Jump to content

Matt Wilson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Matt Wilson

  1. Time Left: 17 days and 11 hours

    • WANTED
    • USED

    I'm looking for a full-flow filter setup for the 25" flathead. My engine has the raised diamond-shaped pad on the left side of the block. If anyone has one, or knows of one being sold by an outside source, please let me know. You can send me a PM. Thanks, Matt Wilson


    Keller, TX - US

  2. Wanted: Full Flow Oil Filter Setup for 25" Flathead View Advert I'm looking for a full-flow filter setup for the 25" flathead. My engine has the raised diamond-shaped pad on the left side of the block. If anyone has one, or knows of one being sold by an outside source, please let me know. You can send me a PM. Thanks, Matt Wilson Advertiser Matt Wilson Date 10/09/2019 Price Category Individual Member Classified Wanted Ad  
  3. Yeah, I was getting a little worried that this was going to turn into one of the 2-year deals that I read about on a couple of other forums. I actually asked him about that before taking the crank to him, and he said he's only done that in instances when he knew the owner had a very long project and didn't need the crank back anytime soon. Still, I was worried for a while, and am glad it didn't take as long as that. Armando is known for taking a long time, but everyone said he's the best of the best, so that's what eventually won me over in deciding to use him for this work. I made sure to call him just about every week, just to let him know I care. He's always polite, a very nice guy and I treated him the same way. He admits that he's not good at schedule matters. I still have a little more stuff to do before I can reassemble the engine, so his timeline turned out not to be a big deal. A couple more months and I think it would have been. In any case, here is a photo of my crank in my garage this morning. If you (or anyone) is interested in seeing an up-close pic of anything, let me know. I guess I could take some close-ups of a couple of the journals, particularly the radii.
  4. Hey John! Thanks for the input. Yes, I agree that the readings are probably not 100% accurate. I have a set of snap gages (telescoping gages). Maybe I will try getting the clearances by using those, although I have found them to be somewhat subjective as well, requiring care and a sensitive touch to get a reasonably accurate reading. As for Armando....funny you should ask, because I just got the crank back from him last night. He had it for about 4-1/2 months (since mid-May). I was beginning to get a little nervous about how long he was taking, but it's all good now. I haven't double-checked his measurements, but I plan to. Based on his reputation, I expect everything will be 100% spot-on. The only thing he was not able to do was repair the damaged pilot bushing bore. He says his lathe is not large enough to accommodate the 265 crankshaft, or he would have done that, and would have made a bushing for me. I'll have to take it somewhere else to get that done. Thanks for asking!
  5. Well, that's interesting indeed. Your manual says the dial indicator reading is to be divided by 2 to achieve the clearance. My manual shows the same figure, but says the dial indicator reading is the direct measurement of the clearance and says nothing about dividing by 2 or otherwise modifying the number to get the clearance. Interestingly, there is a section of one or more of my manuals, where it talks about using a dial indicator to measure the clearance between the valves and their guides, and it involves multiplying the dial indicator reading by 0.5 for the intake valve and by 0.44 for the exhaust valve. This is with the dial indicator against the valve head and the valve head sticking up above the block a certain amount, where the motion would be exaggerated, so the true clearance is smaller, as indicated by the multiplication factor. In light of this and the clearances listed in your manual, which look like valve stem clearances, rather that lifter bore clearances, I have to wonder if, when your manual was being written, someone erroneously copied the valve stem section into the lifter section. Seems like too gross an error to be the case, but it does seem to look that way - either that or my manual is wrong. In any case, your total reading of 0.0018" in a good-running engine is not terribly smaller than the largest of my readings, which is about 0.0025". So again, it seems to point toward my clearances being ok Thanks again! I really do appreciate the help.
  6. Wow, 0.003 and 0.005 are lifter-to-bore clearance limits? Three of my manuals say the wear limit on this clearance is 0.0015". I wonder if you might be looking at the valve stem-to-valve guide clearance? Those numbers (0.003 for inyaoe and 0.005 for exhaust) match what my manuals state for that type of clearance. With so many engines under your belt, and so many other people who have worked with them, and not a single person, as far as I can tell, has ever mentioned this to be a problem, I'm leaning toward letting it go.
  7. Yes! That image from your shop manual is exactly like the one from my manual. You mentioned that you checked your 413 with the lifters in the low, middle and high positions. I suppose the 0.0015" reading was with lifter in the low position? That's how it appears in the photo, and I think that's the position that really matters, per the image in the shop manual. With the lifter any higher than that, the clearance will look larger, assuming the dial indicator is raised higher accordingly.
  8. Well, I certainly appreciate the response! I really don't want to put anyone out by asking to have more clearances measured, but if it's not much trouble, then go ahead; Otherwise, please don't worry about it. By the way, do you know what diameter those lifters are? The larger the diameter, the greater the clearance can be (and should be).
