Jump to content

Matt Wilson

Members
  • Posts

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Matt Wilson

  1. This evening I pulled out my Haynes manual for 1980 - 1994 Ford pickups. It has various bearing clearances depending on which engine we're talking about, but there are some that show as little as 0.0001 - 0.0015 for mains and 0.0008 - 0.0015 for rods, and other that show 0.001 - 0.0014 for rods and mains. These are all new part clearances. I don't know if Haynes reflects the factory manual accurately or not. I still say the smallest of these seem too small, especially 0.0001, compared to everything else I've read, including clearance information that I've read from companies that make bearings.
  2. The 1952 Army/Air Force manual says 0.003" crankshaft runout is for new parts. Yes, the same manual that allows down to 0.0001" and 0.0002" clearance for rod and main bearings, respectively. Crankshaft runout wear limit is stated as 0.005". The later 50's industrial engine manual says 0.003" is the maximum limit, presumably meaning the wear limit, although it's not 100% clear. In any case, the manuals are not consistent.
  3. Then on the other hand, some of my manuals allow as much as 0.003" runout before it's deemed necessary to regrind the crank. That seems really large. But I'm sure there's plenty I don't understand that goes into that.
  4. Fair enough. But it was not just race guys saying this, but also guys who have rebuilt plenty more engines than I have, so hopefully you can see the origins of my question. Another guy quoted an old-time machinist who said it's very difficult to achieve the same tolerances as the factory, when it comes to crankshafts, with aftermarket crank work (at that time, at least - talking decades ago) being as much an art as anything else. Or who knows, maybe that particular machinist was actually lazy.
  5. Right, I can understand what you're saying. These couple of guys I'm talking about, I would not characterize as lazy, but they deal a lot with higher performance engines, and have seen the result of cranks or blocks flexing under high torque and small clearances, which resulted in bearings getting eaten. They are staying on the side of caution. That concern may not apply so much to our engines, with their lower power output levels, but they were just advising to be more on the safe side. Other folks who are pretty experienced with engines, even flatheads, usually prefer to stay on the larger clearance side of things. I know that it's possible to achieve near-perfect crankshaft out-of-roundness and taper within each journal, and near-perfect runout across the whole crankshaft, but I think they were being a little more realistic with regard to what is much more commonly the result, and knowing that blocks and cranks deflect under load.
  6. I've read so much about people who are more experienced than I, and their machinists, tending toward larger clearances, like 0.0015 - 0.002, or larger. I've also talked with a couple of long-time engine builders who said they think it's a bad idea to aim for such small clearances, as all it takes is some tiny little something not being exactly right, and it'll wipe out a bearing, when a bit more clearance would have prevented it. And these are guys who are extremely picky about the work they do. Certainly the 0.0001 and 0.0002 seems way beyond the limit for good practice, and even 0.0005 seems like it's taking undue risk.
  7. I'd like to get a better understanding of crankshaft main and rod bearing clearances. I have five rebuild manuals, which indicate the clearances listed below: Army Technical Manual 9-808, Truck, 3/4-Ton 4x4 (Dodge), dated 11/14/1942: 230 engine should have 0.001 - 0.002, rods and mains (other engines not covered). 48 - 49 B-1 Series Dodge Truck Manual: 218, 230 (23" block), 236, 251 (25" block) are all supposed to have 0.0005 - 0.0015 clearance, rods and mains (other engines are covered, but they are much larger flathead sixes in a class of their own with bigger clearances, so I opted not to list them here). Army Technical Manual TM 9-1840A (a.k.a., Air Force Technical Order TO 19-75B-15), dated June, 1952 (M37/M43 manual): 230 engine should have 0.0001 - 0.0021 clearance for rods, 0.0002 - 0.0022 clearance for mains (other engines not covered). Yes, you read that correctly (yes, I typed it correctly); 0.0001 (one ten-thousandth) and 0.0002 (two ten-thousandths) are the min specified clearances for the rods and mains, respectively (other engines not covered). Chrysler Six Cylinder Industrial Engines Maintenance and Parts Manual, D-12154, Second Edition (only two dates I could find were 1946 and 1953, in the parts list section): 218, 230 (23" block), 237, 251 (25" block) engines should have 