babbit tolerance? .000?

[mike657894]

haggerty is rebuilding a model A engine. He says you start with 0 clearance then bed it in. Is he correct or should there be.0005 or .001 or.0015? link to youtube video. haggerty rebuilding model a engine. https://youtu.be/anDIASMNmCQ?t=39

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by mike657894

haggerty is rebuilding a model A engine. He says you start with 0 clearance then bed it in. Is he correct or should there be.0005 or .001 or.0015? link to youtube video. haggerty rebuilding model a engine. https://youtu.be/anDIASMNmCQ?t=39


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/anDIASMNmCQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

While he admits he doesn't know anything about babbitt, we all need to remember that just because something is posted on YouTube or the internet does NOT make it correct. In this case, he is basically incorrect.

[Patrick L.]

I've scraped large babbit bearings. You just keep marking and scraping to 'bed' them.

But I don't do that to adjust a small bearing such as ours. I like ours to end up at .0015"

[Dick So. Cal.]

How do you measure 0 clearance?

Dick

[mike657894]

Originally Posted by Dick So. Cal.

How do you measure 0 clearance?

Dick

not with platigauge. but if you wanted to you would mic the crank and use a bore set to measure the main and match them up


I dont have a bore set just a set of those expanders and I dont trust those as far as I can throw them

[Jim Brierley]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I believe that when babbitt is machined, there is no need to 'bed' it in. I like .0015, more if you are going to race it. I set my Bonneville engine at a minimum of .002".

[Railcarmover]

You should watch the video of them pouring that babbit..yikes...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.

[rotorwrench]

There has to be clearance to allow for rotation, lubrication, and to prevent galling of the bearing with heat expansion. Folks that do babbitt work prefer to have a crankshaft in hand to fit the bearings to it. They should be set up with standard shims to allow for future service. There are several tools that can be used to check a bore. A T-gauge will work if you know how to use one but a ball gauge can work better. Snap gauges work well too. An inside mike has to be small enough to fit the bore size but they will also work well.

I would talk to someone who does this stuff for a living and find out how they do it successfully. "Bedding In" can mean different things to different people.

[Patrick L.]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

You should watch the video of them pouring that babbit..yikes...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.

I've read and watched old video of that. Makes you shake your head.

[Patrick L.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anDIASMNmCQ


Hagerty

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by Patrick L.

I've read and watched old video of that. Makes you shake your head.

Cant fit and finish when your building 7500 engines a day..foreman watching you all the time,the stopwatch running..get it close and ship it.if it failed to spin down to the value it went back to the motor building if it could be fixed quick it was,if not it was scrapped.

Ford's assembly line was a cold unforgiving environment..if it works and was installed in time great,if not? scrap it...or fire him..

[rotorwrench]

Assembly lines are all hard work jobs no matter what the company or the product. Since Ford developed the assembly lines, they were good at making improvements to keep up both production and quality. If a line inspector was letting too many failing products by, they would have come looking for him so it was not just the line that had to worry about stuff. This type of work would have been better for the younger folks since it's not a sit down job but they paid their workers pretty well.

Some of the first person accounts mention that Ford kept their buildings cleaner than most of the other auto manufacturers did. One thing I felt about the assembly line work, since I worked on one while I was in A&P school, is that the time went by fast and then you were out of there. You just get damn good at putting widgets in the thingamajigs. I helped put glass in a lot of boat windows while I did that type of work. The glass all came from a Ford Motor Company glass plant.

[Purdy Swoft]

I set the clearance at two thousands on the rod and main bearings . I use 20W50 motor oil and have had good results .

[Mike V. Florida]

What he says I think is true for machinery not engines?

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

Cant fit and finish when your building 7500 engines a day..foreman watching you all the time,the stopwatch running..get it close and ship it.if it failed to spin down to the value it went back to the motor building if it could be fixed quick it was,if not it was scrapped.

Ford's assembly line was a cold unforgiving environment..if it works and was installed in time great,if not? scrap it...or fire him..

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

Assembly lines are all hard work jobs no matter what the company or the product. Since Ford developed the assembly lines, they were good at making improvements to keep up both production and quality. If a line inspector was letting too many failing products by, they would have come looking for him so it was not just the line that had to worry about stuff. This type of work would have been better for the younger folks since it's not a sit down job but they paid their workers pretty well.

Some of the first person accounts mention that Ford kept their buildings cleaner than most of the other auto manufacturers did. One thing I felt about the assembly line work, since I worked on one while I was in A&P school, is that the time went by fast and then you were out of there. You just get damn good at putting widgets in the thingamajigs. I helped put glass in a lot of boat windows while I did that type of work. The glass all came from a Ford Motor Company glass plant.

I fail to see what you guys are calling 'time to ft and finish'. All the components were designed to fit. All crankshaft & rods were poured with identical mandrels, and all crankshafts were machined to the same specs. The Assembler did not need to check clearances of bearing or bores, nor monkey with valve lash clearances as EVERYTHING was the same from engine to engine.

[Railcarmover]

That's my point,time wasn't spent with the knife If a crank didn't spin easy,it was assembled and burnished by spinning on the 'break in stand'.They didn't use shim packs much either,as you say there was one spec, and machines were calibrated regularly.

