1930 Model 745 engine questions

[Guest Len Sholes]

What started out to get the engine running in this vehicle has turned into a project. After getting it fired up, apparantly it had not run for many years, there was a knock in the front of the engine. When I disconnected the #1 plug wire the noise subsided. After discussion with a couple of mechanics the consensus was that it was either a wrist pin or rod bearing. Also at this time I had taken a compression check and had 0 psi in #2. I proved this to be a valve problem. After removing the head and the #1 piston I could not find any thing that would cause the knock. I did however find that the timing chain was very loose. I am thinking that this is what was causing the noise. Anyhow I ended up removing all the pistons and have found that on three of the caps there is an area about the size of you little finger nail where the babbit is missing or starting to flake away. My questions are #1 - has anyone seen this before and does anyone know what causes it, the crankshaft is not damaged or worn. #2 - can anyone advise me where I could get the rods rebabbited at a shop that turns out quality work? #3 - Where is the best place to find information on this engine? ie engine specs, parts break downs and assembly info? I am also wondering if anyone can explain how the vibration damper works, the reason I ask is that when I removed it the first thing that came off was the water pump pulley sheave, then as I started to remove the damper it came off in pieces with the hub still on the cranshaft snout. There is a brass bushing that slid off the hub and inside the damper are some springs. I do not see how it can work if it isn't held solid to the crank. It must rely on the tension of the pulley retaining bolt to hold it all together. I must say that this is the first Packard that I have worked on so this is the reason for my questions. Thanks for any replys as I am sure I will have more questions as I proceed with this repair.

[Lake Powell]

Your inquiry raises a number of fascinating issues requiring a much longer discussion than is practical here, if we are to give you any real detail.

To summarize, the concept of "poured babbit" was long been abandoned by the autmotive industry, in favor of the " precision steel backed insert" type con rod bearing. It was the introduction of the "insert" type connecting rod bearing in the mid 1930's that permitted durability in higher engine rotational speed service, and allowed the development of the modern high speed short stroke and DURABLE engines we have now. And those old cars really spun their motors fast even at lower road speeds ( see discussion below about "gearing).

Packard rod bearings of your era were typical of engines of that period. In order to produce reasonable power from the lower octane fuels of bygone times, it was customary to have very long strokes. At a five inche "stroke", your heavy old connecting rods are imposing "loads" on your crank-pins of MANY times induced by a short-stroke engine. Couple that with the inherent weakness of the "plain poured babbit" design of rod bearing, and you can see why connecting rod bearing failure was so common, a discussion of it can be found even in no-technical American literature of that era (see Grapes Of Wraith, by John Steinbeck). You would do well to research the magazine SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS - issues in the 1930's will give you a quick education on the evolution of this technology. You should be able to find back-issues at any larger city's public library.

To make matters even worse for connecting rod bearing survival in old cars, we have the problem of "low gearing". You'd have to actually DRIVE the kind of roads we had then ( some are still around !) to understand why cars were "geared" that low. Bottom line...at 45 mph, that poor old engine is spinning faster than a modern car at over 100, and on TOP of that, the bearings are being abused at forces MANY MANY times that incurred by a modern short stroke engine.

For reasons I do not understand, some of the readers in this forum feel very passionate about re-using the old style "poured babbit" when re-building old engines. Should you receive comments proposing you use the that method, I strongly urge you to do your own research - again, the SAE papers of that era will be of great assistance in helping you better understand the history and limitations of that bearing concept.

It is always disappointing to see someone spend a lot of money on an old car, only to find it is not reliable, and thus does not get driven out where people can enjoy seeing it. The bearing failure you have described is typical of the kind of very discouraging and expensive incident that can really give someone a bad taste for the old car hobby. Do it once, and do it right, and you can have wonderful experiences in the old car hobby.

To summarize, I strongly recommend you have your connecting rods machined to take a modern "insert" type connecting rod bearing. Obviously, this is a job for a machinist who not only knows his stuff AND understands how to research available modern "insert" type rod bearings. There IS a way to do this for just about ANY internal combustion engine that originally had "poured babbit" type rod bearings.

