reciprocating mass , and sophisticated highly evolved engineering.

 

Now look man : As you well know , the old long strokers in stock form , used as intended , operated over a much narrower and slower RPM range. They are relatively slow turning engines by definition and operation. Post #15 above still stands as accurate. Yes , my modern engines are loafing on down the line at our domestic legal max freeway speeds. However , my mid '20s engines would be turning less revs if I was nuts enough to try to push them that insanely hard. They would have thrown rod and self destructed trying , and would be turning zero at 75 mph. However , my current very fastest cars were designed to be able to scoot along the Autobahns at twice our legal max speed limits. They easily sustain vastly more rev's maintaning design high speed cruise (say 130 mph), than their ancestors do at design high speed cruise , say 40 - 45 mph. Oh yeah ! And they handle and brake better at 150 than the oldies do at 35.

 

Hey ! That gives me an idea ! A public challenge : Let's run our respective V-12 cars title for title ! Check ? No , Daddy - O ! Check Mate ! To quote a line out of "Little Deuce Coupe"  :  "You don't know what I got"........................... Come  ON  !!!!   - Cadillac Carl 

 

P.S. I always enjoy your postings. Especially your high speed exploits in old iron. You are extremely lucky to have been born early enough to purchase these crates for middle class (or even high school kid) prices. You sit high in the list of the top ten forum guys I would like to by a beer for and enjoy your tales of old time antics !

 

P.P.S. How did O.P. get on with the rebuild ?

[midman]

I am still waiting to get the motor back. They sent the block out to have the crack repaired. Waiting for that to come back and for the pistons to arrive. After that it will get final machining done and I'll bring it back to my shop for final assembly. Reeves is saying end of October. I'll post the assembly here as I go once I have it back.

 

[herm111]

4 hours ago, SaddleRider said:

 

Looks like this 'herm" does very fine work.    Of course he is correct - the practice of "poured Babbitt" worked well within the  reality / constraints of earlier eras. As I suggested earlier,   if you are going to run your collector car within the limitations of the driving speeds of earlier eras.....,   the poured Babbitt insert concept will work just fine. ( for a while...!).

 

He is in error tho, in his stating that prior to the 1950's there was no trouble with the poured babbit concept.

 

By the early 1930's,  vastly improved roads enabled people to start driving much further, at much higher speeds.   Complicated by the horrid shock-loads of the long-stroke motors of the era,  failed rod-bearings (often resulting in catastrophic engine break up)  became common.  So common the phenomena of con rod bearing failure appears in American literature - read Steinbeck's novels describing automobiles of his era.   I respectfully suggest the  "reality" of this "herm" may support his shop practices,  but is far different than what was experienced in the real world.

 

I have some background in how the Packard Company, in the early 1930's TRIED to make the poured babbit rod bearing concept work in the new environment of much faster driving.   They failed.   As a side note, their unsuccessful attempts included full-flow oil filtering and cooling ( great idea - particularly helpful in making any motor last longer)  and finned "caps" on the connecting rods themselves.  Another good idea to dissipate heat from higher speed operation.   Trouble was,  it didn't stop poured Babbitt bearing failure when cars were driven at the higher road speeds.

 

Packard pioneered with Federal Mogul the idea of the so called "precision steel backed insert".  In late 1934,  Packard demonstrated the dramatic superiority of the then new "precision steel backed insert" by running its smallest engine available for the 1935 model year,  WIDE OPEN for 25,000 miles.   My recollection of reports at the time, was the average speed of this 1935 Packard Standard Eight was over 90 mph.  

 

Packard noted that upon disassembly at the end of that "run",  its engineers concluded "the motor could have been re-assembled and run the test again".

 

Again, I cannot fault a restoration shop for its recognition that the typical pre-war collector car will never see sustained driving at modern speeds. SO no reason to go to the extra expense and effort of up-dating connecting rods to take "modern"  (meaning starting with 1935) precision inserts.

 

Let me also note that if the "poured Babbitt" contains appropriate amounts of either copper and/or silver,  they will be more durable, superior to the way they typically did it in earlier times ( and, regretably, the way some shops still do it today).

