babbit tolerance? .000?

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by Jim Brierley

Railcarmover, I'm not sure the rear bearing would run dry, just don't want to chance it. On my insert engine I run a 1-piece Burtz seal, and it stays dry. I also run a babbitted mains engine on the salt using a rope seal, and it drips a little but not much. Ran 167 mph on babbitt in 2013, no problems with the engine, just turbo failure, so no record.

Just wondering about the failure rate with inserts and the rear main,seems starvation would be the cause,compounded by the inserts properties.

peening is done to relieve stress? imagine a properly peened bearing is less prone to crack..

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

To pour mains in a block, and we do only 1 main at a time, that is so you have the time to give the bearing the attention that each one needs. If you do 3 at once, by the time you get to the last one, it can be colder then wanted. Also you have to heat 3 mains to a temperature that is hot enough to pour, but your taking a chance that the newly machined block, could warp.

We cool the bearing shell with water, as babbitt always moves to the colder surface, and we don't have as far the move the babbitt liner.

We use a air hammer to peen, the babbitt.

Babbitt shrinks away from a non tinned surface, and there is no way to stop it. Depending, that distance can be .000-50, to .003-00. If you don"t peen it, the crank will do it for you, and break it, into pieces, especially pushing the flanges, off the ends.

Some people think that the drilled anchor holes in the block shells are what holds the babbitt in tight. Not so, the only job they have, and can do, is keep the bearings from spinning, just like the locking Lip does in a modern bearing.

Cleaning any bearing shell with a wire wheel on a motor, is a joke. It will not remove rust, or carbon, all that it will do is polish the rust, and carbon, nothing sticks to dirt.

Opening the oil holes should be done with small punches, before the final clean up with the drill, because, a punch will swedge, and peen the hole so oil can not get under the babbitt, and it is tight to the bearing shell. Oil is not a good conductor of heat, so oil is not needed, or wanted between the bearing, and block.

Pictures are of a second babbitt job, same motor, that also went bad in less then 100 miles. Same company. These were wire brushed to clean rust, and carbon, you can see what happened. Rear cap and block were not Peened.

Herm.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Pictures are of a second babbitt job, same motor, that also went bad in less then 100 miles. Same company. .

The video showed them dipping the rods to remove the babbit. How much do you want to bet they re-use Babbitt? One more thing they mentioned "lead based babbitt that Ford used" Not true.


Here is some more information on Babbitt;


http://www.fordgarage.com/pages/babbittgrades.htm

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

The video showed them dipping the rods to remove the babbit. How much do you want to bet they re-use Babbitt? One more thing they mentioned "lead based babbitt that Ford used" Not true.


Here is some more information on Babbitt;


http://www.fordgarage.com/pages/babbittgrades.htm

Yes, I Agree Mr. Mike, I caught that also, I just for got about it.

Herm.

[Corley]

Love to see that Hagerty engine torn down after the tow and run-in to inspect what's going on with those bearings. Obviously, this is an area of differing opinions on what is acceptable...

Based on this guy's ability to set timing, there could be more issues.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Corley

Love to see that Hagerty engine torn down after the tow and run-in to inspect what's going on with those bearings. Obviously, this is an area of differing opinions on what is acceptable...

Based on this guy's ability to set timing, there could be more issues.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Good, one , Mr Corley, that one hit my funny bone!

Herm.

[rotorwrench]

He may end up being lucky that it didn't fire off right away but the damage is likely already done. A bearing with no clearance is not a bearing. It's an engine brake. I just wonder where the machine shop that did the bearing work got their information from. A You-Tube video?

[ryanheacox]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

He may end up being lucky that it didn't fire off right away but the damage is likely already done. A bearing with no clearance is not a bearing. It's an engine brake. I just wonder where the machine shop that did the bearing work got their information from. A You-Tube video?

Getting information from some sources today is like being on the receiving end of a 90 year old game of telephone.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by ryanheacox

Getting (ACCURATE) information from some sources today is like being on the receiving end of a 90 year old game of telephone.

I agree, ...and one of those such sources is here!!


.
.
.

[Jim Brierley]

Thanks Herm, and Mike, very interesting!

[Railcarmover]

^^^what he said^^^..

[Mike V. Florida]

Apology.


I jumped to a conclusion about reuse of Babbitt. I have zero proof that they do anything other then use the pot to melt the old rod bearings out.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

Apology.


I jumped to a conclusion about reuse of Babbitt. I have zero proof that they do anything other then use the pot to melt the old rod bearings out.

You also jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"! Ford DID use lead-based Babbitt during the teens & earlier in his engines, however based on what I have seen on factory documents, he NEVER used 'tin-based Babbitt'. If you can prove otherwise on M-Specs, I will retract my statement but my research at the archives (-not based on hearsay) counters what some are saying. While some may consider my statement above as splitting hairs, -IMO it was some of you that started this nonsense first.

