1968 Colony Park 482

[FirstEliminator]

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?

[Heo]

Looks like some kind of Chinese food in the pan 

[drdano]

That thrust bearing looks crazy, like it was growing roots.   

[Heo]

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

[FirstEliminator]

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. 

[Heo]

That thrust bearing looks crazy, like it was growing roots.   

Babbit worm?

[FirstEliminator]

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.

 

[My427stang]

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

[FirstEliminator]

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.

[FirstEliminator]

Can you mix a -1 rod bearing with a std rod bearing to find a medium?

 

[blykins]

You can but I’d stay where you’re at.

[Barry_R]

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.

[blykins]

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.

[FirstEliminator]

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?

[blykins]

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.