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by Purdy Swoft

I set the clearance at two thousands on the rod and main bearings . I use 20W50 motor oil and have had good results .

That's my take on things as well,modern oils have better load and shear characteristics through additives today then they had back then making a strict .0015 not a critical as before. I use a diesel grade CK-4 15/40 for load/shear/soot and debris entrainment properties,well beyond what was available in '28.

[mike657894]

In a earlier video he took a tour of rons machine in shandon ohio where they had thier motor rebabited. I looked at there prices pretty reasonable. 240 to have mains poured and cut. I would think he got his info from rons. now there may be a difference between 0 tolerance versus there is no tolerance you need to measure before assembling this engine. if it sticks pull it around the lot till it frees up.



I had stupidly broken a rear main. I got a used one with plan to have the mains rebabited. the used one happened to be worn but for a 10 under crank. So i spent 6-8 hours marking and knifing it. I set to .0015 to match my other mains. Could I have stopped at less as long as it would move? in my cutting it didn't set flat on the block for the first half of the day then it wouldn't move for the longest time.


On shim packs. They were not on every car from the factory but are an aftermarket item? In the catalogs ive seen it stated that the shims are .002 or .003 per leaf? or are the combined shims =.003? how worn would you wait to remove one if they are .003 per leaf? .005? my car has no shims.

[Railcarmover]

Some shops pour and line bore to a full pack of shims...030 on the rods,.015 on the mains,the shim packs peel at .001.
Burnishing,the act of running in (or dragging in) a bearing has been done for years,Fit it the way you did and you don't have to wonder if its right,you know its right. Timesaver is a product used to aide fitting as well.

https://www.newmantools.com/lapping/time.htm

[ryanheacox]

My engine rebuilder said you want the crank to be able to rotate with minimal drag after line boring and final fitting of the mains. That made sense to me and I've had 1,200 trouble free miles so far.



I believe there is a page in the service bulletins about there being 0.004" of shims on the main bearings from the factory. I might be wrong on that so don't take it as fact.


I think when I pulled some rod shims on my old engine each lamination was 0.001" but it might be different for mains.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

That's my point,time wasn't spent with the knife If a crank didn't spin easy,it was assembled and burnished by spinning on the 'break in stand'.They didn't use shim packs much either,as you say there was one spec, and machines were calibrated regularly.

You mentioned burnished on a break in stand. Do you have evidence of a break-in stand? If you are calling what I have pictured below as a break-in stand, I don't believe that is what this unit was.


Burnishing is accomplished by multiple heat cycles of spinning the crankshaft until the babbitt becomes slightly 'fluid-like' or 'plastic' then allowed to cool. The unit pictured below never spun for long due to there not any engine oil or trans lube in the assembly.


Your comment about them not using shim packs much kinda needs some clarification. First, the shims were specified to be 0.002 - 0.0025 in thickness. Ford did not line-bore the blocks and caps together. The babbitt in the blocks was specified to be bored to 1.623" - 1.624". The caps were specified to be bored to 1.618" - 1.620". The crankshaft main journals were to be ground to 1.622" - 1.624". When the three components were assembled, it effectively had 0.000" tolerances when you do the math, so 'one can assume there was indeed 0.000" clearance requiring burnishing however I have never seen pictures that show this process. To clarify my statement about what Damon said in the video, it is true that at one point in the original machining process where the babbitt did have 0.000" clearance however it did not leave the factory with that clearance. That would be like saying the engine cylinder cases (blocks) were bored to 3.8735" in size. While that is accurate statement, that was not the finished bore size after honing.

[mike657894]

interesting. So assembled with .001-.002 tight on the block mains and .005 tight on the main caps and 3-4 or so shims to give a .001-.002 tolerance on crank from factory?

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

That would be like saying the engine cylinder cases (blocks) were bored to 3.8735" in size. While that is accurate statement, that was not the finished bore size after honing.

Per Ford drawing A-6015 (April 1929), the cylinder bore was specified to be reamed to 3.873 to 3.874 inch diameter, and then rolled to 3.875 to 3.876 inch diameter. There is no mention of boring or honing.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by Terry Burtz, Calif

That would be like saying the engine cylinder cases (blocks) were bored to 3.8735" in size. While that is accurate statement, that was not the finished bore size after honing.

Per Ford drawing A-6015 (April 1929), the cylinder bore was specified to be reamed to 3.873 to 3.874 inch diameter, and then rolled to 3.875 to 3.876 inch diameter. There is no mention of boring or honing.

Thanks, Terry. Do you have available the official Ford factory method of obtaining correct bearing sizing and clearances? What did they really do?

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Terry Burtz, Calif

That would be like saying the engine cylinder cases (blocks) were bored to 3.8735" in size. While that is accurate statement, that was not the finished bore size after honing.

Per Ford drawing A-6015 (April 1929), the cylinder bore was specified to be reamed to 3.873 to 3.874 inch diameter, and then rolled to 3.875 to 3.876 inch diameter. There is no mention of boring or honing.

