Matt Wilson

Interesting history. A fixed wing private pilot buddy of mine got Wing Walk from one of the small airplane repair shops where he worked and gave it to me.

Deleted for heading down off-topic rabbit holes, lol.

.

The wonder is that I had another machine shop tell me, a while back, that the main bearings should be installed in the block, main caps torqued down, inside diameters measured, all before getting the crank ground, and I recently read the same thing in an online article written by a pro who seemed to know what he was talking about. Neither one of them explained why. Yet that same machine shop said it was not necessary for rod bearings. So it made me wonder when I asked two shops yesterday, and they said it was not necessary. In theory, it seems like you shouldn't have to do this, but in reality, I guess some folks must have some reason for it. At the very least, I'll measure the bearing inner diameters myself, just to be sure nothing looks out of whack. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if the reason for doing this on the mains is to check for issues with the main bores, as it is not always a standard thing to correct those bores, while it is pretty much standard to correct rod bores during rework of the rods.

Yes, good point. Oddly, both machine shops I talked to yesterday said this was not necessary and that I could just bring in the crank and tell the what undersize I'm planning to use. Makes me wonder a little.

It is indeed possible (actually quite likely) that one of those companies made the parts for Chrysler. I think I was told once that the OEM bearings were Clevite 77. I suppose that's beside my point. My main point is to find out out whether anyone knows what improvements, if any, have been made to the parts we would purchase new nowadays over the NOS parts that were made 60 years ago (or more), or if sitting on a shelf could somehow degrade them (I doubt it, but this is a forum for asking questions). I know for a fact that bearings in general have improved substantially, but the question is....have those types of improvements been incorporated into the new bearings we can purchase today for these engines that were built decades ago, or are they still being made using similar technology to what was used back then, or at least a modern equivalent because it might be cheaper than using newer technologies and that's all that is required for the application, or maybe even because it's somehow more compatible to the application. Kind of an open-ended question, I realize, but someone may know the answers....or someone may not. Perhaps someone will even chime in and say they bought NOS bearings 15 years ago, with packaging from 1948, and they have put 50,000 miles on the car with no trouble since then. These are some the types of answers that might prove most useful, but I'm looking for any input. It could be that no one will chime in with that type of info, but....I figure I will never get the answer if I don't ask. Do I expect to get a broad spectrum of answers that vary as much as the people who provide the answers? Yeah, probably so, but that's ok. I still want to hear them.

I would buy NOS undersize bearings, to match my crank journals, if I decided to go the NOS route.

Hi guys, When considering the purchase of crankshaft bearings for a flathead six, I have the option to purchase new Sealed Power parts or NOS Mopar parts. Sealed Power makes very good products, I believe. Mopar also made very good parts for our engines, but of course, those parts don't have the benefit of any new technology or manufacturing improvements that may have come about in the last 60 or more years. Plus, they've been sitting on a shelf for that long. I doubt sitting on a shelf has hurt them, as long as they were packaged well and haven't been exposed in some way to a harmful environment, but I can't be sure. I guess bottom line is, what's everyone's views on whether to buy new or NOS crankshaft bearings for an engine that will get used a lot, and will have some extra power running through it by way of dual carbs, headers, upgraded cam, increased compression (8:1) and electronic ignition? The NOS bearings are certainly MUCH less expensive than the new ones (less than half the price of new), but maybe there's some benefit to having the new parts (you get what you pay for)? On the other hand, I'm sure some folks will argue that NOS parts are better than what you can buy today. Mainly, I want to be sure that if I buy NOS, I won't be sacrificing durability because I wanted to save money up front on my parts purchase. Thanks all!

Yes, I think that's making sense. In other words, the difference between ported and full vacuum is the difference between the vacuum source above the throttle plate vs. below the throttle plate. My engine will be set up with dual carbs, headers, and a custom cam, although nothing outrageous, so I'm not sure if it would really fall into the "performance" category or not. I guess I can try the vacuum advance either way and see which way I like best. And, yes, I thought the amount of timing advance listed was awfully far advanced. I'll try something less than that when the time comes. Thanks for the reply!

I painted portions of my Power Wagon's running boards with stuff called Wing Walk. It is used on planes, on those areas where pilots and maintainers have to walk. I masked off the areas where I didn't want it and brushed it onto the unmasked areas, and it has really held up well. I probably scuffed the underlying paint before applying it, but I dont recall for sure now. I did that in 1993 or 94 and it still looks good. It has a grittiness to it, so you won't slip, and I think it looks good as an accent to the surrounding paint, but if complete originality is what you are looking for, then it won't fit the bill.