 

 

 

 

Most car builders used Grade #11 Babbitt bearings, as any Babbitt that was ever  made is still available today. Mr. SaddleRider, I have no problem with your story, but you left out many pertinent facts.

 

1. Federal-Mogul made bearings for most engines, as did the largest Clawson & Bals.  In the time frame in which you are talking about, Federal-Mogul was lining their bearings with lead Babbitt, especially the Rebabbitting  department of Federal-Mogul.  in about 1939 through the war years, most bearing companies used lead because the Government had all the tin.  So now, when factory bearings were replaced with Lead Babbitt,  could not take the RPM's, as Tin could.

 

So you see, that single thing, along with some shops, not knowing how to  pour Babbitt, and make it stick for the life of the motor has given a Babbitt a bad RAP.

 

There are also many shops that don't know how the regrind a center line on a crank, or they will have a .001-50 thousandths tapered Journal, or Pin in a new crank Grind. Many don't know how to get a High finish on a crank, worthy of good bearings. If you can go length way on a pin, with your finger nail, and can feel anything, it is not good enough!

 

I could write a book here, but my fabulous two finger typing has come to need a rest. Time to check to see if the girl Friend has got the Beans on.

 

Herm.  KohnkeRebabbittingService.com 

[C Carl]

Did you give that compression a boost ? Oh , and as long as I am trying to goad Saddle' into hitching up that big fine V-12 Packard to the starting tree against my dozen , I will not use first nor top gear. You may supply a witness to ride with me.   Come  ON  !!!!   - CC

[Guest SaddleRider]

2 hours ago, herm111 said:

Most car builders used Grade #11 Babbitt bearings, as any Babbitt that was ever  made is still available today. Mr. SaddleRider, I have no problem with your story, but you left out many pertinent facts.

 

1. Federal-Mogul made bearings for most engines, as did the largest Clawson & Bals.  In the time frame in which you are talking about, Federal-Mogul was lining their bearings with lead Babbitt, especially the Rebabbitting  department of Federal-Mogul.  in about 1939 through the war years, most bearing companies used lead because the Government had all the tin.  So now, when factory bearings were replaced with Lead Babbitt,  could not take the RPM's, as Tin could.

 

Yes,  "herm"  - you are correct - all manner of Babbitt material is avail. today.   As you point out,  Babbitt has a "bad name"  and for good reason, as I noted in my above post where I summarized why the industry has abandoned poured Babbitt as an acceptable practice. 

 

There is simply no such thing as a modern  production automobile anyplace on this planet where they would dare go back to the old less reliable  "poured babbett" method for connecting rod bearings.    The added expense, labor, machining costs, etc.,  of producing the "precision insert" type rod bearing is clearly essential in the minds of automotive engineers in order to obtain reliability.

 

I do not question that your shop has come up with materials and methods to improve the dismal service record of the old-style "poured babbett" method for rod and main bearings.    That dosnt change the fact that people with a far better understanding of the physics of bearing operation,  have made the 'insert" type rod bearing universal.

 

You are incorrect as to what most engine manufacturers specified for the actual bearing surface of "precision insert" style rod bearings.  Most certainly was NOT ordinary "Babbitt" as was common in the pre-insert days.   In Packard's case, they specified "copper lead".    As the war years approached,  Packard offered a silver-mixture substitute for the increasingly scare copper -  which also worked out well.

 

 

[Guest SaddleRider]

I hope " C Carl" will not take my response to his above post as a personal criticism - actually,  we are in agreement - just using terminology in different ways to come to the same conclusion.

 

Of course he is correct that modern short-stroke motors have a vastly superior service life than the old "long-stroke" types of the pre-war years.   Especially as road speeds have increased. 

 

Amongst the reasons for better service life  include much lower piston speeds, so that rings last so much longer.  And with the shorter strokes,  much less inertial  shock-loading by connecting rods (which are much lighter these days) on crank-pins.   Clearly "C Carl" understands this.

