To Babbit or Not To Babbit vs Inserted??

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by PC/SR
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.

PC/SR-
X patterns on lower (caps) bearings have a negative effect!
Here is Mahle Clevite engineering data to back it up: LINK
If you look at the graphs on the second page, please be aware that the "oil pressure" the 1st graph refers to is developed pressure within the surface film. It has nothing to do with any pump. Nowhere in the entire tech bulletin does it mention anything about pressurized feed!

Oil is not effectively delivered as a film across a bearing by any sharp edged groove, be it circumferential or X pattern. The oil actually pressurizes itself and rolls into a film at a wedge shaped squish area either at the parting line of inserts or from an area of open clearance at the top of a main bearing. That wedge shape is NOT the sharply defined 1/8" relief you see cut into babbitt or made along the edge of inserts. The wedge that delivers oil to an insert is gently tapered clearance not visible to the eye. It is beyond that machined sharp tapered reservoir most people confuse as the actual oil film delivery 'wedge'. It is NOT present on line-bored babbitt, only on properly shaped and engineered shells that have the correct "crush" to achieve this upon assembly. Engineered insert wedge areas actually self-pressurize the oil into the surface film.

Mark:
I'm pretty sure Bill Stipe can make you a 335. He may just not have one on the shelf. The 335 cam + 1.72" intakes + HC head = very peppy highway motor that will still have idle sound like an "A" (use an Aries muffler) and will still idle/parade nicely.

The downside to your madness: You'll have to give up that Nu-Rex centrifugal advance or re-engineer it. Too much total. DO NOT call me on that issue!!! Does Ken have a distributor machine? I gave mine away when I quit racing/building SBC's. The FS ignitions "Zipper" looks like an A dizzy but you can easily tweak the weights/springs/ initial & total adv. to get the curve you need.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Mark:
I'm pretty sure Bill Stipe can make you a 335. He may just not have one on the shelf. The 335 cam + 1.72" intakes + HC head = very peppy highway motor that will still have idle sound like an "A" (use an Aries muffler) and will still idle/parade nicely.

The downside to your madness: You'll have to give up that Nu-Rex centrifugal advance or re-engineer it.

Mike Got rid of that over a year ago.. Was tired of it and i set my own timing now and like it much better.. Ok will change the head gasket and give Bill a call..Want to ask you about the intakes though.. can you call me or email me direct at [email protected] PLEASE

[George Miller]

[QUOTE=PC/SR;359457]

Originally Posted by MikeK

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.

If I remember correctly chev 6 used a circumferential groove with dippers. They did real well.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

We will try to get on the K.R. Wilson post that didn't work before! Herm.

[columbiA]

To find the leak,why not plug the overflow tube & pressurize the rad with abt 10 psi & with the pan off,you may see where its leaking.With the plugs out you could look in the cyls to see if any water there too.Could even be a crack in the upper part of the valve chamber. As for inserts vs babbitt,After almost 60 years of driving A,s Ive only had one brg failure.I was 30 miles from home when a rod brg suddenly let go.I was able to drive all the way home by useing light throttle & retarding the spark.There was hardly any babbitt left on the rod but the crank was not harmed.As for longevity of babbitt,I put over 75,000 miles on one A and no idea how many miles were on the engine before I got it. On my coupe Ive put 13,000 on it since I rebored it& replaced the valves lifters & timing gears.It is still running the original babbitt & I change the oil every 1,000 miles& dont add between changes.Still useing the original oil slinger.At 74,I dont think I will live long enough to wear it out.I always like to use old babbitt when ever possible,as I think it can be a crap shoot when you get a babbitt job done these days as there are not to many that can do the job properly.

[Earle]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Are you guys distinguishing between insert jobs on both rods and mains vs. on rods only for needing a pressurized system? When we discussed inserts in an earlier thread a while back, I recall many guys not being pressurized when only the rods are inserted and having excellent performance and bearing life. And the tipping point for needing pressurization was when the mains are inserted along with the rods.

