FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => Member Projects => Topic started by: FirstEliminator on September 05, 2019, 12:17:37 AM
-
Hey guys,
Now, it's the beginning of September. The last time I spent any time working on my wagon was a tad over 4 months ago, 3 days before Beaver Springs. I was supposed to have this CP wagon on the track at Beaver Springs, but due to a tick in the engine, having the flew and burnt out from many late nights, I threw in the towel. Luckily, Dennis (Towd56) brought down the 67 Country Squire which brought a smile to everyone's face that loves the old wagons. I certainly enjoyed watching him run. On the other hand I might have been a little jealous as I could have been out there too if everything went right. So, after Beaver Springs the wagon sat, untouched.
Then comes September 1st, which was the day of Musclepalooza put on by Hemmings at a dragstrip in New Lebanon, NY. The 67 Country Squire was there too. Watching his wagon run again gave me the inspiration to get back in gear on mine. Last night I pulled the oil pan to find the tick. My suspicion was the windage tray and thankfully that is what I found. The problem with it was the oil pump pick up was pressing up on the tray. #1 or #2 rod bolt head was just scraping against it. I decided to remove the windage tray instead of fixing it. Everything went back together.
Today, I filled it with oil and coolant. I turned the key and the darn thing probably didn't make one full revolution before cranking up. I actually drove a short distance withe the CP tonight. Very short. Backed out of the bay and back in to swap vehicles around. MSD Atomic EFI is on the engine and I spent a little time tuning it and adjusting the ignition timing. It was nice to hear it run for a bit. The full exhaust is very quiet, which I love. There are still other odds and ends to button up on the CP. The plan is to drive it this weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKttzAGq5RM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKttzAGq5RM)
-
Very nice, what a sleeper, especially all blue!
I bet with the EFI it's going to be a nice driver to boot.
-
So far, so good with the EFI. Seems to burn pretty clean at idle. No eye-watering rich idle mix.
-
How are the cam and rockers?
-
Hi Brent,
I haven't have a chance to take it out for a drive. I spent more time last night looking for hardware than putting a couple things together. Amazing how it all disappears. So far, the idle is exactly what I desired. The air cleaner is a bit too tall and rubs the hood insulation. I ordered an air cleaner that is 3/4" shorter. This weekend I should be able to test drive.
-
Very nice. I have a soft spot for wagons. Love under the hood.
-
Congrats Mark. Glad you found the inspiration to tackle it again.The car sounds and looks great.......just what you need for cruising down the road.
I like the wagons too, but I haven’t been able to convince my wife!! :o
-
Wagons are cool for cruising with family and friends. Plus, they have purpose too!
-
Last Friday I realized I might not have the correct distributor gear. I placed and order with Summit for a steel gear via overnight with Saturday delivery. Saturday, I removed the distributor, pulled the gear and started swapping on the new steel gear. Stupid me, I was tapping it on with a brass hammer and a tooth broke off. Luckily, I sometimes anticipate my stupidity by doing something like ordering two gears. Here's my excuse, not a great reason, but I tried to do it with the distributor still wired to the car, because when I wired it, I soldered the wires instead of putting on a couple connectors. With the 2nd gear, I cut the wires and brought the distributor over the the arbor press and the new gear went on as if it were on roller bearings. Then I had some trouble with the installation. The distributor just didn't want to go in. Then I couldn't get it out, not without a lot of struggle. I had to get some paint work further along on my porch so I gave up about 2pm.
Today, I was puzzled so I took apart the distributor and tried the individual pieces in the engine. The shaft with the gear fit with no problem. Then the housing by itself dropped in no problem. Tonight I reassembled the distributor. Doing some measuring and trying to determine why there are two different rollpin hole heights, I decided to use the other hole which moves the gear lower on the shaft. I mocked up the distributor and applied gear marking compound. I turned the engine over and the resistance of the oil pump was enough to show the contact pattern. The pattern was very well centered in the tooth. I finished assembly of the distributor and set the timing. It took a few tries and modifications to get the timing where I wanted.
Then, I drove the car around the block! I just drove easy. Ya know, of all things that could happen to a guy that owns a transmission shop.......the freakin C-6 had no 2nd gear-------what the F........? It shouldn't be a big deal to get that straitened out tomorrow.
The engine is a little ticky, not like when the crank was hitting the windage tray. Maybe I am being over sensitive and nervous. All I can do is be cautious and pay attention. Either way, it is exciting to finally have this moving under it's own power.
-
There is a dimension that has to be held when you install a distributor gear.
On an MSD, you push the shaft in to eliminate the end-play, then measure from the bottom face of the gear to the bottom of the distributor flange. That dimension should be 3.045-3.050".
On a factory distributor, you pull the shaft out to include the end-play, then take the same measurement. That dimension should be 3.071-3.078".
On pretty much every distributor that I change the gear on, I press it on until I get the dimension I want, then drill a new hole in the shaft.
-
While fooling around with the distributor, I did measure from the step in the distributor bore down to the pad and got a 3.062 dimension. When I put the gear on the shaft in the higher position there was a big gap. With the rotation of the gears it looks like with resistance from the oil pump the distributor shaft wants to be pulled down. With such a big gap it looked possible that the top bushing in the distributor body would have been bearing the load instead of between the gear and pad in the block. When installing the distributor the shaft bottomed out and then the distributor body went down just a touch more.
-
You may wanna pull it and check it, Mark.
-
It's a Ford distributor. With the endplay pulled out, it measures 3.138. With the endplay eliminated it measure 3.038. The distance from the step to the pad is 3.062. When the distributor is installed fully seated the shaft endplay measures .028". That is not including the mechanical advance endplay.
The endplay of the distributor is .112" I don't think this matters because the installed endplay when captured between the two load bearing surfaces is the .028.
Is there a problem in those measurements? The contact pattern on the gear had a diagonal streak. It was pretty well centered. Not toe, heel, root or crown biased.
Isn't the goal to have the distributor gear sit on the machined pad in the block with a little endplay above it?
-
The trans is straitened out and now it works the way it should.
There is a noise emanating from this engine that I cannot identify. It sounds like an air pump on an '86 Lincoln. It gets faster with rpm, not louder. using a stethoscope it seems to be loudest around the intake near the distributor. With the stethoscope on the body of the distributor you can't hear it. You can hear it at the distributor cap.
I changed the height of the distributor gear tonight. The distributor shaft now sits lower. I wanted to see if by chance the rotor was contacting the cap. Nothing changed about the noise. The step to gear measurement is 3.048 with the endplay compressed.
The oil filter was removed and snipped open. It looked like metallic paint. A friend of mine convinced me that the break-in oil usually looks that way.
I don't know. I'm getting a little disheartened with this engine. It runs strong, pulls the wagon really good. The noise has concerned and bothered me from the moment I heard it. Now I still don't know what it's from. I'm not looking forward to pulling this engine out. In the future if I am going to do this I think I need to build a run stand.
If you run a cast gear on a roller cam, which one gets damaged? The cast or the steel? Or both? If so, how quickly? With the distributor out tonight I noticed the contact marks on the gear are still diagonal but are going off the crown of the tooth. Looking at a used cast gear it appears the same way, just over a wider area.
Bonus discovery!!!! I pulled the passenger side valve cover to notice some very small droplets of coolant. What do you guys think of some Bars Leak to seal these minor seepages?
Some moments I am wishing I didn't attempt to fix windage tray noise. I think I was better off to fantasize and day dream about how cool this wagon would be, than to live the reality of failure and problems.
-
Antifreeze or water?
-
Bright green. There is no cloudiness to the oil. It's minimal contamination, but still it's contamination.
-
Just sitting there by the valve springs? Did you look into the lifter valley?
-
Mark - that is one cool car. Never see them. Can't wait to see that beauty running down the track..................
I'm planning on going to Lebanon for the Dover Reunion - maybe we can meet up
It sounds like it is giving you a run for your money? Looks like you have quite the stable of cars too? Maybe its time to let that long roof go to a loving home - I do offer an adoption service for orphaned wagons. :) :)
-
Hi Dennis,
I wanted to stop over and say hi to ya at Musclepalooza, but I was running around talking to so many people. I live in North Adams. It's a little out of the way from your place to Lebanon, but you are welcome to stop by any time.
eh.....I'm really bad at selling stuff. Especially Mercs.
Mark
-
Got it. Wasn’t sure if you were going to be at Lebanon for the Dover reunion. Hop to se that wagon a an even soon
-
Oil pan is back off. I can't find anything astray. I did notice the block to trans spacer plate is a little bowed towards the convertor. Rotating the engine I can see anywhere it was touching. Being in a transmission shop for 20+ years I am familiar with spacer plate noise. This doesn't sound that way. Although the noise is loud at the trans bell. Loudest at the bottom of the back of the oil pan---not the sump area. It's 2:15am and I think I am done for the night.
Almost done.
One thing I have never heard has been a spun bearing. I can just barely see the parting line of the #5. Or, I think I see it. Thought about dropping the rear cap, but dreading it with hoping the seals would go back together and actually seal again.