0.0005 - 0.0015 clearance, rods and mains (other engines not covered). Motors Truck Repair Manual, 19th Edition (don't know publication year, but last vehicles covered are 1966): 1955 - 1960 230, 251 & 265 engines should have 0.0005 - 0.0015 clearance, rods and mains (other flathead sixes not covered). As you can see, three manuals call for 0.0005 - 0.0015. The other two allow as much as approximately 0.002 or 0.0022 for the max end of tolerance. Anything less than 0.0015 seems small compared to what I hear most people like to aim for on these engines. Half-thou (0.0005) seems very much on the small side and questionable, and 0.0001 or 0.0002 seems ridiculously small and just begging for trouble. Have any of you guys actually built your engines with anything approaching 0.0005" (I'm not even going to ask about 0.0001 or 0.0002). In a discussion with someone at Vintage Power Wagons a few years ago, I was told to try to get down as close to 0.0005 as possible, as it is good for maintaining a healthy oil pressure, but it just seems kinda small to me....and yet there are three manuals that allow it, and another that allows even less. It seems like 0.0015 - 0.002 is what a lot of people aim for, and some are even happy with up to 0.003 in these engines during engine rebuilds. I did find the thread below, in which DJK tried bearings with 0.001 clearance and he couldn't turn his crankshaft by hand. When he bumped the clearance up to 0.002, everything was free-spinning and the engine ran great. It just kind of bumfuzzles me that Chrysler would specify such tight clearances.
  8. I'm thinking I'll add the use of some light-duty thread locker to my engine assembly checklist, for the oil pan bolts. Maybe the timing cover bolts too.
  9. Welcome aboard! I'm sure you'll enjoy the forum. Lots of knowledgeable people here.
  10. How about trying what's called a dial test indicator. It's not the same as a dial indicator, but similar, but has a probe that extends sideways from the tool so it could probably reach into the tappet area to get a reading of the valve clearance. You could place the end of that probe onto the tappet and move the tappet up and down by hand (when the tappet is on the base circle of the cam, not on the high part of the lobe, of course) and see what the clearance is. Then adjust the tappet screw till you have the indicator reading you are looking for. Some manuals say a decent initial tappet setting for a cold engine is 0.014" (I believe this is for intake and exhaust). This would get you close and then you'd have to run the engine to warm it up, shut it down to set up the dial test indicator on the first tappet you want to check, adjust it while the engine is still hot (not running), then run the engine some more and move the dial test indicator to the next tappet and so on.
  11. Talking about not over-tightening the pan bolts, I've always had the tendency to do just that, for fear that the bolts will come out if I don't tighten them enough. Manuals that provide a torque value for these types of bolts state a really low value, like 10 ft-lbs or so, and that just seems like it will allow the bolts to fall out and oil leakage to begin or worse. So if we follow the proper recommended torque, what keeps the bolts from coming loose? Should some type of low-strength thread locker be used?
  12. The crumple zones are: (1) The occupants and (2) The other car. Regarding #1, as Bob Riding said, it's just best not to think too much about these things. We all should be aware of these things by now, so it's best to just have fun.
  13. Ok, great update and great news! Thanks for checking in with him and reporting back to us.
  14. Thanks, TFC. I had been considering this one, or one like it, on Amazon, but decided to try the one I ordered. We'll see how it works out. The upsides to the one I ordered are that it's less expensive and at least in some cases, it should be usable on the vehicle. The main downside that I know of so far is that it only works for two tubing sizes, as opposed to the one you bought, which can be used for more sizes. Anyway, we'll see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, I'm pretty sure I can return it. Thanks!
  15. Thanks, Brad. I decided to order the one you recommended, instead of the much more expensive one I was eyeballing. It mostly got good reviews. There were a couple of reviews that said they had difficulty flaring 1/4" nickel/copper tubing, which is one of the sizes and types I'm using. However, there were a couple of other reviews that said it worked great on 1/4" nickel/copper tubing. That's kind of the same for the more expensive one, though, too. I figured I'd go ahead and give this one a try. I'll update this thread as I make more progress.