You did not mention the condition of your crankshaft. Bad news - if you heard a "knock" you can just about bet the crankshaft is worn/"pounded" out of round. There is NO alternative to making the crankshaft right. Even the slightest "out of round" condition WILL result in rod bearing failure in short order, even at low speeds under light loads. There is no arguing with the laws of physics. Unfortunately, Packard crankshafts of that era had "off-set" balance weights. You will have to locate a crank-shaft grinder organization familiar with the complex process of grinding out the hidden bolts that affix the balancers, and then, after grinding, replacing the balancer bolts with a special grade bolt capable of handling the "loads" those balancers impose.

I didn't say my response would be pretty....!

[Guest imported_Speedster]

If your crankshaft and rods are in spec, late model bearings can be modified to fit. Reworking the bearings is easyer and cheaper than changing the rods to fit the bearings. That's what was done to one of my '29 engines.

If the crank is damaged, then it may be better to find a usable replacement than trying to find someone that can and will repair it. (very hard to do) <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Lake Powell]

For RICK:

I am sure you meant well, but you are going to confuse this fellow's thinking and send him off in the wrong direction.

There is simply NO way you can fit modern-style "insert" type connecting rod bearings to the old-style con rods originally set up for poured babbit without modifying them. Simply impossible.

First, you have to re-size the "big end" to that there will be just the right amount of "crush" to the modern insert's shell. The most common tool for this is known as a "SUN HONE". Without EXACTLY the right amount of "crush", the bearing will not have the correct clearance, and WILL fail.

Secondly, you have to cut a "tab" of the correct size, width, and depth in both the rod itself, and the cap, to make sure the modern insert's "shell" dosnt "spin" inside the "big end".

Yes, you do often have to modify the new insert rod bearing itself - typically, modern bearings are much wider ( and hence stronger ) then the narrow bearings of older engine designs. Thus you often have to "cut down" the width of the bearing to fit the old connecting rod.

You did not mention what MAKE '29 you say you had. Are you talking about a Packard Super Eight ? That monster was a 384 cu. in. power-plant with a huge crank-shaft - not the kind of thing you find thru the usual sources. Again, crank-shaft grinding is not an unusual or exotic proceedure - while not common these days for modern cars (for the simple reason that modern cars do not have bearing/crank problems) a competent machine shop familiar with this kind of work can do it correctly.

[Guest Len Sholes]

With regards to Ricks reply about changing to inserts is something that I had not considered. I am well aware as what is involved as I have a Model A engine that has been converted to shells. The cost to do this was a little more than what it would have cost to have the babbit repoured and machined. The Packard engine would be a lot easier as it already has a pressure lube system and the crankshaft is also already drilled. Do you know what shells they use when this modification is done?

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Lake,

I'm going by what I've read on the subject and by what the mechanic, that overhauled the engine, told me. He said he made babbit style bearings from modern bearings with no modifcations to rods and the engine has many hours on it, so it must work. He told me that he learned how to do it from his father, who also was a mechanic. So there must other engines repaired that way. He probably honed the big end of rods but no tab groves were cut.

And I've also been told that grinding a '29 Crank IS a very "unusual and exotic procedure", since it will Not fit in most modern grinding machines.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Len,

He told me what bearings he used but I can't remember. I'll try to call him and find out.

[Packard8]

Hi Len,

In many applications it is possible to re-work the con rods to accept shell brgs. I would check with perhaps Terrill Machine, Egge or other experienced shops that specialize in pre-war parts & machining. Even if the cost is a bit more at the outset, I believe the conversion would recoup the expense down the road when eventually the inserts need to be replaced. Another plus would be the superior service life and reliability of the modern shell bearing inserts.

Keep us posted on what you learn.

Best,

John

[Lake Powell]

Hi again, Rick:

Again, please dont think I am picking on you personally. This forum is a great place for all of us to exchange views and learn something.

However, "posting" just for the pleasure of seeing one's words in type, can ill-serve other hobbyists who may need accurate info. I hope our discussion will encourage you to look at diagrams, manuals, tech. articles written by competent experts, so that you will benefit from well-grounded REAL technical knowledge.

