herm111
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by herm111
-
-
8 hours ago, SaddleRider said:
You are correct. Worked fine for many years ( provided the car was used according to the road speeds for which it was designed).
But that was then., The owner/operator manual of the Rolls Royce Phantom III ( their 1936-1940 passenger car V-12) uses typical British "tact" to suggest one not "push their luck" with sustained high speed driving....! I do not speak or read German well-enough - so I can only quote what I read somewhere that Damiler-Benz had a similar warning for its Mercedes line.
I thank that warning comes with every car. Who in there right mind runs a antique car at top speeds at prolonged times. If you are in that much of a hurry, take your modern ride.
Herm.
-
3 hours ago, SaddleRider said:
Be assured I agree that from what I have seen, your shop does competent, quality work. Sorry you confused my comments to the point where you think I despise anything or anyone in here !
The automobile industry supplied many millions of cars that ran many millions of miles prior to the adaption of "precision insert" connecting rods. But that was then.
I have no quarrel with those who are certain their pre-war cars will only be operated on show grounds to move from the trailer to the display area, or if they are absolutely convinced their pre-war car will only be operated at the road/engine speeds for which it was designed. For that application, "poured babbitt" connecting rod bearings will work just fine.
The comments of some of you are in error if you think "precision insert" style connecting rod bearings are somehow cheaper and/or easier to produce than a "babbit" job. If you are seriously interested in the issues related to the industry wide adoption of "precision insert" rod bearings, I recommend going to the SAE ( Society Of Engineers ) site - they have an outstanding library of their articles. While these articles are written by legimate automotive engineers, most of those articles were deliberately designed to be understood by laymen.
I hope I mis-understood what I read elsewhere in this thread - that some think it is an acceptable shop practice to pour ordinary babbet - to fill the void, in a connecting rod bearing that was originally set up for "inserts". Babbitt that thick, in the place of an engineered insert, is an invitation to disaster. For the simple reason that when the Babbitt is that thick, it cannot transfer the loads of service without eventually cracking up and flacking out.. (From what I know from personal experience, having to help people out who have made that mistake....the average life of a poured Babbitt job on a 1935 - 1939 Packard V-12 connecting rod, was around 1,800 miles before destructive rod bearing failure.).
The automotive industry was not happy with the additional expense and complexity of going to "precision insert" connecting rod bearings. It had no choice for obvious reasons established by changing driving speeds & the laws of physics which do not change!. Those of you who think you can substitute what you want to believe, for that of qualified automotive engineers, are doing a disservice for whoever winds up with a motor you worked on.
S. R., When Babbitt was first poured out of a ladle in the 1800's, the biggest cause of Bearing failure was Tinning properly, and adhesion, and that includes, Temperature, Temperature, Temperature, many of the shops today, do not have Temperature Regulated Babbitt Pots, and even I could not pour, with out them. That Is Still True Today. Just because somebody has bought some machine shop Babbitting Equipment, and hangs out a Babbitting here sign, does not make them a Babbitter, by any stretch, of the Imagination!
You, and Your friends experience with a Packard V-12 has no Baring on Babbitt bearings in General, what so ever, that are done correctly. There are many factors that contribute to bearing failure, and as I said, the biggest one is Poor Workmanship, or as we say in the business S&%# Work!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL.
By our records, it has shown we have done 8, V-12 Packards over the years, 1 in the last two years, and the other about 5 years ago. All the 8 were good to go. You have to ask, why did your friend have trouble, I know!
The second one is Rod Alignment. There is not a Rod Boring Machine in the world, including one made new Today, that will machine a rod in, Perfect Alignment. That is why Alignment Machines, and Rod Presses were made, and that was about 2,800.00, and a 1,800.00 investment over 40 years ago. A Rod that is out of Alignment will blow a Rod quick as anything, and even can make, if real bad a lot of noise, and there is no way to fix it with out Alignment I think there is about a 99% chance your Rods were never checked for alignment, or a good job done on them, and I shall not tell you why.