  9. Hi All, I'm resurrecting this topic. Some months ago, I decided the clearances I was measuring were more than I was comfortable with, so I took my 0.008" oversize tappets and my block to a machinist to have the tappet bores machined oversize. I provided the machinist with the manuals that specify the clearance for new parts (one manual says 0 - 0.0007" and the other says 0 - 0.001"). He performed the work and when I picked up the block from him, he said he had gotten all the clearances to around 0.0006 - 0.0008". However, when I later measured the clearances using the method I previously described (dial indicator placed on the "head" of each tappet and rocking the tappet back and forth in its bore), I got numbers ranging from a little over one thousandth to about 0.0025". This is significantly better than some of the previous clearances, but still far beyond the limits stated in the manuals. I guess I'm to the point where I can either have the loosest bores sleeved to take up the clearance (some shops will do this) or I can just leave it as is. A part of me thinks the clearances in this area of the engine must not be terribly important since I've NEVER seen anyone talk about them in any engine rebuild threads on this forum or any other flathead six forums that I visit. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has an engine with excessive tappet bore clearances, but the fact that no one has ever traced any problems to these clearances makes me think they are not critical at all. But then again, I can't help but to recall the metal shavings coming from my other flathead that had LARGE clearances, but as I mentioned before, there could have been other reasons for these metal particles. So.....I'm revisiting this topic to see if anyone else has any additional input. I know it may seem like I'm making a big deal of all this, but if this engine rebuild doesn't work out for any reason....I'm basically done with this truck. My wife and my finances won't let me do any more projects of this level of expense again, so it's GOT to be right. Thanks, Matt
  10. For what it's worth, if the grooves in your drums are not deep, and it sounds like they are not, based on you saying that you could clean them up with just a few thousandths removed, I would probably just run them as is. I did that for several years on my Power Wagon, and the brakes worked quite well. Those drums were somewhat rough-looking, probably worse than yours, but it was never a problem. Running them as is will eliminate the possibility of them getting screwed up by a careless "machinist" at a brake shop, which is also what happened to the drums on my Power Wagon at one point. As for wheel cylinders, you might reconsider buying new ones. I bought new ones from NAPA a couple of years ago (again, for my Power Wagon), and was surprised to find that they contained ferrous pistons, instead of the aluminum pistons I had seen for so many years. The ferrous ones are better, as they will produce little or no galvanic corrosion from the dissimilar metal reactions between the pistons and the cast iron cylinder, unlike the aluminum pistons, which will contribute to such corrosion. Just a thought...
  11. James, did you do this to 265 rods? If so, would you mind posting a few pics of the upper and lower halves? I'm really interested to know what was done, as I have some 265 rods to go into my engine, whenever I get to that point, and I've always been a little concerned about reusing bolts. I've scoured every source I could find, but NOS ones are not to be found anywhere. As you know, the 265 rod bolts are unique to that engine and very different from most other types of bolts. I even approached ARP with the idea of making some rod bolts, but the cost was going to be prohibitive (thousands of dollars). If you were able to successfully modify your rods to use another type of rod bolt, I sure would like to see what was done. I thought about doing that too, but it seems to me that there is not a lot of excess meat on the upper half to make it fit a standard rod bolt with the common type of head. Thanks!
  12. I'll answer it a third time. On my '49 Power Wagon, these bolts were used for attaching the horn.
  13. Great stuff! I hope I'll still be stepping on the starter rod of my '49 Power Wagon when I'm that age (and then the engine coming to life and me driving off in it).
  14. Over on one of the Power Wagon sites, www.dodgepowerwagon.com, one of the guys was having a problem that turned out to be caused by the fuel line in the tank sucking up chunks of sealant that were sitting in the tank. These chunks would find their way to the tube and block the opening of the tube. Then after letting the truck sit for a while (not running), he could start the engine again, presumably because the sealant had fallen back to the bottom of the tank and unblocked the tube opening. It's conceivable that something like this is going on with yours. The others have offered good suggestions, but I figured I would mention this one as well.
  15. Good news! Who did you end up using to perform the rebuild? Just curious.
  16. All good replies. The only thing I still wonder about is how to deal with the ridge at the top. The last time I removed the ridges from the tops of the cylinders, I thought I was being very careful not to remove more than necessary to get the pistons out, but my machinist said I removed a bit too much - enough that he had to bore the cylinders out by two oversizes instead of just one oversize (He had to go to 0.030" I stead of 0.020"). I'm thinking if you don't remove enough of the ridge, you can beat the piston out of the engine (something my machinist said he recommends), but do you run the risk of the new top ring hitting the remainimg ridge? If you remove too much of the ridge, is there any issue with that, such as the top ring comtactimg the "de-ridged" area? Maybe I'm over thinking this.