True Terry about the reaming, and maybe I am looking at it in a different manner of terminology (then & now) that boring and reaming can be synonymous in meaning. I guess the way I also look at it is that on the print, it also mentions finish sizes of other bearings or bores but really does not tell you how to get there. I think much of that came from common sense and SOP from the Machine Shop employees who just knew what was necessary, and that knowledge was passed down to the apprentice machinists that came thru the factory. One "other final" thought of mine is while using a reamer will put you to an exact size, it will not produce a surface finish conducive for a cast iron piston ring. Therefore they had to grind (-or hone) to finish size. Am I still missing something??

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Also Terry, does your print give a minimum spec on Brinell hardness for the bore and a max spec. taken on the pan flange? What do you think is the Engineer's mindset for measuring in two different locations? Why not give a minimum & maximum for both locations??

[Kurt in NJ]

I see evidence of the brinell test on crankshafts, steering arms, front axles, haven't seen it on blocks, rods, main caps, I think it was just done on heat treated parts

[rotorwrench]

I think they were more concerned with hardness on rotating assemblies. Brinell testing is mostly used on course stuff like castings but the stationary parts were not all that hard. If cast iron is too hard it gets brittle. Casting techniques then were not what they are now for sure.

Ford used tooling to get the job done as quickly as possible with the best results possible. Honing of cylinders is not something that can be skipped. They may have used ball hones so they could get a quick cross hatch without worrying about set up and stone wear but I don't know for any certainty. Rings won't break in without a proper crosshatch on the cylinder walls. If they were power honed, it would likely have been by a machine that could do all four cylinders at once. Boring would have been done the same way. It can be called reaming if that was how the tooling was designed. Some of the machines Ford had were pretty amazing. They would drill and tap all of the holes on the block at the same time.

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

You mentioned burnished on a break in stand. Do you have evidence of a break-in stand? If you are calling what I have pictured below as a break-in stand, I don't believe that is what this unit was.


Burnishing is accomplished by multiple heat cycles of spinning the crankshaft until the babbitt becomes slightly 'fluid-like' or 'plastic' then allowed to cool. The unit pictured below never spun for long due to there not any engine oil or trans lube in the assembly.


Your comment about them not using shim packs much kinda needs some clarification. First, the shims were specified to be 0.002 - 0.0025 in thickness. Ford did not line-bore the blocks and caps together. The babbitt in the blocks was specified to be bored to 1.623" - 1.624". The caps were specified to be bored to 1.618" - 1.620". The crankshaft main journals were to be ground to 1.622" - 1.624". When the three components were assembled, it effectively had 0.000" tolerances when you do the math, so 'one can assume there was indeed 0.000" clearance requiring burnishing however I have never seen pictures that show this process. To clarify my statement about what Damon said in the video, it is true that at one point in the original machining process where the babbitt did have 0.000" clearance however it did not leave the factory with that clearance. That would be like saying the engine cylinder cases (blocks) were bored to 3.8735" in size. While that is accurate statement, that was not the finished bore size after honing.

it appears those model T engines were set in a stand and spun by an electric motor,that large meter behind them I'm sure read amperage,the load on the motor told them if it was spinning at their prescribed load for acceptable resistance of an assembly,in essence a 'break in' stand,in fact Ford did not fire the engines till the car was completed at assembly,so that stand was all the break in the engine got.The same technique was used with the model a engine. I don't know if Ford line bored or not,it would stand to reason that they did,its the only true way to set the main bearings in alignment,just cutting bores on caps to a .005 difference than the bore on the block makes no sense.
Burnishing is the act of polishing metal with metal,ie spinning a crankshaft in a babbit bearing can help set the bearing through polishing..a process that does work with minimal lubrication,which would slow the desired effect.would be interesting to know how ford approached that.

[JoeCB]

Let me shed some light on these questions of machining. It was stated cylinder bores were reamed then rolled to finish size. No mention of boring or honing. Both processes mentioned, "reaming" and "rolling" are still commonly used industrial processes that lend themselves to fast, economical work cycles.
It appears that the rough cast bores were reamed ( think of a large core drill) to near finish size , then a roll finisher used to bring to finished size and required surface finish. Apparently Ford did not hone. Honing in a large scale high production operation is a costly and potentially hazardous operation. Hazardous because of the (typically) used kerosene honing fluid. An industrial honing area in an automotive production plant would require partial enclosure and installed flooding ( CO2 ) fire suppression systems. Apparently Ford found a way to avoid all this by roll finishing that cylinder bores.
My $0.02 opinion based on 40 year experience as engine/ axle automotive manufacturing engineer.

Joe B

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

I think they were more concerned with hardness on rotating assemblies. Brinell testing is mostly used on course stuff like castings but the stationary parts were not all that hard. If cast iron is too hard it gets brittle. Casting techniques then were not what they are now for sure.

Ford used tooling to get the job done as quickly as possible with the best results possible. Honing of cylinders is not something that can be skipped. They may have used ball hones so they could get a quick cross hatch without worrying about set up and stone wear but I don't know for any certainty. Rings won't break in without a proper crosshatch on the cylinder walls. If they were power honed, it would likely have been by a machine that could do all four cylinders at once. Boring would have been done the same way. It can be called reaming if that was how the tooling was designed. Some of the machines Ford had were pretty amazing. They would drill and tap all of the holes on the block at the same time.