  16. Thanks! I know my post is exceptionally lengthy, but I wanted to document and detail everything I'm doing as a reference for others who might want to do the same conversion to their vehicles. I have an update on the residual pressure valves. I spoke to a tech rep at Wilwood this afternoon, who said there's no issue with "piggybacking" the valves (i.e., installing an external valve, even if there is already an internal valve on the Toyota M/C). I suppose that's the case as long as I'm not trying to install a lower pressure external valve when there is already a higher pressure internal valve, but that's not the case on my situation. Thanks also for the reply on the flaring tool. There's a tool on Amazon that looks promising, but it would be nice to get suggestions from folks who have successfully used a flaring tool on nickel-copper tubing without chewing up the outside of the tube.
  17. As I mentioned in my above novela, I am at the point of bending and flaring my brake tubing. I decided to use nickel-copper tubing, as it is easier to bend and flare than steel tubing. Also, its corrosion resistant properties are a big plus, and I could use the double flaring tool that I already had in my toolbox, which is only rated for metals softer than steel. So I started flaring some tubing to make one of my lines that comes out of the Toyota master cylinder (3/16" tubing with 10mm x 1.0 fittings). The flaring tool made lovely inverted double flares, but left a terrible finish on the outside of the tubing, as shown in the photo. This is not even the worst one. I did some polishing on the worst one without getting a pic of it. You can see the tool in the photo. It's the typical clamp type that has threads in each hole to grip the tubing. I tried lessening the amount of clamp-up on the wing nuts, but that didn't help much. I also tried masking tape and then, later, duct tape wrapped around tube. I tried a single, then later a double, then later a triple wrap of these tapes. None of those worked. I don't want to use the tubing in that condition. I think those marks could be sources for cracks at some point, so not a good "feature" for a brake system. So I'm at the point where I need to find a better tool. I found some contenders on Amazon, but I'd like to hear what you guys recommend. Do you guys know of a double flaring tool that will NOT leave any marks, gouges, distortions, etc., on the tubing, even if it's nickel-copper tubing? It needs to handle 3/16" tubing with metric and SAE (3/8" x 24) fittings, and also 1/4" tubing with 7/16" x 24 thread fittings. Thanks!
  18. Hello All, I’m finally getting back to this thread. Life has gotten in the way and I have not been on the forums here much in the past couple of months. I did get on for a few weeks after my initial post, but didn’t get any replies for a while at first, and then life got busy and I hardly checked in for quite some time. Now I’m back, and I see quite a few responses, and I appreciate all of you who have provided input. In the last couple of weeks, I’ve done a few things related to this brake project, including doing some more reading online. As I said before, I’m using a 1992 – 1994 Toyota Camry master cylinder with a 1” bore. The p/n is NMC-11328, from O’Reilly Auto Parts (see photo). As mentioned by others, the mounting bolt pattern for this era of Toyota master cylinders is very close to the original Dodge factory bolt pattern. It only required a little wallowing or whittling out of the holes to make it a good match to the factory pattern (master cylinder with my mods to the bolt pattern is shown in one of the photos). All three holes had to be extended toward the center of the master cylinder by something like 1/16” (I don’t recall the exact amount), but that still leaves plenty of meat for strength. My modification isn’t the prettiest but will work just fine. I never found anything definitive regarding the brake line routing of the early 90’s Camry, to answer my question about whether the rear reservoir supplies the front brakes and vice-versa, but I’ve seen enough posts by people on various forums to give me confidence that this is a fairly common practice across different makes, so I decided to proceed with that assumption. Then after learning some more about brake systems, I don’t think it matters anyway for my situation. It seems that there are two main reasons it would matter for cars originally set up with dual M/C and a disc/drum combination. One is that the larger reservoir (whether front or rear) needs to supply the disc brakes because discs require more fluid volume than drums. My ’49 Power Wagon has drums all the way around, so that’s not an issue. Second reason relates to residual pressure valves that could be different from front to rear (or non-existent) for the Toyota system. I plan to install externally mounted residual pressure valves (external to the M/C), so I don’t think this is an issue either. (For some background, what I’ve learned through reading various sources is that residual pressure can be a necessity for either disc brakes (in some situations) or drum brakes (in many situations). For discs, it’s needed when the M/C is mounted below the level of the calipers, to prevent fluid in the caliper from flowing back into the M/C when the brakes are not in use, which would result in excessive pedal travel the next time the brakes are needed. A 2-psi valve is all that's usually in those instances. The M/C is mounted higher than the