Babbitting

[NEMGs]

When I owned a 1950 Chevrolet with the original 216 engine, a number of knowledgeable people (at least they claimed knowledge) said it was too bad that the engine did not have the newer bearings, but was an engine with babbitts. Some comments were along the lines of "too bad, you really cannot drive a car like this without destroying the engine" and so on. I like to drive my old cars, and would ask this list these questions: 1. Are engines with babbitts so weak that you cannot drive at 60 MPH? 2. Any solutions other than getting rid of the car? 3. Which cars between 1930 and 1960 have babbitt engines? 4. Are some babbitted engine more durable that others?

Thanks for your help. Love this Forum!

[Bhigdog]

Your engine can be converted to shell type bearings but will still be splash oiled. Cars of that era were not really designed for continued travel at 60 MPH, especially with the low rear end ratios common to the era. In my opinion, and my opinion only, your car will give good service if you restrict it to lower speeds and secondary roads.........................Bob

[Rusty_OToole]

My father owned several of those babbitt bearing sixes and so did other people we knew. They were reliable and long lived if you kept the speed down to 50. 55 ok 60 pushing it a bit. Go over sixty and the engine life was about 100 miles maybe less. My father demonstrated this one night when he took us out on the brand new 4 lane hiway in our 51 Chev sedan to "see what she would do". What she did was blow the top off #6 piston after 4 or 5 miles. Not when going full throttle but when he backed off. Others have reported knocking out the rod bearings after a few days or weeks of speedy driving. They did not seem to mind hard work as long as you kept the RPMs within limits.

The last of these engines (1953 up) had full pressure oiling and insert bearings and stood up much better.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Another factor was the cast iron pistons. They were hard wearing and quiet as they could be fitted tighter than aluminum pistons due to a lower heat expansion factor. But they were heavier than aluminum pistons and therefore put more stress on the rods and bearings at high speeds. As I reported above, the pistons themselves were prone to breaking under extreme stress as well.

[Rusty_OToole]

1. Are engines with babbitts so weak that you cannot drive at 60 MPH? 2. Any solutions other than getting rid of the car? 3. Which cars between 1930 and 1960 have babbitt engines? 4. Are some babbitted engine more durable that others?

Thanks for your help. Love this Forum!

To answer your questions #1 there were some LARGE cars with POWERFUL engines that were capable of sustained speeds over 100 MPH even though they had babbitt bearings. In 1933 or 34, a Pierce Arrow V-12 set a new speed record, 117 MPH average for 24 hours. This was on the Bonneville salt flats, officially timed by the AAA, on a course surveyed by the Utah highways department. The record was broken a year later by a supercharged Duesenberg also with babbitt bearings. Other American cars like Packard and Cadillac were capable of high speeds of 80 to 90 in stock form.

Insert bearings were introduced by Chrysler in 1934. Full pressure oiling had been used by some makes before 1920. Eventually they were adopted by the whole industry, Hudson and Chevrolet being the last holdouts.

#2 Getting rid of the car, or never driving over 50 are the most practical solutions. If those do not appeal to you, you can have the engine rebuilt or replaced with one that is externally identical but has insert bearings, full pressure lubrication and aluminum pistons. Then you can go as fast as you like, within limits. You can go over 65 but it will cut your gas mileage drastically.

#3 Already answered. Chrysler was first with insert bearings, gradually adopted by the whole industry. Hudson and Chevrolet were the last holdouts, the only makes to use splash lubrication and babbitt bearings after WW2.

#4 Also answered. The bigger more powerful cars naturally were capable of higher speeds than a cheap Chevrolet. Especially if they had full pressure lubrication, in spite of their poured babbitt bearings. Some owners of prewar Packard, Cadillac and Pierce Arrow cars drive hundreds of miles in a day at speeds of 70 or 75 MPH without damage or excessive wear. Especially if they have the overdrive transmission.

Hudsons had babbitt bearings and splash oiling but they did not blow up at high speeds. They would however wear out faster than cars with insert bearings and pressure oiling. At normal speeds they would last just as long, but if you drove them 70 or 80 MPH it would cut engine life by half or more. Jack Kerouac's friend Neil Cassidy bought a brand new Hudson in California in about 1948. He headed out for New York City running as hard as he could go with no breakin. Then headed down the Easter seaboard. By the time he got to Texas the engine was shot. With side trips he probably didn't have much more than 10,000 miles on it. And it probably still had the breakin oil in it if it had any oil at all.

My dad had a 47 Hudson Commodore Eight, which he loved, and which he drove hard, the engine wore out in 1951. It probably had less than 40,000 miles on it. He thought nothing of driving it 70 to 80 MPH, a lot faster than you could go in most cars at the time. He said he never had a car that handled as well, or held the road at high speeds the way a Hudson did, until he bought a Mercedes Benz in 1971.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[LI_BENTLEY]

As stated above it is not the babbitt bearings but the oiling system that pumped oil to troughs in crankcase and high rpm whipped all the oil out faster than pump could replace it, rod bearings were lubed be scoops on end of rod. An engine with a full pressure oiling system does not care what type bearings as long as oil pressure is there. Some people change to inserts but the bearing surface is still a babbit type metal, only appears hard because is very thin and backed by steel.