Digging up this really old thread. When you say ported vacuum or full vacuum, what do you mean? What's the difference between the two and how to do I hook up to either one? Thanks, Matt

You're quite welcome. I don't have either of my engines assembled right now, so I can't tell for sure how the nozzle is aimed, but it looks like it squirts the oil along a line that is tangent to the crankshaft sprocket outer circle. It almost looks like it would actually hit the chain, just above where the chain engages the sprocket, but it's hard to tell for sure. It looks like it squirts a little bit in the forward direction too, so that it would hit the chain (or sprocket) at about the middle of the thickness of the chain (or sprocket). It looks very much like the picture posted by thebeebe5 a couple of hours ago.

Regarding the hole diameter for the timing chain/sprocket oil nozzle, I recently measured mine on two different engines. One is an oiler off a 230 engine that I believe is from the late 40's or early 50's, and the other is off a 251 from the early 60's (the original Power Wagons were still coming off the line with flatheads of the 251 variety through the late 60's). The 230 oil nozzle hole diameter is about 0.042", while the 251 oiler was about 0.056". I determined this by inserting drill bits into the holes. It should be noted that George Asche once told me to open up the holes in these oilers, as the chain and sprockets need more oil than the factory hole size will provide. He couldn't recall exactly what diameter he likes to use, but he thought it was 1/16", which is 0.0625". I went ahead and opened up the 251 nozzle by the few extra thousandths required to get to 1/16". I don't know if the 230 nozzles are all smaller than the 251 nozzles, or if the early engines of all displacements had nozzles with smaller hole diameters than the later engines. Many of the smaller (23") engines can use the same chain and sprockets as the 25" engines, and I believe that's the case with my 230 and 251, so I don't think the diameter difference is because of any difference in the type or size of timing chain/sprocket. Bottom line is that you might consider opening up your damaged nozzle hole to a 1/16" diameter.

He later corrected himself on that - either later in the first video or in the second video. By that point, he had figured out he doesn't need to replace them because they're already hardened. Overall, it's a pretty good video series.

Is it really critical that the chain and sprocket be from the same manufacturer? Reason I ask is because I bought a chain and the two sprockets from Vintage Power Wagons, and the two sprockets are NOS Dodge/Chrysler parts, while I'm pretry sure the chain is a brand-new Melling unit (at least that's what they said they were selling at the time, but I can't verify from the packaging, since they shipped it to me in a clear plastic freezer bag.. It seems that they, of all people, would know if it's ok to mix them like this or not. I just assumed that this was ok, since they sold them to me that way. I haven't installed them yet, so I can't comment on how they are working together. However, I can try to do something about it if this not ok.

I ran my engine at idle for quite some time without discovering the problem, in the truck (I didn't use a stand, but probably should have, for various reasons). Of course, the first time I started it, I ran it up to about 2000 rpm for around 20 minutes to properly break in the cam, but this still wasn't enough to reveal the loose plugs. I believe the cooling system pressure increases with engine rpm, so you may not see the effects of loose plugs until you run it at cruise speed and at full operating temperature for some time. I realize it's a low- or non-pressurized system, but the water pump produces some pressure. I didn't experience my issue until the engine's maiden voyage. I was on my way to work when the plug fell out, resulting in a loss of all coolant without my knowledge, followed by severe overheating. For fear of damage, I took most of the engine apart in the truck and replaced the rings and inspected pistons, bearings, etc. I also replaced all freeze plugs, but there's not enough room to swing a hammer on the left side, so I replaced those with the expandable rubber type and they worked well. I think I had to take apart the whole front end of the engine to access the plug there. This meant taking off the timing chain and the big mount plate behind it. I also replaced the plug at the back of the block, nearly breaking my hand in the process, when I swung the hammer and missed the drift I was using to flatten the plug and instead hit my hand, lol. Some months later, I also had to replace the head, as it started leaking from a crack that was presumably a result of the overheating incident. My biggest concern would be the freeze plug in the front of the engine. I'm not sure if coolant escaping that plug could get into the oil, but it seems like a possibility. I know it's a lot of work, but you might consider replacing at least this one, but preferably all of them, before installing the engine in your vehicle. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks, yes, I will ask the machinist to do that. It's cheap insurance. He magnafluxed the whole block before he started work on the engine, but it's possible the boring operation uncovered a flaw in the casting.

Also, some of the threaded holes go into the water jacket. Be sure to use sealant on the head bolts that go into those holes. I believe Permatex high-temperature thread sealant has been used successfully by many for this purpose.

