Snyder's: New insert connecting rods

[James Rogers]

Marco, on the cranks you measured, did you use the crank specifically ground for inserts? This would make a difference because that crank is ground only for inserts and is .001 smaller than the factory standard one Chris sells which is used for babbitt. Mike is correct with his comment if using the insert crank with inserts as opposed to the babbitt crank with babbitt. The confusion came when he put the word STD. in his post. He is alluding to STD for size with inserts not babbitt.

[modelAtony]

RUSTY. you don't need pressure to run inserted engine. Regular A oil system is fine.

[BCCHOPIT]

Originally Posted by SteveB31

Keep in mind where the Snyders rods are made.

Where are they made?
My vote is for the one made in the USA

[Dave in MN]

Originally Posted by MikeK

I'll take a pass and stick with AER rods for several reasons:

(Mikes first 4 reasons were removed to save space...see them in his previous post. Dave in MN)
5. I don't want to be the guinea pig.

Thanks for your comments Mike...all valid points!

But I am willing to be the guinea pig! I am moving to phase two of a test engine I built last year and I have the opportunity to test the rods in an engine I have control over. In my test engine, I am upgrading to a Burlington crankshaft from a counterweighted standard crank. I will be adding additional carburetion and a high flow Aries muffler. I will install the Snyder rods in this test engine and place it in my driver to run this summer. I should accumulate over 5000 miles with the trips we have planned. I will then remove the engine and disassemble it to verify clearances and surfaces.
I already know AER makes an excellent rod and insert bearing. If the oil clearance between the journal and the insert is held close to .00175", there are no problems.
I have used about 60 sets over the past 4 years and have complete faith in the AER rod. I know this discussion is about quality but value also enters into the equation for me. The cost of the Snyder rod set is about $170.00 less than the AER rod set. If they provide good/equal service and cost less, my customers may prefer to save the $170.00 in the cost of their engine build. I need to be ready to use the Snyder rod set if a customer requests it. I don’t want to test these rods in a customer’s engine but I will in my own. Trying them is the only way I will know if they are as good as the Snyder Press Release claims.
Good Day!
Dave in MN
www.durableperformance.net

[Chris in CT]

Hi Guys, Just a quick note on the Burlington Crankshaft. The rod pins are 0.002 smaller than the fractional one-and-a-half inches. The mains are 0.002 smaller than the fractional one-and-five-eighths inches. This conforms to the original factory prints for the Ford A crankshaft. Yes, the crank was intended for an original babbitt-type installation in the A block.
Sometime ago, Rich Falluca at AER manufactured some .002 (yes, with clearances!) oversized inserts specifically to be used with insert installations of the BC. These inserts have turned out to work very well with BC equipped engines! Please note that you will detect some variations in the "tens" column on these measurements, but all will be within original factory specs as described in the original prints.
Thanks for your continuing attention and comments!

Chris

-----------------------------------------------

www.burlingtoncrankshaft.com

[Earle]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Following up on Rusty Homestead's comment: I too would like to hear the expert commentary here on the need (or not) for a pressurized system if you run inserts. Schwalm's installed inserts in my rods last year after the 25-year-old babbitts (originally done by Bud Schwalm) badly cracked, delaminated and fell apart. My mains were still in great shape. So, Ora offered the option of inserts (mfg'd by AER).

I took a chance based on Ora's knowledge and trouble-free experience with them and got the all-new AER rods with inserts. Couple thousand miles on them so far with zero problems. We'll see in the long-haul.

I asked Ora about the the need to now pressurize my system and he said not necessary for rods only ("Unless I planned to use the engine exceptionally hard as in racing, hill-climbing, etc."). If I had the mains inserted then pressurization would be highly recommended. His typical rods-only insert customers do not go to pressurization and do very well with very long life on the rod inserts. And they are comparatively "easy" to replace if you're lucky enough to catch them before they sieze and spin upon failure. This was my biggest fear (besides the cost!) about the inserts. They don't give you a "pre-siezure/spin" audible warning like my failed rod babbits did. Then you'll need a re-worked/replaced crank. Ya don't get somethin' for nothin'.