 

Where "C Carl" is in error,  is to think that at any given speed,  the pre-war cars are "relatively slow-turning".    In fact, as I noted, at any given speed, they are literally "screaming"....almost TWICE as many rpms  as a modern car.    Hard to understand some of "C Carl's" , statements, when he is obviously aware that the modern engine , as he says "easily sustain vastly more revs" .  

 

"Do the math",  C Carl -  you apparently are aware that at the same road speed...again...the old pre-war cars with their long strokes and typically very low "stock" gearing, are spinning nearly twice as many rpms as a modern car.

 

Up until the early 30's,  weren't too many places, as C Carl notes.... you could go much over 45 mph.   Even at 45 mph,  those old engines were spinning much faster than a modern car would at 60...and again...we agree the more modern shorter stroke made things MUCH easier on rod bearings.

 

 With much improved roads and more high speed driving,  those higher engine rpms caused lots of trouble until the advent of overdrives, higher speed rear axles, and of course the short stroke motor with "precision insert" type rod bearings.

 

Note sure what other pre-war V-12 or V-16 you'd want to race a Packard V-12....for example...on a nice August afternoon from Needles to Kingman...on what was U.S. Highway 66 and is now Interstate 40.   But that's another story...!

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by SaddleRider
asparagus stew (see edit history)

[Guest SaddleRider]

2 hours ago, C Carl said:

Did you give that compression a boost ? Oh , and as long as I am trying to goad Saddle' into hitching up that big fine V-12 Packard to the starting tree against my dozen , I will not use first nor top gear. You may supply a witness to ride with me.   Come  ON  !!!!   - CC

 

You lost me.  Who or what is an 0P?   

 

And again, spell it out - what pre-war stock V-12 or V-16 do you propose to race a Packard V-12 up that long car-killing up grade  on what is now Interstate 40,  from near sea-level at Needles, Arizona, to nearly 4,000 ft elevation at Kingman.....?  ( hopefully he dosnt have access to a Marmon  V-16 that my old friend and now deceased Al Bartz worked his magic on.....!)

[Spinneyhill]

9 hours ago, SaddleRider said:

You have it backwards.    Modern engines at any given speed spin far slower, due to their much "higher" ( lower numerically) gearing.

 

Sorry Sir, there is a physics and engineering mismatch here.

 

The thing limiting revolutions per minute in older long stroke engines was NOT the Babbitt bearings but the piston speed at high revs. The stroke was shortened after the war directly to allow higher RPM and concomitant increase in power. Yes, they spin slower at road speeds now because they produce more power, but maximum power is often quoted at much higher RPM, e.g. over 4,500. From reading these fora, I believe their bearings are also lined with Babbitt.

 

Let's see. A piston in a 4.5" stroke engine at 3000 RPM (peaks out at say 3400?) would have a mean piston speed of 4.5x3000/6 fpm = 2,250 ft per min.

A a 3" stroke engine could go 4,500 RPM at the same mean piston speed.

 

Maximum piston speed in fpm is (stroke x pi x RPM / 12). Thus our 4.5" stroke piston at 3000 RPM has max. piston speed of 3534 fpm. The 3" stroke engine would be going at 4,500 RPM at this speed. Long stroke engines with cast pistons at 4,500 RPM would lose the skirts off the pistons and probably put a hole in the block.

 

The commonly accepted limit for maximum piston speed for cast pistons is c. 3500 fpm.. With forged pistons, the max is c. 5500 fpm for brief periods. I read somewhere that F1 engines in the '90s were pulling 28 m/s (>5,500 fpm) max. piston speeds at times.

 

http://www.musclecardiy.com/performance/understanding-piston-speed-in-high-performance-engines/

 

If you want a bit of mathematics and theory,

grandprixengines.co.uk/note13.pdf

 

P.S. OP = Original Post(er).

Edited September 15, 2017 by Spinneyhill (see edit history)

[herm111]

28 minutes ago, SaddleRider said:

 

Yes,  "herm"  - you are correct - all manner of Babbitt material is avail. today.   As you point out,  Babbitt has a "bad name"  and for good reason, as I noted in my above post where I summarized why the industry has abandoned poured Babbitt as an acceptable practice. 