Up and down pressure was put on all the rod big ends and I cannot feel any play from them. Turned the crank to see all the cylinder walls checking for scoring from a piston pin walking out----good.
Oil pump looks good.
It's almost 3. I think I am going to bed.
-
If you just have a minor water leak, you can use stop leak, it's pretty magical stuff if you have a small leak. It basically helps or it doesn't, new cars come with it, won't hurt anything
As far as the noise, can you see the ends of the flywheel bolts into the crankshaft? I have seen many that were too long and would hit the crank if not changed or cut
Does the noise go away as it warms up? I fought a felixible block a few years back where I didn't torque plate hone and I had piston slap, a decent tick that got a little better with heat as things expanded. That block taught me to never cheat, sonic check, torque plate hone, won't get bit again. Cylinders moved .008 in some places, noise was hard to pin down, but I always wanted to go to the bellhousing like you said
Listen here at 29, 44, and 50 seconds. See if it is similar. Ignore the rattle at the end, that was the transfer case shifter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnSd_lMyFNM
In the end, if it is piston slap, it likely will live a long life
-
Hi Ross thanks for the reply with the video. I was able to get about another 1/4-3/8 turn retorquing the intake bolts. Before tightening the bolts I did put a pressure tester on the cooling system at 20 psi for about a half hour. The pressure dropped a couple pounds, but it is also leaking around the screw in freeze plugs. I think I will leave the intake gaskets in place and add some Bars Leak.
The noise does not subside when the engine warms up. it does sound similar to the noise yours made.
The flywheel bolts are not too long. I can see that the bolt threads do no protrude through the crank flange.
A friend was talking about cam endplay. I did stick a big screw driver up to move the cam back and forth. But couldn't move it, suspecting the valve springs were putting too much pressure on it.
Took the day off from the 482 today. Spent time painting porch spindles. Oil pan is still off so I will continue tomorrow....maybe.
thanks,
Mark
-
Hi Ross thanks for the reply with the video. I was able to get about another 1/4-3/8 turn retorquing the intake bolts. Before tightening the bolts I did put a pressure tester on the cooling system at 20 psi for about a half hour. The pressure dropped a couple pounds, but it is also leaking around the screw in freeze plugs. I think I will leave the intake gaskets in place and add some Bars Leak.
The noise does not subside when the engine warms up. it does sound similar to the noise yours made.
The flywheel bolts are not too long. I can see that the bolt threads do no protrude through the crank flange.
A friend was talking about cam endplay. I did stick a big screw driver up to move the cam back and forth. But couldn't move it, suspecting the valve springs were putting too much pressure on it.
Took the day off from the 482 today. Spent time painting porch spindles. Oil pan is still off so I will continue tomorrow....maybe.
thanks,
Mark
Mark, you must be frustrated if porch spindles trumps car work! LOL
If it is sloppy bores, it likely won't get significantly worse or fail you, but I sure hated it.
Was your engine torque plate honed and were the pistons fit? In my case, I was trying to cheat and use a better block on a customer build and reuse a block that had been prepped by a third party on my own. In the end, it was not torque plate honed, and when I checked the bores cold, no heads, it was pretty straight, but when I bolted the heads on and went from the bottom, all hell broke loose. Pistons were .0025-.003 clearance and I was in the .008 range and no two matched
I am confident it would have continued to run now, but I couldn't stand not knowing at the time, built a bench 390 that is in the truck now, and did a fresh 461 that sits on a stand waiting to go in the truck
-
Hi Ross,
I am not sure if torque plates were used. The block was supposedly good, but things weren't perfect so it got bored/honed to 4.25.
Sloppy bores are something I am not sure of. I've thrown rings and bearings in worn out engines that were honed with a ball hone and they ran much more quietly than this 482.
The thought of replacing this block would be the pinnacle of frustration.
The porch spindles are a decade overdue, but fun to make progress on. Painting this old Victorian is a major to-do. To paint it the way I am painting it with proper prep, a professional told me it would cost about 50K to paint this house. It's been a long term project that I am doing myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kyo5FmVU6E&list=PLmd7EZ1chb36MaW08aWGbdVgYpzv4VBux (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kyo5FmVU6E&list=PLmd7EZ1chb36MaW08aWGbdVgYpzv4VBux)
-
Hi Ross,
I am not sure if torque plates were used. The block was supposedly good, but things weren't perfect so it got bored/honed to 4.25.
Sloppy bores are something I am not sure of. I've thrown rings and bearings in worn out engines that were honed with a ball hone and they ran much more quietly than this 482.
The thought of replacing this block would be the pinnacle of frustration.
The porch spindles are a decade overdue, but fun to make progress on. Painting this old Victorian is a major to-do. To paint it the way I am painting it with proper prep, a professional told me it would cost about 50K to paint this house. It's been a long term project that I am doing myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kyo5FmVU6E&list=PLmd7EZ1chb36MaW08aWGbdVgYpzv4VBux (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kyo5FmVU6E&list=PLmd7EZ1chb36MaW08aWGbdVgYpzv4VBux)
Nice work! I love the old Victorian stuff, until you want a king sized bed or have to move big stuff in or out of the house! Growing up in Mass, you get to appreciate the beauty of those homes, especially when kept beautiful. Labor of love
-
Fantastic work Mark. I marvel at those old homes and all the wood details. Though, like you are going through, the massive amount of work to restore them(correctly).
-
Last night, simultaneously, I had both energy and time to check further into the 482. I pulled the rear bearing cap and the bearing was polished, very shiney. A few weeks ago I purchased plastigage and thought about using it last night but decided not to take the rod caps apart. Pushing and pulling on the rod big ends I can't get any movement of the rods. Also it seems unlikely the Scat crank and rods would be a problem---but yes, anything can happen. If the rod bearings had enough clearance to make some noise, I would think I could feel that by grasping the big end and moving it in the direction of travel. Should I bother with the plastigage on the rods?
The rocker shafts came off last night. I pried back and forth on the cam to check it's end play. There wasn't much movement. Between the retainer and the cam sprocket I could see a small line of oil squeeze out when pushed, and get drawn back in when pulled.
Looking carefully around the block to trans spacer plate I couldn't see signs of anything making contact. I might pull the trans, then reinstall without the convertor to see if that changes anything.
Crankshaft endplay is at .008"
I'd love to get this noise quieted. Or just dump a worn out 390 back in. It's frustrating to spend a lot of effort on this and be too worried to run it. It's even more annoying to not identify the noise.....yet.
-
In the end, I think it's probably time to pull it out and take it apart slowly, unless you think another set of ears may recognize the problem
SCAT crank and rods often need off-size bearings, I generally see them being a little loose, but they can need more room sometimes too.
The .008 crank endplay is good, and my hunch is your cam endplay is good, but a shiny bearing in a fresh engine is not. In fact, most bearings look relatively unchanged after initial run, if yours is polishing up, there may be an issue.
Look close at the piston bosses, there were some SCAT cranks that could lightly hit the piston at BTDC, and after that, not much left to do but tear in and measure everything
Last comment, be completely sure it isn't an accessory or something, belt rubbing, bad PS pump, not saying you wouldn't recognize it, but just look real close before it comes out
-
(http://)
-
Piston pin bosses are a long distance away from the crank.
-
With a bearing looking like that i would tear it down
-
What causes a bearing to get polished like that? A friend mentioned too tight will give it a polished look.
-
Might be a little tight. Looks like a bit of dirt in the assembly. Nothing really evil though, and not what is causing the ticking noise.
Fuel Pump? Timing chain sprocket misalignment? Rocker system side clearance?
-
While the crank is still savable, it's coming out.
-
Would a small amount of glycol contamination in the oil cause this type of bearing wear? Small amount as in not visibly noticeable.
-
The bearing really doesn't bother me either, but agree it's probably a little on the tight side. I've seen similar bearings from all-aluminum tear-downs where we have to set the mains fairly tight because of block expansion when hot.
What Barry mentioned reminded me of a Windsor that I built that had a ticky noise toward the front of the engine. It was the mechanical fuel pump. It was running on the dyno, not even being used because we hook up an electric pump, and it was ticking away. I pulled the pump and put a block off plate on, and the noise went away.
-
This 482 has efi, no fuel pump or eccentric. Just a big washer under the cam bolt to hold the pin in place.
-
While I don't really care for the way those look - it ain't your noise issue.
You could polish those up with a brown paper bag and some WD40, reinstall them, and likely run for decades.
You are going to need to very very "eyes open" on disassembly to find your sound source...
-
I was pretty certain the bearings weren't the noise issue. The pictures of the main and rod bearings were the only two inspection samples that I removed. It's possible another bearing is worse off. We have the potential for snow as soon as two weeks. If things hold off, we won't see road salt for a month or so. I'd like to have things back together before then to road test. Without setting road salt for a deadline, I would probably be doing this a week before Beaver Springs. Hopefully with the moderate workload in the shop this week I can find time to get started on it. A friend has a run stand set up for FE which I will use instead of the Colony Park with all it's accessories and long cast manifolds which are a very tight fit.