Who told you a "29 crank wont fit modern crank machines". Do you realize the consequences of that kind of nonsence ? You might discourage someone from getting a proper repair.

In fairness, what the person you talked to MIGHT have meant, not understanding that so many makes of earlier crankshafts had their balancing weights attached, is that the balancing weights must be removed before the crank-pins can be ground. This is something that RESPONSIBLE crank-shaft grinding outfits either KNOW how to do themselves, or recognize what has to be done, and they simply ship it off to a facility who can do this work.

Secondly, stop and think - obviously you do not actually KNOW what a "babbited" connecting rod looks like, how it is prepared to receive poured babbit, and how different the machining is on connecting rods that will receive "inserts". If you did, you wouldnt tell us about some "mechanic" whose "father told him how to do it" . Again, you can not use modern "insert" type bearings in od-style babbeted rods without machine work modfication.

The fellow who started this "thread" needs useable info. He has a problem (rod bearing trouble) that has caused many old car hobbyists to come to grief, sell their cars out of disgust, and abandoned the old car hobby. That dosnt do ANYONE any good.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Lake,

Did you get up on the Wrong side of bed this Morning? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I'm only trying to help and give what information and facts that I know.

Even if I were wrong, that does not give you the right to be insulting and say that what I know to be true, is Nonsence. The strange thing is that you say it's nonsence and then in the next paragraph you explain why I'm correct.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lake,

Did you get up on the Wrong side of bed this Morning? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I'm only trying to help and give what information and facts that I know.

Even if I were wrong, that does not give you the right to be insulting and say that what I know to be true, is Nonsence. The strange thing is that you say it's nonsence and then in the next paragraph you explain why I'm correct. </div></div>

Rick, Just ignore him. This fellow keeps turning up here under various names until he once again is banned for this type of argumentative and abusive behavior. Kind of a shame really, as he does have a good amount of knowledge?.. It?s just that the presentation stinks. Maybe he?s off his meds again?

<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hi again, Rick:

Again, please dont think I am picking on you personally. This forum is a great place for all of us to exchange views and learn something.

However, "posting" just for the pleasure of seeing one's words in type, can ill-serve other hobbyists who may need accurate info. </div></div>

Pete.....why not give us a break and sh$# can the confrontational stuff? You could be a valuable asset to this group if you kept it civil.......

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Thanks, You know me, I 'Go With the Flow' and Don't let it bother me.

I am going to try call the guy, that did my engine, and get more info on exactly what and how he did it, cause now that I think about it I don't understand what he did to keep the bearings from spinning. I think I read somewhere that you grind a bevel on one side of rod and cap, (instead of cutting tab groves) so when it's crushed down, bearing is pushed into the beveled area or maybe the bearing is deformed into bevel before installing, just not sure about that? If that's true, then I would have to say that the rods Were modified. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Lake Powell]

Rick - you are a true gentleman for finally admitting your post was in error. But again, this is not a contest - it is simply a forum for us to try and learn. Sadly, while the overwhelming majority of people who frequent these chat rooms simply come in here to learn and assist others, there are a few "bad eggs" who would rather insist they are right, and silence anyone who disagrees with them regardless of the cost to legitimate automobile hobbyists, then help others with technical issues. Rick - you are on the right track by trying to find out more info. Good for you. Hope you will serve as an example to others who are not so friendly.

[Guest Len Sholes]

Rick if you haven't already made contact with the person who knows how to modify the rods to accecpt shells can you also ask him what he does to maintain the correct side play. With the original style the babbit extends out to this area and then is machined down to give you the correct clearance. When shells are installed this babbited bearing surface is removed so there needs to be something added to both sides of the rods.

[Packard8]

Hi Len,

I think the trick is to find an insert that has the same or a bit more width than the original babbit brg surface. After the registration notch is machined in the rod & cap and oil holes are matched, the excess shell material can be machined off to provide the proper side play clearance. I?ll bet Egge, Kanter, Terrill etc have addressed the issue and may be of help.