One thing here, there is always a lot of discussion on piston slap. and it normally centers around the pistons, as what kind to use, and what the clearance it should be. Well, neither has anything to do with piston slap.
What causes piston slap, by a 100% is ROD ALIGNMENT! The only thing you can do to the piston, is have the right clearance, the right ring gap, and balanced, a long with the Rods and Pistons, while not being Assembled on the Rods of course.
A bad thing to do with any engine, either warn, and triple when cold, is Rev at Hi RPM's. Speed shifting at High RPM's and missing the Gear will also blow a Rod bearing, even with Modern inserts, I might add.
Babbitt that thick, in the place of an engineered insert, is an invitation to disaster. "END QUOTE"
Mr S. R.this single statement of yours lets me know that you know nothing of Babbitt Bearings to compare to Modern Bearings.
A normal Packard, Babbitted rod in the early 1930;s had a machined wall thickness of about .0.030 thousandths at standard Bore. A .020 thousandths under Rod would have added to that .020 to make a .050 wall on a Babbitt Rod.
Now your 1935 to your 1939 Rod wall thickness in a Packard insert is .052 to .056 thousandths, depending what year. So a .020 thousandths Rod insert would be .072 thousandths thick, get it.
I have no idea what is meant by ordinary Babbitt, I have never seen any.
Tin base Babbitt, at 88, to 89 percent Tin will only compress 2% at 14,000 pounds, on a 1" square piece, and that is a long way off of what a Packard could make.
The last thing is Timing. This single thing has Blown rods from the Model T , on up. It can make Rods change Holes!
So in closing, as they say, I am in no way saying that I think you are Ignorant of the Facts about Babbitt, I am just saying every thing you know about Babbitt Bearings, is wrong.
If our bearings didn't hold up, we would have been out of business 50 years ago!
Have a good one if you can,
Herm.
Pictures on Piston Slap, and 1937 Packard inserts rods they couldn't find bearings for their size of crank.
-
On 3/25/2017 at 1:05 PM, a sell said:
I am looking to find some replacement connecting rods for my old engine (not Ford). The originals are 2 piece connecting rods with a 1/16" spacer on each side between the cap and the rod. I am researching replacements. The original rods are 1-1/2" journal diameter X 1-7/8", wrist pin is 27/32", center to center length is 7-3/8" but could be up to 5/16" or 3/8" longer. Replaceable insert bearings might also be a plus. Can someone tell me the measurements of the model A connecting rods?
Mr. A-Sell, Model A rods will not replace them at all. 1.500 bore, close to 1.500wide, and C to c is 7.500
I think you have 1927-28 4 cylinder Chevy Rods. Look for Casting No. on the rod of 346740, or 344649, and they should have a dipper on the cap. They have a Std. Bore of 1.500, 1.875 Wide, and C to C is 7.375
Herm,
-
On 9/3/2017 at 9:34 AM, JAK said:
Thank you, that's who I was looking for.
John
He's the best. He made me a 1914 Roadster, 20 years ago, and it is detail perfect.
Herm.
-
On 9/16/2017 at 7:15 AM, Andy Ott said:
I'm rebuilding an engine fore my Model T.
its a nice engine with little wear. Standard mains and rod bearings, looks generally like a low mileage engine.
My problem is that mGnigafluxing reveals a crack as shown in the photo. It is not in the journal area, and is invisible to the eye even with 10x magnification. The crankshaft "rings" without any hint of a problem.
My question is whether this is a BIG problem or no big deal. I've asked several locals who work on automomobile engines, and get responses all over the field.
The car is intended to be a locally drivable restoration, with no added power features or intent of long trips or high speed.
any thoughts appreciated. Since it's an engine with little wear overall, I'd like to keep it as original as I can.
Thanks.
Never install a cracked crank in any thing, like Matt, Mark, and Mr. C said, as what ever started it, will continue. As stated, they never get better.