[Guest Oldengineer]

NEMGs:

I own a 1948 Chevrolet Fleetmaster with the original 216 under the hood. Shortly after I bought the car, I read a road test that Floyd Climer did on a 49 Chevy sedan with a 216 back in the day. As part of his test, he ran the car at its top speed (95 MPH) for an hour at the salt flats - apparently with no ill effects. I've done a fair amount of interstate running with mine, and she seems to handle 60 - 65 MPH OK. The oil dippers on the rods pick up oil out of the pan troughs only at very low speeds. At higher speeds there are 6 spray nozzles in the oil pan that spray oil into the dippers. The oil pumps in these engines only make about 13 psi, but, move 20 GPM of oil. Using a special guage to get the oil nozzles aimed correctly is critical on thses engines according to the shop manual.

Regards:

Oldengineer

[Hudsy Wudsy]

It's been so long that I don't recall clearly at this moment, but I think that Chevrolet converted over to insert bearings in 1950. It was somewhere around that time, I think. I'm sure that someone who knows Chevs will weigh in on the matter. You'll have to find out for sure, but if that's the case your engine might not have babbit lined rods. Rusty is right about the cast iron pistons, which also made these engines slow winding. I recall someone explaining to me years ago that the rod journals were narrower than they could have been and thus at higher RPMs they couldn't dissapate heat fast enough. Hudson babbit rods (either six or eight) would go all day long at top speed. They had broad journals, aluminum alloy pistons and light weight rods, however.

[Restorer32]

Blame the oiling system, not the babbitt. Modern shell bearings are babbitted also you know ?

[Dandy Dave]

Yup. You guys have a very good handle on this. Dippers are fine on old slow turning engines that ran at 1000 to 1500 RPM and would last for years. Speed them up and spin the oil out faster than the troughs can fill themselves, and the bearings can retain the oil as it spins out, and you will meet with disaster. Dandy Dave!

[NEMGs]

Yup. You guys have a very good handle on this.

Thanks for all the good comments. I guess my next old car needs to be other than a post-war Hudson or Chevrolet or a car to drive slowly.

[Guest Bob Call]

Chevrolet went to insert bearings with the introduction of the Powerglide transmission in 1950 with the engine size increased from 216 to 235 for the Powerglide.. The 216 was continued for manual transmissions, but, I don't know for how long and whether or not the 216 ever went to insert bearings. By 1955 the 216 had been replaced by the 235.

To me the limiting factor for your car is the low geared rear axle. Driving a 60 mph will kill gas milage. These old 216's don't get great mileage anyway. Pretty much stuck with that rear axle because it's a torque tube drive Drive and enjoy your car until the engine needs a rebuild and then find a 235 or 261 rebuild that and swap it for your 216. My dad put a 1955 235 in his 50 Chevy pickup in 1956 for about the same money as rebuilding the 216. When making this swap use the bellhousing etc that fits the transmission. In the case of the 235 into the pickup the pickup 3 speed trans has the same bolt pattern etc as the 55 and later passenger car trans so everything was a bolt in. Had to change the Chevy 30 PSI oil pressure gauge for a GMC 60 PSI gauge else the full pressure 235 would keep the 30 PSI gauge pegged.

I wouldn't rule out a Hudson just because it has poured babbit bearings. They were great cars and were the fastest on the road in the late 40's and early 50's. The cost of rebuilding a Hudson engine might be a little pricey, but, what isn't in the old car hobby.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Bob Call (see edit history)

[Guest 36chev]

NEMGs:

I own a 1948 Chevrolet Fleetmaster with the original 216 under the hood. Shortly after I bought the car, I read a road test that Floyd Climer did on a 49 Chevy sedan with a 216 back in the day. As part of his test, he ran the car at its top speed (95 MPH) for an hour at the salt flats - apparently with no ill effects. I've done a fair amount of interstate running with mine, and she seems to handle 60 - 65 MPH OK. The oil dippers on the rods pick up oil out of the pan troughs only at very low speeds. At higher speeds there are 6 spray nozzles in the oil pan that spray oil into the dippers. The oil pumps in these engines only make about 13 psi, but, move 20 GPM of oil. Using a special guage to get the oil nozzles aimed correctly is critical on thses engines according to the shop manual.