Any thoughts here about the pressurization question? - with detailed rationale?
Thanks

Earle

[Marco Tahtaras]

Originally Posted by James Rogers

Marco, on the cranks you measured, did you use the crank specifically ground for inserts? This would make a difference because that crank is ground only for inserts and is .001 smaller than the factory standard one Chris sells which is used for babbitt. Mike is correct with his comment if using the insert crank with inserts as opposed to the babbitt crank with babbitt. The confusion came when he put the word STD. in his post. He is alluding to STD for size with inserts not babbitt.

I looked at Chris' web site and only see one version available. I'm finding all this interesting. For example I looked at Snyders and found the following description for inserts:

"If you are running one of the new A-6303 Burlington counterbalanced crankshafts, you will need to use these A-6331-002 bearings."

Part Number - A-6331-002
Specifics - .002 under sized - 1928-31
Price - $90.00 / set

So it's becoming quite apparent that folks don't understand that the early Fords had the bearings done at the nominal size. The "clearance" was provided by the journal dimension. SO if the inserts were made for a Model A how can they call them undersized? If they made them any larger you would have to build up the journals on a NOS crankshaft!!!

[PC/SR]

Regarding the pressurization question raised by Earle, the circumferential groove and partial parting line relief on the inserts shown here is substantially different than the stock, unpressurized, rod bearings.

The stock rods had X grooves across the rod and cap, with a V groove across the entire rod at the parting line relief and continuing across the thrust face. These carry oil across the entire bearing. There is also a "faired out" scoop at the oil inlet dipper hole that directs oil to the center of the bearing rather than around the entire bearing which the single circumferential groove does. The stock grooves will spread the oil across the entire bearing and allows seepage across the thrust face.

As a general proposition, the circumferential groove is for use in pressurized systems because unpressurized oil will only seep about 1/2 inch from the groove, about one inch total, less than the 1 5/8 inch width of the A rod journal. This may help explain the uneven wear and ring that Eystein experienced. The parting line relief in the inserts shown here may alleviate that problem, and perhaps Eystein could tell us if his inserts had that parting line relief. If not, it is likely that there was inadequate lubrication on the sides of the journal removed from the circumferential groove.

Another question I have about the single circumferential groove is that the pressure generated when the dipper hits the oil in the tray (about 20-30 lbs at speed) is immediately lost by escape through the holes in the rod big end that spurts oil upward into the cylinder area, and is asserted by Murray Fahnestock to collect additional oil from the mist on the upward stroke. Fahnestock was close to Ford, and his thoughts may reflect the thinking of the Ford engineers. The modern circumferential insert groove does not have this "pressure release" hole while the Model A insert does.

Nor would I use a MOdel A rod without a side thrust flange, with all due respect to Mike K. Removal of that flange will add about .100 to the rod end play, rather than the .008-.012 called for in the specs. With .040-.050 end play on the pin, that rod will migrate back and forth across that distance during operation. I doubt that modern rods have that kind of end play, with or without an insert flange.

I personally do not use circumferential grooves on my unpressurized system. It would seem to me that the manufacturers could make inserts, rods and mains, that mimic the Ford grooves which have an 80 year history. Babbitt failure is much more likely the result of improper babbitt installation than inadequate lubrication if the stock design is followed. (Ask Herm his opinion about babbitt installation!) Unfortunately, most babbitt bearings I have seen do not use the Ford groove design. One of the arguments in favor of inserts is that the quality of material is fairly uniform and good, while the quality of babbitt material and installation is uneven at best.

I look forward to seeing the results of Dave in Mn's tests and appreciate his willingness to be a "guinea pig." The Model A is simple and durable enough that about anything will (and has) work for awhile. But as noted, I would feel much more comfortable using unpressurized inserts if they had the Ford groove design. Inserts are probably the wave of the future because quality babbitt installation is getting harder to find and the guys that do it are usually some long distance away. If that is the case, I would like to see the insert manufacturers get the best design. I personally do not think that a modern groove system premised on pressure oil is applicable to an unpressurized system, but I am more than willing to see what the results prove. Unfortunately, it is going to take some time to get reliable results. My opinion notwithstanding, this is a good discussion of an important issue that is short on facts and long on opinion.

