Engine turns by hand, with effort...

[Henry's Lady's Man]

I removed one shim from my front main, and one from my rear main. They were foil-thin, and measured .001 each. All three mains are now .0015; I used assembly lube.
The engine turns by hand, but with about 20 lbs of arm pressure. The rods are not connected yet. Is this too tight to start? I'd hate to get the engine back in the car and find that the starter can't handle it.I would suspect that the ring gear will gear it down enough, but I just don't know. This is my first rebuild.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

For whatever reason, it takes about 40 or 50 lbs of my pull to turn the engine now. does anyone have any advice on this? I can put shims back in the main bearings (babbitt) to make it turn easier, but only if it is advised. I've got them all torqued and cotter-pinned.

[aonemarine]

Try pushing the crank fwd in the block and turning it, then push it back and try it again and see if there is any difference.
Personally i would put the shims back in....

[Tom Wesenberg]

I've seen the front rope seal put a lot of bind on a fresh engine, until it runs for a couple hours.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Oh, my engine is still on stand without the connecting rods on yet. no rope seals yet. This is just the mains that are tight. I was wondering JUST HOW TIGHT they should be.

[DougT]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Sounds too tight to me. Are all the bearing caps facing the right direction? Try loosening the nuts one at a time until it spins free

[Dodge]

When you first tried it and it took 20 lbs. it had some lubrication on the bearings. When you turned it some of the lubrication came off. Then it sits and a little more is pushed out.
When you try to turn it again it takes more to turn it. That's why it might have taken 50lbs.
If you lubed it up again you might go thru the same thing. It sounds like the clearanses could be a touch tight.

[tbirdtbird]

let us know how you make out

[Tom Wesenberg]

I agree, with just the crankshaft mounted, this is too tight. It should take very little effort to spin just the crank.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

The bearing caps are properly faced with marks to the front as originally. When I took the engine apart, the bearings, front to back had these clearances: #1 - .0002, #2 - .0015, and #3 - .0020. The babbitt was good, so I tried to get all the same clearance (and did). They are presently all .0015 ; It looks like I should have left the shims as they were.

[Tom Wesenberg]

I wonder if the crank journals are oval, and you are measuring the narrow part?

It should spin quite easily at .0015" clearance.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by tbirdtbird

"This is my first rebuild."
What does this mean?
Is this a brand new overhaul? Fresh babbitt and all?
Or did you just adjust the bearings by removing shims
If just adjusting pre-existing babbitt, the rule of thumb is to never remove more shims from the center than you did from the rear. The reason for this is that the center wears the most. Which means the center may end up with .002 or even .0025, but so be it. I am guessing this is your problem. The crank should spin very freely at .0015 clearance on a fresh babbitt job
And of course the front seldom needs any shims removed.

Here's a quick recap of my "first rebuild": Teardown showed loose valves and valve guides, and vertical scores in cyl #3. The crankshaft and babbitt looked good, with said clearances (.002, .0015, .002).
I put in new valves, guides and springs. Got new pistons, wrist pins, and rebabbitted connecting rods (they were all way off on weights (30g difference between them!)). I left the mains alone, except I removed .0005 shim from the front and the rear. I was surprised to find the center main to be the best tolerance of all.
This is where I am at... the main caps are on and torqued, and it's hard to turn. Pistons and rods are not in yet.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

I agree, with just the crankshaft mounted, this is too tight. It should take very little effort to spin just the crank.

Thanks Tom. This is the conclusion I am coming to. I am getting the same advice from all, which is a good thing. Better to take care of it now, before proceeding.
Thanx to all for the help. Chuck

[Tom Wesenberg]

I didn't know you could get main shims in .0005" thickness. I wonder if it wasn't thicker than that?
At any rate, I'd reinstall it.

[aonemarine]

what are you using to measure with?? somethings really amiss.....

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

I didn't know you could get main shims in .0005" thickness. I wonder if it wasn't thicker than that?
At any rate, I'd reinstall it.