To clarify my statement above, it was in the 1830s that a guy named Isaac Babbitt blended alloys to create a poured casting that was suitable for high-load bearings. By the time Ford started producing engines, Babbitt's patents had expired and other companies were manufacturing Casting Alloys too. And, by the time Henry Ford got around to manufacturing the 2nd generation of Model-A, he & his engineers were manufacturing their own blend of casting alloy consisting mostly of Tin, Copper, & Antimony. This was not something that Isaac Babbitt, -nor his company had engineered, nor were manufacturing, ...and my research shows that Mr. Babbitt nor his company had anything to do with supplying Ford the casting alloy used in the Model-A engine. Many people erroneously call the cast bearing material Babbitt however it really is no different than telling someone to blow their nose on a Kleenex, -or telling someone they need to get a Jeep to pull them out. In both scenarios, any manufacturer's Facial Tissue, ...or any 4-wheel drive vehicle can be used with success. So trying to tell someone that Ford only used 'Tin-based Babbitt' is as false as saying Henry Ford never used lead-based alloys in his engines and axles.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

You also jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"! Ford DID use lead-based Babbitt during the teens & earlier in his engines, however based on what I have seen on factory documents, he NEVER used 'tin-based Babbitt'. If you can prove otherwise on M-Specs, I will retract my statement but my research at the archives (-not based on hearsay) counters what some are saying. While some may consider my statement above as splitting hairs, -IMO it was some of you that started this nonsense first.

.

I "jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"!" What did he use? Never mind I don't believe I would get a straight answer.


Let me see, here it is, the definition of Babbitt, "Babbitt metal or bearing metal, is any of several alloys used for the bearing surface in a plain bearing." If Ford did not use an alloy for the bearing surface in a plain bearing what did he use?


I commented on what was in the video! The video about a model A engine stated Ford used lead based Babbitt in the A. You say he did not use Babbitt at all. The video is on Ron's facebook page with NO corrections. That tells me he accepted the video as fact on the content and procedures.


You have comments, make them with Rons Machine shop since he accepted the video as fact.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

MIKE V FLORIDA stated in post #: 83

I "jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"!" What did he use? Never mind I don't believe I would get a straight answer.

Mike, therein lies the root of this thread. Do the research yourself straight from the source. Read the factory M-specs (Ford's written Material Specifications for his departments and from supplying vendors ) Do the research directly from the source, and not from someone's webpage or something you read from here.


Let me see, here it is, the definition of Babbitt, "Babbitt metal or bearing metal, is any of several alloys used for the bearing surface in a plain bearing." If Ford did not use an alloy for the bearing surface in a plain bearing what did he use?

Again Mike, your definition is accurate however Babbitt is a trade name, -and as such it was not a brand name that was used as bearing material in the 1928-31 Ford engines. Don't take my word on this, ...instead, go to the archives and research this for yourself. It plainly states what the contents of his designed bearing alloy is.


I commented on what was in the video! The video about a model A engine stated Ford used lead based Babbitt in the A. You say he did not use Babbitt at all. The video is on Ron's facebook page with NO corrections. That tells me he accepted the video as fact on the content and procedures.

You have comments, make them with Rons Machine shop since he accepted the video as fact.

Mike, you continue to post assumptions based on something you have no knowledge of. Yes, you commented here and publicly on Ron's Facebook wall, however just because they posted a link to their social media page does not mean they accepted the content as 100% accurate.

Instead of you being confrontational on the social media page, why did you not FIRST contact Hagarty for an explanation to their comments? Then afterwards contact Ron or BJ to hear their side first before making assumptions about what they approve or disapprove of. As I stated earlier, none of Ron's employees made that statement publicly on that video, -and for all you know, Damon may have mis-stated what he heard, --or read that from another source outside of Ron's. Again, please consider getting your facts directly from the source instead of making accusations based on other's assumptions or hearsay.

[dumb person]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

You also jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"! Ford DID use lead-based Babbitt during the teens & earlier in his engines, however based on what I have seen on factory documents, he NEVER used 'tin-based Babbitt'. If you can prove otherwise on M-Specs, I will retract my statement but my research at the archives (-not based on hearsay) counters what some are saying. While some may consider my statement above as splitting hairs, -IMO it was some of you that started this nonsense first.