Another issue is the 3/8 push rods. Some were rubbing on the intake manifold. Of the worst one I plugged the bottom of the hole and used a small rotary file to clean up where it was touching. Also, I moved around some rocker shims to help center the push rods in the holes. I didn't see any new marks where the push rods were hitting. But, I didn't run it for more than a 20 minutes after that. To further help that issue I ordered a set of 5/16 push rods which should be sufficient for 5500 rpm.
Hey guys, thanks for the help and guidance.
-
I was pretty certain the bearings weren't the noise issue. The pictures of the main and rod bearings were the only two inspection samples that I removed. It's possible another bearing is worse off. We have the potential for snow as soon as two weeks. If things hold off, we won't see road salt for a month or so. I'd like to have things back together before then to road test. Without setting road salt for a deadline, I would probably be doing this a week before Beaver Springs. Hopefully with the moderate workload in the shop this week I can find time to get started on it. A friend has a run stand set up for FE which I will use instead of the Colony Park with all it's accessories and long cast manifolds which are a very tight fit.
Another issue is the 3/8 push rods. Some were rubbing on the intake manifold. Of the worst one I plugged the bottom of the hole and used a small rotary file to clean up where it was touching. Also, I moved around some rocker shims to help center the push rods in the holes. I didn't see any new marks where the push rods were hitting. But, I didn't run it for more than a 20 minutes after that. To further help that issue I ordered a set of 5/16 push rods which should be sufficient for 5500 rpm.
Hey guys, thanks for the help and guidance.
Touching the pushrod tube isn't a sin. Rubbing it hard enough to deflect the pushrod can get you into trouble. Remember, pushrods can be "calmed" by leaning against something substantial.....a pushrod tube, a guide plate, etc. I agree that a 5/16" diameter pushrod is absolutely adequate for what you need, but I don't think you were in trouble with the 3/8".
-
For the heck of it, I tried the plastigage on the rod I have apart. It measured .002. Using a 2-3 mic, the crank journal measures 2.2005. The mic was previously calibrated at the machine shop my father worked at. But that was quite a few years ago. The body of the mic was cool, which may have lead to it reading the extra 5-tenths. Or, it could be accurate. I didn't have a standard to verify accuracy.
-
Crank journals should be undersized.....
A 2.200" BBC journal should be somewhere around 2.199x" and I generally see it down on the low end of that, i.e. 2.1991", 2.1992", etc.
My guess is that your mic is out of calibration against a proper standard.
-
Hydraulic cam? My guess is lifters. Did you try snugging up the adjusters a little to see if it would help? If the lifters are bad enough, sometimes when the lobe is on the base circle, you can easily push the rocker and pushrod down by hand. Had that on my old 390. Brand new Crower cam savers. Had a junk one out of the box. Just because parts are new, doesn't mean they are good. How much preload on the lifters?
As for the bearings, they are not horrible, but not perfect. Looks like some dirt or maybe the metallic substance you said was in the filter had something to do with it. Could prolly scuff them as Barry mentioned and reuse them...
-
During a nice phone conversation with Brent I was trying to explain the noise and I couldn't remember exactly what it sounded like and when. So, this evening I threw every thing together. Before the oil pan when on, I looked at every rod bearing and they are all the same, none are more or less shiney or discolored than the others. I put it together and it doesn't sound that bad now. There is a little bit of noise. I took some video. The noise doesn't seem to be any louder than the Windsor in my 69 Cougar which make a little noise----which also bothered me, but I have been running that for a few years and nothing has changed.
Here is the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pejcim4WyAU
The only change made this evening is I removed the 3/8 push rods and installed 5/16. I don't recall what I did for preload on the lifters. I think I measured what a half turn is on a 460 rocker stud and added that to the adjustable push rod tool's dimension was during mock-up.
Tomorrow, I will take the Colony Park out to lunch to see how it goes.
-
Dumb question, but do you by chance do you have the spacer installed that comes behind the original ford top timing gear? Most aftermarket gears have the spacer built into the gear so you throw the spacer away. That will make noise as the chain will hit the cover.
Ask me how I know this.
-
No spacer there. A friend had run into that on an engine he put together and mentioned to look out for that issue.
I have a feeling I know how you know this....
-
Today I was able to take the CP out to lunch. It drives good. The engine feels good and has a lot of pep. There is some noise, it does seem less intense than before. There is a vibration around 1800-2000 rpm. Not tune, it does it on accel, cruise and decel. Trying to be good, I installed an SFI approved flexplate. It has a bit of wobble. I've seen this plenty of times before on vehicles and it was never a problem. To be sure it isn't the cause of problems I ordered a stock flexplate to try. The other thing is the starter gear mesh is very noisy. I wonder if there is a problem with the block plate. The previous starter and flex plate on the 390 were very noisy as well. The only thing that has stayed the same between the old engine and the new has been the spacer plate. I will change that along with the flex plate. Perhaps this spacer is for a manual trans?
Thanks,
Mark
-
I've been told that all spacer plates are the same except for the holes drilled for the galley plugs.
-
Today I was able to take the CP out to lunch. It drives good. The engine feels good and has a lot of pep. There is some noise, it does seem less intense than before. There is a vibration around 1800-2000 rpm. Not tune, it does it on accel, cruise and decel. Trying to be good, I installed an SFI approved flexplate. It has a bit of wobble. I've seen this plenty of times before on vehicles and it was never a problem. To be sure it isn't the cause of problems I ordered a stock flexplate to try. The other thing is the starter gear mesh is very noisy. I wonder if there is a problem with the block plate. The previous starter and flex plate on the 390 were very noisy as well. The only thing that has stayed the same between the old engine and the new has been the spacer plate. I will change that along with the flex plate. Perhaps this spacer is for a manual trans?
Thanks,
Mark
It would be very hard for a block plate to be bad, unless it was damaged and didn't fit the starter. If it's not rubbing, it's located and sandwiched by the bell, then the starter sandwiches it to the bell yet again. My gut says you either have a bent or bad flywheel, or the starter alignment is off for some other reason and smacked the flexplate when you started it originally. Hopefully the flexplate swap makes multiple things better
-
Tonight, I swapped the flex plate. The noise is still here. I found another spacer plate and it matches the one in the car perfectly. I stayed with the current spacer plate as it was cleaned and painted. One improvement is the starter gear mesh sounds proper now. It was very noisy before, like a GM needing a few shims. Also, the vibration between 1800-2000 is less than half of what it was before.
I haven't a clue what the noise is. I'm going to run it for a bit to see if anything changes.
One funny thing. When I attempted to start the engine, the starter was lagging and I saw some smoke rise up. I looked under the hood and saw my long 3/8 extension that I used to tighten the middle starter bolt still laying in place. It was a little stuck there as is got welded to the cable stud on the starter. After removing it, the engine cranked and started fine.
-
I've been driving the CP482 around. The noise is still here. It sounds like a 7.3 diesel. Not a rod knock. There might be some rocker tick now. I ran it to 6200 or so a couple times. I'm curious to run the 1/4 with it. Can't wait to get rid of the 3.89 gear and back to the 2.80 so I can cruise. Anyway, any thoughts about what would make it sound like a 7.3?
-
Some of the Comp XR cams can sound like a sewing machine (or a diesel).
Don’t remember what you’ve got.
-
It is a Comp hyd roller lobe. 283 adv. 227 @.050.
-
Some of the Comp XR cams can sound like a sewing machine (or a diesel).
Don’t remember what you’ve got.
It's one of my cams, he's safe on that one...
-
Mark, if it is indeed as loud as a diesel, I am not sure I'd be hammering on it, or driving it at all
However, loose flywheel or converter bolts, rod knock, piston clearance, wrist pin issue, pistons hitting the heads, if much lesser, lifter preload issue, PS pumps can make some funny noises, fuel pump, etc, if a Motorsports fuel pump eccentric they can hit the timing cover.
I am not going to Massachusetts anytime until maybe early next year, but man I wish I could go inside and do some looking to try to help.
ON EDIT: I just listened to your video, it sure sounds like the rear of the engine. It also sounds reciprocating to me, not rotating. It was hard to compare the Sept and October video, but some questions
1 - How did you determine pushrod length and did you end up with more than one length pushrod?
2 - Which rockers are you running? Did you check clearance for the cup if adjustable?
3 - Did you check clearance at the rocker baffle (it sounds lower than this to me, but there can be interference there)
4 - Have you had the valve covers off to see if any bent pushrods or collapsed lifters?
5 - An FE stroker only slows about .250 of skirt at BDC, but did you notice any scuffing when you checked for clearance?
6 - Did you check all pistons for clearance to the crank at BDC?
7 - Any chance there is an exhaust leak hiding in there too? I know not THE issue, but I hear a few things
To me I hear a definite valve train noise that is consistent in both videos, I also hear what I think it piston slap in the Oct video, but I think you need to verify preload is correct first.
-
I was able to get a .006 feeler gauge under the skirt. Figuring the piston is a barrel shape, I would think the skirt to cylinder clearance would not be useful. I could wiggle the piston around on the bore from underneath. I took a video of this.