Best,

John

[Lake Powell]

Hi again, Len:

Good question ! You are observant! The standard method engine re-builders of old "babbit bearing equipped" cars, for resolving the side-play issue, is to simply braze a series of bronze "[censored]" around the side-face area in question. Then grind them down to where they have at LEAST a "slip fit" to the bearing. As you probably no, SOME "side play" is just fine - this particular operation is NOT that critical. Just be careful (at this point..someone refresh my memory..I forget when Packard went to a "stress reliever fillet" on their crank-pins) to make sure the bronze "[censored]" that will serve to fill in the space left does not interfere with that fillet.

(For those who want to know what we are discussing, modern connecting rod insert bearings have no provision for side-play. Side-play must be taken care of, or it is possible under some "load" conditions the rod could move far enough side-ways on the crank-pin to cause major hurt ! Poured babbit style rods have the poured babbit both on the bearing surface itself. The first "insert' type connecting rod bearings DID have a provision for side-play, in the form of a "lip", as do most modern insert MAIN bearings. I have not found any modern MAIN bearing (which, again, would include a "side-play provision) that I could use to make connecting rod bearings from).

Incidentally, Len, because my above "posts" were getting too long, I did not take the time to discuss in detail the problem of "high speed engines". A common mis-conception is that the old engines were "low speed" and only modern engines are "high speed".

While modern engines, with their short strokes and superior connecting rod bearing design ARE capable of sustained duty at rotational speeds that would tear an old-design motor apart, the fact is, in actual day-to-day service, our old engines are usually spinning as fast, if not MUCH faster, than a modern car. THAT is why I am so strident about urging you and other restorers to go with modifying the connecting rods to take a modern "insert" type bearing.

How is this so ? Look at the final drive gearing. Modern cars are often geared 2. to 1 or even "higher". You cruise down the highway at 70 mph, and your modern engine is "loafing" at WAY below its design limits (probably around 1,600 rpm or so). When you go 45 mph, how fast is the crank-shaft spinning in that 5 inch stroke Packard Super Eight ? Faster than the modern car at 70! What are the reciprocal "loads" on those crank-pins....pretty scary...eh !

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Well, Things have changed since I had the engine work done about 6 years ago.

The guy went to Hawaii for a 3 month trip, to teach a mechanics class. That was about 2 years ago and still hasn't come back. He was married so I guess he left his wife, cause she answered the phone when I called. (Must have found a younger woman and desided to stay). I got that info from the guy that used to be his assistant and is now running his shop.

But back to the question at hand, The other guy says that tab slots Are required in rods (and was not sure why the other guy told me that they were not) and for side play the bearings are just a little wider than rod ends and thick enough to handle side loads. He said the biggest problem he has seen is that some engines require thicker bearings than are available. He also said that rods were fairly easy to modify but the mains took a lot more work. That's about all the info he would give me.

[26pack]

Hello Rick. Welcome to the board.

Well, I see you have met Peter Hartmann, now using the name Lake Powell. Rick, this guy has been kicked off of this board more times than I can count. When I was asking questions about my engine (1926 Packard six) I heard the same stuff. From the same guy. Hartmann.

All I can do is pass on to you the wisdom a wise old veteran of this board passed on to me. Ignore him. Whenever he posts, be it under the Hartmann name, Lake Powell or whatever, just hit the delete button. It ain't worth the grief and if you ignore him, he will go away.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Yes, Lake was very Defensive at first but then Mellowed Out and I appreciate him calling me a Gentleman. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Thanks, Lake or Pete

I see no big problem. No one even used any 4 letter words. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I've been an active member of the Packard forum for over a year now, and it's been great fun and I've learned a lot. I've made a few statements during that time that have turned out not to be complete and total correct but I've also contributed other facts and suggestions that were correct. I've even sometimes made statements that I wasn't sure about to get the ball rolling on the subject. I found that more people will jump in with their opinions and good data quicker if it's to correct someone's error. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> (Human nature I guess)

But like I said It's been a Fun part of this Hobby. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Lake Powell]

Hi again Rick:

Your attitude represents what we need more of in here, and, sorry to say, I can't say the same for this fellow JD26 and the VERY small minority of people like him - their attitude does not contribute either to our learning, or our helping legit. auto hobbyists. To them, the sharing of knowledge and the supporting of fellow old car owners comes in a far "second" to their desire to "have the last word"- even if the incorrect information they like could disadvantage a fellow hobbyist. Note how these types would rather have incorrect technical information, than allow beneficial technical information that for some odd reason displeaes them.