Thanks for reply. Do the rings travel over that pit?

Yeah, I tend to agree that they will probably not be a problem, but as you say, triple-checking is in order. Looking around online, I see postings on other forums, where people say they have run with scratches and nicks that sounded worse than mine, and drove the engines for tens or hundreds of thousands of miles with no issues. Someone pointed out to me that two-stroke engines have holes in their cylinders (the intake and exhaust ports), which would seem to be much worse than my little nicks. Of course, those engines may be configured to allow this to happen without damage. In any case, we'll see what the machinist has to say.

Good thought, thanks. I'll talk to the machinist about this.

I'm at the point of checking all the machine work, parts dimensions, etc., for a 265 engine rebuild that I'm doing, and I discovered a few nicks on the walls of cylinders 3 and 4. There are two nicks in each cylinder. The smallest is roughly circular, and about 1/32 across and maybe a thousandth or so in depth (just my estimate by feel and looking under magnification). That one almost seems like a possible casting flaw that broke through when the cylinder was machined oversize. The others are all between 1/16 and 3/32" in length and are at an angle to the cylinder, so not vertical like scratches one often sees due to ring end gap burrs or contaminants, but not quite lined up with the crosshatching either. I can catch my fingernail on one or two of those, and the others I can feel with my fingernail or fingertip, but not catch with my nail. I estimate the deepest ones are 0.002 - 0.004", although I could be off on that. All of the nicks are separated from each other by a fair distance, and there doesn't seem to be any raised material next to them. They are all between 1/2" and 1-1/2" from the top of the bore. I plan to talk to my machinist about it and see what he says, but I wanted to get your opinions as well. From a performance standpoint, those are so tiny, they shouldn't matter at all in the sense of holding compression or letting oil get past, but I'm more concerned about whether they will shorten the life of the rings. Thanks, Matt

Wow, looks fantastic! What an exciting build.

Very nice! I'm sure the excitement is building more and more. One thing I'd like to mention is that the freeze plugs look like they have small, deep indentations. I've seen posts by other guys who left such a dimple in their freeze plugs, and it didn't properly expand the plug against the recess in the block, and the plug ended up falling out. The plugs should have a broader, somewhat shallower deformation (flattening of the initially curved surface). It could be an optical illusion caused by the photo, but I just wanted to caution you to keep an eye on those plugs. Conversely, I had a plug fall out of my engine, many years ago, because the machinist didn't flatten it enough. So it can't be too little or too much. There's a range of deformation that'll get you a good fit. And of course, you need to use sealant around the edges. I've read of some people using Permatex (not silicone), others who use JB Weld and others who use Indian Head gasket shellac (or other equivalent brand). I'm sure there are other types that can be used with success as well.

Hey all, I just wanted to heap some praise on a crankshaft shop I've used couple of times. For you who are in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area, there is a shop called Tripple 'N'Gin, (yes, that's the correct spelling) and the guy, named George, has done some excellent work for me. A while back, I took him my 265 crank to have the rear seal surface welded up and ground smooth, and he did a fabulous job, leaving absolutely no sign of the deep pitting that had been there. You couldn't even tell it was welded - it just looked factory original. Other shops in the area had said that portion of the crankshaft was too narrow for their grinding wheels, but this gentleman has many different sizes/widths. In fact, a big local crankshaft repair shop had sent me to him, saying they sub out a lot of their work to him, and that he always does a great job. As best I can tell, he's just a small, one-man show, but I like that even better. Well, fast-forward several months, and I haven't gotten around to installing the crank into the engine yet, and although I had it covered with a plastic bag, some humid air had found its way under the bottom of the bag and onto the bottom couple of journals and seal surface. As it turns out, it was mostly just light surface rust, but I wasn't able to satisfactorily polish it myself, and I thought it might need welding again, so I took it back to George a couple of days ago. He looked at it and said it only needed a good polishing, not welding, and he polished up all of the journals right there on the spot (I was expecting to have to leave it with him). He then coated each journal with a thick, oily substance, to keep them from corroding again. To top that off, after spending about a half-hour with me, he didn't even charge me anything. I tried to give him something, but he wouldn't take it. Now my crank is back in shape, and I thought I owed it to him to spread the word about his good work and honesty. I don't think he has a website, but he is on Facebook. His number is (972)259-2474. If he's away, you can also try his cell phone, which is (214)529-2436. Both numbers are published on his business card and his Facebook page, so I don't think there's an issue with me posting them here.