JV Puleo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JV Puleo

  1. Carriage jack... it goes under the hub and lifts the carriage or wagon off the floor. I have a set of 4 of them. They could probably be used with a brass car to lift it off the tires for winter storage but they aren't all that stable. You wouldn't want to crawl under.
  2. I've now had at least 4 instances where I wanted to incorporate a feature mentioned by Heldt and found that the crankcase casting appears to have been made with that in mind. It leaves me thinking that the designer actually thought of these things but that in their push to decrease costs the Mitchell company eliminated them. It may be that I'm coming closer to the original design than I'd anticipated.
  3. That's pretty much what I've planned. I'm thinking that rather than the housing and glass I will just have a 1/4" brass rod that projects up from the boss on the crankcase. The oil level indicator is directly behind the intake manifold and I don't know if there is enough room for a glass... but, if my design works out I can add one if there is room.
  4. Yes...but I do have crank journals and rods spinning around. Over-oiling was a major problem in period...everyone was afraid of running the bearings so they just lived with the smoke. Since this car had a semi-total loss system it was probably impossible to maintain a constant oil level. That said, I think I'm getting close to figuring out what it should be. I started the day by trying to make one of my threaded sleeves for the piece I'll have to screw into the crankcase for the oil level indicator. The problem is that I don't have much room. To work the sleeve would need a wall thickness of 1/32" and that proved to be too thin. This made me decide to forgo the sleeve and thread the new piece directly into the crankcase. For that I'll want to use coarse threads so I had to order another end mill to bore the hole...a drill won't work because I also have to move the hole slightly since, as you can imagine, it isn't in the middle of the cast boss on the crankcase. So...I pulled the sump off the shelf to take a look at it. I don't have either of the drain plugs but I found this piece - I've no idea if it came from this car or not but the threads are right. I measured it and it turns out the hole is threaded 13/16-16 - not a commonly seen size. But, because I also have a nut that size at least I don't have to make threading gages. I cut two pieces of 7/8 hex stock, turned and threaded them. Then drilled and tapped them for 1/8 NPT plugs. These are just so that I can put the sump on the engine and pour oil in without it running all over the floor. In it's finished state it will have banjo fittings at both places. The rear one will serve as the oil pickup for the pump and I suspect I'll use the front one as the oil return for the timing gear case. So, at least I got something done today. I also ordered a tap and die in the correct size that I'll use to make the finished pieces.
  5. Today I'll get to work on the oil level indicator. I have to do this before I start work on the main bearings because it will call for some machining on the crankcase that will not be possible once the main bearing caps are attached, The machine work is straightforward enough but I realize I face the problem of regulating the gage. This is the page of the original owner's manual that deals with oil capacity... My car is the Model T (a very confusing coincidence). Notice that the recommended oil capacity for both the 4-cylinder and the 6-cylinder engine is the same. This makes me wonder if this figure is the "starting" capacity. In its original format the engine had a box oiler that held about a quart...is the "3 quarts" listed in addition to the oil in the box? If so, the capacity is 4 quarts (which seems about right). I am going to have to fit the sump and pour some oil in to see so I'll probably figure out what the the optimum capacity is. Does anyone here have any idea what the relationship was between the surface of the oil and the big end of the rods was in a splash lubricated engine? So far, none of my engineering books have mentioned this.
  6. I'd be curious myself about when the body was built because I had a RR PI with a huge limousine body on it. The body was very tall and looked much more like 1920 (or even earlier) than 1929 which was the year for the chassis. At the time I thought it had been moved from an earlier Silver Ghost - a not unusual thing for a very conservative owner who could afford to do just about anything to do if he (or she) liked the original body and just wanted to have the latest model chassis. It was a Brewster body with the interior skeleton trim and the rear doors and back of the body were done in faux cane work.
  7. I can really empathize with your dilemma. It's always ten times as frustrating to try to fix a bodged job. The one that really annoys me are the two parts "that no one will ever take apart"...except invariably you have to in order to fix something that shouldn't have been done in the first place. I have one of those in the shop right now...done by a "professional".
  8. I finished the threading today...much to my relief. I actually have 14 studs although I only need 12. The two extras were insurance against ruining one but as it turned out, they are all fine. As soon as the threading was done I drilled the holes for the cotter pins. I then wire brushed the ends and ran a nut over the hole to smooth out any burrs. I also blew all the holes out as it occurred to me that they could harbor some fine steel slivers and I certainly don't want those circulating in the engine. Then they went in a bag with the nuts and washers. With any luck I'll be able to use them before the year is out.
  9. I found these two sight glasses in my "brass bits" drawer. One is clearly too big but I might be able to make use of some of the smaller one. But before I can do anything there, I have to finish the studs I started. I trimmed them all to 3" and put in the reliefs. Then threaded them to .005 larger than the finished size and ran a die over them to remove the burrs and make them all uniform. And tested them with a nut. This is slow work...I've threaded most of Sunday and all day today and I'm still not finished. Of course, if you were making a lot of these this is not the way you'd do it. There are much faster ways but they all involve buying some rather expensive tooling and it just isn't worth it for one engine. On the plus side, they are coming out nice.