I have tried to upload some pics but that has not worked. Will try again later, or maybe find a 10 year old to show me how to do it. Or perhaps someone with more computer knowledge than I can help us out here. My article in the January 2010 Restorer has pics and more detail.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by PC/SR

. . .
Nor would I use a MOdel A rod without a side thrust flange, with all due respect to Mike K. Removal of that flange will add about .100 to the rod end play, rather than the .008-.012 called for in the specs. With .040-.050 end play on the pin, that rod will migrate back and forth across that distance during operation. I doubt that modern rods have that kind of end play, with or without an insert flange.
. . .

Just so there's no confusion, The AER rods have wider width steel, there is no .100 extra side play. You would get that if you used the narrower new Snyder rods without their proprietary side thrust inserts.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by PC/SR

Regarding the pressurization question raised by Earle, the circumferential groove and partial parting line relief on the inserts shown here is substantially different than the stock, unpressurized, rod bearings.

The stock rods had X grooves across the rod and cap, with a V groove across the entire rod at the parting line relief and continuing across the thrust face. These carry oil across the entire bearing. There is also a "faired out" scoop at the oil inlet dipper hole that directs oil to the center of the bearing rather than around the entire bearing which the single circumferential groove does. The stock grooves will spread the oil across the entire bearing and allows seepage across the thrust face.

As a general proposition, the circumferential groove is for use in pressurized systems because unpressurized oil will only seep about 1/2 inch from the groove, about one inch total, less than the 1 5/8 inch width of the A rod journal. This may help explain the uneven wear and ring that Eystein experienced. The parting line relief in the inserts shown here may alleviate that problem, and perhaps Eystein could tell us if his inserts had that parting line relief. If not, it is likely that there was inadequate lubrication on the sides of the journal removed from the circumferential groove.

Another question I have about the single circumferential groove is that the pressure generated when the dipper hits the oil in the tray (about 20-30 lbs at speed) is immediately lost by escape through the holes in the rod big end that spurts oil upward into the cylinder area, and is asserted by Murray Fahnestock to collect additional oil from the mist on the upward stroke. Fahnestock was close to Ford, and his thoughts may reflect the thinking of the Ford engineers.

Nor would I use a MOdel A rod without a side thrust flange, with all due respect to Mike K. Removal of that flange will add about .100 to the rod end play, rather than the .008-.012 called for in the specs. With .040-.050 end play on the pin, that rod will migrate back and forth across that distance during operation. I doubt that modern rods have that kind of end play, with or without an insert flange.

I personally do not use circumferential grooves on my unpressurized system. It would seem to me that the manufacturers could make inserts, rods and mains, that mimic the Ford grooves which have an 80 year history. Babbitt failure is much more likely the result of improper babbitt installation than inadequate lubrication if the stock design is followed. (Ask Herm his opinion about babbitt installation!) Unfortunately, most babbitt bearings I have seen do not use the Ford groove design. One of the arguments in favor of inserts is that the quality of material is fairly uniform and good, while the quality of babbitt material and installation is uneven at best.

I look forward to seeing the results of Dave in Mn's tests and appreciate his willingness to be a "guinea pig." The Model A is simple and durable enough that about anything will (and has) work for awhile. But as noted, I would feel much more comfortable using unpressurized inserts if they had the Ford groove design. My opinion notwithstanding, this is a good discussion of an important issue that is short on facts and long on opinion. Inserts are probably the wave of the future because quality babbitt installation is getting harder to find and the guys that do it are usually some long distance away. If that is the case, I would like to see the insert manufacturers get the best design. I personally do not think that a modern groove system premised on pressure oil is applicable to an unpressurized system, but I am more than willing to see what the results prove. Unfortunately, it is going to take some time to get reliable results.

I have tried to upload some pics but that has not worked. Will try again later, or maybe find a 10 year old to show me how to do it. Or perhaps someone with more computer knowledge than I can help us out here. My article in the January 2010 Restorer has pics and more detail.

Good one Mr. P. C., your are right on.