Regards:

Oldengineer

I will echo Oldengineer about the troughs and nozzles for the Chevrolet. At higher RPMs, there are nozzles that squirt oil directly into the dippers as they pass around. At lower RPMs, the trough would retain enough oil for the dipper to pick up. I rebuilt the engine in the 36, but not having the special tools for aiming the nozzles (apparently rare as hen's teeth for the earlier 1929-36 Chevy engines), I'm concerned about the rod bearings being oiled well at 50 mph. It probably is not an issue if the original mating oil pan/block is used, but I used a different oil pan from a parts car. Most of the 1932-1936 Chevrolets should cruise comfortably at 45-50 mph and 55 for short periods of time (1929-31 probably slightly slower).

The 216 was much improved over the 1929-36 engines (shorter stroke and four main bearings), so it should be able to safely cruise at higher speeds, as Oldengineer noted. And a good amount of torque for pulling, too.

Edited July 25, 2012 by 36chev (see edit history)

[rons49]

A quick reply regarding the Hudson bearings. In 1948 the Hudson 6( 262cu) was redesigned from the old 212cu splasher. The new 6 was a fine engine with full pressure and insert bearings. In 1950 it was destroked to 232 for the new Pacemaker and bored out in 1951 to 308 for the Hornet. The only Hudson engine that remained a splasher was the straight 8- 254cu( produced 'till 1952) , with inserts on the mains , but poured bearings on the rods. Line boring with engine removal is not necessary. Redline was said to be about 4900rpm. Look, these cars are 60 plus years old. they don't handle like a Ferrari and the brakes suck compared to the modern road conditions. Blowing along at speeds over 60 can be a bit of a challenge on the old gals and the other drivers around you. If you love the car, give her some respect, don't ask her for more than she is capable of. These cars are time capsules propelling us back to a less frantic era. Slow down enjoy the time travel. Ron

Edited July 25, 2012 by rons49 (see edit history)

[Dandy Dave]

Look, these cars are 60 plus years old. they don't handle like a Ferrari and the brakes suck compared to the modern road conditions. Blowing along at speeds over 60 can be a bit of a challenge on the old gals and the other drivers around you. If you love the car, give her some respect, don't ask her for more than she is capable of. These cars are time capsules propelling us back to a less frantic era. Slow down enjoy the time travel. Ron

Amen Brother! Dandy Dave!

[Guest fossiltin62]

I was given a 1931 Essex (baby Hudson) in 1956 when I was a teenager. It had 41,000 miles on it. My Dad told me I should drop the pan and check (shim) the bearings, so I did. I had worked on other cars and trucks (farm kid) and was pleasently suprised by the amount of bearing area it had. I drove it everywhere including school until I was through college. I seldom ran it over 40mph, there were a lot of dirt roads mostly with a few blacktop roads, but I ran it until it had just over 100,000 miles on it. I left it in the barn on the farm and bought a newer car. Many years later I retrieved it intending to drive it some more (kids, rumble seat). I again took the pan and head off, replaced the rings and again "shimmed" the bearings. I took very few shims out. I did this job again at 171,000 miles. This time, I rebored to .030 and put in new pistons and rings. I did NOT pour new babbitt, simply scraped and reshimmed. I'm still driving it, but it's getting tired. Well over 240,000 on it, and I'm betting I'll be pouring babbitt this time. I only had it over 45 two times in all those years. When a kid of course I had to see how fast it would go. 70 was about it, and it was a dangerous ride. The second time it got away from me on a hill in free wheeling because I had to try that out too. Dumb a-- kid. I've no idea how fast I was going that time, but I needed both lanes of a two lane blacktop. Scared the s--t out of me. I understood clearly why free wheeling was only available for a couple of years. I was careful to always check the oil and I used only 30 weight detergent oil in it (It was what we used on the farm and it was free :-) ) and changed it regurlarly. I have other prewar antique cars now and none of them seem able to last as long as the Essex, although I don't normally drive any of them as much any more. The roads are all paved and there are too many wacko's out there. And they don't know what a hand signal is. Plus now I'm an O. F.

Edited July 26, 2012 by fossiltin62 (see edit history)

[herm111]

Chevrolet went to insert bearings with the introduction of the Powerglide transmission in 1950 with the engine size increased from 216 to 235 for the Powerglide.. The 216 was continued for manual transmissions, but, I don't know for how long and whether or not the 216 ever went to insert bearings. By 1955 the 216 had been replaced by the 235. end Quote

Mr. Bob, 1953 was the last year of the babbitted rods for the 216 Chevy, after that the 216 was inserts.

The main bearings were all inserts, the 4 clyinders were babbitted brass, or bronze shell in the center of the 4 cylinders, and solid Babbitt shells, front and rear. The 6's in 1929 were all bronze babbitt lined shellls, and I think?, untile 1935.

And after that was a babbitt steel shell, on up many years, but were still not a precision insert.

With that said, as has been stated by other Posts on here, babbitt is fine, if you get a good job, and the car is used in ways the Factory Recommended!.

When Babbitt bearings went out in the old days, It was normally running wore out engines, and or giving them a lot of abuse.

thanks Herm.