Knock Knock, part 2...

[blueskies]

Pete, would you do me a favor? I see what looks like a missing lockwasher on one of your flywheel bolts. Just for grins, would you check all your flywheel bolts and clutch cover bolts for torque? It just keeps bothering me that you are tearing into a lot of good work, possibly in vain.

Neil- It looks like the washer is missing in the pic, but it's there. It's not shiney like the others, so it disappears against the flywheel in the photo. There's no way to get a torque wrench in there, so I will just have to use my arm... I will double check the flywheel and clutch bolts to be sure, but a visual inspection shows them all to be tight.

Pete

[jd52cranbrook]

Any new news??????

[blueskies]

Saturday I went through the rest of the bottom end with a fine tooth comb.

I checked the stuff in the pan with a magnet, and there was nothing there that stuck. Looking closer, I think what I at first thought was metal in the bottom of the pan is actually a deposits of the assembly lube that was used on the cam, as seen here:

The stuff is silver metalic, and is thick, in the bottom of the pan. There is also some of the creamy colored stuff I used on the bearings still in the bottom of the pan too, even after three oil changes.

I removed and checked the remainder of the rod bearings, and they all look as good as the day I put them together. The check out with plastiguage too, same as before.

Convinced that there couldn't be anything else in the bottom end to make the noise, I cleaned up the pan, gasket surfaces, and got ready to put the pan back on. Before I put the pan back on, I decided to take one more look, and payed close attention to the fuel pump, distributor, and watched the whole assembly rotate slowly with a bright light.

The shaft of the HEI distributor does not even come close to the center lobe of the crank, no worries there. The wobble issue I had with the distributor was definitely not interferance with the crank.

The fuel pump, cam, tappets, etc all look like new, and seem to be normal.

As I watched the crank rotate, and the pistons move up and down, I noticed that the rods come very close to the block as they rotate around the crank. If you remember, I stroked my 218 block to a 230 by using a NOS 230 crank, and reconditioned 230 rods. With the bright light, I noticed that there are shiny spots on the sides of many of the rods...

Not sure if it is coincidence, because there are shiny spots on the rods in other places too, probably from shipping and reconditioning, but I'm now wondering if the rods are contacting the block...

Who else on the board has done the 230 conversion to a 218 block? I asked half a dozen folks before I did this, and all said the same thing: The 218 and 230 blocks are the same, and the only difference is the 1/4" longer stroke of the 230. Maybe the block needs to be clearanced some for the 230 rods to clear the block becaue of the extra rod length? In the picture above with the cam, you can see the cast in recess for the rod in the cylinder. Does the 230 block have a deeper recess for the extra rod length?

This may not be the issue at all because the engine did not make the noise for about 4000 miles, but I'm wondering if as it loosens up a bit over time if this may be it.

I'm going to contact David Pollock, the 1950 advisor for the POC, and give George Asche a call, to see if they can give me any info.

So, before I put the pan back on, I wondering if there is a way to measure the clearance between the rods and the block, as the assembly rotates. When the rod is nearest the block, there is no way to get anything in there, or even see the clearance. Wondering if maybe putting a bit of clay or something on the rod, and then turning it through a revolution to see how much gets scraped off might work. Also going to try getting a very small mirror in there to try and see the clearance.

Any thoughts?

The saga continues...

Pete

[rearview]

you can stick some modeling clay on the sides of the rods and turn it by hand, but remeber the forces will be different when running.

[Normspeed]

Pete, I like the clay idea. If you do find a clearance problem, I'll bet some quality time with a Dremel would do the trick. If you grind only on the block, you won't mess up the balance. I'm sure you knew this but the rods can be installed 180 degrees out if I recall correctly. Has to do with an oil hole pointing the correct way. I wonder if a 180 out rod might cause a block clearance problem if the rods are not perfectly symmetrical.? Just grabbing at straws here.

