Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe K
There are some um "defective" crankshaft pulleys out there.
I came across one directly from a vendor where the hole that fits over the crank was too small.
Of course I got my money back.
The vendor is now out of business. Perhaps this is an indication of cause & effect?
Given that your new pulley seems to be of the "one piece" variety, is it possible the engine has "moved" during your "partial removal" necessary to put the pulley in place? It might even be something as simple as putting the front support in place "backwards" - which can be done inadvertently and covered up in the tensioning of the bolts. (or it might be backwards from time immemorial from a previous mistake.)
If I recall correctly, the mount is actually bent in a slight "Z" which allows the hole in the cross-member to sit a little closer to the motor. Putting it in backwards WOULD create an interference point.
The indication you give us ("protuding past the end") seems about right for the pulley. When fully bolted in place the pulley hub actually serves to "pin" the crank-gear in place and prevent front-back movement of this pressed on gear.
Try a comparison of the old pulley (what remains) and the new.
Joe K
|
Joe - lots of things to think about. Here's what the situation is per your points:
Fit on crankshaft: old pulley was two-piece, ID of the pulley and the spacer were about 0.007" - 0.011" larger than the OD on the crankshaft, so a pretty sloppy fit. Also very sloppy interface between the pulley and the spacer. New pulley ID is about 0.0015" larger than crankshaft OD, much nicer fit. The new one seems to be well machined as well. Imported undoubtedly, but nicely done.
Engine moving front/back: When I jacked up the engine to remove/install the pulley, I kept one bolt each of the rear mounts in place. The only interference seems to be pulley-front mount, the rear bolts went right back in place well.
Front mount backwards: I thought of that and checked. The tabs on the front mount that bolt to the engine are displaced from the centerline of the bottom bolt by a fair bit. Turning that mount around would move the tabs over an inch to the front, and I don't see how that would come close to working. Every diagram I could come up with shows those tabs aft of the centerline of the bottom bolt (see photo below). I'm happy to have anyone else chime in, I'm finding quite a few "issues" with the assembly 40 years ago so nothing is sacred. If the mount was in backwards that certainly would get rid of the interference, though.
JayJay