There is about at least a 60% crack rate in model t cranks, if not more.
I went through a pile of Model T cranks of a good friend of mine, Mel Alexander, who has passed on now, but there were 135 cranks in the shed, and of them that would grind out to at least .040, I ended up with 25. When I got home, we bead blasted the places they crack, just like yours. and some other places, and out of the 25, I ended up with 6 that were not cracked.
Thanks,
Herm.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SaddleRider said:
Sorry that my comments could be interpreted as interfering with your business. I apologize for suggesting that there are companies today who can make ANY connecting rod for ANYTHING manufactured EVER on Planet Earth, made in such a way one can use "off-the-shelf" modern "precision insert" type con rod bearings. Clearly you "know" far more than Planet Earth's automotive industry, which abandoned the earlier technology.
As a side-note, let's not be too tough on earlier engineering. These guys weren't dumb - they did the best they could with the technology they had to work with.
Cable/mechanical brakes ? What choice did they have ? Wasn't till technology developed durable seals could we mass-produce and use hydraulic brakes.
Low compression motors with (by today's standards) absurdly low compression ratios. What choice did they have ? How do you get mechanical energy out of low octane fuel unless you have a longer stroke ?
Dinky little small-diameter crank pins ? What choice did they have ? The larger diameter the crank-pin, the higher its surface speed. The faster the surface speed of the bearing, the more heat. The higher the heat, the faster the bearing material will fail.
Absurdly "low" final drive ratios that guarantee rapid engine failure at higher road speeds ? What choice did they have ? First of all, look at the condition of roads prior to the 1930's. At what speeds did people drive then....at what road speeds did they need the power of those long-stroke motors. Add to that the annoyance in shifting gears in the "pre synchro" days. Sure....with practice you can get pretty good at it....but the less shifting, the more saleable a car. The lower the rear axle ratio, the less shifting necessary ( again...assuming the low speeds of pre 1930's roads).
Cars whose bodies were framed in WOOD, on which relatively small pieces of sheet metal were nailed and/or screwed on ? What choice did auto makers have until the mid 1930's, when more advanced steel that was more "drawable" combined with better stamping techniques, allowed for larger shapes with more curves.....
Bottom line...correct...those "good old days" weren't so good....but did they have a choice ?
I will leave this at your enlightened opinion. It kind of sounds to me like maybe your Mom slaps you up beside the head when you bring up the word Babbitt, that you despise so much.
I am sure glad the hundreds of customers we have, which are 95% machine shop engine builders, have a different opinion, then you.
I do not have, and have never had a problem with Precision inserts, I have installed many, in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, we pour them also from, time to time, but you've got a lot to learn about Babbitt.
Like I said, we have never had a bad Bearing!
I Done,
Herm.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, SaddleRider said:
Wrong...Herm......while 1950 was a very good year ( I saw it with the original cast )...it was not the first year for "insert" connecting rod bearings. By 1935, the concept was becoming industry-wide, with some exceptions, such as Chevrolet and Buick. Someone with real, legit, accurate info. will have to correct me... for Buick I believe it was 1952 production , for Chevrolet 1954.
What I was talking about was precision inserts. We pour inserts all the time, That is one thing I know is Bearings. We pour many rods these days that were inserted, but replacements just can't be found, or in the size needed for the crank size. There were a lot of engines made such as Waukesha, Buda, Continental, that had there engines in much stuff. John Deere started inserts in 1950 in there Rods, but they still had Thick Brass Mains until 1954.
We also pour Precision main inserts that are not available anymore. There is still a lot more car engine Rods that were poured solid, give or take 1950. It also did not take 53 years for me to find that out.
Herm.