You are right, Mr. Rotor, on the cylinder reaming, all at once. I have seen it in Ford videos !

Herm.

[Railcarmover]

After watching this video a few assumptions can be made..Ford did not line bore assemblies,you are correct.Ford held a strict tolerance through out the process negating the need for line boring the assembly.They basically assembled them and 'spun them in' using an electric motor on a stand,spun them till the engines resistance fell into spec. The honing and cylinder process is covered by the video as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa0PAg7FfMk



Here another photo of Ford spinning engines to a prescribed resistance..the shear size of the Rouge operation is fascinating.

[JoeCB]

A very interesting and informative video for sure. Thanks for posting.
As for the cylinder bore machining process, the short sequence shows no honing operation. In deed, there is a view of an cylinder bore reaming operation and what surly appears to be a roller (burnishing) finishing operation on the bores. So it looks like Ford was still using this process on the V8's

Joe B

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

You are right, Mr. Rotor, on the cylinder reaming, all at once. I have seen it in Ford videos !

Herm.

Mr Kohnke,perhaps you can shed some light on why Ford never showed their babbitting process?

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

Brent,

There are no Brinell hardness requirements on the drawings.

I agree that most dimensions are specified without telling the machinist how to do it. Some dimensions tell the machinist to "Grind" like the crankshaft journals, or to "Ream" and "Roll" like the cylinder bores. We now know that the cylinders should not be rolled, but instead honed like this: https://www.hastingsmfg.com/ServiceT...efinishing.htm

Compared to a modern engine, the tolerances in a Ford Model A engine are very loose and I believe that they needed to be "broken-in" by spinning with an electric motor until the amperes (torque) dropped to a certain level.

The crankshaft connecting rod journals on drawing A-6303 are specified to be ground to 1.497 to 1.499 inch diameter (each of the rod journals could be different), and they could be ground undersize per drawing note on A-6303 which reads "see specification MS 46303 for salvaging crankshaft".

The connecting rod drawing A-6200 specifies 2 different big end diameters. A-6200-A has a big end diameter of 1.4965 to 1.4970 inches, and A-6200-B has a big end diameter that is 1.4865 to 1.4870 inches (which is .010 inches undersize).

If you were to see the big picture, every engine could have connecting rods with 4 different diameters and main bearings with 3 different diameters.

The engine assembly drawings that I have call for a pair of shims at all connecting rod and main bearings.

Regarding engine "break-in", I agree 100% with Vince Falter where he explains it here: http://www.fordgarage.com/pages/bearingshims.htm

Once broken-in, the engine was stamped with the serial number.

[Mike V. Florida]

I have found this very interesting. One of the most interesting and educational in years!!

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

Mr Kohnke,perhaps you can shed some light on why Ford never showed their babbitting process?

I haven't looked at many V-8 videos, to see any pourings exist, but I have seen the T, and A ones. They were poured babbitt from 1932, to early 1936.

If you want accuracy on measuring all bearings to a 1/10 of a thousandths, every time, use an inside Mic. and an out side Mic to measure that. "Pictures"

As far as the two videos go, every thing is wrong.

Does this look like what you have seen. These mains and rods are ready to bolt together. "Pictures"

Like Jim said, set clearance at .002, when broke in it will be about .003 to .003-25, or -50. Never under .001-60, or you will loose unnecessary bearing surface Babbitt.

NO shim removal, no time saver, no burning in to ruin the first .010, of babbitt. If you have to pull a motor in a car to turn it over, where the starter , and hand crank won't, find a different engine builder.

The engine assembler got fed all useless, Information. I felt sorry for him, as he looks pretty sharp, and a nice clean shop.

When I seen the Babbitting job in progress, I knew what all the rest was going to be like.

My Opinion,

Herm

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

..

Originally Posted by Kurt in NJ

I see evidence of the brinell test on crankshafts, steering arms, front axles, haven't seen it on blocks, rods, main caps, I think it was just done on heat treated parts

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

I think they were more concerned with hardness on rotating assemblies. Brinell testing is mostly used on course stuff like castings but the stationary parts were not all that hard. If cast iron is too hard it gets brittle. Casting techniques then were not what they are now for sure.

Well, if y'all say so..


.


.

[mike657894]

here are the next two installments on this video series. it is good to see haggerty throwing money at our model A. thank you guys for correcting any bad info.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAiyKjRIaWs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMU_BqdBI0g

[Railcarmover]

it makes sense from Hagerty's perspective..bangers are the future of model a collecting..he doesn't mention the rule of 9's when adjusting the valves either..

[JoeCB]

And Dad and I used to laugh at his story of having to tow his "A" around the block after doing a (not so good) bearing job on the engine. This, back in the early 40's when he was an aspiring shade tree mechanic.

Joe B

[Railcarmover]

Ford used over 40 different steel designs during the model a .They sampled during a heat and tested after cooling and treatment,employing the largest number electric furnaces in the world in the upset and spring shop..brinell hardness was just one of them..they even performed failure analysis..