  17. Hey Joe, congratulations on the addition of your new mechanical supervisor!
  18. I also enjoyed reading this for the first time this evening. Looking forward to updates, although I realize they may still be a ways off.
  19. You might consider Permatex high-temperature thread sealant 59214P. It's advertised as being good for head bolts into through holes.
  20. Can anyone tell me the thickness of the two center main bearing caps (#2 and #3)? I'm talking about the thickness in the front-to-back direction. For example, the front cap (#1 cap) is approximately 1.288" thick, as shown in the attached photo. I need the corresponding dimension for #2 and #3. I don't have my block or caps #2 and #3 with me at the moment, or I would measure it myself. I'm hoping someone has a 25" engine that is accessible for such measurements at the moment. Thanks!
  21. Wow, this is quite the acquisition. Congrats!!
  22. If you have surgery, I hope it goes well, with a full and speedy recovery. As for the rod and piston idea, I'm sure you can make something work. I suspect it would cost a lot, but you never know. You might be able to come up with something reasonably priced. I seem to recall Tim Kingsbury mentioning that he has had aftermarket rods made, but they were pricey (in the thousands of dollars, I believe). The rods and bolts for these engines are hard to find and often expensive when you do. There is a potential clearance issue with the lower end of the block, where the oil pan attaches, but I don't think that's where you're talking about. The early 25" blocks have to be modified in this area, but the later ones were cast with the necessary clearance. I thought the clearance concern for the rod bolt heads was with the camshaft, but I could be wrong. You seem to be thinking it is with the block casting. Anyway, good luck with it all.
  23. By the time you get this done, it will probably be too late for me to take advantage, but I will be interested to know if you succeed. A couple of years ago, I sent ARP a 265 bolt and asked them about making up bolts. They are very specialized, and ARP said they had never made any bolts for the 265, and had no bolts that could easily be adapted. I asked them for a ballpark cost to make such bolts, and they said it would be at least a few thousand dollars, maybe more. At that point, I stopped my query. After some research and queries on this forum and others, I found that most people who are not building race or hot rod engines just re-use the stock bolts, as long as they don't look damaged. I even called George Asche, who has raced many of these engines for decades, and he said he re-uses his stock 265 bolts and has never had a failure, even with 5500-rpm (or more) operations. So I reassured myself with that, and decided I'd re-use the stock bolts. If you have better news than that, I'd really be interested to hear about it. I still haven't reassembled my engine, so it's not too late at this point, but if it's going to be another six months before bolts are ready, or if they are going to be $1000 per set of 12, then it probably won't be in the cards for me. If they do end up making some bolts, one thing to consider is whether they will be able to achieve the proper curvature of the underside of the bolt head, so that it will fit correctly into the curved, recessed socket of the rod. Maybe it's not a big deal to get this feature correct, but it's something that had crossed my mind.
  24. I pressed a worm gear off a steering shaft and replaced it just using a hydraulic press. I didn't heat it or cool the shaft or anything like that. This was on my '49 Dodge Power Wagon. The worm has an integral key, and shaft has a machined key way. The first time I tried it, I had the key slightly misaligned from the key way, meaning it was rotated a few degrees and it created a sliver of a new key way on the shaft, resulting in the overall width of the key way being wider than it should be. I didn't care much for that, so I got another shaft I had in my stock and tried it again....pressed the worm off the not-quite-right shaft and onto the other shaft. This time, I was very careful and got it right. The gear on mine looks just like the gear in your photos, so yours may respond similarly. Not sure if you have access to a press or not. Maybe a gear or pulley puller could be made to work. I would suggest not using the tapered piece of the puller inside the shaft, as that will probably tend to expand it and make it harder to get free of the gear.
  25. If you have a new cam, I've always read that you should run the engine at about 2000 rpm for 20 minutes when the engine is first started. After that, I agree with varying the rpm and power demand as you drive. I wouldn't rev it up too much, but I would think 2500 rpm would be a good limit for the first couple hundred miles, then gradually increase that over the next few hundred miles. About 16 - 17 years ago, I spoke to someone at a piston ring manufacturer (can't remember which company) and he said that once I've stepped on the gas pedal at near-full throttle under load (not high rpm) about 5 or 6 times, the rings are basically broken in. I got the impression this was just for a few or a couple of seconds at a time. These are just my own take on things based on what I've read and what I've done, although my experience is much more limited than that of others on this forum.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Terms of Use