To Babbit or Not To Babbit vs Inserted??

[hardtimes]

Herm,
Nice pics, thanks for sharing! Whew...I'm not an engine builder, but know that that ain't right (bearings installed that way). What a waste of time/money,eh.
Q- I've heard/read here where guys say that they install/run inserts WITHOUT full pressure and without negative results.....if the inserts are 'properly' installed and run without pressure and filter...in your professional opinion , can that be true?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Herm,
Nice pics, thanks for sharing! Whew...I'm not an engine builder, but know that that ain't right (bearings installed that way). What a waste of time/money,eh.
Q- I've heard/read here where guys say that they install/run inserts WITHOUT full pressure and without negative results.....if the inserts are 'properly' installed and run without pressure and filter...in your professional opinion , can that be true?

A lot of engine builders use inserts without pressure. They still use the dipper splash system, and stock oil pump. Im getting a motor rebuilt right now by James Taylor in south texas. He uses A.E.R bearings and rods (still dipper rods) but he does pressurize the center main and use a high pressure oil pump. But the engine in our 4 door was built by rich at AER and it has a stock oil pump, no pressurized center main, and it still runs and sounds fine several thousands of miles later.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Herm,
Nice pics, thanks for sharing! Whew...I'm not an engine builder, but know that that ain't right (bearings installed that way). What a waste of time/money,eh.
Q- I've heard/read here where guys say that they install/run inserts WITHOUT full pressure and without negative results.....if the inserts are 'properly' installed and run without pressure and filter...in your professional opinion , can that be true?

I would think so, but as we don't do that, I only go by what other builders say. It always comes down to how good your Doctor is! Herm.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

WOW Herm. Holy cow!!

Those bearings look like they have over 100,000 miles plus of hard use, not 100 miles.

Thanks for the post. It occurs to me with your pics that sometimes there is no 'best way' or 'this way is better than original'.

So does the new Burlington crankshaft like Babbitt OK, or do you have to go inserts with this crank?? Sorry if this sounds dumb I'm not a machinist only got the interest as they say......

Jeff, any crank would be OK, but remember that there was dirt that went through the bearing, and while babbitt, I beleave, would have taken it better, it was just a matter of time. Herm.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

AHH... OK.

I was going by memory, thought you guys did a complete re-build. Looked pretty good from the posts as I recall.

From reading all of the posts on this subject, it seems like it would be hard to decide exactly which way to go. If you did a lot of long distance touring, inserts? If you are like me and put less than 400-500 miles a year on a Model A, original babbitt?
Hope Mark finds his late '31 block.

PART 2 of the Situation
I drive about 5000+ Miles a year as mentioned.
Brent.. I mean i want to make an outright purchase of an engine, NOT rebuild my 29 engine that i presently have.
The reason i am in this position is this is what i have found in the oil return pipe. Pic 1 and 2 from the left.

Now when this was found I first added a bottle of the powdered BARRS to seal the head gasket, that helped,. Then drained the oil, added motor flush 4 quarts of oil, and blew out the pan with air pressure. Drove yesterday for about 40 minutes and came home.. Checked all and THIS IS WHAT I FOUND. Pics 3 and 4,.
Actually a white foamy build up in the oil pipe..
With that said and tested, my opinion is that i might have a cracked block.. this is the reason for the engine and NOT A rebuild...Your opinions please.

[PC/SR]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Herm: Were those bearings pressurized? Because without pressure they are not going to be adequately lubricated.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by PC/SR

Herm: Were those bearings pressurized? Because without pressure they are not going to be adequately lubricated.

No Mr. P. C., they were not under Pressure. Herm.

[sphanna]

I am having a heck of a time posting. Posted and it did not show. Posted again and then both post showed up. I deleted second post because first one showed up. Now lost both posts again Frustration. I would like to know why it is important to pressurize with inserts when .0015 clearance is used for both babbitt and inserts. Appreciate any help on this.

[sphanna]

Originally Posted by PC/SR

Herm: Were those bearings pressurized? Because without pressure they are not going to be adequately lubricated.

Why would inserts require pressure oil system any more than Babbitt if the clearancees are the same .0015? I would appreciate learning the answer. THX

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by sphanna

Why would inserts require pressure oil system any more than Babbitt if the clearancees are the same .0015? I would appreciate learning the answer. THX

They absolutely DO NOT. Anyone who thinks so does not understand the difference between circular machined cast babbitt and the elliptical ramp profile of insert technology. Unlike poured and line bored babbitt, inserts DO NOT present a round hole for the journal to ride in.