To clarify my statement above, it was in the 1830s that a guy named Isaac Babbitt blended alloys to create a poured casting that was suitable for high-load bearings. By the time Ford started producing engines, Babbitt's patents had expired and other companies were manufacturing Casting Alloys too. And, by the time Henry Ford got around to manufacturing the 2nd generation of Model-A, he & his engineers were manufacturing their own blend of casting alloy consisting mostly of Tin, Copper, & Antimony. This was not something that Isaac Babbitt, -nor his company had engineered, nor were manufacturing, ...and my research shows that Mr. Babbitt nor his company had anything to do with supplying Ford the casting alloy used in the Model-A engine. Many people erroneously call the cast bearing material Babbitt however it really is no different than telling someone to blow their nose on a Kleenex, -or telling someone they need to get a Jeep to pull them out. In both scenarios, any manufacturer's Facial Tissue, ...or any 4-wheel drive vehicle can be used with success. So trying to tell someone that Ford only used 'Tin-based Babbitt' is as false as saying Henry Ford never used lead-based alloys in his engines and axles.

I don't think sane people use lead in engine bearings in this day & age but...
I highlighted where you seem to imply use of lead, but then contradict saying that tin based (babbitt, as i call it. Maybe you call in 'bearing material') was not tin based but the first ingredient you listed was tin.
So for clarity's sake the bearing material should be tin based?

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by dumb person

I don't think sane people use lead in engine bearings in this day & age but...
I highlighted where you seem to imply use of lead, but then contradict saying that tin based (babbitt, as i call it. Maybe you call in 'bearing material') was not tin based but the first ingredient you listed was tin.
So for clarity's sake the bearing material should be tin based?

I think this entire thread boils down to most posters that are commenting are giving opinions based on hearsay -and have not truly researched from the source to know what is factual. Forming opinions solely based off of something that was posted here or on a hobbyists webpage does not always make it factual.

Ford did NOT use Babbitt in his 1928-31 Model-A engines. He manufactured his own Casting Alloy. Babbitt is/was a trade name of a company who provided alloy blends suitable for casting and machining into bearings. The man that invented & patented the process was Isaac Babbitt. His patents had expired some 50+ years prior to Henry ever making his first engine, and by then there were other manufacturers of casting alloys.

As for Tin-based, -yes testing has proven that alloys that are tin-based typically last longer over lead-based alloys in conditions that are subjected to cyclical loads however remember that Mr. Babbitt invented his lead-based alloy for the railroad industry to use as wheel bearings carrying heavy cyclical loads.

So will lead-based alloys work in a internal combustion engine? Sure, ...and it was done for years. Is lead-based alloys the best available in today's engine rebuilds? I don't think so, however there are other areas inside of a Model-A engine that rebuilders today typically overlook. Isn't it funny how rebuilders today point out that lead-based alloy is not the best to use but will use cheap foreign-made cast pistons whereas the better product would be a forged alloy piston? What about those rebuilders who use cast-iron piston rings instead of better quality ring materials? We could go on pointing out items such as piston ring widths, timing gear materials, gaskets, valves, tappets, et/al. I could go on, but that is not what this thread was intended to be about.

[Railcarmover]

Too tight ring gap doesn't care if the engine is warm or cold,it will bind every time it travels the taper of the bore.

Quality babbitted model a engines with splash and gravity fed bearings can handle far more compression pressure and load than Ford designed.

[Railcarmover]

The fact remains,with poured bearings or precision insert bearings the assembler should insure the assembly has proper clearance. My experience with diesel and gas engine assembly,regardless of compression pressure or size of components a properly fit crankshaft to spec spins freely by hand.That is undeniable and anyone who takes part in assembling an engine with the crankshaft 'frozen' by the bearings displays poor workmanship. Any one who provides a service and is involved with a documentation of his services with the results as shown at the minimum failed to protect his interest,at the maximum displayed that he performs shoddy work and doesn't realize it..either way,its an indictment he freely submitted.

[mike657894]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

The fact remains,with poured bearings or precision insert bearings the assembler should insure the assembly has proper clearance. My experience with diesel and gas engine assembly,regardless of compression pressure or size of components a properly fit crankshaft to spec spins freely by hand.That is undeniable and anyone who takes part in assembling an engine with the crankshaft 'frozen' by the bearings displays poor workmanship. Any one who provides a service and is involved with a documentation of his services with the results as shown at the minimum failed to protect his interest,at the maximum displayed that he performs shoddy work and doesn't realize it..either way,its an indictment he freely submitted.

But we know that ford infact did just this. In the haggerty video his crank is not frozen but requires 120ft lbs to turn.



"Ford spun engines in with an electric motor, they used an ammeter to determine the resistance value. Burnishing the mains,allowing the last step of fitting the bearings to the crankshaft itself through rotation."


good enough for 20+ million engine but not good enough for now? This is akin to saying rolling the cylinders is a shit method because the rings of today require a cross hatch. The bearings of today require the .0015. There is no break in for insert bearings there is just wear and failure. perfect or fail. Ford's methods and Ron's methods prove These Old engines do not need perfect to not fail.