I ought to take this apart before the block or heads gets ruined. Something is going on. There is definitely enough clearance between the skirts and crank. I used a bore scope through the sparkplug hole. The piston tops did not appear to have any contact. I got the number off the piston top which shows this Mahle piston to be for a 4.25 bore. I did not measure the cylinder bore during assembly.
Ii have Brent's non-adjustable roller tip rockers. A push rod length checking tool was used, then measured with a Starrett 12" dial caliper. All push rods are the same length at 8.750. When working on the heads I used a seat height checking tool. They were all very close. Most of the vales required a a little trimming on the stem tips to be at the same height. All push rods lengths were checked. Some were a little different and without looking through previous messages I don't remember how much. But I recall it being close enough to easily be absorbed in the lifter.
Here is the video of piston Movement. I've never tried this on another engine, so not sure if this looks normal. https://youtu.be/lV_yzDTRVaI
-
Mahle 4032 pistons usually have about .003 piston to cylinder clearance.
I just stuck a piston in a 428 that I’m working on and don’t have that kind of movement, even with no rings on the piston.
-
I was able to get a .006 feeler gauge under the skirt. Figuring the piston is a barrel shape, I would think the skirt to cylinder clearance would not be useful. I could wiggle the piston around on the bore from underneath. I took a video of this.
I ought to take this apart before the block or heads gets ruined. Something is going on. There is definitely enough clearance between the skirts and crank. I used a bore scope through the sparkplug hole. The piston tops did not appear to have any contact. I got the number off the piston top which shows this Mahle piston to be for a 4.25 bore. I did not measure the cylinder bore during assembly.
Ii have Brent's non-adjustable roller tip rockers. A push rod length checking tool was used, then measured with a Starrett 12" dial caliper. All push rods are the same length at 8.750. When working on the heads I used a seat height checking tool. They were all very close. Most of the vales required a a little trimming on the stem tips to be at the same height. All push rods lengths were checked. Some were a little different and without looking through previous messages I don't remember how much. But I recall it being close enough to easily be absorbed in the lifter.
Here is the video of piston Movement. I've never tried this on another engine, so not sure if this looks normal. https://youtu.be/lV_yzDTRVaI
So if you were in the center of the skirt, it's valuable info. If you are able to sneak a .006 gauge in there, it's likely more than that if you measured. Which would make all of it make sense. If it's really .008 or .009 then it would be real noisy.
As far as preload, Did you use a Trend checking tool? If not, there are some adjustments that need to be made for others and just using end-to-end
BTW, I have never done anything like you did with the video, but it sure looks loose
-
Mark,
It's snowing here so you are likely in for the year.
Any way these crankshafts could contact the windage tray?
-
Hi Lars,
The crank was touching the windage tray. But, the engine still makes noise after removing the windage tray.
Since my last posting, the Colony Park has been sitting. No driving means no risk of internal damage to a 427 block. I'm trying to muster up some motivation to get it done as Beaver Springs is 5 1/2 months away. Plenty of time....right? Ha!, it'll get here quick! Ugh, I just gotta get started. Also, I'm trying to motivate a friend to get his car together by coercing him with a fresh C-6. Last year we all made it down. The only FE car brought by our group was my white and primer 64 Marauder sitting in show. Hopefully we have a few in 2020.
Mark
-
Get her going Mark!
-
Step one.
-
Step 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_sWICkWKU
Thoughts?
-
Wow, that's weird! :o
Maybe, get close to each piston (cardboard tube to the ear, have someone else crank her over) and see if just one is causing the squeek. Once found, remove that slug and see if the noise goes away.
Could though be a crank issue but I doubt it.
-
Tight wrist pin?
-
Wow, that piston rock at the end is wild. I’ve never seen anything like that. Broke ring maybe??
-
Not sure what the noise is, but it looks like you have way too much piston/cylinder clearance.
-
I am surprised at how much a properly fitted piston can rock when you do a test like you did, but yours does seem extreme.
You would think you'd see some wear on the bore at the skirt location though if that was the issue. That being said, I'd pull one piston out at a time, look close, see if you can see any tracks making the noise, or a magical disappearance of the noise when turning. If nothing looks wrong, and the noise is gone when it's just the crank and cam in there, bore gauge and micrometer, check clearances and bore shape, and recommend you do it with a head bolted on from the bottom at this point.
The snap type of noise, in the valley turning slow, makes me wonder. I didn't have that on my flexi-445 a couple years ago, but I had all kinds of odd noises when running, and they all matched yours. It was just too loose and too crooked. FYI on that one, I tried to take a shortcut with a machined block, no deck plate and I knew it was on the loose side, never would have tried it if it wasn't my own engine. Never again LOL
-
I took a quick measurement with dial calipers. The bore measured 4.250 The skirt of one piston measured 4.245. Calipers aren't as precise as a calibrated mic. But, I gave me a bit of a comparison. What I've found for a measurement for the Mahle xxxxx4550 piston is .0041-.0049 clearance. Is this correct?
Only piston #1 was removed. I've been working late all week, so chances are I will probably not go back into the shop this weekend to further disassemble the shortblock.
-
Wow, that piston rock at the end is wild. I’ve never seen anything like that. Broke ring maybe??
Yeah, after finally looking at the vid through the entire end......that very last shot of I think #8 at the end of the vid shows waaaayyyyy too much rock.
-
If the bore is right on 4.250, it sounds like the solution is a different set of pistons. My not be a bad idea as I think it needs a bit more dish.
-
I took a quick measurement with dial calipers. The bore measured 4.250 The skirt of one piston measured 4.245. Calipers aren't as precise as a calibrated mic. But, I gave me a bit of a comparison. What I've found for a measurement for the Mahle xxxxx4550 piston is .0041-.0049 clearance. Is this correct?
Only piston #1 was removed. I've been working late all week, so chances are I will probably not go back into the shop this weekend to further disassemble the shortblock.
Yes, the big bore Mahles are .0041-.0049 but I personally think that is on the loose side for a 4032, best to match their numbers, although I would be leaning toward .0041 on a street build like yours.
The calipers are not adequate, period, you can't get precisely to the checking point, not even for bench racing at this point in your build. It won't give you good numbers and even more important, there is no way for you to check the size and shape of the bore to compare the numbers to get the actual clearance without a bore gauge. FWIW, even a freshly and properly prepped bore isn't exactly 4.250 from top to bottom and changes with the head bolted on. Our goal is always to be as close as we can to straight, after torque, heat, and all the odd things bolted to a block, but just measuring the top of the bore tells you absolutely nothing of what is going on beneath it.
If you don't have a bore gauge and big mike, just strip it down while looking for things that look different, and if you do or don't find the exact source of the noise while doing that, still have a machine shop use a torque plate or even a head on top the bare block and measure the bores and piston that matches each bore at the checking location. That way they can tell you bore size, taper, roundness and clearance with the pistons you have. It will be money well spent
I know this seems preachy, and hats off to you trying to do forensic work, but the tools you are using will only confuse you with bad data. The proper measurement, and especially with a head torqued down or torque plate, will be a few hours work at most for someone with the right tools and will rule out or convict your clearance numbers.
-
Off an on for about a decade, I've been wanting to buy a dial bore gauge. Maybe now is the time. As far as dial bore gauges, is everyone dead set on a .0001" increment or is .0005" usable for this application?
Just thinking of options, lets say the pistons are too loose in the bore. What is the course of action? Go up to the next bore size? What is the next bore size from 4.250? Or is there such a thing as pistons available in 4.250+.001 over size?
Tomorrow after work I will get this engine the rest of the way apart. Also I will see if my big micrometer set has standards with it. If not, MSC deliveries come next day.
-
http://www.us.mahle.com/media/usa/motorsports/fe-inverted-dome-web.jpg
Why is it the 482 piston #930264550 calls for .0041-.0049 when the other pistons call for .0025-.0033.
-
Off an on for about a decade, I've been wanting to buy a dial bore gauge. Maybe now is the time. As far as dial bore gauges, is everyone dead set on a .0001" increment or is .0005" usable for this application?
Just thinking of options, lets say the pistons are too loose in the bore. What is the course of action? Go up to the next bore size? What is the next bore size from 4.250? Or is there such a thing as pistons available in 4.250+.001 over size?
Tomorrow after work I will get this engine the rest of the way apart. Also I will see if my big micrometer set has standards with it. If not, MSC deliveries come next day.
If the pistons are loose, you can buy custom pistons in any size you want. The fix depends on the issue, if the bore is crooked, hone with a deck plate and buy pistons to match. IRacetec, Diamond, they can get you exactly what you need. For instance, the Diamonds in my Mustang are .047 over.
Just a little CnC programming nowadays, and yes, even in .001 increments, but be sure you know what that bore does loaded, because it does change
A good inexpensive bore gauge like the Fowler at .0005 will work fine. They can be a little clumsy, but once you get the hang of it, they are very repeatable.