I just took ONE .001 shim from one side. That is .0005 from the whole thing, right? I believe it I took a .001 shim from both sides, It would make the whole clearance .001 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by aonemarine

what are you using to measure with?? somethings really amiss.....

I use a decent metal Midway caliper (dial) I bought in the 80's and the shim measured .001

[aonemarine]

you can get away with measuring the shims and OD of things with a caliper, but they really botch things up when measuring the ID.
You really should invest in some better measuring tools like T gauges and micrometers before going further. Or at least some plastigauge....

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by aonemarine

you can get away with measuring the shims and OD of things with a caliper, but they really botch things up when measuring the ID.
You really should invest in some better measuring tools like T gauges and micrometers before going further. Or at least some plastigauge....

I used plastigage.

[aonemarine]

did you try prying the crank to the front and rear of block and spinning it??

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

I wonder if the crank journals are oval, and you are measuring the narrow part?

It should spin quite easily at .0015" clearance.

Though I didn't take the crank in for any testing, I DID measure the journals for ovalness and didn't find any. The crank had been ground down at some point to .030 under. I measured all around the journals, and they uniform.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by aonemarine

did you try prying the crank to the front and rear of block and spinning it??

There wasn't any clearance to move the crank forward or back. It must have good tolerance. I put 1000 + miles on this vehicle since I bought it, and I was always able to turn the engine by hand. The crank wasn't altered, ('cept for those shims), so it should be the same. The tightness HAS to be because of my shim removal.

[tbirdtbird]

'The tightness HAS to be because of my shim removal.'

I think I agree.
So, you removed one .001 shim from one side of each main, correct?
That is the common way of explaining. we don't halve that just because we only removed from one side. I know what you are trying to say, but we don't word it that way.
So, the engine is still out of the car, and is upside down, correct? Meaning you still have easy access to the caps?
You said the journals checked out and were not oval, good.
Before putting the shims back I would re-plastigage all 3 mains (be sure to torque all the way, not just snug), record the readings, then rotate the crank 90° and re-plastigage and report the readings back. I believe you will find one reading to be too tight.
Very odd that the center main was the tightest, BTW. I am not sure what to make of that. Still have the original 64# FW on there? It is that heavy FW that makes the crank whip and eat up the center main first.
And you are saying there is NO movement fore and aft of the crank? Should be about .003 play.
Is it known how many miles on the babbitt? The thrusts on the rear main babbitt are OK, not cracked?
You are certain the front and center caps were not reversed during assembly?

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by tbirdtbird

'The tightness HAS to be because of my shim removal.'

I think I agree.
So, you removed one .001 shim from one side of each main, correct?
That is the common way of explaining. we don't halve that just because we only removed from one side. I know what you are trying to say, but we don't word it that way.
So, the engine is still out of the car, and is upside down, correct? Meaning you still have easy access to the caps?
You said the journals checked out and were not oval, good.
Before putting the shims back I would re-plastigage all 3 mains (be sure to torque all the way, not just snug), record the readings, then rotate the crank 90° and re-plastigage and report the readings back. I believe you will find one reading to be too tight.
Very odd that the center main was the tightest, BTW. I am not sure what to make of that. Still have the original 64# FW on there? It is that heavy FW that makes the crank whip and eat up the center main first.
And you are saying there is NO movement fore and aft of the crank? Should be about .003 play.
Is it known how many miles on the babbitt? The thrusts on the rear main babbitt are OK, not cracked?
You are certain the front and center caps were not reversed during assembly?