[Purdy Swoft]

I've read that some are considering increasing the clearance on the rear main bearing to three thousands . the rear main bearing is around an inch longer than the front and center main bearings .

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by Purdy Swoft

I've read that some are considering increasing the clearance on the rear main bearing to three thousands . the rear main bearing is around an inch longer than the front and center main bearings .

I've read that this extra clearance is a 'crutch' to keep from seizing the rear main in an inserted engine. Anything to that?

[Patrick L.]

I've had too many bearings rattle at .003" [ every day engines]

On the 'A' I tend to tighten the rear bearing a bit more thinking helps with leakage.
Where another engines, such as big block Chrysler's, I increase the rear clearance [.0035"] which helps with rear flange breakage under hard use.

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Brent,
My copy of A-6015 has EI 12403 3/28/1929 incorporated with no Brinell hardness mentioned.
Your copy of A-6015 has EI 13436 7/10/1929 incorporated with the Brinell hardness note added.

[Railcarmover]

Ford was teaching Brinell and Rockwell hardness testing techniques to trade school boys in 1934..

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

I've read that this extra clearance is a 'crutch' to keep from seizing the rear main in an inserted engine. Anything to that?

Does this issue have anything to do with inserts designed for pressurized systems?

[rotorwrench]

The only way to affect a specific hardness on the old cast iron formula was to carefully control what was added in the mix at the foundry. If you look at the note. It mentions taking a reading on a scrap block since the Brinell test leaves a larger mark than Rockwell. Casting technology is a lot different now than it was back then. They were trying to insure uniformity in the casting process. Ductile or "nodular" cast iron had not been developed yet.

[Jim Brierley]

I set all mains at .0025" on my inserted race engines, with a groove to feed the rear at 2 different spots. First I ever heard Patrick L's story about extra clearance helping rear flange breakage!

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by Jim Brierley

I set all mains at .0025" on my inserted race engines, with a groove to feed the rear at 2 different spots. First I ever heard Patrick L's story about extra clearance helping rear flange breakage!

So the rear main starves? that the cause of failure? stands to reason.do you have a problem with rear main leakage with two grooves?

[George Miller]

If you use 0 clearance you will never get the engine to turn. If it would it would melt the babbitt, there would be no oil flow. O clearance is BS

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by George Miller

If you use 0 clearance you will never get the engine to turn. If it would it would melt the babbitt, there would be no oil flow. O clearance is BS

" Agree "

Herm.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

So the rear main starves? that the cause of failure? stands to reason.do you have a problem with rear main leakage with two grooves?

With out the right kinds of grooves, you have bearing failure.

The biggest cause of flange breakage, is that the Babbitt wasn't peened,, or lack of knowledge how to do it right.

Many shops don't peen at all. I have also seen videos of peening, that should have been left to Luck.

You have to peen the ends of the bearings also, the thrust.

Herm.

[31Abone]

Thanks for posting this ,I did not know it had been gone thru before..sc

[Patrick L.]

I raced for Chrysler for a number of years and built the engines. Sudden left off of power would snap the cranks at times at the rear flange. Increasing the rear main clearance stopped it. Also letting off on the power slower probably had a lot to do with it too. [smiley face]

[mike657894]

Originally Posted by Patrick L.

I raced for Chrysler for a number of years and built the engines. Sudden left off of power would snap the cranks at times at the rear flange. Increasing the rear main clearance stopped it. Also letting off on the power slower probably had a lot to do with it too. [smiley face]

there has to be some good stories. what years and what cars and classes? I always dreamed of racing cars as a kid still do. but im just a stiff with a job.


I dreamed of f1 when I was a kid. I have a loose plan to get a used fwd race car for the beginner class at the local circle track when the kids grow up.

[mike657894]

in the video where he gets its going it doesn't drag much. he states some thing like 120lbs of force required to turn it. just lets off a short chirp and is rolling over. I would say my well broken in engine takes about 50lbs to move the crank. not measured so that could be way off.

[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.

[Patrick L.]

Originally Posted by mike657894

there has to be some good stories. what years and what cars and classes? I always dreamed of racing cars as a kid still do. but im just a stiff with a job.


I dreamed of f1 when I was a kid. I have a loose plan to get a used fwd race car for the beginner class at the local circle track when the kids grow up.

There are some good stories/memories. But,,,,

[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.

[rotorwrench]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

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^^^..

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Railcarmover]

Fords methods were based on speed of assembly and the ability to tolerate losses due to volume.Ford,for instance tolerated scrapping over 1000 tudor body assemblies tuning the welding and jig techniques. I really dont want to tolerate an engine failure due to a technique that doesnt insure perfect results..I'm too cheap to take a chance

[mike657894]

Fail rate was probably low. each block takes time and material. It wouldnt take too many toss outs to overcome the savings of measurement time. Ron's fail rate is probably low as well.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Before the Model T, of what Ford used for Babbitt, I can't say, But all the early blocks that we poured, that had babbitt in the block, and that was Ford babbitt, was TIN BASE BABBITT. To say he used lead, is ludicrous. The only Lead he did try, was in the early V-8 rod bearings, of Copper, and lead, that were short lived.