Normally, the reason that some rebabbitted rods come with a circle grooving, is the rebabbitter does not have the machine to x groove with, and as you say Mr. P.C., they just don't spread the oil, in a splash system. Herm.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by Earle

Following up on Rusty Homestead's comment: I too would like to hear the expert commentary here on the need (or not) for a pressurized system if you run inserts. Schwalm's installed inserts in my rods last year after the 25-year-old babbitts (originally done by Bud Schwalm) badly cracked, delaminated and fell apart. My mains were still in great shape. So, Ora offered the option of inserts (mfg'd by AER).

I took a chance based on Ora's knowledge and trouble-free experience with them and got the all-new AER rods with inserts. Couple thousand miles on them so far with zero problems. We'll see in the long-haul.

I asked Ora about the the need to now pressurize my system and he said not necessary for rods only ("Unless I planned to use the engine exceptionally hard as in racing, hill-climbing, etc."). If I had the mains inserted then pressurization would be highly recommended. His typical rods-only insert customers do not go to pressurization and do very well with very long life on the rod inserts. And they are comparatively "easy" to replace if you're lucky enough to catch them before they sieze and spin upon failure. This was my biggest fear (besides the cost!) about the inserts. They don't give you a "pre-siezure/spin" audible warning like my failed rod babbits did. Then you'll need a re-worked/replaced crank. Ya don't get somethin' for nothin'.

Any thoughts here about the pressurization question? - with detailed rationale?
Thanks

Earle

My Sports coupe has 15,000 on the rod inserts with out pressure to the rods. I reworked my old rods for inserts. The dippers create a lot of pressure. The bad thing is if you go to fast you might run out of oil in the dipper tray.
My experience with pressure to the rods is when you drill the crank you weaken it to much and it will break. Maybe not if you drive like you should.
I have been known to hill climb.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by fordgarage

Exactly correct Marco!
Not many people understand that 'standard' inserts are not original Model A 'standard' size.

I just found this out last week, I wonder why they did that.

[d.j. moordigian]

George,

" My experience with pressure to the rods is when you drill the crank you weaken it to much and it will break. Maybe not if you drive like you should. "

I agree, since we are dealing with cranks that have no journal overlap, and no
easy way to fix the problem.
However, I'm planning on a drilled crank with splash system to insure a constant
flow of oil to the rods......a poor man's " sludge pocket " crank.

Dudley

[Dave in MN]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Good one Mr. P. C., your are right on.

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Normally, the reason that some re-babbitted rods come with a circle grooving, is the re-babbitter does not have the machine to x groove with, and as you say Mr. P.C., they just don't spread the oil, in a splash system. Herm.

Herm & PC/SR, I have an engine with over 52,000 miles on inserted original Ford dipper fed rods. I rebuilt this engine about 9 years ago before new inserted rods were available (or I was aware of them). I have driven this engine hard many times. It is capable, with an overdrive, of propelling my car to speeds most would consider crazy to attempt. Four insert bearing shells were placed in a machined original (babbitt) rod (side by side) with a space between the two shell sets. It took 16 bearing shells to complete the 4 rods. The machining on the rod was precise to create the proper amount of "crush" on the insert shells. The bearing shells were precisely set protruding slightly from the edge of the rod and as placed provided the proper end clearance to the crank thrust surface of the rod journal. (Yes..the bearing shell only... provided the correct .008" to .012" rod end play.) Spacing the bearing shells like described, created a full circle for oil movement around the inserts and journal. The installed shells had the same/or similar circumferential groove (from the space between the shells) and parting line relief PC/SR describes in his previous post and questions the reliability of, when used, in a non pressurized system. AER rods have the same basic circumferential design for moving the oil through the inserts as well as the new Snyder rods. Herm, you and PC/SR have vastly more knowledge than I do when it comes to babbitt and insert bearings, so I won't argue bearing theory with you but we must consider the success of my experience with the 52K engine I have and the thousands of rods AER has on the market with this oil delivery design. I do not know how many guys out there have AER rods with lots of miles on the assemblies but I would like to hear from them as it would speak to the reliability questions being raised. Note: The rod bearing clearance suggested by Rich @ AER and present on my 52K engine is .00175". Note that this is more than suggested in a babbitt bearing. Less clearance may end up with a "dry" bearing and a "melt-down". With this clearance and 30w oil I do not have any problem with rod knock.
Thanks for your input guys!
Dave in MN

[James Rogers]

Originally Posted by George Miller

I just found this out last week, I wonder why they did that.