The circumferential groove on an insert has NOTHING to do with distributing oil across the width of the bearing. It's function is to channel oil to the parting line.

At the parting line an insert has several thousanths more clearance between the journal and the bearing surface than a circular machined bearing. Still the same 0.0015 in the middle as cast babbitt, but much more at the parting. That's part of the elliptical ramp profile created as the two shells properly 'crush' into position. The oil flows, with no need for pressure other than gravity (mains) or impulse (splash, a few psi at idle with rod dippers) to a wedge shaped trough across 2/3 or more of the width at the parting. Cast babbitt generally has this trough cut in too. This is a reservoir.

In an insert the reservoir across the parting is adjacent to what is called the 'ramp area'. The open ramp area (several thousanths), not present on cast & bored babbitt, traverses the entire width, beyond the ends of that reservoir. That is where the oil is evenly distributed, with no need for a pump, across the entire width of the bearing. The circumferential groove has nothing to do with spreading oil across the width!

Rotational force from the journal strongly compresses the oil molecules toward the apogee of the bearing because of the exaggerated elliptical 'ramp'. If you want to understand those forces, look up and study: London dispersion force, quantum theory of dispersion, and Van-der-waals forces. A running elliptical insert rides up and runs on a much thicker oil film than a circular cast bearing. That is one of several reasons you get 50,000+ miles on inserts with only 0.001 babbitt and have virtually no wear, eliminating the need for shim adjustment. As I stated in a post above, if you do the math those forces provide an extreme self-pressurization of the oil at running speed, creating the much thicker film than you get from the old scrape and smear oil distribution of circular machined and spiral grooved cast babbitt.

So why are modern engines pressurized? The internal friction of dragging oil molecules across each other creates heat. As you increase linear speed (a function of RPM and journal diameter, BOTH larger in modern engines) the rate of heat production increases. At some point the base metal cannot conduct that heat away fast enough to keep the bearing surface temperature lower than the vaporization temperature of the oil. To exacerbate the problem, the shorter the oil HC chains (lighter weight oil) the lower the vapor point.

Modern engines use light weight oils because it takes less horsepower to bulk move them. One trip down the interstate on-ramp with bearings having several times the linear surface velocity of an "A" would bring the light oil in the bearings to vapor, which has near zero lube properties and will not support the journal up off the bearing material.

Theoretically, you only need one drop of oil in a bearing, it will recirculate forever. But it will also get hot. In an "A" the oil leakage out the sides (cast or inserts) under gravity or splash feed is more than adequate to keep the oil below vaporization. In a modern engine you also need to physically force it through at a faster rate to effect sufficient cooling. THIS is where the circumferential groove, necessary only in the feed half of the bearing, comes into play. In a pressure app, it permits much of the feed oil to push sideways and out, cooling the bearing surface. That heat problem is also why you find oil coolers on trucks and race cars.

ANY application that will run cast babbitt without pressure oil feed will also run inserts without pressure feed. Of course, ANY bearing job that is improperly done, cast or insert, will fail.

With inserts, it is CRITICAL to line bore the shell holes the proper size to effect shell crush. 0.002 too large will RUIN the block for inserts. The shells will not crush into the proper elliptical ramp profile and will be round like cast babbitt. As shade tree rebuilders quit babbitt and start using inserts, failures will begin to appear with increasing frequency. Why? Those sloppy, flexy, flimsy boring bar jigs that were fine for soft babbitt will be adapted to cut the insert bores, INACCURATELY. Very close is good enough for cast babbitt, you play with the shims. "Close" will ruin a block bored for inserts. If a rebuilder's line boring setup and technique/skill can't hold a couple tenths tolerance, walk away.

If all this scares you and you want cast babbitt, I have a whole string of Q's for the babbitteer (is that a word??) If you want to read some of what I know about babbitt, read my posts #2 & #12 in this thread: LINK The Q's are in #12. Done properly, cast babbitt is just fine in an "A".

[Rex_A_Lott]

Thanks MikeK. That was a lot to digest at 5am, before I'd had my first pot of coffee...I had to go back and re-read it, and its still mostly over my head, but it gives some things to think about.