I just spent the big bucks getting AER inserted-rods installed by Schwalms. I pressed Ora hard on the need for pressurization because I was not about to spend that kind of money and have the inserts fail for lack of pressurization - especially when they fail so catastrophically. He maintains his very-experienced position that pressure is not needed when only the rods are inserted and the mains remain babbitted.

The hobby as a whole now seems to have accumulated a lot of experience with this configuration and Ora has done many engines this way with zero problems. So I took the leap of well-informed faith. I saw Kohnke's photos showing the results of dirt contamination and am doubly glad I have always run a full-flow oil filter. - Plus a good hi-volume air filter on the carb. (Road dust is NOT our friend.)

Kohnke: Curious: How did that much "dirt" (what kind?) get into that engine in the first place?

'Got about 3000 miles on the rod inserts so far in all kinds of operating conditions (except racing and mountain climbing!) and the old girl is as happy as can be. The car's doing really well too! (that was a joke...). I use Shell Rotella 15W40 motor oil with 500-mile changes for a belt-and-suspenders approach to babying my engine.

And always having gone only to Schwalms for all my engine and drive train work over the years is the rest of my "security blanket."

[sphanna]

I have just tonight installed AER inserted rods in my B engine. I plastigaged them and they all checked out at .0015 clearance. I was very happy to see this. This is so much easier to work with than the babbitt that was failing one at a time. I lost # 4 babbit and had it redone with Ron's Machine shop and he did a very good job. Then Babbitt rod # 3 failed. Had to tear down again. This is when I decided to go to inserts. AER also rebuilt an A engine for me about a year ago with inserts. This is a very smooth running engine and I am very pleased with it.
Now, I have a question> If the clearance is the same .0015 as the babbitt clearance, why would there be a greater need for pressurized oil system? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, much,

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Kohnke: Curious: How did that much "dirt" (what kind?) get into that engine in the first place?

I don't know Earle, I will call the machine shop tomorrow that sent me the pictures, and post a reply. Herm

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Kohnke: Curious: How did that much "dirt" (what kind?) get into that engine in the first place?

I don't know Earle, I will call the machine shop tomorrow that sent me the pictures, and post a reply. Herm

Earle, I called the Machine today, and they said the motor still had glass beads, and J.B. Weld in it.

George, the rods were bored for inserts, and then the rods were welded on the sides, and that distorted the rods for the inserts!

Also the align bore for the main inserts was off.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Earle, I called the Machine today, and they said the motor still had class beads, and J.B. Weld in it.

George, the rods were bored for inserts, and then the rods were welded on the sides, and that distorted the rods for the inserts!

Also the align bore for the main inserts was off.

It looked like a very poor job
Thanks Herm

[sphanna]

Re: To Babbit or Not To Babbit vs Inserted??
I have just tonight installed AER inserted rods in my B engine. I plastigaged them and they all checked out at .0015 clearance. I was very happy to see this. This is so much easier to work with than the babbitt that was failing one at a time. I lost # 4 babbit and had it redone with Ron's Machine shop and he did a very good job. Then Babbitt rod # 3 failed. Had to tear down again. This is when I decided to go to inserts. AER also rebuilt an A engine for me about a year ago with inserts. This is a very smooth running engine and I am very pleased with it.
Now, I have a question> If the clearance is the same .0015 as the babbitt clearance, why would there be a greater need for pressurized oil system? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, much,

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

((Quote))Aside from Herm's trashed insert photos, how many other insert bearing failures have you seen? (( End Quote))

Well Mike, I think the reason for that is that most of the babbitted engines that are giving up are 80 plus years old, the the newer rebuilds with bad babbitt done by want-a-bee's can hardly Count.

My sencond thought on that is, out of all the Model A Motors in the U.S., I really doubt if inserted motors are higher than 2 Percent, Total, of babbitt engines!

((Quote)) Fordbarn is absolutely loaded with babbitt failure stories and pictures. (( End Quote))

Yes they Mike, and it was all from S&%$ work, I fail to see the Relevancy!