Also the 1903 Curved Dash Olds I just got done with about 2 weeks ago, had Tin Base babbitt in the mains, and the Rod. OH, yes, they had Tin Base in 1900.

The early shops had had heavy cast iron units to do the same thing as pulling a car around in a parking lot. They used to call the machines Burning in machines, and after Wilson came out with his combination machine, they thought the name a bit harsh, so then they were called Burnishing Machines.

In any case, instead of burning in the bearings, they burnt them out. What they found out, that it screws up what, if any line bore you did have. Because with all bearings tight, the wrong ones opens up first.

Now, before any body says that Ford run in the motors, yes he did, but the clearance, was not the same as .000. The Model A bearings were set at .001 thousandths. clearance, So a run in would open to .001-50 to .0001-60, that being .002-50, around the bearing, and that will not hurt the surface babbitt, as .000 will smear about .005 to .010 making the babbitt brittle, and then what happens is it starts going back through the bearing, like sand. I seen that condition many times here on the barn, and in our shop, redoing other peoples messes.

Herm.

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by mike657894

Fail rate was probably low. each block takes time and material. It wouldnt take too many toss outs to overcome the savings of measurement time. Ron's fail rate is probably low as well.

No doubt,but when I assemble an engine I shoot for a zero fail rate,you do too..I'm with you btw,let him pour your babbitt you know how to correctly fit a bearing.

[mike657894]

I get a sinking feeling and pain in my hands thinking about fitting a bearing.

[gilitos]

Ron rebuilt my engine In '85 and it was so tight that I had to tow the car to get it started; the starter motor couldn't turn it over. The main bearings broke up within a few thousand miles. He rebuilt it again (full price) and they failed again within a few thousand miles; this time it was also tight, but the main cause was the crank was set so far forward that the flywheel bolts hit the thrust bearing and destroyed it. Ugh. He said he would take care of it but I declined his offer. Too many rebuilds in too few miles.

[gilitos]

The last picture in post #62 is the thrust that failed due to the crank being set back too far.

[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.

[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?

[Kurt in NJ]

Here's some pictures of fresh caps,the peining marks are visible on the rear cap, the front and center cap have the circular surfacing marks, and it was done after the cap was poured, the rear cap had the circular machining, then it was further smoothed in a linear direction
The finished cap shows very fine tool marks from the boring process, fine enough that they can hardly be felt with a fingernail

[Joe K]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Steve Ross USED to have a most excellent web site of "Rebuilding the Model A engine the KRW way." His original site is gone but exists in words only at http://www.antiqueautoranch.com/mont...n/babbitt.html

In this article he cites the Ford prescription for babbit.

That neither the block nor jigs be heated for cast iron components prior to the Babbitt pour. They had metalurgical proof that the Babbitt had the best chemical and physical composition if this procedure was followed. Ford Babbitt was composed of 3 metals, Tin, Antimony and copper.

Unfortunately the Steve Ross article does not specify the percentages - but he had a separate web page which DID cite the Ford blueprint numbers, and compared it to Babbitt available today. And unfortunately this is no longer available online - somewhere I have the page printed off (the wisdom of hard copy) but try to find?

Joe K

[mike657894]

Originally Posted by gilitos

Ron rebuilt my engine In '85 and it was so tight that I had to tow the car to get it started; the starter motor couldn't turn it over. The main bearings broke up within a few thousand miles. He rebuilt it again (full price) and they failed again within a few thousand miles; this time it was also tight, but the main cause was the crank was set so far forward that the flywheel bolts hit the thrust bearing and destroyed it. Ugh. He said he would take care of it but I declined his offer. Too many rebuilds in too few miles.

Sounds like you were out thousands of dollars. 5k total? more or less. i'm just guessing what 3 rebuilds would cost in 85. Im a cheapskate and order ala carte at the machine shop and try get out the door as cheap as possible. A 300 bore turns into a 5k build if you just say ok. Just the thought of having to pay to have 3 rebuilds makes me sick. cause the shop cant even fix it worth a damn after they failed to take the time to do it right the first time. And on the third go round now its free. Ugh. And I just realized you may have had to pay someone else to pull and place it.



What im not seeing in this thread is the. " I got mine fixed at rons and the last 50,000 miles have been smooth sailing!" If I had and an engine and there was a tight crank I would have to knife the mains. And my joints are screaming PAY THE MONEY YOU CHEAP SON OF A ........as in go somewhere better that doesn't require follow up work. or god forbid a triple rebuild.



This also makes me think of a conversation I had about how many miles the lighter users put on their cars. I have three older cars/trucks. That reduces the amount of miles I can put on them. I'm wondering if they are getting away with doing bad work because their customers don't put 1000 miles on their car in 10 years. Or people just dont come back after it falls apart.


ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE A REBABBITT THAT JUST WONT DIE????

[rotorwrench]

If a person does some net surfing on this subject, they will find all sorts of stuff about it for Model Ts & As. Very few are exactly the same in how they attack the rebabbitting and finishing of main bearings (although they are all very close they are just not completely the same). There is not enough info out there to tell a person new to the subject on exactly how to perform this type repair due to its complexity. The info is generally incomplete in one way or another. Most folks that do it with very good results were likely an apprentice of someone else that did the work well. In other words, don't try to do this at home folks unless you visit with a few specialists in the know and watch them a few times. Even then, the results will likely not be what they should be the first time out.