-
5 hours ago, Ivan Saxton said:
I am not keen of the suggestion of LEAD in babbitt. It has always been a No-No, with the single exception that the upper main bearings in a T Ford, (after they lined the top half of T main bearings at all in about 1911). The much higher pouring temperature of the lead-base material apparently gave a better chance that it would stick. It was not considered to have optimal proportions of the constituents in usual tin-based Babbitt . You really want a metallurgical bond, so the lining will not peel out; and so the reliable interface between the bearing and connecting rod conducts way any heat. Of course, the lubricating oil does not only separate the working surfaces, it is also vital for cooling, in particular components such as pistons. I do not greatly admire Duralumin connecting rods with poured babbitt bearings. You are supposed to scratch-tin the surface with a clean scraper, pure tin stick, and a gentle gas flame; then build the thickness of that with the Babbitt alloy to be used. You need to have the alloy and the rod and cap at the precise ideal temperatures so there will be no discontinuity when you pour. But surfaces oxidise very quickly. Within limits you can tell by tapping lightly with a very small hammer. A dull sound means you should melt it out and try again ; and a higher pitch noise signals that the job is probably reasonable. The worst problem with aluminium alloy connecting rods is that the bolts at the correct torsion setting do not stretch within their elastic limits. They compress the alloy so it may crack under the bolt heads. When you are concerned about the indefinite longevity of your Stutz you mill new connecting rods out of 4140 alloy steel or similar, to fit either International or Bedford truck copper-lead bearing shells; but it may be prudent to nitride your crankshaft journals, and run with a full-flow oil filter. Copper-lead does not have embedability like Babbitt, and neither does aluminium, though engines have been satisfactory and reliable with Aluminium alloy connecting rods running directly on the journals. I understand that Catepillar ran aluminium bearing shells for years: (We had a very early D8 at the family sawmill in the mid 1940s, but I was too little to be involved with it personally. That D8 still survives, a friend has it here and two others similar; but Phillip told me that one has a single digit serial number).
The first 2500 Model T's in the fall of 1908, and the first part of 1909, did not have Babbitt in the Block as Mr. Saxton has stated. Trying to tin a cast iron Block, is not need, or desired. The problem of trying to tin cast, is that it is very porous, and as you bring it up to temp., the oils, cleaning solutions ect., start coming out of the cast, and I will tell you, nothing sticks to dirt. The other thing, on a newly machined Block, that must be heated to 600 to try to tin, this is not good on newly bored cylinders.
Lead Babbitt pours at a way lower Temp. then Tin, and is no good for engine bearings, as it will not take the higher engine
R.P.M's. There are some Babbitt shops using it today, because it is way cheaper then Tin base, and a lot easier to pour. Have your shop show and tell you what they use.
There's no kind of tinning flux that will tin a Aluminum Rod. Those kind of Rods have about a 1/8th inch Babbitt thickness wall. Or they are a Aluminite that is cut to run on the crank, with out Babbitt, that works very well.
The Aluminum type rod that will take Tinning is known as Lynite. It can be Tinned, and poured, because that type of Aluminum is a Aluminum, Copper mix, and the tinning will stick because of the copper.
As Mr. Saxton stated, and a very good point is Rod bolts can damage an Aluminum Rod, if you don't have, or forget to put on the flat steel machine washers that are in the picture of the Aluminum Rod.
I will list some pictures. One is the Spin caster, one is the pouring pots, Fully Temp. Regulated.
The two bars of Babbitt are Lead babbitt, and the other is Tin, the Lead is dark .
Thanks,
Herm.
-
5 hours ago, trimacar said:
You know, with all the antiquated technology ( Babbitt bearings, drum brakes, non synchronized transmissions, and so forth)....it's amazing that all those people "back then" were able to get around at all...
If they'd been as smart as we are now, they'd have just stayed home, instead of traveling the country as they did...
Ya, I have often thought about the Model T Ford. They were a very dependable car, as many others. LOL But the poor Guys that cussed them, are the ones that got them when they were all wore out, as that is when they could afford a Model T, second hand and couldn't afford to fix them right, or didn't have the money to. So they used their bailing, patched, and cussed them.
Herm.