[Plymouthy Adams]

Yes but are they not symetric? I tend to think the reason for correct indexing of the rods is the oiling hole...I think a very small piece of two side tape and aluminum foil would be ideal for checking if too close. The slight bit of thickness of the tape and the foil would account for any speed whip that may occur. The foil would be very easy damaged therefore proving it to be too close. Thin two side tape can be had at most Hobby Lobby/Michaels. A slight removal of the lower skirt for say .020 clearance should not alter any webbing or water core if limited to the area in the vicinity of the rod..IF it is even close at all...

[blueskies]

I wonder if a 180 out rod might cause a block clearance problem if the rods are not perfectly symmetrical.? Just grabbing at straws here.

Another piece of the puzzle... My 230 rods, which I bought from Vintage Power Wagons, are I'm assuming from a military engine. They have two oil holes .

They can be installed either way, as long as they are in the correct position for the offset to align with the cylinder. The bearing, which has only one hole, covers up the other.

Pete

[blueskies]

IF it is even close at all...

Tim-

This is the real question, I may be fabricating a problem that doesn't exist... I like the tape and foil idea, I'm going to try both this and the clay and see what I find.

Pete

[Plymouthy Adams]

I feel your frustration is running this down..it is evident in the fact that nothing in the lower end is a miss that you paid attention to specs. I personally do not think the rod will be that close as all the things you read about taking a 218 to a 230 does not say "watch or notch for rod clearance issue" I am waiting for the head to come off...this is the area that got more metal work than the rest of the engine..did you mill the head and deck the block?

[jd52cranbrook]

Pete,

Check your end play of the distributor, or, out and in play of the shaft. Tom at Langdons Stovebolt mention he has had some issues with them. And if I was to notice any thumps, or could see it move I was to contact him.

Worth a look

[blueskies]

I sent David Pollock (the Plymouth Owner's Club advisor for 1950 model cars) a pm about my engine noise, here's the here's his response ...

Hi Pete. The picture with the red arrow I believe is where the problem lies, The connecting rods are contacting the cylinder bore where it is relieved to provide clearance. It would not have been a problem with the stock crank and it is the first time I have heard of it on a 23 inch block but it does occur on 25 inch blocks. What a bummer. I think you can gain the necessary clearance from underneath by using a die grinder on the lower part of the bore. Nice job otherwise, you are a truly dedicated man.

Good luck. David

It's looking like I may be in the market for a dremel tool... I would only have to relieve the block a tad, in 12 spots. Wondering if I could do this from the bottom and not get a gob of filings everwhere...

I'm first going to try and measure the clearance in some fashion to see if I'm still chasing a wild goose or not.

Pete

[Normspeed]

Pete, I think if you decide to go for it, you might remove the pistons and rods to give you some room to work, and thoroughly wrap/tape the exposed crank areas, and then go at it with the die grinder or dremel. It shouldn't take a lot of grinding. Afterwards, before you unwrap the crank you could use compressed air, solvent on rags, vacuum cleaner or whatever to get rid of all abrasive and metal chips. I'd probably do it, but I'm an unrepentant shade tree boy.

The good side, you may find when you run your foil or clay test that not all the rods are that close. So maybe you'll only need to relieve 1 or 2.

[Don Coatney]

Another piece of the puzzle... My 230 rods, which I bought from Vintage Power Wagons, are I'm assuming from a military engine. They have two oil holes .

They can be installed either way, as long as they are in the correct position for the offset to align with the cylinder. The bearing, which has only one hole, covers up the other.

Pete

Pete;

If your rods have 2 holes and can be installed in either direction I believe the direction has two limiting factors. Offset being one and insuring the squirt hole faces the valve train (cam) the other. Might be the correct offset forces the other but worth a look. I do not have a picture of my rods internally but externally there is only one squirt hole per rod. This is a 218 rod. The bearings pictured are for a Desoto and only have one hole. These bearings currently live in the Desoto of James Douglas.

I also was aware of the rod to block clearance issues when converting a long block 251 to a 265. George Asche tells me that some 251 blocks do not require any mods. I have never heard of any rod to block clearance issues when making the 218-230 upgrade. Could this be a military rod issue?