 

There is simply no such thing as a modern  production automobile anyplace on this planet where they would dare go back to the old less reliable  "poured babbett" method for connecting rod bearings.    The added expense, labor, machining costs, etc.,  of producing the "precision insert" type rod bearing is clearly essential in the minds of automotive engineers in order to obtain reliability.

 

I do not question that your shop has come up with materials and methods to improve the dismal service record of the old-style "poured babbett" method for rod and main bearings.    That dosnt change the fact that people with a far better understanding of the physics of bearing operation,  have made the 'insert" type rod bearing universal.

 

You are incorrect as to what most engine manufacturers specified for the actual bearing surface of "precision insert" style rod bearings.  Most certainly was NOT ordinary "Babbitt" as was common in the pre-insert days.   In Packard's case, they specified "copper lead".    As the war years approached,  Packard offered a silver-mixture substitute for the increasingly scare copper -  which also worked out well.

 

 

I am not incorrect as to what the bearing surface is on a Precision Insert is, as I have never brought it up. I was talking about what kind of Babbitt the industry used as a whole, and that is Grade # 11, no ifs, ands, or butts.

 

As fare as Packards and Copper-Lead bearings, all companies were experimenting with different kinds of bearing material.

 

I do know that Ford tried using Copper-Lead bearings in the early V-8's, and it did not work out at all, way to soft.

 

The modern bearings I see now have a last coat of thin Babbitt on the, and others are Aluminum bearings.

 

We poured the Rods and Mains for a 30, to 32 Plymouth Coupe. It ran the race from Peking, to Paris, wide open, as it had a low rear end, and they couldn't find one in time for the race.

They pulled the pan when they got back, and could not remove any shims, it would lock the bearings up. That was poured with Grade # 2 Babbitt.

So I don't think I will get to excited with your non faith in Babbitt!

 

I do know when Babbitt goes out, you can still make it to some place. But when a rod insert goes out, your dead in the water, and it also takes the crank Pin out

 

Herm..

[Guest SaddleRider]

13 hours ago, Spinneyhill said:

 

Sorry Sir, there is a physics and engineering mismatch here.The thing limiting revolutions per minute in older long stroke engines was NOT the Babbitt bearings but the piston speed at high revs. The stroke was shortened after the war directly to allow higher RPM and concomitant increase in power.

 

P.S. OP = Original Post(er).

 

Don't be sorry - we actually are pretty much in agreement.  As you point out, piston speed is also a major factor in limiting engine rpm ;  the longer the stroke,  the more violent the "monkey motion".   

 

Bear in mind, the longer the stroke,  the longer the con rod !   More weight means more punishment to the "lower end".  

 

Yes - you are correct - as fuel octane improved,  permitting higher compression,   shorter strokes became more practical.

 

As a side-note, the move to ever shorter strokes did not happen after World War Two.   Started earlier.   There are a number of examples of strokes becoming shorter as octane went up BEFORE WW II !   I don't recall off-hand the stroke of the first Ford V-8's,  but they were shorter than what was common practice in that era.

 

An outstanding example of a "modern" short-stroke design is the 1938 - 1940 Cadillac V-16.   Very short stroke even by today's standards.    This was a lighter, simplier, more durable motor than the much more "elegant looking"  earlier over-head valve  1930-1937 Cadillac V-16.   And it was sooooo smooth and quiet...closest thing to an electric motor I have ever owned or driven!

 

The problem was - no practical way to "up" the compression ratio of the "L" head design high enough to take advantage of high octane fuel  which wasn't avail. anyway at that time.....( premium fuel in the 1930's had an even lower octane ( faster flame speed)  than today's "regular".   So, stuck with low octane fuel of the day,  the 1938-1940 Cad. V-16's were "slugs" by comparison to the longer-stroke Pierce and Packard V-12's.

 

A quick note of explanation.  The term "octane", reduced to its bare essential,  refers to the flame speed of a fuel.   The higher the octane, the lower the flame speed, so that the "expansion/explosion" of the fuel inside a cylinder takes longer,  making for more useable power, with less energy wasted as heat.