Lots of great questions. I will gauge the play in crankshaft. I can check plastigage from different rotations. Yes, engine is upside down on stand with just camshaft, valves and crankshaft in. I did NOT remove shim from the center (it was .0015)... just ONE shim (.001) from the front main, and ONE shim (.001) from the rear main. Both of these were originally .002 each. I should have been happy with that.
There are no cracks on the thrusts on any of the mains. (I did find some thrust babbit gone from one of the rods, but they have all been replaced with same-weight rebabbitted rods).
Mileage? I have no idea. I bought the car on ebay (ok, I know...) from a kid who won it in a raffle. he knew NOTHING about the car. The lower end was just fine, much to my delight, but the top end of the engine needed all the work. I had it sleeved, bored to std, hardened exhaust valve seats, deck leveled, new valves, guides, springs, new pistons, (Snyder's premium), cast iron rings. I DID buy a good B cam, and a 6.1 Snyder head, chrome moly head studs w rolled threads. Maybe I'll look into a B carb to compliment the above mods.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Oh, I had 10 lbs taken off flywheel, so it is 53#. Had it balanced too, & new ring gear, by John Cosper. Bought a Borg Warner from him to install at a later time.

[Chuck Sea/Tac]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Try Prussian blue to see if you have high spots ect

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Originally Posted by Chuck Sea/Tac

Try Prussian blue to see if you have high spots ect

I've heard of that. Will look it up. Thanx Chuck.

[tbirdtbird]

after you do the testing I suggested, if you do not find any tight readings, and the crank is still tight to turn, then replace the front shim you took out. Assuming all my suggested testing works out with no culprits, then I think you have ended up 'bending the crank over the center main' if you get my drift.....the front and rear of the crank have been leaned on, while the center has stayed put.
You live close to John's shop, and he has a lot of experience with engine building, you could ask him, also. And he could ask his Dad, Pete, who is one of the finest builders there ever was.
Oh,and I see no note of changing out the timing gears, correct? Still the same gears as before?
I knew a guy that had a set of Dan's fine gears that bound up in an odd way. Turns out that a highly rated 'builder' near me had removed these gears (bronze and steel set) improperly from another motor, and sold them to the guy who ended up with the trouble. The local 'builder' had laid an O/A torch on one corner of the steel gear to heat it to expand it for removal. Since he did not heat uniformly, he ovaled out the steel gear by .020 !!!!
It took me a long time to figure out what the dickens was going on. But a close inspection of the steel gear revealed color changes induced by the torch which is what told the story. In short, a nice set of Dan's gears were ruined by a hammerhead.

And you are right, if I had found each journal to be .002, I would have left it alone

[700rpm]

I don't have as much experience as Tbird or Tom, but in my shade tree way, I would loosen or remove the rear main cap, and see if that made it turn easier. If not, then I'd do the same thing at the center, leaving the rear loose. Then the front. Now it should turn. Then I'd go back through it, tightening and testing in sequence. The process of elimination would reveal the problem, I think.

[Henry's Lady's Man]

Ok. I used plastigage on each main journal, 3 times, at 180 degrees apart. The plastigage looked the same all around. All said, I put the shims back in (which I had taked out). ll is fine. I actually had a 1-3/8" socket (I bought for something else - said I'd never find a use for it again...), used my bar torque wrench and it moves nicely at about 18ftlb torque. Remember, I don't have pistons and rods in yet. It was a lesson to just leave well enough alone. The bearings are now .002 .0015 .002 . That's where it was when I tore it down. Someone must have done a good job on the bottom. Why the top was a mess, I'll never know.
I'm turnin' in. My arms are tired from torquing all evening, and I still have a job in the morning.

Thanks to all for the help and advice. Chuck

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by Henry's Lady's Man

I used plastigage.

That might not be accurate with babbitt bearings. Some times it will inbed in the babbitt. In the first place the center main is the first to get loose.
If it was me I would put the shims back. What you have is to tight.

I hope you did not turn the caps or move them from front to back.

[Dodge]

Next time you do an adjustment, do one at a time turning it several times after so it's easy to diagnose as you go.

[700rpm]

Originally Posted by Dodge

Next time you do an adjustment, do one at a time turning it several times after so it's easy to diagnose as you go.

Right. That's what I was trying to say above, but you said it better.