[jd52cranbrook]

I wonder why the noise didn't come up immediately if that is the cause?,,,,

We need to start a poll,,,,

[jd52cranbrook]

But I am sure we are all interested in the outcome.

And I think if clearance was the problem it would have shown up immediately.

But what do I know, it has been 35 years since being around a flat head, although I have experience (more than I wanted) on other engines.

My money is on the distributor in and out play. I just checked mine, there is some there.

[blueskies]

Pete;

two limiting factors

You are right Don, the two limiting factors are the offset of the rod, and making sure the bearing which has only one hole is installed so that the hole in the bearing is facing the cam. I made sure that when I assembled the rods and bearings, that this was the case, since it was possible to get it wrong with these rods. I labled each rod for it's location, which side was the "squirt side", and placed the bearings accordingly. This pic was taken during assembly, the exposed bearing is covered in assembly lube.

Could this be a military rod issue?

I suppose this is the question... I'm going to call Vintage Power Wagons when I get a chance and chat with them about the differences in the rods. I don't know that they are any different other than the squirt holes. Visually, the look the same as the original 218 rods, but dimensionally they may be quite different (other than the stroke, of course). Here's a pic of the 218 rods:

Pete

[blueskies]

And I think if clearance was the problem it would have shown up immediately.

This is what has me stumped, I didn't notice the noise for quite a while, and then it showed up and has steadily gotten worse. I don't know if things loosen up just enough as the engine breaks in for the clearance to become an issue or not. Maybe the noise was always there, and I just didn't recognize it because of my ear to ear grin every time I drive the car .

My money is on the distributor in and out play. I just checked mine, there is some there.

I have not ruled out other possibilities, like the HEI, so I haven't busted out the grinder yet... I still need to try and check the clearance of the rods to the block. It may only be one rod, not all six.

I have an e-mail in to Tom Langdon, to discuss the possibility of the distributor being the culprit, and his wisdom of the possibility of the rods contacting the block after a few thousand miles are on the clock.

Pete

[rolliejoe]

so what was the outcome?

[blueskies]

so what was the outcome?

It was a wrist pin bushing that spun in the rod end for some reason... It was fixed a couple of years ago and I've driven the car about 5000 miles since with no further issue.

You can read the original post about the fix here... Hit reload on your browser if the pictures don't show up. Still having issues with my web host...

Pete

[rolliejoe]

I was searching for bearing clearance when I ran onto your interesting thread Pete. You left off with the rods possibly hitting the block and I'm in the middle of putting my 218/230 motor together. So were the rod/ block clearance okay, where did those marks on the rod come from?

[Joe Flanagan]

Pete, did they balance your engine at the shop? I had mine balanced and when I got it back there were similar abrasions on some of the rods, which I assumed was them grinding a little off to fine tune the balance. Don't know for sure, but they were fresh grind marks and that is the only thing I could come up with.

[blueskies]

I was searching for bearing clearance when I ran onto your interesting thread Pete. You left off with the rods possibly hitting the block and I'm in the middle of putting my 218/230 motor together. So were the rod/ block clearance okay, where did those marks on the rod come from?

Rolliejoe-

It turned out that the rods cleared the block just fine. When I had the pan off, searching for the source of the noise, I watched each of the rods move around as I rotated the crank, and there was lots of room in there.

The source of the noise was a bad wrist pin bushing. I bought the rods from Vintage Power Wagons, and they did the re-conditioning of the rods and installation of the bushings. I had my shop inspect them, and they said whoever did the re-conditioning did a good job and knew what they were doing. I think it was just one of those fluke deals. Luck of the draw. I've driven the car about 5000 miles since the fix, and all is well.

Pete, did they balance your engine at the shop? I had mine balanced and when I got it back there were similar abrasions on some of the rods, which I assumed was them grinding a little off to fine tune the balance. Don't know for sure, but they were fresh grind marks and that is the only thing I could come up with.

This could be Joe, not really sure. I do know however, that the marks I saw on my rods weren't from rubbing on the block.

Pete