I've seen differences in the way folks peen the mains in the block but most seem to have decent results as long as they don't skip this step completely. An old used block is harder to clean for the process than a nice new casting like Ford had to work with so that complicates things to some degree. Cast iron is too difficult to tin so peening is the only way to get the new babbitt to stay put whether it's a new block or an old one. The caps & rods are not near as problematic as the block. The rods are steel so they can be easliy tinned.

Line boring the mains is also a source of contention in how much a person should cut the clearance to. Ford published the specs for clearance giving the ideal size that they sought to accomplish so that can't be disputed. It wasn't .000 clearance either. I'd be relatively certain that they were shooting for something just barely over .001" with .0015" being to the upper limits. This is why they turned them with those electric motors to get the extra .0005" clearance. They would still be a little tight at those figures but they would turn. Ford did keep things to relatively tight tolerances. You can see that in the films they made. They checked everything instead of every other item or every five items. They checked them all. It didn't take that long to run the stuff through. They had multiple stations for time consuming items like this so that they could keep up with production. The Rouge had a well equipped machine shop that was always being improved. They certainly didn't let to much get by them. The problem engines went back to a separate repair shop where they were torn down and evaluated for repair. If they could easily be repaired then they were, if not, the parts were sent back to the foundry and used for another charge in the smelters. A person could be relatively sure that someone would check and find out why problems were happening on the line so as to find a way to minimize those problems. To build a million engines per year was quite a feat. If problems got much over 5% of production then something was wrong with the system. Charlie Sorensen eluded in his memoir that things rarely ever got that bad. The exceptions were for short periods when they were setting up for a new product but that is to be expected with any new product line.

Some of the information I've found shows folks turning the cranks in the blocks after initial machining with set ups to do that. Others just run them in on a completed engine run up stand but for the most part, the engine will turn over with the starter so you know there is some clearance. Some information out there is utter crap but you have to get familiar with the procedures to even know what is good info and what is crap. I would say that Ron's machine shop has an issue that the young fellow needs to work on there. 99% of his work could be completely fine with no defects but there seems to be problem there that he needs to look into. Any business can have problems, it just depends on what they do about it as to whether there will be any damage to a reputation. We need younger guys in this business but they need to gain their own reputation and keep it good. Knowledge comes from experience that can be both good and bad. No one needs their problems aired on You-Tube. That's just a nightmare. I'm surprised the young fellow with Hagerty didn't do more research on the subject before starting that whole mess. It certainly doesn't help him any either.

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by gilitos

Ron rebuilt my engine In '85 and it was so tight that I had to tow the car to get it started; the starter motor couldn't turn it over. The main bearings broke up within a few thousand miles. He rebuilt it again (full price) and they failed again within a few thousand miles; this time it was also tight, but the main cause was the crank was set so far forward that the flywheel bolts hit the thrust bearing and destroyed it. Ugh. He said he would take care of it but I declined his offer. Too many rebuilds in too few miles.

There is an old saying in my trade,'there is never enough time the first time,there is always enough time the second time'

You try to do quality work as quickly as possible to turn revenue.If the repair fails you do whatever it takes to make it right, spare no expense.Its a good policy for both the shop and the customer,the customer gets made whole,and the shop learns to change its process to avoid failure.Success is built on customer satisfaction.

[mike657894]

one ive seen here is "if you have time to do it twice you had time to do it right the first time." I cant remember the user name of the one who said it.

[mike657894]

What questions should be posed to the shop doing your babbit? What clearances are you going to hand me? Where do you get your babbit and what is its make up? Or brand name and type so I can research that? What other questions should be asked? Before I do a rebuild I try to do weeks of research and watch every method I can. And find all measurements that can be made to check for proper build. We have a good amount of information. But it pales in comparison to say the chevy sbc or honda rfvc singles.



Also I have seen the drill rigs for cutting it. Are those as trusted as an expensive align bore machine. My machine shop said he had a guy local he sent Babbitt to. And im thinking it may be a drill rig. I didn't know what to ask and he didn't offer further info.

[dean from bozeman]

So I had an engine rebuilt some years ago. The rebuilder said that he liked to bore engines tight so that when they broke in they would last a long time. The engine runs but then you can't restart it while it's hot because of expansion. If you wait for a while it will eventually cool down and then you can restart it.

At first I thought that it was that the pistons were too tight. I replaced the .040 pistons with .030 pistons. It runs but still "freezes up" after running for a while.

I would take it back to the rebuilder but he is no longer in business. I wonder why?!

Short of having the engine rebored (cylinders and main) are there any suggestions on how to get this engine useable?

Thanks.
Dean

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by dean from bozeman

So I had an engine rebuilt some years ago. The rebuilder said that he liked to bore engines tight so that when they broke in they would last a long time. The engine runs but then you can't restart it while it's hot because of expansion. If you wait for a while it will eventually cool down and then you can restart it.

At first I thought that it was that the pistons were too tight. I replaced the .040 pistons with .030 pistons. It runs but still "freezes up" after running for a while.