-
http://www.us.mahle.com/media/usa/motorsports/fe-inverted-dome-web.jpg
Why is it the 482 piston #930264550 calls for .0041-.0049 when the other pistons call for .0025-.0033.
Bigger slug must grow a bit more. .004 is still pretty tight
-
Hey Ross,
Still coming to Massachusetts?
-
In one of your other posts, didn't you say you could slip a .006" feeler gauge in between a skirt and a cylinder?
I have ran 4.375-4.400" 4032 pistons at .003-.0035" clearance, so I don't think it's a size issue, unless Mahle mislabeled the material in their chart.
Pistons are made for the bore size, with the clearance built in. Have you did a quick check on the bore yet? Calipers aren't the best tool for that either, but you could get an idea if the bore is way big.
-
Hey Ross,
Still coming to Massachusetts?
Maybe in the spring, had a funeral planned that pushed off until then. When I do, I will give you a yell, would love to see what is inside your engine, but timing likely won't work out if you are jumping in over the winter
-
Mark, I did not take a look at Mahle's piston line but the material in the other ones you referenced may be a different alloy with different expansion values?
Keep attacking, April's coming.
JB
-
Found a nice dial bore gauge on ebay and won the auction. It does measure to tenths---.0001. Plus, a set of standards to verify my mics is on the way from MSC. Hopefully within a week I should know exact measurements.
-
Of all the engines I've put together, I can't say I remember seeing rod bearings offset with a step. The step doesn't appear to be touching the crank journal radius or protruding on the rod side either. So it's probably a non-issue. The bearing surface probably is. Until the bore gauges arrive, I can't get an accurate measurement on the bearing I.D. I've used a telescoping gauge on other ID, but feel the bearing material is too soft and telescoping gauges aren't repetitively accurate below a couple thousands. Several attempts with the T gauge seems to average out to about .003, which is the upper limit in my Ford service manual. Plus the way the rod bearings look and the one I bolted on the crank seem loose on the journal. It seems like the noise is predominantly loose rid bearings. More and accurate measuring will further reveal deficiencies.
https://youtu.be/-nVNCAiA-Qs
-
What rod bearings are those? Should be a part number stamped on back. That step is usually because they used two "uppers" or "lowers" in a rod assembly - a significant error, and one that's easy to make. If it does not touch the crank it won't really hurt anything, as you surmised. But in my experience they do touch the crank journal radius fairly often if installed wrong.
-
Thanks Barry. 1-4 were all lowers and 5-8 were all uppers. Is it possible this would cause noise or accelerated wear that then caused noise the noise in the video?
-
Stock Ford bearings don't have uppers/lowers, but most of the BBC/performance bearings will be labeled U/L.
Even when I know I have the uppers/lowers in the right spots, I always set a rod or a cap on the crank (and also check the crank in the mains with the caps off) and make sure the radius on the crank clears the bearing. Even if a bearing touches just a little bit, it will get hot and can push bearing material into the center of the bearing.
In your picture, the bearing half is sticking out past the chamfer in the rod. Quite possible it was rubbing real hard.
Did that bearing pair spin? It doesn't look like the bearing half joints line up with the parting line on the cap/rod.
-
Hi Brent,
None of the bearings were spun except the ones that few across the shop in a perfect spiral like from Joe Namath about 5 minutes ago.
Kidding.
None of the bearings spun. Not exactly sure where the parting line ended up without reassembling a cap.
Well, it's good to find something.
thank you.
-
One of the dial bore gauges arrived Saturday. I went over to the shop and fooled around with it a bit. The head was not bolted on and neither was a torque plate. The bores were oval by about .001--.0015. i'd suspect a torque plate was used during machining which is why the bore has moved a bit. It's an eye opener using a bore gauge, as it's hard to imagine a big block of cast iron can flex at all
-
Today I ordered the parts necessary to reassemble the 482. I should have it back together sometime in the next decade......hopefully the first half.
-
Hope to see it at the reunion Mark.
-
I will be there. Hopefully the Colony Park will too. Knock on wood, I think this rod bearing snafu was the only problem. Everything else seem to run good.
-
Mark/Dennis, we need a two tons of fun(plus), run off. It will blow people’s minds.
Hope to see both machines there.
JB
-
Mark/Dennis, we need a two tons of fun(plus), run off. It will blow people’s minds.
Hope to see both machines there.
JB
My poor little 390 going up against that stroked monster? Have you no feelings?
-
My poor little 390 going up against that stroked monster? Have you no feelings?
Poor little 390...sure :)
-
I found the 482 was losing vacuum at WOT, so I installed an Autolite 2100, .98v. The 390 will be o-k.
-
In the process of cleaning things for reassembly, problem #2 was discovered. The crank sprocket slides right over, but the spacer's key was is .090 deep and the woodruff key sticks up .112. Tightening the balancer bolt forced it down until it cracked. This time I will fix the clearance, but also mock it up before putting on the timing cover.
-
In the process of cleaning things for reassembly, problem #2 was discovered. The crank sprocket slides right over, but the spacer's key was is .090 deep and the woodruff key sticks up .112. Tightening the balancer bolt forced it down until it cracked. This time I will fix the clearance, but also mock it up before putting on the timing cover.
Some woodruff keys just don't fit the shape of the stroker crank. If you have to file it next round, file it. I like it a bit tighter than slip fit, but the lower gear shouldn't rock the key up, which is what yours likely did if you got the gear on there, and the spacer can be slip fit.
-
Hi Ross,
The key is rocked a little bit with the low side on the spacer side. I will have to file a bit when reassembling.
-
Hi Ross,
The key is rocked a little bit with the low side on the spacer side. I will have to file a bit when reassembling.
Be sure to be careful on the next one. What I think is likely happening is that you are not tightening the stack (balancer, spacer, slinger, lower gear) together because of that rocked key. What you were doing was tightening the gear against the key like a wedge, which could keep it from seating and even allow it to move a little. Since it was loaded unevenly, when you tightened the bolt with the spacer against it, that's likely what broke the spacer.
I doubt there is an issue, but I would also look close at the lower gear and make sure you didn't muck it up a little at the keyway
When you fit it next time, I'd replace the key for peace of mind, then make sure that the gear goes on without rocking the key (shouldn't take more that a brass drift and small hammer), then the spacer fits on the key (check before putting the slinger and timing cover on). If you do that, it will load all the parts evenly and you will have no issues.
-
Mark, what did you end up with for main/rod bearing clearances this time?
-
Hi Brent
I haven't made it that far yet. The screw in freeze plugs need to be removed before I wash the block. 5 of them were leaking before. I ordered some 1 1/16 hex bar stock to make into an Allen. Was supposed to be here yesterday, but not yet. Also I've been sick since Christmas and busy at work. I'm sure next week I will be getting things together. With the new dial bore gauge I will check the crank and rod clearances.
-
The 1-1/16" hex showed up today. After stripping lath and insulation all day I won't be going to the shop tonight. This week I will be putting the engine together, once I find another balancer spacer.
I had thoughts of heating and bending this hex to make a mammoth Allen key. But I will cut it up to short sections that will fit in a socket. Anyone need a freeze plug driver?
-
Shirley you have another spacer 'round there with all those Merc/Ford parts? Let me know if you can't find one.
JB
-
Hey Jim,
A friend in Connecticut has an extra, though i can say you are a bit closer. I probably have another, but I had to rob this one from another engine.
-
Mark - I have one here too if you get stuck. Could send it out to you . Let me know
-
Mark, email me your address. I’ll get a spacer headed out. If you don’t end up needing it I’ll get it back later, np.
jwysocki@charter.net
-
Assembly has started this evening. The crank is installed in the block and the caps torqued to 105. Cross bolts to 40. I verified the 2-3 mic with a set of standards. It is right on when using the clicker. I measured the #1 rod journal and got 2.1993". Then assembled the #1 rod with new bearings. Also, I had set the dial bore gauge to zero in the mic. Then measured the bearing in the rod. It comes up with .0032 measured 90° from the parting line. Looking in the 1970 Ford Engine manual, it says .0015-.0025 for CJ with .003 max allowed. Rods #2 is .0034 and #3 is .0033. This is the first time I am using the dial bore gauge and not sure if I am doing it right. But, things are coming up consistently. Remembering I have the Reher-Morrison Championship Engine Building book I found the procedure and I was doing it correctly. Also, I realized I have Chevy rods and RH recommends rod bearing clearance at .003- 004". I am right in spec according to RH. But, this is not a race engine. It's a street engine. So, either this is good and put it together. Or, I might look into some .001 under bearings to get a little closer to the Ford spec. I am leaning towards undersized bearings.
Thank you,
Mark
-
Mark, for a BBC rod journal size with a good quality rod, I like to see about .0022-.0025" on the rod bearing clearances. I would throw a set of .001" bearings in there.
-
Mark, for a BBC rod journal size with a good quality rod, I like to see about .0022-.0025" on the rod bearing clearances. I would throw a set of .001" bearings in there.