[msmaron]

Ok all back to my situation if you please, take a look at the pics....thanks again
mark

[MALAK]

Originally Posted by msmaron

Ok all back to my situation if you please, take a look at the pics....thanks again
mark

I wouldn't drive it much like that. That GOO may feel oily but it doesn't have very good lubricating properties. I'd pull the head and see what's going on. You might just have a blown head gasket. I changed a head gasket on a friends T-Bird recently that was running fine but had just enough of a leak to not hydraulic the cylinder but the watery blow-by into the crankcase was enough to cause that frothy goo. It'll wipe the bearings out in a hurry if you drive it like that.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

[QUOTE=msmaron;359131]Ok all back to my situation if you please, take a look at the pics....thanks again
mark[/QUOTE)

Mark is right, water an oil is white. I don't know if you dropped the oil yet, but when you do, let the oil set over night, and screw the drain plug out slow, and keep holding it to the pan, and see how much water seeps out first, as it will all be on the bottom. Like the boys said, pull the head, and watch the gasket for a breach in the gasket seal, and clean it up good, use a shop Vac. to get all the crumbs, and check for cracks. Let us know what you found, and pictures, and we will guess from there. thanks, Herm.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Mark,
You've managed to mix two questions into one thread. 1) Another engine and 2) Is my block cracked?

I'll start with the second Q. first- I think you are jumping to a panic driven conclusion. By the sight of all the antifreeze slobber by the edge of the headgasket in one of your pix, gasket failure is 90% likely the cause. Bite the bullet and concede you need to give up driving it for a couple weeks. Take it to Ken E.'s where you can pull the head, clean stuff up, and check for flat gasket surfaces and cracks.

OK Mike, No panic at all, wanted to get an engine that is a late 31 all done, and NOT rebuild the one that is in there now. BUT with what you say I will take it to Kens and pull the head, change the gasket and take that step first, IF it does correct it, it give me the time i need to find another engine.... What is your feeling on the inserted engine
Thanks for your reply and talk real soon..

Now Q.1- Having a 'spare' running A engine is always nice, even if you do not have immediate need. It gets you back up and running while your 'other' is lounging for weeks (months?) at a re-builder.

If the JS ever evolve to the point somebody is stickin a proctoscope up your engine orifices your rebuild decisions may sway. 'Till then, you'll definitely enjoy having more than 40 horses to comfortably trek Woodstock to Woodfield traffic on a daily basis. Skip the Stipe 330. Try the 340 and 1.720 intakes with a HC head. Bill once stocked a 335 which I ran 'till I siezed up a piston that was fitted too tight (not by me!!) many years ago. That was a nice cam.

Are you saying that if Bill does have the355 i should go with that and the HC Head with a counter balanced Crank??

[QUOTE=Kohnke Rebabbitting;359238]

Originally Posted by msmaron

water an oil is white.

I wouldn't drive it much like that. That GOO may feel oily but it doesn't have very good lubricating properties. I'd pull the head and see what's going on. You might just have a blown head gasket.

YES lets hope that is all it is, still want a new engine in their that is for my car...But i will keep you posted on it all!
Thanks again

[peters180a/170b]

All i am going to say as i read all the post on here is [you can't make this shit up] .I am very great full of all the engine builders here with your input. Tells me i don't know jack shit... I took the easy way out.. Told the engine builder in P.A. i wanted inserts and a complete rebuild engine with all the upgrades and walked away ... Boy thanks to you guys i know somewhat what went on rebuilding my engine. 3 years and not yet 100 miles on the car....l.o.l. trailer Queen for another year.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

((Quote))The second side of this is how the babbitt is poured. Is it burnished during the rebuild? I know there are folks that disagree with this task however it speaks of this operation at the factory and suggests that this was to be done by the rebuilder, thus I feel it is an important step in longetivity. If the crankshaft is undersized, the poured babbitt is thicker. If a large stack of shims is placed under the cap, then the babbitt is thicker by even more so. This is not good because the cap can walk and the soft metal (babbitt) is easily repositioned. If either one of these happens, then the effective life is shortened. Also, much depends on how the crankshaft has been machined. Inserts can mask a poorly machined crankshaft better than thick babbitt can. ((End Quote))

Brent, this whole Paragraph of yours is misinformation, and has nothing to do with Reality, and as long people keep putting it out there, I will keep contradicting with the truth!

First of all, trying to Burnish bearings, is about the worst thing you can to to a bearing. The process has nothing to do with your bearing alignment, it is all to do with wearing NEW bearings out through ignorance.