-
4 hours ago, JV Puleo said:
Herm,
What about the thick bronze shells many expensive cars used? I'm thinking here of the RRs I've worked on, all of which had removable shells but they were much thicker than a modern insert bearing.
Years ago, we used to make bearings for Elect power plant Diesels. The pistons looked like Bushel Baskets, and the Rod was about 5 foot long, and the rod weighed about 200 pounds. The inserts were were solid Babbitt, 36 pounds each, shaft size was 12" inches. The wall thickness was 1- 1/ 2 inches, and the old inserts were just as good as new, but they wanted them replaced. This one particular engine had blown a piston, and knocked a free standing wall down. That's is what they used as a shield.
The point here is thick Babbitt works just fine. Thousands of Bearings had thick Babbitt over the years. How ever the bearing is made, that is what you replace it with.
Tin base Babbitt, a 1 inch square will only compress 2% at 14.000 thousand pounds.
The Biggest cause of Babbitt bearing failure today is the same as years past, Poor workmanship. There is way more to it then just heating, and pouring. Anybody can do that, it is seeing, and knowing it stuck. If it isn't it won't last long.
Like I have said, that is what has given Babbitt a bad name, we have never had a bad bearing, and if you have, look closer at the cause, and you can tell every time what the cause was.
Of course, it can be oil, or lack of it, Timing ect.
Thanks MR. JV,
Herm.
-
6 hours ago, SaddleRider said:
May I respectfully suggest it is even MORE "reassuring" to know that there are companies today, that can manufacture for you brand new connecting rods of modern materials, that will interchange in every way with your original connecting rods, but with this change.....they are equipped to handle modern (meaning post 1934 thinking.....! ) "precision insert" style rod bearings..........
Post 1934 thinking, I Think not! The correct year would be 1950.
Herm.
-
2 hours ago, Bud Tierney said:
Another possibility would be to investigate whether, on engines that were produced in both the "poured" and "inserted" days, inserted rode were made available to replace the poured ones...
My only direct knowledge is of a widely used industrial/tractor/light truck engine, the Waukesha FC, but it seems unlikely that would be the only case in the indstry...
When poured rods went to replaceable inserts, they were not better, but it was way cheaper. The inserts were still mostly made of heaver steel, Bronze, a very few were thin tin, and still at least .030-00 of Babbitt lining.
We do not recommend pouring rod inserts, and should be poured solid in the rod, as inserts will distort when pouring, and many times will not give the complete 100% backing that is needed so the Babbitt will not fracture. Mains work fine as they don't have the stress of a Rod, up and down.
A solid poured Rod is better any way, as oil behind inserts, is not a very good heat conductor, from bearing to Rod. But rods inserts can still be poured.
Herm.
-
This post shows things to look fore when you buy New Babbitt bearings for your Vintage car, truck, tractor, ect. I will post as many pictures as I can to show what to look for.
These are Marmon Rods new Lead Babbitt, and lasted about a 100 miles, here is why.
Picture 1. Showing a rod that was colder then the Babbitt poured into it. The Babbitt that was gone was easy to get out. The chunk left, held a little better.
2. Shows the seam where the Babbitt touches the steel, there should have not been a seam there.
3. Shows gap, or space between Babbitt, and cap, there should be none. That was that way when they pulled it out of the jig, it should have been done over.
4. These are the pieces I pulled out of the first Rod. See all the holes, and voids, ect., this is the back of the bearing, this is also why Babbitt fails, and gives Babbitt a bad name.
5.& 6 shows rods with Babbitt removed. You can see that the rod was tinned, and I am sure it looked Tinned, but nothing sticks to dirt. They were not clean. It looked like he tried to clean it with a wire brush, that won't work.
7. & 8. Shows two clean caps, and the 4 poured caps., before all are cleaned.
9. 10. 11. & 12. show how the flanges, and the part lines should look with out gaps, or voids, of any kind, or they will fail. The no 3. picture with the gap under the flange, what normally happens is the flange comes off, and then takes the rest of the Rod. Even if the gap is very small, it just isn't stuck.