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

PC/SR-
X patterns on lower (caps) bearings have a negative effect!
Here is Mahle Clevite engineering data to back it up: LINK
If you look at the graphs on the second page, please be aware that the "oil pressure" the 1st graph refers to is developed pressure within the surface film. It has nothing to do with any pump. Nowhere in the entire tech bulletin does it mention anything about pressurized feed!


Mike, you are smoking your socks on this one!

If you can't tell Clevite is talking about a Pressure bearing, write Pressure system on the article so you will know the next time. The Article assumes the person reading it would know that thin wall inserts have been made now for at least 60 Plus Years, why would they talk about something irrelevant?




P.C.'s Quote you used, Listen to him, and learn! Babbitt splash bearings, and Babbitt Pressure Bearings, compared to modern inserts with pressure, have nothing to do with each other.


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 also have a picture to prove P.C.'s Point.

No. 1 Picture, proves P. C.'s point, and this is not the only one you will see! You can see where the oil, ( Pressure Fed) in the first part of the bearing, and did not reach the other side of the bearing very good, just as P. C. pointed out.

No. 2 Picture shows the only rod I have seen like this, out of A 1911 Aplex two cycle car. It is oil fed from thr crank, smooth bearing in the Rod, and X groove in the cap which is also a dipper cap, and it is very effective for this engine.

No. 3 & 4 Picture's show no oil grooves in a 1927 Studabaker, pressure fed, not needing any grooves, as it is a narrow bearing. Right P.C.

No. 5 & 6 Pictures show again narrow 1936 Buick rods, no grooves, and wide mains, where groove are needed. Again, pressure fed bearings, Mains Have full circle in some halfs, and blind end groves in some of ther mates.

No. 7 & 8 Pictures, show The 1937 to 1953 Chevy Rod that George talked about. The Rod has a full circle oil Groove, and 2 oil wells, and 1 oil Pocket. Those 216's Motors, were very good engins.

Thanks Herm.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Mike, you are smoking your socks on this one!

If you can't tell Clevite is talking about a Pressure bearing, write Pressure system on the article so you will know the next time. The Article assumes the person reading it would know that thin wall inserts have been made now for at least 60 Plus Years, why would they talk about something irrelevant?

P.C.'s Quote you used, Listen to him, and learn! Babbitt splash bearings, and Babbitt Pressure Bearings, compared to modern inserts with pressure, have nothing to do with each other.
. . .
I also have a picture to prove P.C.'s Point.

No. 1 Picture, proves P. C.'s point, and this is not the only one you will see! You can see where the oil, ( Pressure Fed) in the first part of the bearing, and did not reach the other side of the bearing very good, just as P. C. pointed out.

Thanks Herm.

Nothing smoking other than closed minds. YOU need to re-read it. Plain and simple, sharp edged grooves do not help in a bearing cap. Pressure feed or not, they only serve to reduce the effective available oil film.

Picture 1 does NOT prove P.C.'s point, it only shows a galled area where the oil did not get. That type of bearing failure is commonly called a "hot short" and obviously caused by lack of oil. Pressure feed has nothing to do with and should not be expected to magically push oil sideways across a tiny clearance gap. A traditional X would have made some oil film, saving this low performance rod bearing, but much less film than if the bearing surface was fed (independent of pressure) from a ramp area across both parting lines connected directly to the oil supply. That bearing shell/lining has NO ramp area, only a narrow sharp edged angle cut by the parting that scrapes oil off.

Even poured babbitt splash & gravity bearings could be made to work without X grooves if a tapered transition from the parting was polished into the surface, transforming it from round to elliptical like a modern insert with proper 'crush'.

Van-der-Waals-London forces serve to pull in and pressurize the oil film beyond the level of the strongest hydraulic pump with a ramp area that properly matches the bearing diameter, clearances, and oil characteristics. All this with no 'pressure' feed. But you DO need feed. Gravity or splash will do, to keep the angle cut reservoir that feeds the ramp area full. The pressure developed by a ramp profile at 1000 rpm can exceed one hundred million pascals. In English, that's like having a 15,000 psi pump feed the oil.