((Quote))this operation at the factory and suggests that this was to be done by the rebuilder (( End Quote))

This Quote of is also Misinformation, K.R. Wilson started making tools Ford in 1916 in the form of a Model T Transmission bushing reaming Jig. Shortly after that, he made all Fords rebuilding tool. I will let you read what he says on Burnishing , or in his words what they used to be called BURNING in, and for GOOD REASON!

The next thing, thickness of babbitt, and thickness of shims have nothing to do with any thing, except for what any given bearing needs, to rebuild it. To say thick babbitt, or thick shims are a weak spot for any bearing longetivity, that Idea, is plain ignorance.


Inserts can mask a poorly machined crankshaft better than thick babbitt can. ((End Quote))

Wow, where do you get these Idea's

Now for the K. R. Wilson coments!

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Well I am taking another try, to get the wilson reading on!

[MikeK]

Mark,
You've managed to mix two questions into one thread. 1) Another engine and 2) Is my block cracked?

I'll start with the second Q. first- I think you are jumping to a panic driven conclusion. By the sight of all the antifreeze slobber by the edge of the headgasket in one of your pix, gasket failure is 90% likely the cause. Bite the bullet and concede you need to give up driving it for a couple weeks. Take it to Ken E.'s where you can pull the head, clean stuff up, and check for flat gasket surfaces and cracks.

Now Q.1- Having a 'spare' running A engine is always nice, even if you do not have immediate need. It gets you back up and running while your 'other' is lounging for weeks (months?) at a rebuilder.

My 2c- I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the misdirected thinking that inserts need a pressurized supply for lube, or the thinking that the oil will only travel half way across the inserts. The primary function of oil pressure is COOLING the inserts. Unless something is seriously wrong, you'll never produce enough oil film loading to generate heat faster than it can conduct through the shells into the block or rods. An A is closer to a lawnmower than a Shelby Cobra.

Aside from Herm's trashed insert photos, how many other insert bearing failures have you seen? Fordbarn is absolutely loaded with babbitt failure stories and pictures. What is to be gleaned from Herm's post is the absolute need for cleanliness in a rebuild, and also the need for an oil filter during the first 1000 break-in miles. Keep in mind Brent's comment that rear main babbitt adjustment ain't easy with a weighted crank. That clearance maintenance is crucial to getting 50K on it. Inserts just need clean oil to go the distance.

If the JS ever evolve to the point somebody is stickin a proctoscope up your engine orifices your rebuild decisions may sway. 'Till then, you'll definitely enjoy having more than 40 horses to comfortably trek Woodstock to Woodfield traffic on a daily basis. Skip the Stipe 330. Try the 340 and 1.720 intakes with a HC head. Bill once stocked a 335 which I ran 'till I siezed up a piston that was fitted too tight (not by me!!) many years ago. That was a nice cam.

[PC/SR]

[QUOTE=MikeK;359262]Mark,

My 2c- I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the misdirected thinking that inserts need a pressurized supply for lube, or the thinking that the oil will only travel half way across the inserts. The primary function of oil pressure is COOLING the inserts. Unless something is seriously wrong, you'll never produce enough oil film loading to generate heat faster than it can conduct through the shells into the block or rods. An A is closer to a lawnmower than a Shelby Cobra.

Circulating oil does cool any bearing, insert or not. But oil's primary purpose is to provide a film to separate the metals so as to reduce friction and heat. The logic of the quote would suggest that no oil is needed at all on a lawnmower or Model A engine.
The problem is not inserts as such, but the circumferential groove. Henry's engineers were not dummies and they did not use circumferential grooves in their unpressurized systems for a reason. They only began the circumferential groove when they began pressure oil.
An unpressuized single circumferential groove simply does not as effectively supply oil across the entire bearing, as the X and longitudinal grooves of the original design do. It is not a coincidence that all modern circumferential grooves are pressurized, and so far as I can find, circumferential grooves "back in the day" were also pressurized.
I would have no problem with unpressurized inserts if the grooves followed the original design.I hope the insert makers will check the science and start putting the X grooves (and parting line reliefs) in unpressurized inserts. Herm has said he thinks they do not because they lack the tools to do so. Maybe that's it. However, the babbit guy I now use made his own tools for making X grooves and he works out of his garage. It would seem like manufacturers would have the resources to make the tools necessary to replicate Ford's design. Maybe just copy the KR Wilson tool, which is a simple design.
That's my 2c.
PS: I got interested in this subject after a 200 mile bearing failure and on teardown found circumferential grooves and no parting line relief. The babbit was otherwise fine. No cracks, flaking, etc. Just excessive wear. That should be added to the body of experience being considered here.