FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: JimBo on August 25, 2024, 05:41:39 PM
-
I am rebuilding a 352. The machine work is done and I wanted to confirm how best to hang the pistons on the rods. New pistons, and rods have been bushed and honed for pin fit.
In the past I have used Lubriplate 150 for the lube, installed one snap ring in the piston, used a heat gun on the rod end to open the bore a bit and slid the pin in.
It has been a few years while since I have done this, is this still the right process? Suggestions?
-
If, the pin fit was done correctly, then the pins will slide right in the rods and should fit the pistons. No heat is necessary for assembly. Trial fit the pin in the rod then trial fit the pin in the piston, then both together
I, don't know what Lubriplate 150 is, but for assembly I use Brad Penn 30 weight break in oil, which is now named Penn Grade 1 Breakin OIL for bearing assembly, because in most cases that's the oil the motor will be broke in on.
And the only reason for the breakin oil, is to break in the cam & lifters, since the BP Breakin Oil has higher levels of Zinc & Phosphorus minerals than say would their BP 20-50 weight oils.
So, there's no confusion, I use a separate assembly lube just for the cam & lifters.
-
As far as I am concerned, Lubriplate, which is a white Lithium grease, has no place anywhere inside of an engine. Least of all in a tight clearance application, such as with wrist pins. All FE engines have full floating wrist pins, with bronze bushings in the connecting rods, as mentioned , no heat at all is needed, and engine oil is all I ever use of the pins, which should slide in with slight thumb pressure. Lubriplate often ends up as a white glob of grease in the bottom of the oil pan, until it gets hot enough , for long enough, until the oil is drained.
-
All FE engines have full floating wrist pins, with bronze bushings in the connecting rods, as mentioned , no heat at all is needed,.......................
I believe the later production ('70's) 360 & 390 cu. in. engines were "press-pin" (no bronze bushing). :)
Scott.
-
All FE engines have full floating wrist pins, with bronze bushings in the connecting rods, as mentioned , no heat at all is needed,.......................
I believe the later production ('70's) 360 & 390 cu. in. engines were "press-pin" (no bronze bushing). :)
Scott.
My 360 was for sure.
-
Thanks all. The "rest of the story" is this engine is to replace the 360 in one of my '75 pickups that dropped an exhaust valve and punched a hole in the cylinder wall. I had a 352 block, so I took it to the machine shop and had it fixed up. The crank and rods are from the 360, I used new 352 pistons to bring the compression up a bit over what the 360 had. Actually 1 rod was replaced as it was bent from the broken valve.
I was able to hang 2 pistons by inserting the pin and locating it to the rod end, then another pin from the other side and push it in. Not a thumb press, it took light pressure from a rubber mallet to push it in. My concern now is if it is this tight will the rod locate properly on the crank.
-
All FE engines have full floating wrist pins, with bronze bushings in the connecting rods, as mentioned , no heat at all is needed,.......................
I believe the later production ('70's) 360 & 390 cu. in. engines were "press-pin" (no bronze bushing). :)
Scott.
When I rebuilt the 1976 390 , which is the final year that FE`s were installed in vehicles, it absolutely did have full floating pins, with bronze bushings, in the C7AE-B rods. I have never sen, or ever heard of any FE engine having pressed wrist pins.
-
Thanks all. The "rest of the story" is this engine is to replace the 360 in one of my '75 pickups that dropped an exhaust valve and punched a hole in the cylinder wall. I had a 352 block, so I took it to the machine shop and had it fixed up. The crank and rods are from the 360, I used new 352 pistons to bring the compression up a bit over what the 360 had. Actually 1 rod was replaced as it was bent from the broken valve.
I was able to hang 2 pistons by inserting the pin and locating it to the rod end, then another pin from the other side and push it in. Not a thumb press, it took light pressure from a rubber mallet to push it in. My concern now is if it is this tight will the rod locate properly on the crank.
If the pin is so tight that it will not allow the rod to easily slide from side to side, and you can not rotate the pin in the piston and the rod with your finger in the hole, it is too tight. Now, if you used Lubriplate, that could be the problem. If so, I would remove the pins, clean all the grease off from the pins, rods, and pistons, and put everything back together with engine oil, and see if the pins go in easily, and move freely in the pistons and rods.
-
According to my records, some of the late truck engines had pressed 1.04 WP's.
-
According to my records, some of the late truck engines had pressed 1.04 WP's.
Be interested in seeing your "records" showing that, and if they are FE or FT engines. As I said, my 390 was from a 1976 F250, so not sure how much later of a FE there was.
-
This is from my Sterling piston catalog. It also list the same for the 330, 359 & 361, for the same years.
I did say some trucks and didn't say anything about PU's
-
So , it appears that I was correct, ALL FE engines had full floating wrist pins. You say that you never said anything about PUs, I said all FEs had full floating pins, and I said nothing about FTs.
-
How do you get that out of this:
"According to my records, some of the late truck engines had pressed 1.04 WP's."
That's all I said. Are not FT engines, also FE's?
I said some truck engines and I didn't even say all truck engines. It was just a statement of fact. It appears that not many knew that.
-
I took the whole setup back to the machine shop. After looking it over they agreed the pins were too tight and honed them again. Much better now.
While I was there I picked up the crank that they had ground, and the bearings for it. Tried to use the bearings, the thrust bearing was wrong. I understood what happened, the crank they ground was from a '75 360, going into a '65 352 block. The early blocks used different thrust bearings with a smaller diameter flange. Back to the shop for a different set of bearings.
-
How do you get that out of this:
"According to my records, some of the late truck engines had pressed 1.04 WP's."
That's all I said. Are not FT engines, also FE's?
I said some truck engines and I didn't even say all truck engines. It was just a statement of fact. It appears that not many knew that.
NO, technically FEs are FEs, and FTs are FTs. If they were all the same, there would have been no reason for Ford to give the heavier trucks their own specific FT designation. A "truck" with a FE, would be a F100 thru F350, the heavier trucks, like F600s and F750s, L series and COEs only used FT engines, not FEs. But feel free to try to twist facts around to make it seem in your mind, that you are always correct. I wouldn`t expect anything else from you.
-
That's fine for you think anyway you like but, apparently you learned something about Ford engines and what WP's have pressed fits.