Jump to content

Elwood

Members
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

11 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    USA
  • My Project Cars
    1954 Dodge M37

Converted

  • Location
    Midwest
  • Interests
    Old Dodge trucks

Recent Profile Visitors

1,390 profile views
  1. Thanks for that link, Matt. That Hudson bearing burnishing tool looks a lot like the Packard one. It's almost a broaching operation. I like the roller approach instead, and the tool is probably a lot easier to find nowadays than the factory tool! I can understand his concern about damaging the bore, especially when removing a well worn bearing. That's why I mentioned using an arbor above. Your machinist should be able to make one up on his lathe without too much time or trouble if he doesn't already have one at hand. Unless the pin bore is worn cocked, the arbor should push the bearing straight out of the rod. If that saw blade mark is on the side of the rod ID, you'll be less likely to have a problem, but if it's top or bottom (where most of the force is), well...these are thin-wall bearings, and it might burnish itself into that recess through use, transferring the imperfection to the ID of the bearing. Are you using steel-backed bearings? If you aren't set on those, you can source solid bronze bearings of standard and oversize dimensions through places like McMaster-Carr, and then turn the OD to the necessary size for that damaged rod (assuming, of course, that the rod bore has been reamed or honed true again first). Then ream the ID to a near undersize, burnish the bearing, and finish to final ID. Again more work, but perhaps easier than finding a 265 rod that's usable.
  2. Matt, do you have a link to that Hudson rebuild page? I'd like to read that discussion. Thanks!
  3. I suppose you could use the new bushing to push out the old, but I've always used a bushing driver or arbor to do the job. Using the new bushing seems to me to be an invitation to deform the leading and/or trailing edges of the new bushing if the old one puts up any resistance, or if it's worn thin enough that the new bushing doesn't get a good bite on it. I can't recall now where I read about people having problems with the small end bushings working loose, which suggests that the interference fit was not interfering enough. Burnishing should correct that problem. Some manufacturers, such as Packard, required that the pin bushings be burnished after installation, but as you noted, I've never been able to find any reference to the process in a Mopar manual. But burnishing should do exactly as suggested: form the softer OD of the bushing to the imperfect but harder ID of the rod small end, thereby locking the bushing to the rod. I have a Cogsdill Roll-a-Finish tool (I think it's a 3099070 D-13 SR-844) with an MT2 shank that I fit up in a floating reamer holder to burnish the pin bushings after pressing them in. Good info on the Cogsdill web site about the process and what it does. A nice feature of this tool is that it's adjustable over a small ID range to fit the bushing.
  4. Material type would be a factor as well. Have you measured the outside diameter of new, unused conn rod small end bushings and compared that dimension to the inside diameter of the small end of a known good bare rod, i.e. one with the old bushing pressed out? That difference will give you some idea of the interference fit of a standard rod-to-bushing. I'm assuming that you cannot replace the rod with the oversized small end inside diameter? Is he going to burnish the inside diameter of the new bushing to size them and seat the outside diameter into the rod small end after the bushings are pressed in?
  5. A copy of the Miller Special Tools catalog can be found here: Miller Special Tools Catalog 1956 Go to page 100, and you'll see a photo of tool DD-431 in use, plus a description.
  6. Pressing in a new pilot bearing is straightforward. I'm not a fan of the metallic ones (if it bonds to a magnet, it doesn't go in). The factory called for a special tool (Miller C-3181) to press in and then burnish the ID of the pilot bushing, but plenty of them have been installed without it. Just check the ID of the bushing after installation, and compare it to the OD of the pilot on the transmission input shaft. 0.003" clearance should be good.
  7. My experience is as Wayfarer stated: the circles are all of the same diameter. I'm not familiar with the Fluid Drive cranks, but I know that the crankshafts in the military T-245 engines should be eight bolts, with a conventional clutch and four-speed New Process transmission. However, I've disassembled two different T-245 blocks that had the correct crankshafts, but either four bolt or six bolt passenger car flywheels bolted to them.
  8. Perhaps you'd be willing to share the name of the supplier and their part number?
  9. Like others here have mentioned, I too purchased some hi-collar split lock washers from a fastener supplier, and discovered that they did NOT fit in the recess in the connecting rod cap on my small block flathead. The forging number on the rods was 954408. I kept searching, until eventually I found the NOS ones at arizonaparts.com.
  10. Have you tried arizonaparts.com? I bought some NOS rod bolt split lock washers (p/n 668555) from him a couple of years ago. Perhaps he still has some available?
  11. I agree with DJ194950. I wouldn't replace a chain without also replacing the gears. For my current 230 build, I sourced a timing chain set from Engine Pro (based in Grand Rapids, MI, with parts made here and in Mexico) through my machine shop. Here's a link to their catalog:
  12. Is your machine shop going to burnish the new bushings after they're pressed in and before they're reamed or honed to size? Are you going to use solid or split bushings? Did you have the big ends of the rods re-sized? If so, and you change or even just press out and then press back in the old bolts, then you should check the roundness of the big ends with a Sunnen AG300 gage or similar. If your machine shop does rod work, they'll have this gage. As for conn rod bolts and nuts (and washers if designed for them), my practice is to never re-use them. Used bolts have been stretched, and the consequences of a conn rod bolt failure can be a lot more catastrophic and expensive then a set of new bolts.
  13. Nice save. These blocks have been sleeved before, so you shouldn't have any problems if the work was done correctly. Some people would even argue that a sleeved engine is better than a non-sleeved engine. Have you checked that the valve guides were installed correctly?
  14. What mechresto said. I, too, always lap new valves/seats after they've been replaced and cut or ground. I'd add that a liquid leak test is always a good practice, too. This test is easier to do on an overhead valve cylinder head removed from the engine, but it can be done on a valve-in-block flathead. You'll need to have the valves and valve springs installed, but the cylinder head, tappets, and camshaft should not be installed. Invert the block (easier to do this if it's mounted on an engine stand), and then pour a small amount of kerosene (or something similar - ATF might work) into each intake and exhaust port pocket against the valve head backside. Let the block sit overnight (and put a drain pan underneath it). If any of the kerosene leaks past any of the valves, then that leaking valve seal is not good enough. Lapping might be enough to fix it, or the valve and/or valve seat may need to be trued up. There are measuring tools for checking the concentricity of the valve seat to the valve guide, and of the valve face to the valve stem. Good valve-to-seat contact is not just about sealing the combustion chamber and getting power out of the engine. The contact area between the two, especially on exhaust valves, is important for heat transfer and engine longevity. Lapping of used, pitted valves and seats will likely not do anything except use up some time, effort, and lapping compound. If you do decide to lap your valves, be sure to clean off ALL of the lapping compound when done. Lapping compound is an abrasive, and not good for engine internal parts.
  15. Those compression readings seem sort of low, not just No. 5 cylinder. But I'm not hands-on with the big-block flatheads; what does your manual say for minimum compression readings?
×
×
  • 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