  10. JV Puleo


    Thanks...that is really to know about. I don't know what I'd use it for but it is the sort of material I want to remember because sooner or later something will come up that it's perfect for.
  11. JV Puleo


    It depends on the application but If I was going to use an epoxy (and I very rarely think it's appropriate) I'd look at the various Devcon products. They are a lot more expensive than JB Weld and are made in a wide variety for different applications so you have to get the one suited to what you are doing.
  12. Terry, this kept me awake last night. As soon as I finish the laundry I'm going up to the shop to take some further measurements. I think I' getting close to a plan.
  13. I have a couple of them but don't know if I have one small enough. I'll look. I suppose I could always make one. I was thinking of something simpler but if I can fit one of those in it would be all the more elegant. The problem is that the aluminum boss on the crankcase limits how big the base and the thread are. The hole there is 1/8 NPT but if I go to that size, how big must the pin that connects to the sump be? I wonder what the inside dimension of the glass is? j
  14. My friend Mike West gave me a really good idea this morning. He was describing the oil level "tell tale" on an engine he's working on and it inspired me to take another look at my crankcase. The business of checking the oil level by removing a plug in the sump has always bothered me. It isn't the sort of thing you can do easily and the temptation would be to not do it often enough. In looking at the crankcase it noticed the location of this hole... (The one in the middle of the photo. The hole at the right supported one corner of the oiler and the hole on the left held a support for the original cast iron intake manifold.) This is where Mitchell attached a line from the box oiler and I'd assumed it was connected to the center main with which it is in alignment. It isn't connected to the bearing at all...it just dumps oil back into the sump. This wouldn't have effected the oiler because box oilers develop a relatively high pressure but with very low volume and have an individual pump for each line. It's an engineering principal left over from very slow turning steam engines. The more modern approach, which was already well understood when this car was built, is to have greater volume and lower pressure. That lubricates the bearing and does a much better job of cooling the bearing. I suspect this boss on the crankcase was intended to hold a rod attached to a float. The location is perfect but there is no hole underneath it for the rod to pass through. This may well be another example of Mitchell's "corner cutting." I think I will make an insert for the hole with a 1/4" reamed hole in it and drill a corresponding hole down through the case so that a float at the bottom will push it up. I also did a bit more on the studs for the top of the case...trimming them all to 3" Chamfering the ends an and starting the relief cuts for the threading. The strength of a bolt is determined by the minor diameter - which is why fine thread bolts have a higher torque rating than coarse threads. The relief cuts are .050 deep deep which brings them to almost exactly the minor diameter so despite their appearance, they don't effect the strength of the stud. I'll probably finish this tomorrow and start on the threading which will be a relatively easy, but time consuming job but one that, at least, doesn't have the "tension factor" associated with working on the crankcase.
  15. I'm a little surprised there isn't a British version... or perhaps there is a "European" version for metric fasteners. AN stands for Army/Navy. It was an early WWII development to regularize fasteners and fittings and get away from the logistical chaos of WWI. SAE sizes are also a result of WWI and the difficulty the services had with all sorts of proprietary fasteners. The later systems are all further developments along the same line.
  16. That's the plan, though I hadn't thought of a sealed bearing. There is a bit of a complication in that this ring fits over a flange and pushes it back. There is't any way to get it over the flange unless it comes apart. However...I'm not happy with the clutch either...it's stamped steel and I cannot think how it could possible be in balance - it's bent too. I'm thinking of making a new cone. I can make a pattern and have my neighbors cast one. There's no way I'd put this piece back.
  17. Ed and Bush Mechanic got me thinking about oiling the thrust so I dug these out... a pair of little drip oilers. I'd thought to use one for the throw out bearing but I could use two and run a very small oil line down to the thrust side of the rear main bearing. This is the original throw out... Notice the extreme wear on the thrust surface. It doesn't look like they made any attempt to lubricate it or the original owner rode the clutch all the time. Actually, I think both are probably true. I finished my prototype stud too... To get a final measurement I screwed it into the crankcase and put a nut on. It's about .150 tall so I trimmed it down. Then I tried the stud with one of the jugs. It was also about .150 to .175 long so I trimmed that end. And got it just about right. I made the brass flange nuts a long time ago. They were originally intended to hold down the valve cages but I decided bolts were a better choice there so, having made 8 of them, I made 4 more to use to hold the jugs down. I put a Bellville spring washer under the nut but in looking at it I'll probably go with conventional lock washers which are more appropriate to the period in any case. The finished stud after both ends were trimmed. I also picked up a couple of custom ground end mills this morning and was able to ask about the cutter I have in mind to make the radius needed on the bearings. He didn't think it was a problem. All I'll need are the dimensions and the radius.