 

Incidentally, you are mistaken about the "copper lead" precision insert bearing being too soft.    It remains the industrial standard today for extreme load applications.   I think I know what was the basis for that comment of yours - you may have read someplace there were problems with copper lead bearing material in the 1930's .  To that exent, you are correct.  

 

What you were referring to, was an unrelated problem to "load" ability of the copper-lead precision insert.   The problem was due to a combination of the oils of the day, and lack of regular oil changes.    The oils of the day did not have the inhibitors today's oils do.   Plus the gasoline burned " dirty" by todays standards.  Couple that with "sto-and-go" driving with engines not completely warmed up,  and you have acid/corrosion issues.

 

Still not clear who or what is an "original poster"......but any time he wants to race my Packard V-12 up that "killer" grade between Needles and Kingman on Interstate 40.......on a nice August afternoon when the temp is 110 plus in the shade......"bring it on"......(my estimate is no stock American car of that era OTHER than a Packard V-12 would make it even to the first rest stop before a call to the AAA would be required......!)

Edited September 15, 2017 by SaddleRider
ostrich stew (see edit history)

[PFitz]

SaddleRider said,

" ....................... A quick note of explanation.  The term "octane", reduced to its bare essential,  refers to the flame speed of a fuel.   The higher the octane, the lower the flame speed, so that the "expansion/explosion" of the fuel inside a cylinder takes longer,  making for more useable power, with less energy wasted as heat.  ............... "

 

Not according to those in the gasoline business.

 

A quick Google of  the word "octane" shows that it does not mean "flame speed". Octane is one of the components in gasoline. Used as a number rating of fuel, it is the anti-knock ability of the fuel.

 

These are just some of the first links that show that  the long accepted meaning of the word "octane" in the industry. No where can I find any info that says "octane" is related to the flame speed of fuel. In fact, the last link  covers "flame speed" and as you can see it says octane doesn't relate to flame speed because there can be different flame speeds for high octane fuels.

 

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/octane

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/octane-number

http://www.whitfieldoil.com/www/docs/171.284/vp-racing-fuel

 

Paul

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by PFitz (see edit history)

[Guest SaddleRider]

36 minutes ago, PFitz said:

 Octane is one of the components in gasoline. Used as a number rating of fuel, it is the anti-knock ability of the fuel......... No where can I find any info that says "octane" is related to the flame speed of fuel. In fact, the last link  covers "flame speed" and as you can see it says octane doesn't relate to flame speed because there can be different flame speeds for high octane fuels.

 

 

You are partially correct.  Amongst different grades of high octane fuels,  they may have different "anti knock" capabilities.  Anotherwards, the higher the octane rating,  the more you can compress the fuel and still get it to release its energy slowly, for the full length of the piston travel, without detonating into a ping or knock.

 

You are mistaken if you think "Octane is one of the components in gasoline.".    Octane is not something they put into gasoline - it is simply a measurement. Using the term "flame speed" is a simple way of explaining a complex process.

 

For those of you not technically inclined, I think explaining an octane rating as "flame speed"  is a good analogy.  As you note, the higher the octane rating,  the less likely to "knock".

 

Let me explain what a "knock" is.  That's when the gasoline vapor explodes too quickly - expending its energy in a sudden violent explosion.   Depending on the violence of the explosion, it can be heard as a "ping" under load,  or, if bad enough, can damage the motor.

 

The trick is,  not to squeeze the gasoline vapor in the cylinder any more than you can get it to go "woosh"  rather than "bang".   When it goes "woosh" you get mechanical power hopefully over the length of the stroke of the motor.  When it goes "bang"  the mechanical energy is expended too rapidly to get much, if any, benefit in downward thrust of the piston.

 

The higher the octane the fuel,  the less likely it will detonate when compressed.   The higher the octane the fuel,   the more you can compress it without that sudden "bang".   

 

The old long-stroke design was necessary given the low octane fuels of that era.  Couldn't be squeezed very much or it would detonate.  The long-stroke design was not bad design...simply represented what was required given the low octane / fast flame speed of the fuels of the day.