calipers on the Camry, and on most production vehicles, so residual pressure is probably not considered an issue and this M/C probably does not contain a residual pressure valve for the disc brake circuit. This is more often a concern for custom-built/street rod/race cars that have their M/C mounted low in the car. On the other hand, a residual pressure valve is usually needed for drum brakes, regardless of M/C placement on the car, to prevent air from seeping into the system past the wheel cylinder cups when the brakes are not in use. A 10-psi valve is commonly used for drum brakes). That brings me to the residual pressure valve specifics for my system. As mentioned above, all my brakes are drums, so I plan to use a 10-psi residual pressure valve mounted externally to the M/C. I purchased two residual pressure valves from Wilwood, both being p/n 260-13784 (see photo). Each valve comes with the brass fittings shown, which I’ve screwed into the valves at this point. Based on what I said above, there’s a reasonable likelihood that the Toyota M/C has a residual pressure valve for the outlet going to the drums, but I don’t know for sure. I had a hard time finding anything to tell me whether it’s ok to install these externally mounted valves when there may already be an internal valve in one outlet of the M/C, but I did eventually run across a forum post (different website, not here) by someone who seems knowledgeable, and he said there’s no issue with this, as the effect of the valves is not cumulative. That is what I would expect as well. Nonetheless, I will call Wilwood next week to confirm. Another decision I had to make (referring to a question from my original post) was the configuration of the split system (i.e., front/rear split or diagonal split). I’ve decided to split it front vs. rear. I didn’t get much response about this when I asked in my initial post, except from one respondent who didn’t see the value in it. The value, as I understand it, is that a failure in either circuit will still always leave you with one operating front brake (plus one rear brake, of course), unlike the front-rear split systems that can leave you with only two rear brakes if the front system goes out. As we know, rear brakes are not as effective at stopping a vehicle as front brakes, so I can see the appeal of a diagonally split system. I have read that some manufacturers do the diagonal split, but I don’t think it’s common, so maybe that’s an indication that it’s not substantially better, or that there are other issues with it. A potential downside is that it may result in a hard steering pull to the left or the right when braking with only one working circuit. I read about this on one or two forums, and I don’t know if that was speculation or known fact, but it seems to make sense that this could happen. Even when both front brakes are working properly but are slightly out of adjustment relative to each other, the steering will pull to one side or the other. So I can imagine that it would be much worse when one of your front brakes is completely gone. Finally, splitting the system diagonally makes things more complicated, and even much more so if I were ever to decide to add proportioning valves for the rear brakes. Which brings me to the proportioning valve. For now, I’ve decided to forgo that, given that most factory four-wheel drum systems never had them. At some point, I will take the truck to a gravel road or a large, open, wet parking lot and see if the rears lock up sooner than the fronts. That will help guide me on whether to add a proportioning valve or not. The next photo shows the M/C input rod that I fabricated, sitting next to the stock (factory) piece. The front of this rod goes into the back of the M/C piston, and at the opposite end, it threads onto the clevis rod that connects to the brake pedal. It is what allows adjustment of pedal free play. As you can see, the fabricated piece is about 7/8” shorter than the factory parts (similar to the ¾” shorter length mentioned by a couple of you guys), and it’s also smaller in diameter (~0.395” vs. ~0.435” for the factory part) to allow it to fit properly into the back of the Toyota M/C piston. I decided to make my own rod, rather than modifying the factory part, as I tend to shy away from permanently modifying factory parts that may be hard to find (more about that below). I bought a ½” fine thread Grade 8 bolt, cut the head off, threaded it into a coupling nut of the same thread size and pitch, and welded the two together. This thread is required to fit it to the factory clevis rod coming off the brake pedal. The amount I threaded the bolt into the coupling nut was such that the clevis coming of the brake pedal would thread into the other end of the coupling nut the same amount that it goes into the factory input rod before bottoming out. This also ensured that quite a few threads were engaged between the bolt and the coupling nut. Once welded, I chucked the assembly in my lathe and turned down the outside diameter of the bolt and then used a fairly coarse flat file to round off the nose where it does into the M/C. I also used a half-round file to smooth up most of the weld material, and a rat-tail file (round file) to create a groove toward the rear of the nut portion, like the groove in the factory rod, so that the rubber dust boot (see photo) can be secured to it. All of this was followed up with sand paper (220 grit?) to give it a decent finish. The nice thing