13. 14. 15. & 16. Shows our Rod press, and Alignment machine to check rods after machining, for twist, Bend, and Offset.
17. Shows the finished rods, with their oil pipes put on. What looks like a gob of solder, is the wire twist that goes through the rod, and twisted around the pipe and soldered, to lock the pipe.
Thanks,
Herm. KohnkeRebabbittingService.com
-
5
-
-
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..
-
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
-
19 hours ago, cahartley said:
Yes Herm.......I'm sure the Chevrolet engineers didn't know what they were talking about.
7 hours ago, JFranklin said:The Chevrolet engineers were working on new engines, not rebuilding worn, bent & misaligned blocks. Maybe that might explain their ideas and our different takes on the information. I would send my engine to Herm any day.
Mr. Cahartley, 000-50 to .001-50 is a long way on a 2" crank, from where it is going to end up to at least .003-00 thousandths clearance.in 1932, as most of the car companies done was to run the engine in, either by its self, or the whole car to loosen it up under an outside source of power.
So from .000-50 thousandths to .003-00 is .002-50 thousandths, so where is .002-50 thousandths of bearing surface going that could have been used. It will go through Mains, Rods, cam bearings, cylinders, ect.
In my business, we hear all the time, can't turn the engine over, had to pull it and the rear wheels would slide. About 4 years ago a man with a Model T trying to start a new rebuild, blew two new rear tires out.
That was 1932 technology, it is not done that way today. If an engine builder were to set that clearance on a Babbitt engine today, and send it out, he would be doing it over.
It is the same with new pistons. The paper work that comes with the pistons will say, .002-00 to .002-50 on about a 4" piston. At that size it would score right away. So we give a 4" pistion .004-00 clearance, that is .001-00 per inch, and that works.
Herm. KohnkeRebabbittingService.com
-
On 7/11/2017 at 2:01 AM, JV Puleo said:
The aluminum rods in the 20s were Lynite, an Alcoa alloy. I believe they were cast – or at least they look as if they were cast. Franklin and, I think, Dusenberg were also early users. I have one of the Franklin rods in the shop to look at. I don't know what the strength of Lynite was but it apparently deteriorates over time. (Nevertheless, most Franklins must still be running with aluminum rods...at least I've never heard of them being regularly replaced.) I don't have my figures in front of me, but I seem to remember that the tensile strength of 7075 is comparable to that of the mild steel forgings commonly available in 1910. Of course, tensile strength isn't the only salient feature that has to be considered but it is certainly a good starting point.
On 7/12/2017 at 7:50 PM, JV Puleo said:I have all, or at least most of the fixtures needed to Babbit the shells. They came free with my align boring machine — neither of which I've ever used so I still have to figure that out. I've done a lot of lathe boring so I'm not particularly intimidated by that part of the job.
A Lynite Rod, you can cast Babbitt into the rod. The Rod also can be tinned.
T Aluminite Rod can not be Tinned, and the Aluminum runs directly on the crank like some lawn more engines.
Some gas engines have stamped on the rod what it is made of.
Herm. KohnkeRebabbittingService.com
-
Here are some more Aluminum Rods, and Mains again, that we done not to long ago.
Thanks,
Herm. KohnkeRebabbittingService.com
.jpg.6adb289bc96cd71046da04ee8f85b8b5.jpg)
.jpg.d7ff6cefc137a35e14268bdffebde0d5.jpg)
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, cahartley said:
From the 1932 Chevrolet Book of Specifications.
This is just what I was talking about. Most listings, in bearing books will list a bearing from .000-50 on the low side to .003, or .003-50 on the high side. That is why some people get into trouble setting bearings. Now nobody in the right mind would set a bearing to .000-50, on a 2" crank, but they do, and they say, " But It Is In The Book" you would burn the bearing out. .001-50 is better, but you will still smear, or soften the Babbitt surface. Why have the bearing push its self free. T clearance should be .002-00 to .002-50.
