Jump to content

looking for a mtached set of a connecting rods


michael.warshaw

Recommended Posts

Michael, check the for sale section of the forum, sometimes you can buy a whole engine reasonable from someone building a street rod from a plymouth. Also a 41 Dodge is 218 cu in the same as the Plymouth, they went to 230 in 42. I am running a 41 Dodge engine in my 48 Plymouth. Someone close to you on the forum might have an engine they might sell you for the parts but the complete engine weighs close to 600 pounds, cost too much to ship. I do not know if Vintage Powerwagon deals with 218 rods, most Military 3/4 ton Dodges have 230 cu in engines. Try to get a set of later rods that don't have the recess in the cap for the special size lock washers. The lock washers are next to impossible to find, I made my own by getting the correct I.D. washers and used a short spacer on a bolt to get them above the head of the bolt, placed 24 of them on the bolt and tightened the nut down as tight as I could then chucked them up in my drill press. Turn the drill press on and used a file to reduce the O.D. to the size of the original lock washers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earth to Michael...buy the 230 parts from shel and quit screwing around.

This kind of engine rebuild is not worth of all of the drama.

Check this ad: http://classiccar.com/index.php?opti...ad.php&t=20165

.

Edited by wayfarer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was dropped in my driveway, I went out on line to check before they were shipped and I do not remember the cost per pound per mile now but thought it about right. The upper and lower A frames were also attached but each side still weighed less than fifty pounds or 100 pounds total. I had a Triump TR 7 5 speed transmission shipped from the same state and it cost me $80.00 five years ago and assumed that the price of fuel had driven the cost up.

OK control arms on that is a huge difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you go 230, basically the piston just has a wider diameter right?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 230 has a longer stroke which would mean a different crank and probably different rods. I'm not sure about the bore.

So I'm trying to learn something here. At the beginning Mike is asking about a matched set of rods. Then post after post says your machinist should be able to balance the rods you already have. Doc calls the guy and the machinist tells him one rod has an over sized wrist pin bushing and another is 50 grams too heavy, everyone says "Oh! Now I get it".

I still don't understand. If all these other machinists matched and balanced rods, why can't this machinist replace the one rod with the over sized bushing, grind 50 grams off the heavy one then go from there?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm trying to learn how the new information put everything in a new light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll second the notion of going with the 230 conversion. The only difference between the 218 and the 230 engines is the stroke. The 230 is 1/4" longer than the 218. In order to convert from the 218 to the 230, you need to replace the crank, rods, and flywheel from a 230 engine. The blocks are identical between the two, and once done, no one would ever know that it is a 230 instead of a 218. The 12 cubic inches you gain in the process makes a noticeable difference in power and worth it. You need the flywheel too because the crank has a thicker flange on it. The 230 flywheel has a machined recess to accept the difference in the crank flange thickness. If you use the 218 flywheel on the 230 crank, it will sit too far back (3/16") in the bell housing and the starter will not fully engauge the ring gear.

The rods in the 218 and 230 are offset, meaning that the centerline of the piston/wrist pin is not centered on the rod bearing. The rods from the long block engines will not fit the short block engines as the long blocks do not have offset rods. The 218 and 230 offset rods have the same offset, but the 230 rods are 1/4" longer than the 218 rods. Here's a picture of the 218 rods, stacked up so you can see the offset.

218offsetrods.JPG

It is important to know how the rods go back into the engine, as they have an oil hole in the bearing end, on one side, that sprays oil on to the cam shaft. If the rods are turned around, and in the wrong piston hole, the oil hole will spray the wrong side of the block. The rod bearings must be put in correctly too, so that the oil hole in the upper bearing shell aligns with the oil hole in the rod.

I did this swap on my engine, and would do it again in a heartbeat. Especially if I needed to replace the rods anyway.

crankinstalled.JPG

newpistons.JPG

There's no reason to search for the 218 stuff if you can pick up all the 230 stuff from Shel. These engines need all the advantage they can get, and passing up the opportunity to gain cubes is a mistake in my judgment. With a 30 overbore on my engine, and the 230 crank, it measures out to about 235 cubic inches. With a 60 overbore, you should be in the neighborhood of 238-240 cubic inches, a big jump from the 218 with bolt in parts. I bought my NOS crank, reconditioned rods, and NOS flywheel from Vintage Power Wagons. If you buy from them be sure to tell them that you are working on a civilian passenger car engine, as the military engines used in the Power Wagons have subtle differences.

You can read all about my engine and what I've done with it here...

With persistence, you will get your engine back on the road. There's lots of very astute advice here on this forum, and as you've seen, guys willing to go far out of their way to help. Take the advice, and pay it forward when you can.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 230 has a longer stroke which would mean a different crank and probably different rods. I'm not sure about the bore.

So I'm trying to learn something here. At the beginning Mike is asking about a matched set of rods. Then post after post says your machinist should be able to balance the rods you already have. Doc calls the guy and the machinist tells him one rod has an over sized wrist pin bushing and another is 50 grams too heavy, everyone says "Oh! Now I get it".

I still don't understand. If all these other machinists matched and balanced rods, why can't this machinist replace the one rod with the over sized bushing, grind 50 grams off the heavy one then go from there?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm trying to learn how the new information put everything in a new light.

He can replace just the 2 but he has had problems in the past with the weight in rods when doing this, that is why he wanted a set that was out of a running motor as they should be closer in weight already. as for cutting down the heavy one their is not enough meat on the rod to remove that much without weakening the cap. I do agree as far as doing the 230 swap, it will not be a night and day difference but you will notice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clipped from Blueskies post: ---

You need the flywheel too because the crank has a thicker flange on it. The 230 flywheel has a machined recess to accept the difference in the crank flange thickness. If you use the 218 flywheel on the 230 crank, it will sit too far back (3/16") in the bell housing and the starter will not fully engage the ring gear. ----- : unclip

I do not have a flywheel to go with the crank and rods, as my parts came from a 230 connected to a "fluid drive"

If Michael has a good flywheel on his present setup would the "slight machining of the bell housing" procedure that Don C used on his long block resolve the starter engagement problem:confused:

I would think so... if I remember correctly, Don machined a recess in his flywheel about 3/16" deep to align his starter to the 218 flywheel. It was cheaper for me to get the 230 flywheel than to drive 70 miles to the nearest machine shop...

Pete

Edited by blueskies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another reason my 255 CI long block Desoto engine won the big race..:D:D

Don, you seem to be forgetting that I need just about 20 less cubes to move my lighter car and my skinny self down the track... and beat you by a nose even with my wife driving :D.

This thread was in dire need of a little ARCH RACE RIVALRY... it's all better now. :cool:

Pete

post-41-1358535297241_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well just to add another consideration, my 56 plymouth 230 has an 8 bolt crank shaft with a 6 bolt flywheel. To this combination I added my 46 bellhousing starter, standard transmission and the clutch cover the 46 with no problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think so... if I remember correctly, Don machined a recess in his flywheel about 3/16" deep to align his starter to the 218 flywheel. It was cheaper for me to get the 230 flywheel than to drive 70 miles to the nearest machine shop...

Pete

Not the flywheel. The bell housing. I am also running a 4 bolt flywheel coupled to an 8 bolt crankshaft.

Bell-starter_1.jpg

3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • 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