is that the boot is the one that came off the single circuit factory M/C that was previously used on this truck. It fits quite well on the new rod and it also fits very nicely onto the lip at the back of the Toyota M/C. The rod is not 100% pretty, but I’m very pleased with the way it turned out. Of course, the way things go, I found out shortly afterward that Vintage Power Wagons sells newly made input rods (they call it a brake master cylinder piston push rod), so I could have modified my original part after all (or a newly purchased one), and not worried about depleting the world’s supply of rods, LOL. Oh, well, it was fun to fab my own piece. I should note that I checked the stroke of the new M/C vs. the full throw of the input rod (with all proper pedal adjustments made), and they are nearly identical, both being about 1.5”. There was actually about 1/16” difference between the two, but it seems like that should be good. You don’t want the pedal to bottom out before it reaches the full stroke of the new M/C. Next post discusses the hard line installation for the new M/C.
  19. Yes, please tell us about it your build. I've heard of several of these flatheads that were tested for power and torque, but this is only the second one I've heard of that has exceeded 200 HP. Most people who hopped up their engines and had them tested did not get very close to that.
  20. I'm glad you are on the road to recovery, and I hope you will continue to find the inspiration (and physical endurance) to complete the tasks at hand.
  21. Hello all, I'm planning the dual master cylinder upgrade for my '49 Power Wagon, and after doing a LOT of reading, I've learned a lot, but still have a few questions. First, a little background info. I plan to use the factory drum setup at all four wheels (at least for now), and I plan to install a Toyota master cylinder (for a 1992 - 94 Camry), which has the common three-bolt mounting pattern used on many Toyotas, which is very similar to the original Power Wagon mount pattern. In other words, the new master cylinder will be in the same location as the original, which is down low (not high, like the firewall-mounted types going on later vehicles). 1) I've read a number of sources, including the forums on this website, that say four-wheel drum setups on other vehicles do not require proportioning valves. Mostly, no explanation for this is offered, but in a few instances, the explanation is that the wheel cylinders were sized from the factory so that the rear brakes would produce less braking force than the front brakes (i.e., smaller wheel cylinder bores in the rear than in the front), thereby eliminating the risk of rear wheel lockup doing hard stops. In the case of the Power Wagon, however, the wheel cylinders are the same in the rear and on the front, so do you all agree that a proportioning valve is appropriate? 2) Based on what I've read, it seems it would be best to use residual pressure valves, and as I understand it, the factory master cylinder had such a valve. Use of valves rated for 10 psi seems to be the general consensus for drum brakes, at least as a starting point. When I look into the two outlet ports of the new master, I see conical brass pieces. Are these the residual pressure valves? If so, I suspect I should remove at least one of them, if not both, before installing my own, but how do I do this? The Camry of that era has disc brakes at least in the front, and some have discs in the rear too, but they all seem to use the same master cylinder (it appears that the only time a different master is needed is when the car is equipped with four wheel ABS). With all this on mind, I know I'll need a higher pressure residual valve at least in the front (disc) outlet port, since valves for discs are set up for only about 2 psi, and I might possibly need one at the other port too (if it's set up for discs). If I can't determine whether the new master has residual pressure valves, or if I can't remove them, is there any issue with going ahead and adding my valves anyway? 3) I can't tell which port of the new master goes to the front brakes and which one goes to the rears. I would normally assume that the front outlet goes to the front and the rear to the rear, but the guy at O'Reilly said something about the ports being the opposite of this. I don't know if he was right or not, but I figured I should find out. How do I tell? Does it really matter, if both use the same bore size and I'm going to install my own residual pressure valves anyway? 4) The bore of the new master is 1", whereas the factory master cylinder bore is 1-1/4". This means braking will require less pedal effort for a given amount of braking force at the wheels, but will it also mean more pedal travel than the original? It seems that it shouldn't, since there are now two pistons pushing fluid out to the wheels, instead of just one, even though they are each smaller pistons that the original one. In other words, the two 1" pistons are each supplying two wheels, rather than the single 1-1/4" piston supplying all four wheels. 5) I've read that some vehicles have split the brake circuits not into front and rear, but into LH-FWD/RH-AFT and RH-FWD/LH-AFT. Is this something I should consider doing, since I have the opportunity? I can see some advantages, meaning you'd always have at least one front brake working, but there must be some reason most manufacturers don't do that. Any info and insight is appreciated. Thanks in advance!