Mark, this is very good advice, not that I need to back up Brent, but been flight following this one for a while
You cannot use the Ford spec for the rods as the journal is smaller, and for the street, you don't want a loose rod hammering away, especially since you have been chasing noises in the past. Even then, that RM spec looks awful loose to me except some very violent applications.......the easy answer is to move the decimal point from your measurement on any bearing in that engine, mains too. So 2.20 = .022, then if you have to wiggle, a little more clearance is better, third decimal point though, not second. Exactly what Brent pointed out
Keep in mind, also good math for your mains, not sure where those ended up
-
Thanks Brent. Thanks Ross, that is a good rule of thumb on moving the decimal. The 1 under bearing should put me right where I need to be.
I did not measure the mains as those bearings looked good when it was disassembled. Rear main seal and all the cross bolts are in. Am i being lazy and shooting my foot by not checking? Would plastigage be sufficient to check the front bearing?
-
Thanks Brent. Thanks Ross, that is a good rule of thumb on moving the decimal. The 1 under bearing should put me right where I need to be.
I did not measure the mains as those bearings looked good when it was disassembled. Rear main seal and all the cross bolts are in. Am i being lazy and shooting my foot by not checking? Would plastigage be sufficient to check the front bearing?
I wouldn't trust on plastigage and even though it's a pain in the booty, I'd check the mains. New bearings can be different than old bearings, surprisingly different.
-
I normally subscribe to the .001" per inch of journal diameter idea for clearance. I often add a little to rod journals, with a target of perhaps .0025 +/-.0002
I might swing a half shell in there to snug those up - but although its not optimum, a bearing at .0033 aint likely to hurt you. Odds ar that the mains are fine - but if you pull a cap or two off and take a picture we can get a pretty good idea just how "happy" they are
-
I normally subscribe to the .001" per inch of journal diameter idea for clearance. I often add a little to rod journals, with a target of perhaps .0025 +/-.0002
I might swing a half shell in there to snug those up - but although its not optimum, a bearing at .0033 aint likely to hurt you. Odds ar that the mains are fine - but if you pull a cap or two off and take a picture we can get a pretty good idea just how "happy" they are
Agreed, I run a lot of stock journal rod bearing clearances at .003-.0035" without issue.
I think if I were wanting to dial this one in though, and had the time to do it, I'd sling some different bearings in.
-
A set of 8-7200CH1 are coming over night from Summit with a few other odds and ends I need. Maybe I will pull the crank as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
-
I was feeling lazy, but guilted myself into pulling the crank and setting up the bearings in the mains. The oil clearance in the mains is #1 .0013, #2 .0014, #3 .0013, #4 .0014, #5 .0022 I thought about getting a set of 1-under mains to use one for the #5. But, not in stock, I would not see them until February. The spec in the 1970 Ford manual says allowable for 390, 428CJ is .0008 to .002. Then I noticed for 428 Police the allowable is .0005- .0025. Again, Reher-Morrison says .003-.004. Also, this is within the "moving the decimal" guideline as the main journal measured 2.7484 and the clearance is .0022.
The .001 tighter rod bearing will be here tomorrow. Plans for tomorrow night are to get the shortblock together and the heads bolts on. The intake needs a bit of clean-up, but that will be pretty soon. Assembly puts the engine in it's most condensed form. Right now there are parts all over one of my trans building benches at work. Shouldn't be long before this is back in the Colony Park.
Glad I took time to measure the mains. I feel good about them and it eliminates future questions.
Thanks for all the help so far.
-
Do not assemble that engine with barely over .001” main bearing clearance, and stay away from shop manuals from the 60’s lol....
I aim for main bearing clearances at around .0025-.003, ideally around .0027-.0028.
If you are confident with your measurements, you need to do something about those clearances, either with some “X” Cleveland bearings, some careful crank polishing, or a combo of both.
-
Have to agree - those are the kind of clearances we target on aluminum block engines. Too snug for iron block stuff.
-
Mark, I am with the guys on this. 2 caveats
1 - Are you really sure on your measurements, room temp tools and block etc? No crud in the bearing tabs, no oil behind the bearings, etc?
2 - The "move the decimal" wasn't a max, it's closer to a minimum. I'd be looking for .0025 min but might live with #5 if I had a repeatable measurement for a mostly low RPM build. Old books don't really work, you need some oil for doubling the HP the mains see as well as making room for tolerance stack, slight main misalignment, etc. .001 just isn't enough for that
I'd be really careful on a remeasure and consider opening things up
-
Ugh, pretty soon I am going to need helicolis for these bolt holes.
-
Ugh, pretty soon I am going to need helicolis for these bolt holes.
That's funny...
-
...and stay away from shop manuals from the 60’s lol....
They're good for torque specs on most things, but that's about it.
-
Why would the clearances change?
-
Did you measure them before? Don’t expect plastigage to be anywhere close to accurate.
Also, different brands of bearings will give different clearances.
-
Hi Brent,
I did not measure the first set of bearings, back when it had the running noises. The dial bore gauges are new for this 2nd time of assembly. I pulled the front bearing cap just to see what plastigage would say. I did it twice and twice it came up close to what I measured. First time 3 tenths higher, second time 5 tenths higher. I wish I had another means of confirming the measurements. But it wasn't run for long and only revved out a few times. The old bearings are a bit shiny with some embedded debris. I would not attempt to reuse them.
Why does this come out too tight? The bearing saddles, caps and both sides of the bearings were cleaned using coffee filters and brake clean then blown off with air. Dust free and dry. Has anyone else had this problem? Is this a likely occurrence to run into? Is it because the bearings are manufactured to the spec of the factory Ford manual?
-
Another thought is, I have two other engines that are ready to assemble. I think I ought to put the main bearings in them and see how they measure out. A 460 into 545 and a 351w--stock.
-
You have a micrometer with calibration stick?right?
You set bore gauge with that micrometer at room temperature and block is at that same temperature right?
If you check your bore gauge with micrometer and you get same results repeatedly I'll say you are close enough.
Sticking that bore gauge in some hole which should have diameter of xx but you don't the exact won't tell you a thing.
-
I guess my last post wasn't that direct on my intentions with the other two engines. What I wanted to try was performing the same measurement proceedures on them to see if my technique and tools are measuring what would appear to be too tight like the 482. Or some other inconsistency. By measuring mains on other engines I hope to determine if the problem is with me or the 482.
-
Which brand of bearing tends to lean towards a looser clearance?
-
Need pictures of the old bearings - the wear pattern can reveal running clearances relative to the engines needs - if it "wants" more or less.
You are looking at tolerance stack up. Common enough that we keep +.001 and -.001 bearings on the shelf to adjust on maybe 20% or 30% of our builds. Every part whether a crankshaft, a bearing, or a fastener etc will have a target dimension and an acceptable range of variation.
On many items the "perfect" dimension is not critical - you will never know if your valve cover gaskets are too thick by .020", and we measure oil pickup to pan clearances with a ruler and an OK range of an 1/8 of an inch. Bearing clearance is among the most strict measurements in an engine - hydraulic lifter internals are even tighter. You are looking at clearances which challenge the resolution accuracy of many inexpensive measuring tools, much less that of a string of plastic. Fortunately engines are surprisingly forgiving if things are rationally close. The process of inspection and measurement is often as important as the measurements themselves when it comes to identification of and addressing outliers. Most manufacturers are really pretty darn good
A well meaning manufacturer with accurate controls might have the crankshaft journals all at the high end of the acceptable range, since its far easier to machine or polish a little off if it becomes necessary. Many machine shops hone main saddles to the lower end of the accepted diameters to maximize bearing crush. The bearing manufacturer has (in F-M's system) a target dimension +/- .0004" for accepted diameters. If you get a crank that is .0003" big, a housing bore that is .0003" small, and a bearing that is .0003" tight - you have an assembly with inadequate clearance made of perfectly acceptable individual items.
-
Hi Brent,
I did not measure the first set of bearings, back when it had the running noises. The dial bore gauges are new for this 2nd time of assembly. I pulled the front bearing cap just to see what plastigage would say. I did it twice and twice it came up close to what I measured. First time 3 tenths higher, second time 5 tenths higher. I wish I had another means of confirming the measurements. But it wasn't run for long and only revved out a few times. The old bearings are a bit shiny with some embedded debris. I would not attempt to reuse them.
Why does this come out too tight? The bearing saddles, caps and both sides of the bearings were cleaned using coffee filters and brake clean then blown off with air. Dust free and dry. Has anyone else had this problem? Is this a likely occurrence to run into? Is it because the bearings are manufactured to the spec of the factory Ford manual?
My guess is that the clearance was always tight if the main bearings are shiny and not looking well. Plastigage just isn't accurate at all and most people don't know that it has to be refrigerated to even have any degree of accuracy whatsoever. I haven't *seen* any plastigage in probably 18-19 years. Unless you use it somehow for your transmission stuff, I'd chuck them in the trash now that you have the correct tools. But I'll say this, even if the plastigage was reliable and your clearances were .0003-.0005" looser than what you're measuring, it's still too tight.