I have nothing against poured babbitt, it works fine IF done properly, and right now you're the guy to do it right, albiet 'old-skool'. It's just that X grooves in a circular bearing, poured or insert, are less effective than an eliptical ramp profile, whether it be polished into a poured bearing or formed by shell 'crush'.

[jrelliott]

I have one of roadster31's rebabbited engines. Know from the class he gave to Lady Slipper A's on how to do babbiting, it was done correctly. If you get someone who knows what they are doing babbit will last. My engine is one of the sweetest running with no vibrations. JMHO.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by jrelliott

I have one of roadster31's rebabbited engines. Know from the class he gave to Lady Slipper A's on how to do babbiting, it was done correctly. If you get someone who knows what they are doing babbit will last. My engine is one of the sweetest running with no vibrations. JMHO.

Yes it will I had a 30 town sedan with 85,000 miles on the original Babbitt.

[PC/SR]

Mike: Like Herm, I read your reference as referring to modern, pressurized bearings. Those babbitt Chevys had 1.033" wide rods, compared to the 1.625" wide MOdel A rod bearings and even wider mains. It is the extraordinary width of the A bearings compared to modern bearing that make the unpressurized circumferential groove unsuitable for the A.

As an aside on those great old babbitt Chevys, my Dad gave me his '53 Chev when I was about 17. It had a persistent knock in #2 rod that I never could get rid of for long. Eventually the shims were all gone but I kept driving it. One day at about 60 mph the crankshaft on that sucker broke in two just behind #2. Pop said there was no warranty. However, I had a service station job at the time and he did co-sign for a really cool '55 Merc Montclair hardtop. Dual Smitty's, best sounding pipes in town. I concede, it had pressure, circumferential, inserts. :-)

[Greg Jones]

Glass beads and JB Weld still inside the engine? Wow I would think under those conditions any type of bearing would be damaged insert or babbitt. Maybe one quicker than the other, but still....whatever happened to "cleanliness is next to Godliness" during engine assembly?

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Greg Jones

Glass beads and JB Weld still inside the engine? Wow I would think under those conditions any type of bearing would be damaged insert or babbitt. Maybe one quicker than the other, but still....whatever happened to "cleanliness is next to Godliness" during engine assembly?

Right on, Greg

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Nothing smoking other than closed minds. YOU need to re-read it. Plain and simple, sharp edged grooves do not help in a bearing cap. Pressure feed or not, they only serve to reduce the effective available oil film.

Your right, on a modern engine.



Picture 1 does NOT prove P.C.'s point, it only shows a galled area where the oil did not get. That type of bearing failure is commonly called a "hot short" and obviously caused by lack of oil. Pressure feed has nothing to do with and should not be expected to magically push oil sideways across a tiny clearance gap.


Darn, Mike, Is that not what P. C. said, and I put by the Picture No. 1, and it is a Main bearing by the way, and Pressure fed must of had something to do with it, because that is how it gets Oiled


A traditional X would have made some oil film, saving this low performance rod bearing, but much less film than if the bearing surface was fed (independent of pressure) from a ramp area across both parting lines connected directly to the oil supply. That bearing shell/lining has NO ramp area, only a narrow sharp edged angle cut by the parting that scrapes oil off


No bearing like that have I ever seen with oil Pressure ever used an X groove for oil, again I would say Irrelevant! The Parting lines are smooth when you align bore, there is no edge to stick out, and this is one of many alike bearings.


one hundred million pascals!

Ge's Mike, that brings back a lot of memories, and I don't know if it was really a (Hundred Million Pascals or Not) ( you Really couldn't get a good count, as they seemed to move faster then the eye, and maybe like you said, can't be seen with the Eye, it sure did seem like it!. Any way, Dad got a 1/2 Pint of Kerosene, in which I told him, that if he wanted to cover the whole area, that he would need a Gallon, but he didn't buy it! Any way, I thought this is working good, as you could see, what I thought was those Pesky little Pascals, screaming the tops of there little heads off, until I realized the screaming was coming from me. It did do its job, but the folks couldn't get me out of the cow tank, for 2 days! Cows didn't like it either, as it left an Oil Slick!



A Pascal Survivor. Herm.