The thing is, when the bearing is broke in, it will be bigger then that.
Most people don't think, that when a .002-00 inch crank gets hot, they swell about .002-00, and more. So what happens, No room for oil, so it either pushes out, or burns out.
Try it your self. Mic a crank that is in shade, then lay it out side in the sun on a hot day. Then Mic it again, see the difference.
Thanks Herm.
KohnkeRebabbittingService.com
-
On 8/15/2017 at 9:10 PM, Bloo said:
I remember reading on some period publication, probably Dyke's Encyclopedia or maybe Audel's, about a machine used to "burn in" newly cast babbit bearings. The machine would spin the fresh engine with an electric motor until it spun freely. Sounds risky. I would want it to turn freely, if only barely.
Your right, they burnt bearings out, instead of in.
-
On 8/15/2017 at 7:26 PM, MikeC5 said:
Hi Ray, I do know that for Model T engines, when new babbit is poured the bearings are set up very tight. A friend of mine had his engine rebuilt by a long-time Model T specialist who was close enough that we could deliver the engine to him. He showed us a completed short block he had on stand and let us try to turn it over with a long breaker bar. It took considerable force to get it moving. Instructions for starting it the first time required towing the car since it was too tight to crank by hand (our only other choice). After running for several minutes it did loosen up enough to hand crank. I think I would try tightening up the clearance on the offending rod big and and see if it changes things. If it helps I might be tempted to tighten up the others too.
Setting up Babbitt bearings that you have to use a long bar on is not acceptable to any engine, if your looking for any longevity out of it
When a crank, or rods are set that way, and the engine has to be pulled to turn it, the first thing that happens, is the bearing surfaces will soften from the friction, not a good thing.
At this time there is NO room for oil, so if the bearing doesn't burn out, it often scars, and if there are any oil grooves, or oil wells, the smear will deposit in the grooves, and turns hard again. Then this smear of Babbitt starts breaking off and runs through the bearing as bad as sand.
Why set a bearing so tight it has to struggle, to get its self free to turn.
A Model T we set at from .001-25 to .001-75, and you don't need any bar, and the crank you can turn with one hand on the flywheel flange after broke loose with the other hand.
Sadly, there is way more misinformation on Babbitting out there then truth.
Thanks,
Herm.
.
-
On 8/14/2017 at 4:40 PM, R.White said:
Hi Bob. On my engine the shells are trapped by the shims so cannot move around. They are dead flush with the bearing cap and are quite a tight fit so need to be prised out. There are also notches on the back which locate them. As I see it, the shells cannot move in the rod when the bearings are bolted up. I will look at it again, though, because thinking about it that might just be what is causing the knock if all the other bearings are quiet at 0.002".
Ray.
Has your rods been changed over to inserts, other wise they were poured solid.
Herm.
-
On 8/13/2017 at 4:55 PM, R.White said:
Go figure indeed. I was always under the impression that engines that relied on splash feed should have sufficient clearance for the oil to just flow in and out under gravity and that the introduction of pressure fed systems meant that closer tolerances could be achieved safely. There is a certain logic to it and that the reason we can go for closer tolerances now is that if synthetic oil is used it is not just better but thinner than the old straight oils. I am always prepared to accept that I may have got it wrong but none of the other big end bearings are tighter than 0.002"... and they don't knock. Why just this one?
Ray.
Bloo. The main bearings have been a nightmare. In a previous post I related how I couldn't get them closer than 0.003" without binding. As I say, I think this crankshaft has suffered trauma at some time.
That it runs at all is probably something of a miracle.
Ray.
Did you have the crank checked for being sprung?
Herm.
.jpg.6adb289bc96cd71046da04ee8f85b8b5.jpg)
.jpg.d7ff6cefc137a35e14268bdffebde0d5.jpg)
Babbitt Bearing, Recognizing bad Ones, Before you use
in General Discussion
Posted
LOL.
thanks,
Herm.