George, I spoke to Rich about why the inserts were different. According to him the shells were available but needed some mods to work. The size was not adjustable so the finished product was a bit off size. It is easier to make sure the grind is right than to modify the shells.

[PC/SR]

Dave: I am glad your inserts worked out for you. And yes your experience and that of all who use inserts has to be considered. The trick is to find out what and why it worked well for you and not so well for Eystein so that your experience and be repeated and shared and Eystein's avoided.

I assume the insert shells you used were for a modern production engine. As such, they would likely be thinner at the parting line than at the center, and would therefore create as sort of oil resevoir all the way across the parting line similar to the original model A design. I do not know if the AER inserts are thinner at the parting line, or if there is a V type relief there. There should be something there to create the oil resevoir and avoid the wiping action of a sharp edge.

The Snyder inserts shown in this thread have a parting line relief that is wide and closed at the ends, similar to the original reliefs on the A main bearings. If I were to use these inserts, I would file a small V across the remainder of the parting line and across the thrust flange to imitate the original A design.

I have nothing against inserts per se, and do not doubt that perfectly fine inserts can be designed for the Model A. However, part of the problem as I see it is that new and old technologies are being merged on a more or less trial and error basis. Nothing wrong with that and I admire the initiative of the guys that are doing it. I do not intend my comments to be construed as negative, but as something to be considered by the innovators and hopefully the final result will be something useful to all of us.

At this point, I think inserts grooved to the model A design would work best.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Dave, With a babbitt rod, or a insert rod, we set oil clearance, to .001 thousandths per inch. It wouldn't be wise the set the clearance closer on a babbitt bearing, as you will smear it. Your clearance on your insert rod, of 1 and 3/4 thousandths is in the middle of what it should be, Minimum should be .00160, to Max at .00210.

Dave, with 52,000 on, have you ever checked the running clearance on them?

Question, if you would get a .001, or .00150 wear on the shaft, with out shims what would be your adjustment plan of attack, are smaller sizes available, or will they be at the time you need them? There are inserts added every day to the obsolete list.

Also one of the draw backs of a circle groove, where the groove does not wear on the shaft, and the rest of the shaft does wear, you have that raised area on the crank, and have to insure the new inserts bottom on the shaft.

If it sounds like I am against inserts, not true, I am for anything that works well.

Thanks Herm.

[Chris in CT]

Originally Posted by d.j. moordigian

George,

However, I'm planning on a drilled crank with splash system to insure a constant
flow of oil to the rods......a poor man's " sludge pocket " crank.

Dudley

Hi Dudley, I'm unclear on your plans here, but I would like to point your attention to something. First a question: Are you planning on using an oil pump with the drilled crank you mention above, or are you going to run it without the pressurized system? If you are thinking of running it without, I would caution you to think about the centrufigal force of the spinning rod pins sucking oil away from the mains faster than the oil can descend down the oil tubes from the valve galley. Just something to think about before committing to it. Happy Motoring!

Chris

[A Michigander]

The Ford crankshaft drawing that Marco posted would be a nice thing to have in one's files. Is there any way that you could make it available to us in a size that we could read the dimensions on?

[nick c]

I would like to start work on my 29 AA engine soon. I'm a self employed machinist with a mill and lathe. If I take a stock model A rod and a new Snyders flange type insert bearing, can I make them work? I can make a fixture that will hold the rod perpendicular to the spindle and bore it out, measure it with a starret inside mice. Would anyone know the bore size?

For years I'v heard of using 283 gm pistons on A rods. I have a Seal Power catalog, engine parts specifications. The compression distance of the A piston is 1.906", I measure one and that is correct. The cd on the 283 is 1.780" depending on which one is used. The difference is .126", that would be too much of loss in compression. Please give me some more info on this subject.
Thanks, carry on, nick c