Has anyone else had this problem? Yep, all the time. As Barry eluded to, our bearing shelves are plum full of standard, .001", X, Cleveland bearings, different brands of bearings, etc., because it happens on a rather consistent basis. It's simply tolerance stack. Sometimes, you can even change a brand of bearing and gain/lose tolerance. Sometimes, things are loose and I don't have/can't get the right bearing, so I have the bearings coated. Sometimes things are tight by a few tenths and I'll polish the journals up to make it consistent.
-
Some other things you can do to explain why it is tight
1 - Measure the the main cap bore with no bearing, if that spec is tight, the bearing will tighten up
2 - Get comfortable with the mike standard, and then use the same amount of "pressure" when tightening the mike to the crank. By knowing the feel that the standard gets you to the proper number, you can tell if maybe you aren't tightening the micrometer enough on the journal. I have one set that if I just use the ratchet it always feels loose to me.
3 - Just checking but, when you measure the journal, it really doesn't matter what it measures, although it's good info, just put the micrometer in a vice lightly or use a special stand to hold them to zero the tool. The stand works better and is kinder to tools. Be gentle when handling the micrometer after measuring and locking the barrel and setting up. then set the bore gauge to zero, can't rush the zero setting, the more you do it, the more accurate you will be, all it takes is to be a bit off and your measurement is off
I typically do not see FE aftermarket cranks that tight very often, but we hit them with a polish after balancing. That being said, the big jump on one of yours could be from error, goofy main bores, or a combination of things
As far as bearings no rules, but I have seen FMs to be a little looser, Clevites to be exactly what they say, and the same with TRW. I haven't used enough Kings to have an opinion, the last set I got sits on the shelf, they were .001 bigger rod bearings that I thought I bought .001 smaller....they measured exactly what they said :) I just ordered the wrong things LOL
-
What are you getting for main journal measurements?
I’m usually somewhere in the ballpark of 2.7488-2.7491...
-
Mains 1, 2, 4, 5 measure 2.7484. #3 measured 2.7485.
Just got back from. The hardware store with 600 and 1500 grit paper and metal polish. The crank looks o-k, but it would be a good idea to polish it before it is run on the new bearings. Polishing is also a good idea since a lumber yard went through the engine.
-
Ok, you need to come up with a game plan...
The sandpaper and metal polish won't do anything except make the journals shiny. Also, what you do may be for naught if you have to have the crank "adjusted". When you use a crank polisher, it's usually either a lathe or a polishing-specific machine, which turns the crankshaft in normal rotation. There is a hand-held motor that has a 3'-4' belt that's about an inch wide. They will take material off if you do it this way, but whomever is operating it has to be very careful as it's possible to taper the journals or make them out of round.
At this point, I would double-check all of your measurements. Your crank journals aren't on the big side, so I would check the housing bore next and see what's going on.
If you don't really come to any conclusion except for the tolerances are stacked against you, then you need a game plan, because .0015" of main bearing clearance won't work. If I were in your spot, I would approach it in one of two different ways:
1. If you have a reputable crank grinder available to you, I'd take the crank to him and give him a measurement to shoot for. Most crank grinders who are competent can grind .001-.0015" accurately off of journals.
2. Buy a set of Federal Mogul 146MX bearings. File the tangs off. Check the clearances with those. If you come in at around .0025", I'd likely call it a day and put it together. If you want to get anal about it, you could have a crank grinder/machinist polish a few more tenths off. The 146 bearings are Cleveland bearings. There are no "X" bearings for a standard FE main journal, so it's possible to use a Cleveland bearing since the journal diameters and widths are the same. Only issue is that the locating tangs are on opposite sides, so you have to remove them.
-
I still want to see pictures of the old main bearings
-
Here are the old bearings. It appears something got in the lower #3.
Nobody is going to ask about the swamp in the oil pan?
-
Looks like some kind of Chinese food in the pan ???:o
-
That thrust bearing looks crazy, like it was growing roots. ;D
-
Are you sure the Crankbore is straight? you got a couple of bearings where the upperhalf is more worn then the lower
if number one and two from the left is a pair
-
Back when I was taking the pan off with the engine in the car I would block up the motor mounts off the frame with a couple pieces of wood. One must have slipped in when I was jostling around the pan to get it back in place. Glad I didn't run it much after that, it probably would have clogged the pick-up causing a bunch more damage.
I will make a measurement of the main bores without the bearings.
-
That thrust bearing looks crazy, like it was growing roots. ;D
Babbit worm? :D
-
I don't have an inside mic to measure the main bearing bore. Using the dial bore gauge I zero'ed at the smallest reading then put the mic on the gauge to bring it back to zero and check the measurement. It appears to be at 2.9405". I tried it again and got 2.9406. The method seems to be working pretty darn close.
Again, I went looking in the book I shouldn't be. The 1970 Ford Service manual says 2.9417-2.9425". Does this measurement carry into the 21st century? It sounds like the Cleveland X bearings are worth a try. I am going to order a set and see what it measures.
-
I like 2.9415-2.9417, you are a little tight but if you drag the tool across does the needle move? Seems either your crank or saddles are tapered looking at the bearings
Is #5 in spec?
Although not the best solution, You may be able to do a good professional polish of the crank, but don’t let them lean as hard on #5
Replace those bearings, they are junk. You are lucky you pulled the crank
-
Hi Ross,
I am glad I pulled the crank as well. What a disaster this would have turned into. To loose on the rods, to tight on mains and a whole lotta fiber in the oil.
The crank is in the lathe right now. I was spinning it at 18 rpm while I was polishing the rod journals. They look good. Didn't do anything with the mains as it might be a waste of time like Brent mentioned. When the C X1 bearings come in I will find out whether to polish or bring the crank somewhere.
Just checked one rod assy with the 1-under bearing @.0024. I'm happy with that.
Cleveland Mains are on the way.
-
Can you mix a -1 rod bearing with a std rod bearing to find a medium?
-
You can but I’d stay where you’re at.
-
Definitely looks too tight. A couple shells show wear almost up to the parting line. The F-M bearings have (or at the least had...) a continuous eccentricity profile that lets you read running clearance relative to needs from the wear pattern. A little more clearance narrows the pattern a bit. Several of those are showing geometry issues as well - off angle wear, one sided wear either front/back or side/side. Adding a thou of clearance will mask that stuff if its minor - pretty forgiving. Can't really tell if it is crank, housing (block), or the bearings themselves - but something is not straight & round. That thrust got murdered. Good call on pulling the crank.
-
I don't have an inside mic to measure the main bearing bore. Using the dial bore gauge I zero'ed at the smallest reading then put the mic on the gauge to bring it back to zero and check the measurement. It appears to be at 2.9405". I tried it again and got 2.9406. The method seems to be working pretty darn close.
Again, I went looking in the book I shouldn't be. The 1970 Ford Service manual says 2.9417-2.9425". Does this measurement carry into the 21st century? It sounds like the Cleveland X bearings are worth a try. I am going to order a set and see what it measures.
What happens if you set your outside mic to the minimum spec on bore housing diameter, zero your bore mic to that, and then check "clearance" on the torqued main? Seems like your housing bores are stupid tight, but I'd like to see you back into a verification of that.
-
Hi Brent,
I measured using your procedure with setting the mic at the minimum main bore spec then zeroing the bore gauge to that. The bore gauge reads the main bearing bore to be .001 too small. I only checked the #1 main bore.
Sounds like either Cleveland X1 bearings. Or, have the mains opened up .001. If the main bores were opened up to .001, would that make the current new bearings unusable as they have been crushed to a tighter spec?
-
You got a local machinist that you can trust?
You have duplicated your measurements two different ways and I'm in agreement that the mains are tight. Maybe you can have someone align hone the block and drop off your crank too, that way they can do a quick clearance check and dial in the crank with some polishing.
-
Hi Brent,
I measured using your procedure with setting the mic at the minimum main bore spec then zeroing the bore gauge to that. The bore gauge reads the main bearing bore to be .001 too small. I only checked the #1 main bore.
Sounds like either Cleveland X1 bearings. Or, have the mains opened up .001. If the main bores were opened up to .001, would that make the current new bearings unusable as they have been crushed to a tighter spec?
Don't make or even contemplate decisions on one hole....all the bearings were tight except #5, need to know if the bores tell you the same thing plus the taper issue.
I like the idea of getting a sharp machinist to check main alignment and bore size, hone all 5 to min stock specs, and straight. Check bearing clearance at assembly and press on.
-
I've decided the block will be going to a machine shop the check and probably align hone the main bearing bores.
Question, since I have torqued down a set of new bearings in mains that are undersized, did that compromise the new bearing and I should get new ones?
-
Won't hurt them - see what the line hone guy "says" as far as dimensions and straightness before passing judgement. He should have a high end bore gauge (mine is a Sunnen unit that cost a small fortune, came with the line hone cabinet as a package.) and his measurements are likely more accurate.
-
Not wanting to rush things, but really needing to get this back together I've decided to mock up the Cleveland bearings. The Cleveland x1 bearings will be here tomorrow. If they come in at the mid 2's. I will leave well enough alone and put it together.
