Quote:
Originally Posted by chrs1961815
I do need to bring out the micrometers and do some measuring. Discovered the bearings are .030, and this is on new AER rods.
I have not talked to the shop yet. I want to try and solve this on my own, but it is looking like maybe not. I have some shims coming on the way as an option.
|
Guys: Look at his post above. He states he is using AER (Antique Engine Rebuilding) rods. If these rods and inserts were purchased within the last 8 years, the inserts are not tri-metal. They consist of a steel shell with bearing grade aluminum applied. The aluminum is quite thick when compared to the last layer of a typical tri-metal bearing.
The rod bolt spec for torque on an AER rod is 35#. I recall from his earlier post that he was torquing to 45#. (50# in one case.) If he is torquing to 45#, he could be twisting the cap and binding the bearing... "More" is not "better" when torquing to a manufacturer's spec.
I have used lots of the rods and inserts from AER and they have all been consistent in sizing. ("Lots" equals over 180 sets...that's over 720 rods and insert shells)
Given he changed a loose rod to a different journal and it corrected the problem...
either his method of assembly has changed or the diameter of the rod journals vary. Or am I missing something here? I still suspect the rod journal diameter is not consistent.
Follow-up:
I just saw his follow-up posted while I was typing this. He had the rod caps interchanged. Problem solved. Good! But...I still suspect the rod journal diameter is not consistent.
Good Day!