 

The most common method for slowing down the flame speed / raising the octane of motor fuel is to add some substance - such as tetra-lead.    We still do that in aviation fuel - refiners prefer that, but are no longer permitted to do that for car fuel - they have to engage in a more expensive refining process to get the higher octane fuel.

 

 

[PFitz]

Actually, the mistake is yours.  It seems that you didn't bother to read the links I provided. 

 

If you had looked up the definition of "octane" you'd see that it is actually a "liquid hydrocarbon" that is mixed with heptane to make different "octane ratings" of gasoline which changes it's anti-knock point. Some of the definitions even list it's chemical formula.

 

Tough to say octane is not something, but just a "measurement" when it has it's own chemical formula, don't you think ?  

 

I'll try this again. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/octane

 

"octane   (ŏk'tān')  
Any of several hydrocarbons having eight carbon atoms connected by single bonds. It is commonly added to gasoline to prevent knocking from uneven burning of fuel in internal-combustion engines. Octane is the eighth member of the alkane series. Chemical formula: C ₈ H ₁₈. " 

 

You can think whatever you like, but that sure sounds like a "something" to me.   

 

Paul

[jrbartlett]

Now, for a more practical side of this eternal babbitt  vs. insert debate.

 

I know you can get new rods made to any dimensions. But what is the availability of inserts to fit the typically large-diameter rod and main bearing crankshaft pins of '20s and '30s engines? I heard a while back that these inserts are getting hard to find, since the applications they were originally made for are now often also obsolete. If that is the case, won't we have to continue using babbitt in some (or many) applications? Also, since modern bearings tend to be narrow, how practical and reliable is it to line up a couple of inserts on the typically wide main bearing surfaces of older engines?

 

Also, in my five decades in the hobby, I've see dozens upon dozens of '20s and '30s-vintage cars with well over 50,000 miles on the odometer, all put on by the original longer-stroke engines with babbitt bearings. My '29 Super Eight Packard is now approaching 50,000 miles, still on the original rod and main bearings, according to the car's past owners. It's still smooth and quiet. 

 

So YES, INSERTS ARE BEST. I would go that route where possible.

 

But NO, BABBIT DOESN'T WEAR OUT OR TEAR UP INSTANTLY, AND CAN LAST FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MILES AT REASONABLE SPEED. Though admittedly, not at interstate highway speeds. For engines with odd dimensions that couldn't be accommodated by modern insert bearings, I wouldn't hesitate to re-babbitt them and not worry about it. Babbitt would also be fine for the way most of us drive our antiques these days -- with care and recognition of their advanced age and technology limits.   

[Guest SaddleRider]

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:22 AM, jrbartlett said:

Now, for a more practical side of this eternal babbitt  vs. insert debate.

 

I know you can get new rods made to any dimensions. But what is the availability of inserts to fit the typically large-diameter rod and main bearing crankshaft pins of '20s and '30s engines? I heard a while back that these inserts are getting hard to find, since the applications they were originally made for are now often also obsolete. If that is the case, won't we have to continue using babbitt in some (or many) applications? Also, since modern bearings tend to be narrow, how practical and reliable is it to line up a couple of inserts on the typically wide main bearing surfaces of older engines?

 

Also, in my five decades in the hobby, I've see dozens upon dozens of '20s and '30s-vintage cars with well over 50,000 miles on the odometer, all put on by the original longer-stroke engines with babbitt bearings. My '29 Super Eight Packard is now approaching 50,000 miles, still on the original rod and main bearings, according to the car's past owners. It's still smooth and quiet. 

 

So YES, INSERTS ARE BEST. I would go that route where possible.

 

But NO, BABBIT DOESN'T WEAR OUT OR TEAR UP INSTANTLY, AND CAN LAST FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MILES AT REASONABLE SPEED. Though admittedly, not at interstate highway speeds. For engines with odd dimensions that couldn't be accommodated by modern insert bearings, I wouldn't hesitate to re-babbitt them and not worry about it. Babbitt would also be fine for the way most of us drive our antiques these days -- with care and recognition of their advanced age and technology limits.   

 

 OUTSTANDING POST  !