Happily, most legit auto hobbyists are like you - sometimes we have to give em a shove in the right direction, but their over-riding basic attitude is "what can I learn from this".

In any event, I think we have fully answered the fellow's questions that started this "thread". So that we do not take up any more time from the Forum, if there are any further questions on this particular technical issue, may I suggest any further questions be directed to me privately ?

P.S. Please do not even refer to anyone as having the letter "P" in their first name, or letter "H" in their last name. Sorry to tell you that, at least in the past, that small noisy minority who just do not have much LEGIT interest in the exchange of technical info, have had the 'ear' of the "powers that be", and as a result, they may delete your entire contribution.

[26pack]

Hi Rick. Sorry to rant but... If you go to Post 232530 which I started back on 7/13/04, you will see more of PH's handiwork. Back then he went under the moniker Pierce66. It got so bad I was getting private emails from other board members to just ignore him. And yes, he got bounced under the Pierce66 moniker.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

P.S. Please do not even refer to anyone as having the letter "P" in their first name, or letter "H" in their last name. Sorry to tell you that, at least in the past, that small noisy minority who just do not have much LEGIT interest in the exchange of technical info, have had the 'ear' of the "powers that be", and as a result, they may delete your entire contribution. </div></div>

I doubt that Rick L. is in much jeopardy of having his ?contributions deleted?. However, I?ll wager that someone else (in their latest incarnation) will soon have their plug pulled and be kicked to the curb??..yet again. To paraphrase Albert Einstein: ?Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_Speedster]

I've about desided that the problem was a termonolgy translation mixup. There are so many names used for the little tab slots (what I call them) in rods. (slots, grooves, keyways, indexing, registration, etc.) (He called them keyways). So it sounds like no matter what you call the Little Buggers, they need to be there or you're gonna have a Spinner. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Packard8]

Yep Rick, I?ve never heard of the job being done without some provision for the ?whatcha-ma-call-its? incorporated into the con rods.

My advice to Len (if he hasn?t been run off by the tirades) is to consult with the real ?experts?? the machinists who actually do the work. I know the conversion to shell brgs has been done on many different old engines for many years. It?s just a matter of finding a competent machine shop to do it.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Mr. Sholes, if you would email me, I have some comments to forward to you from someone who has experience in these engines and you could benefit from his advice.

mrberger2@comcast.net

Randy Berger

[Tom M]

Randy,

Can I Please get a copy too. As you can see I own a '31..

[Guest johnoder]

12th Series (1935) went to inserted rods. There have been makers in the recent past that could supply replacement rod inserts for large amounts of money. Another route, since rod journals are 2 3/16 nominal, is to convert to Mopar slant Six rod inserts. THESE ARE NARROWER THAN BOTH THE 320CID AND 384 CID ROD BEARINGS.

This will require resizing the big end of the rod and the usual milled recesses for the anti rotation tabs. The original inserted rod big ends are around 2.303 ID and must be opened up the ten or so thousandts for the Mopar insert (per the spec for these Mopar rods). The babbitted rods are smaller yet in the bore (around 2.250 after removal of babbitt) and would need the same machining only more so. The brazed on "lumps" are a way to go to take up side play, but BETTER OIL PRESSURE will result if the build up is continuous. The ideal build up is CDA 95400 Aluminum Bronze applied by some who knows what he is doing and using TIG (heliarc). It is important to note that the Mopar Slant Six came with both forged steel and nodular (ductile) cast iron crankshafts, and the insert material differs between the two. The most satisfaction will come from using the insert intended for the forged steel shaft, as that is what the Packard will have.

As to removing the counterweights (you have to do this before grinding crank - or someone does!<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />). I have done this on a small vertical mill - even made a video of me doing it. It is not rocket science by any means.

John