I would take it back to the rebuilder but he is no longer in business. I wonder why?!

Short of having the engine rebored (cylinders and main) are there any suggestions on how to get this engine useable?

Thanks.
Dean

Depends on what is causing it to bind.The best solution to your issue is to disassemble your engine completely,then re assemble insuring everything is in spec. There are many possible causes,the only way to know for sure is to 'put your finger' on the problem,anything else is speculation.The only way to effectively repair an issue is to find the root cause.

[dean from bozeman]

Originally Posted by Railcarmover

Depends on what is causing it to bind.The best solution to your issue is to disassemble your engine completely,then re assemble insuring everything is in spec. There are many possible causes,the only way to know for sure is to 'put your finger' on the problem,anything else is speculation.The only way to effectively repair an issue is to find the root cause.

We disassembled the engine, "miked" it and then reassembled with the smaller pistons. I'll look around for the measurements. It was real tight but we thought that it would work. Obviously not.

Thanks Railcarmover.

[Railcarmover]

Originally Posted by dean from bozeman

We disassembled the engine, "miked" it and then reassembled with the smaller pistons. I'll look around for the measurements. It was real tight but we thought that it would work. Obviously not.

Thanks Railcarmover.

If I were to guess Dean I would say the main bearings are set up too tight.

[katy]

Originally Posted by dean from bozeman

So I had an engine rebuilt some years ago. The rebuilder said that he liked to bore engines tight so that when they broke in they would last a long time. The engine runs but then you can't restart it while it's hot because of expansion. If you wait for a while it will eventually cool down and then you can restart it.

At first I thought that it was that the pistons were too tight. I replaced the .040 pistons with .030 pistons. It runs but still "freezes up" after running for a while.

I would take it back to the rebuilder but he is no longer in business. I wonder why?!

Short of having the engine rebored (cylinders and main) are there any suggestions on how to get this engine useable?

Thanks.
Dean

Have you checked ring end gap?

[mike657894]

Originally Posted by dean from bozeman

We disassembled the engine, "miked" it and then reassembled with the smaller pistons. I'll look around for the measurements. It was real tight but we thought that it would work. Obviously not.

Thanks Railcarmover.

How I would deal with that tight engine. Would be to put it on a stand. I would start with the rods remove one rod and piston at a time and rotate the engine with a torque wrench. youll be looking/hoping for it to free up at one point but you may find it frees a little over say the three mains or across all of the rods. then if you dont find a problem there, put the mains back on and go through the valve train. I wouldnt think it would be in the VT but im often wrong. To know your right is often the best way to be wrong. Go to the local auto parts store and get platigauge and get a reading on the mains and rods.


katy has a good point about ring gap. Is the A in the standard .012-.018 ?

[Jim Brierley]

Too tight pistons will seize, and scar pistons and bore, so easily seen. Tight rings might do the same but am not sure. There are 2 guys that do babbitt near me, with a good reputation. I've had them do babbitt for me, and usually add a shim because I like looser engines. I've never had a problem with their work, I do my own cylinder boring, set at a minimum .0035", more on my performance engines. [B]Mike[B asks if anyone has a babbitted engine that just won't die, I do. My race engine still has the babbitted mains that were done in 1959. It has been on the street, in a dragster, on the Bonneville Salt Flats, consistently turned 6,000 RPM, run on Nitro, straight alky and gasoline. It is a B block/ crank, full pressure oiling engine. B rods were used for quite a few years but they got iffy, so replaced them in 2008 with Eubanks rods and insert brgs.

[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.

[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.

[Mike V. Florida]

Here is a website that sells the stuff used in bearing and low and behold they use the term Babbitt throughout the site. Why are they not sued?


http://www.uamet.com/abc.htm


Another


https://www.kappalloy.com/babbitt-alloy/


I can't find a single supplier of the material used in bearing that does not call it Babbitt.


A trademark? https://www.trademarkia.com/trademar...spx?tn=babbitt NOPE not a trade mark for metals.


Could Brent be wrong? NO WAY, NOT EVER, even if he has to change definitions to suit himself.


I have no problem in being proved wrong, none at all that is how one learns. But being told I'm wrong "because", went out when I was 6.


So what have we learned, Brent is divine in all things model A and we are all ignorant losers who should shut up and sell our A's.


Who else is wrong? I know, the Dykes Automobile and Gasoline Engine Encyclopedia. you see even in the 1920 edition they refer to the act of babbitting and the use of Babbitt. Sending the ford Model T rods back to Ford to have them rebabbitted at a cost of $.75 cents. But that's not true because Ford did not use Babbitt, right.

What any of this has to do with the video I don't know we were led off the mark trying to gain knowledge. That ain't happening this time. The thousands and thousands of sites that sell and refer to "Babbitt" are wrong. The sites that say "Babbitt" is not a trademark like Kleenex are wrong. Only one person is right, Lord Brent.


Have a great day Brent glad I could make you feel superior.

[Joe K]

Can we close this thread?


Insightful editing could do a lot and allow the useful information to remain.



Joe K

[Ryan]

Really bummed about the bickering... Ugh...