Luckily, I also ordered an extra set of 1-under rod bearings. One lower bearing would come in about .0004 too tight on every rod I tried it in. Swapping in a std lower bearing with a 1-under upper got me at .0028. Using a bearing from new set should get me in tune with the others at .0024.
I'm excited to get this done and with all the checking and adjustments quite optimistic this time. Worst case scenario I will drop a worn out 390 back in the wagon and dial-in for a 17.90 at BSD.
-
Only had a few minutes this evening to make a little progress. The new bearings came in today. I didn't open the CLeveland X1 bearings yet. I did open the 1-under rod bearings and got the last rod to .0024. I see why you guys have lots of bearings hanging around. There was one rod bearing in the first 1-under set that consistently made clearance .0004 too tight. Heck, having extra Chevy rod bearings sounds like a good reason to put a stroker kit in another FE block. Lets get this one back together first.
Tomorrow evening I will try out the Cleveland bearings. Just grind off the tabs and put them in? Or is it preferred to grind a notch in the block to accommodate the C bearings?
-
O-K, changed my mind again. It was difficult to find a machine shop nearby that did line honing. So I was going to use the Cleveland x1 bearings. But, a few minutes ago a guy that I called returned my call. He is the guy that these machine shops send their line honing to. Very nice guy, we talked for a bit. I will be taking the block to him to touch up after checking a few more things. With that, another set of main bearings is on the way. He was iffy on touching up the main bores and using bearings that might be over crushed. I just ordered them as spending 68 bucks seemed way better than my visions of dealing with a spun bearing if something didn't go so well.
So far, 4 is the magic number. 4 sets of main bearings and 4 sets of rod bearings. With shipping costs I'm probably around the 650 mark for bearings. Well, I have some for next time.
-
Hmm. Might have to knock on your door for some misc mains to try. Eventually will be getting into the engine of my 62 XL project!
-
Hey Lars, when ever you are ready!
-
Block was line honed.
Main oil clearances are now:
#1 .0029
#2 .0031
#3 .0031
#4 .0030
#5 .0028
I will clean the block and start assembly tonight.
Thank you guys for steering me in the correct direction.
BEAVER SPRINGS!!!!!!!!
Mark
-
Exactly where I would put them. Excellent.
-
Exactly where I would put them. Excellent.
When I clicked on "show unread posts since last visit" and saw you replied, I had that quick thought pass through my mind where you would say "No, it's way too much". Glad to see it's where it should be.
thanks,
Mark
-
I agree....good numbers, are the rods good? Lost track lol
-
hi Ross, yes. all rods are .0024.
-
Crank, rods and pistons are in. Will be making more headway tonight. Since it was going to be line honed I upgraded to main studs. In case you're wondering, it was line honed with the new studs in place.
Mark
-
My co-worker asked if we are installing the engine in the wagon tomorrow. There isn't much left from here. So, I think we can make time for that.
Before the valve covers went on I primed the oil system. There was resistance with a manual speed handle and oil was dripping off the rockers.
BEAVER SPRINGS!!!
-
Good to see it in one piece!
-
Looks great Mark. I give you credit for your persistence to do it right.
-
We had a couple hours today to drop it in the car. We installed the trans as well. Getting closer.
Mark
p.s. Beaver Springs!!!!
-
Mark,
Do you have any Mercs that are not off white, lol? Every car I've seen is that color.
Nice progress,
JB
-
Hey Jim,
You ought to come visit.
70 Cougar XR-7 460 C-6----------------------white originally blue, will someday be silver
70 Cougar XR-7 conv 351c 4v FMX-----------Deep Gold Metallic, will be black
69 Cougar SS 351w AOD---------------------tu-tone medium blue metallic with white roof
69 Cougar Sunroof Eliminator 351w FMX----Competition Orange
69 Cougar XR-7 390 C-6----------------------Light Gold Metallic
68 Monterey 390 C-6--------------------------Lime Frost
68 Monterey conv 390 C-6--------------------Grecian Gold---will be Augusta Green
64 Montclair Marauder 390 Merc-O-----------Polar White---might someday be Pacific Blue
58 Monterey 383 Merc-O----------------------Parisian Green and White
58 Parklane 430 MultiDrive-------------------Tuxedo Black and White
68 Colony Park 428 C-6-----------------------Saxony Yellow with yacht paneling
68 Colony Park 390 C-6-----------------------Lime Frost with yacht paneling
58 Parklane 430 MultiDrive-------------------Mayfair Yellow
70 Cougar Eliminator 351c 4 speed----------Competition Green
68 Monterey conv 390 C-6--------------------Polar White
-
Mark,
Is there a fee to visit the Mercury Emporium? ( I would gladly pay to help with upkeep).
So Mercury calls the special wood grain trim Yacht Paneling. That's cool, what did Ford call it?
JB
-
I don't know, I'm not a Ford guy. ---lol. Looking around it appears the use of the word "Squire" denotes having woodgrain. Whereas the wagons with no wood grain were called a "Country Sedan". Not sure if the woodgrain had another name for Fords. Yacht paneling is a term I saw in a Mercury sales brochure for 1968 for cars with woodgrain.
Mark,
Is there a fee to visit the Mercury Emporium? ( I would gladly pay to help with upkeep).
So Mercury calls the special wood grain trim Yacht Paneling. That's cool, what did Ford call it?
JB
-
A little bit more was assembled this evening.
-
Great work, love seeing an F.E. with a throttle body. :)
-
https://youtu.be/wkOSR5vD7uI
Now I'm anxious for spring.
-
Sounds great! Spring is coming, it was beautiful today, hotrods will be out soon.
-
Sounds like a good one now! Making a movie usually makes them all sound noisy,but it sounds very quiet.
Nice work, too bad the roads of North Adams are likely covered with sand and salt...
-
Watching the video there is a ton of hissing from the suction. I ought to put the air cleaner on. It sounded like there was a little valve train noise, not so much of ticking, just that parts are in motion. So far, so good! Well, almost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NheVIkkqiKc
-
Like a big sewing machine. Nice!!
-
I smell a drag race coming....
https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/
-
HA! Battle of the Faded Wagons!
-
HA! Battle of the Faded Wagons!
Yup - nearly 5 ton of wagon muscle duking it out on the track. That in itself is worth the price of admission :) :) :) :)
-
So, the past few days I've been ruminating about the wagon as I thought I was hearing noises again. Frustrated to the point of just building a stock 428 and forgetting the fun 482 idea. Today, Jim aka 6667fan drove an hour and 20 minutes to listen and help me analyze the condition of the engine. Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid after the previous issues. He thought everything sounded the way it should and no noises were beyond normal characteristic of this build. The oil pressure actually seemed a bit high being 75 psi at 2500 rpm. Might try a lighter oil on the change. We drained the oil and it looked good. We cut open the oil filter and only found a some flakes of blue paint and some little bits of RTV. The filter looked good. This is all a relief. Thanks Jim for taking the day to head up.
-
NP on the road trip Mark. Been a little while since I was up in Massachusetts “Sky Country”. Even passed through Florida to get there, lol.
JB
-
Good to hear!
In the hyd roller builds I am usually running a good 10w30 and a HV pump. I would not call 75 psi too high though, a filter will live happily there, and I'd hate to give up idle oil pressure if it doesn't climb past that significantly
-
Mark,
Have you had a chance to run it down the road yet?
JB
-
The roads are pretty clean here. It has been a while since they've salted and it has rained a few times. Hopefully there isn't a reason to (mis)treat roads before Spring really sets in. I went to the gas station in Vermont with the CP-----they have non-ethanol premium. Some fiddling needs to be done with the EFI. I did do some fiddling with the timing. The trans needs a little tuning on the 2-3 shift. Took a shower in coolant attempting to fix a drip at a water pump bolt, so far it's fixed. Adjustment to the rear. Despite the pattern looking optimal, the rear sings a little. There are two gas leaks to fix. One at a Summit brand -6an fitting and the other at the return line to the fuel tank. Also, a few things to do to the F-800 rollback before taking a long trip. So far, so good.
How about you Jim?
-
That is cool that you can get that fuel, I knew it was available around Champlain but not at the bottom of state.
I had two swivel -6 AN fittings from Summit that leaked, won’t buy their brand again.
Whose gears are out back?
My engine should be done soon, will be putting up a “guess the hp thread”.
-
There were some bad reports I saw about the summit brand fittings. I'm replacing it with a Fragoli(?).
I think it is a US Gear. Could be a Motive. I don't remember. I will find out when I pull the 3rd member to recheck.
Glad you are getting close with the engine. How at the trans?
-
Got everything squared away? I was temped to stop in the shop and bother you working especially seeing the cool Brockway parked in front.
-
hi Lars, stop by any time if you can find a place to park. We've been overly busy for a long time.
-
Mark, does your signature need updating to reflect accurate hoarder status?
Just sayin’
-
Mark, does your signature need updating to reflect accurate hoarder status?
Just sayin’
Matter of fact, yes. Add two more Eliminators. A 70 with a 351c and 4 speed. And...….a favorite of this community: a 69 Eliminator with a 390.