  22. Hi Jim, Looking at the photos of your exhaust valves (and I think your intakes were similar), I'm wondering if there was any concern over the small distance from the seat OD to the valve head OD? This photo shows only a very tiny sliver of shiny metal running along the outer circumference of the valve face, just outside the dull ring that indicates the contact band between the valve and the seat. I've run across a few articles or sets of instructions online that indicate this sliver of shiny metal should be larger than this appears to be, for durability/longevity purposes. One set of instructions by GM says it should be at least 0.020" wide, while others say at least 1/64" (~0.016"), while still another says it should be at least 1/32" (~0.031") wide. But then I find forums where guys who do this type of machining for a living say they only leave 0.005 - 0.015" width, or in the case of intake valves, sometimes none at all. The reason I ask is because the contact patterns on my valves (both intake and exhaust) look very much like those on yours, and they measure no more than 0.015" on the exhaust valves no more than 0.010" on the intakes) and before I install them in my engine, I want to find out if there could be any durability issues. If so, then I might be able to order slightly larger OD valves that will work in my application (265 cid flathead six) to hedge my bets. But I'd like to find out what your experience has been with these valves, and what the gurus at your shop say about this sort of thing. I'll note that my engine will be hopped up a little, with 8:1 compression, a moderately modified cam, dual carb intake, dual exhaust, and re-curved distributor with electronic ignition. Also, when driving at highway speeds, the engine will be at 3000 - 3200 rpm continuously. I will also note that the seat widths (contact patches as seen on my valve faces) are in line with the requirements (about 1/16" or so), so at least that's a plus. Anyone else who may have input on this, your advice is appreciated too. Thanks!
  23. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone!
  24. Just wondering if anyone here has heard from Knuckleharley (I think his real first name is Arthur). He used to post pretty regularly and frequently, but I haven't noticed any posts by him lately and it appears that his last visit to the site was in early August. He posted more than once about having cancer, saying that things weren't going so well, so I kind of fear the worst. I don't know him personally, and I'm not sure what made me think of him, but it occurred to me that I hadn't seen any activity from him lately, so I figured I would ask. His profile indicates he lives in North Carolina. Not sure if anyone out in that direction knows him well enough to know his current status.
  25. If I recall correctly, even the non-synchronized transmission may have some yellow metal in it (brass or bronze). I seem to remember that when I rebuilt the 4-speed non-synchro transmission on my '49 Power Wagon, about 20 years ago, the reverse gear had a bronze bushing inside it. I suspect the trans in yours would be similar. I honestly don't recall what gear oil I used in mine, and I don't know that the yellow metal concern was a consideration for me at the time (not on my radar). The truck had that oil in it for close to a decade before I pulled the transmission and engine to do engine work, and that's the way it sits now, so I don't have an update for you, but I just wanted to mention the likelihood of the presence of some yellow metal in your transmission, despite the absence of synchros. Going forward, I will be looking for gear oil that is compatible with yellow metal whenever I get my truck back together.
×
×
  • 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