  18. Thinking about the thrust face... I have some small adjustable drip oilers. I could use one of them to get a tiny amount of oil to the thrust face. As it is, I'd planed to use one to lubricate the throw out bearing. I'm not sure how I'd plumb it but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. I expect the parts under the car to get a bit oiley in operation. I've never seen a brass car yet that didn't or, it it was completely clean, it wasn't being driven.
  19. I've just had an idea re the radius... Use a shell mill made for a 1-1/4 diameter holder mounted on the boring bar. (This is something I've done before so I know it works) The end of the shell mill has to be ground with the radius so it can be advanced into each end of the bearing very gently. If I get a chance, I'll draw another picture.
  20. As to the radius... it isn't in the drawing because I did it in the graphic design program I design books with. It doesn't have a good way of making a radius but have been giving a lot a of thought to how to machine one. It doesn't show in the pictures but I suspect the crank was rusty and was bead blasted and painted with primer. The surfaces are not good enough to just polish but it doesn't look as if it has ever been ground...certainly the original bearings look untouched and the crank fits them reasonably well. In fact, on at least one journal it seems to be a bit too big which makes me wonder if it's the crank that came out of this engine. We have a very good engine shop in nearby Mass. They bored the blocks and, in talking to them I came away feeling they were extremely competent. They aren't one of those places that only knows SBCs. I spoke to them about the crank so I'll probably take it back there when I am done fitting the rods. There is a chance I could have the journals welded and reground slightly larger than they are but that would be a function of how much they would have to be ground to get them round and smooth. Pathological as I am, there are a few things that I'd just as soon have done by someone who does it often...
  21. My idea fr the rear main bearing. The front main would be the same although the length is slightly different. The wall thickness of the shell is 5/16" less the thickness of the Babbitt. These dimensions could change slightly but this is about as big as I dare make it.
  22. In answer to one of Ed's questions, here is one of the original connecting rods. Notice that there was no provision for scoops, just a hole in the bottom of the big end cap. And two oil holes on the opposite side. Before I drilled the holes for the cotter pins I had to make the washers the nuts will sit on. These are MilSpec washers that have a 7/16" hole in the center (unlike SAE washers where the hole is quite a bit larger than 7/16). The OD is 1" - too large for the application but that was easily fixed. By making a mandrel out of a bolt and turning them down to .850 Then I put one together to make certain where the hole should go. And set my "cotter pin" fixture in the new drill press - which is far better for drilling small holes than the big drill press is. I tested the first one... Then went ahead and drilled all of them. I received an email from the grinding shop saying my special end mills are ready so I'll pick those up tomorrow morning. In the meantime I decided to make a prototype for the studs that will hold the jugs in place. These are much longer and the washers (which also have a 7/16" hole) have to be smaller so I turned some of the MilSpec washers down to .750 And cut a piece of 7/16" rod for the sample stud. This is a softer, much easier to work material than the grade 5 which, for this purpose, isn't needed. It likely is still stronger than the original studs were. What yhou are seein here is the end of the stud that passes through the top of the crankcase and is locked in place with a nut & washer on the inside.
  23. The caps are thick enough to handle the shells. It looks as if they may not have done more than a rough boring of the main saddles and used Babbitt metal to make up the difference. The bearings are almost 1/4" thick. As to the oiling... the pump is on the back of the engine and draws oil up from the sump. Because it's a vane pump it has good suction - unlike a gear pump but if the system is dry from standing a long time I've incorporated a hand priming pump. In operation all it does is replicate the original box oiler which probably generated a higher pressure but much lower volume to the mains. I have eliminated the oil line to the rear of the camshaft since that bearing is now inside the oil pump but I've added a line to the center bearing of the cam. Aside from that, the lines run where they originally did they just get their oil from a different pump. I'll make a drawing of the rear main bearing I'm planning...it will be easier than trying to explain it. Essentially, it will have a large flange on the back end (facing the flywheel) which will serve as a thrust surface and provide a place to put a rear main seal. To install it I'll have to mill away about 1/2" of the width of the bearing cap and crankcase - a scary job and once that I'll have to think about very carefully before I do it. The rods are splash lubricated. There were no scoops on the original rods, just a big hole in the big end cap at the bottom and two feeding the top half of the cap with oil pockets. I've yet to give that aspect of the job much thought. I don't think there is room for a windage tray but I will have to take some measurements when it is possible to put more of it together. There will be very change of the internal arrangements aside from forcing oil to the bearings. Oh...and I've no intention of mucking with the flywheel. I suspect the business of lightening them is overdone. As it is, if the cone clutch is precisely made and balanced it should be smooth and positive. I think about 98% of the complaints about cone clutches are the result of wear and poor adjustment. The SG had a come clutch that worked perfectly but it was extremely well made.
  24. High speed steel. I use carbide very rarely because my lathe is far to old to go fast enough for carbide to work correctly. I find grade 5 difficult to machine. I don't know that I'd even try threading grade 8 but I've successfully shortened bolts and faced them off.