packratc Posted January 9, 2018 Report Posted January 9, 2018 My 1950 Plymouth 217 ended up having a bad crankshaft. Friend gives me cracked block lying on ground for years. Took it apart and crank was standard. Had it cleaned & polished. I was re-reading manual on engine assembly and discover that the 1953 crankshaft can't be used in any earlier engine. The difference appears to be the rear oil seal. Measured everything imagineable and the cranks are the same with same casting number. I hope to put the '53 crank in the '50 block and use the '50 rear oil seal. Will it work? Is there a problem with the front oil seal? Are the front oil seals and pulleys the same? They look it. Appreciate any advice. Thanks, Carl Quote
Andydodge Posted January 9, 2018 Report Posted January 9, 2018 Have you had both cranks sitting beside each other and started to compare one to the other?............the rear oil seal could be the defining issue as I had a 1941 201cube engine that supposedly should have had a rope seal yet on dropping the sump & rear main cap it had a neoprene seal.............much mirth and cursing all round........lol..........I don't know if there is a difference between a 1950 & 1953 crank but I'd start by physically comparing the two, measuring as you have done and checking to see if your engines pulleys etc will fit.........also maybe give George Asche a call as he may know for sure..............regards, andyd Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted January 9, 2018 Report Posted January 9, 2018 Inter-sub books says crank number 109 will fit with the exception of hy-drive which having a torque converter requires more bolt holes on the crank flange... Quote
packratc Posted January 9, 2018 Author Report Posted January 9, 2018 Have compared both cranks side by side with calipers. Both have 4 bolt flanges. Plymouthy refers to crank "109" and I don't know where to find that reference on the crank. As I stated the casting numbers are the same (952068). Thanks for the replies, Carl Quote
Plymouthy Adams Posted January 9, 2018 Report Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, packratc said: Have compared both cranks side by side with calipers. Both have 4 bolt flanges. Plymouthy refers to crank "109" and I don't know where to find that reference on the crank. As I stated the casting numbers are the same (952068). Thanks for the replies, Carl perhaps you should invest in your own copy of a Hollanders interchange book....then you would understand the numbering system... Quote
P15-D24 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Posted January 9, 2018 Post the casting numbers on the cranks and we can check Hollanders for interchange. FYI I have cranks in the P15-D24 Store if you still need one. Quote
dpollo Posted January 10, 2018 Report Posted January 10, 2018 You will encounter no problems. The seals for your 50 engine will work. So also will the 53s but it was about this time there were variations in design. JV 134 -3 bolts on JV 134-9 spins in and there are several others. The best one I ever saw made the complete circle with only one end gap. It was used on a 49 Chrysler. Many can be interchanged but later blocks and end cap are not drilled for the earlier seal. Quote
Dartgame Posted January 10, 2018 Report Posted January 10, 2018 Strongly suggest you consider using a Best Gasket brand rear main seal. I had heard good things about them, but was doubtful considering price. I put one in my 52 218 that had the rope external seal - with the 53 and up style seal. You may have to plug a couple of holes in the rear main cap with JB weld, clean the holes and cap to surgical level before plugging. Not a leak so far. Excellent product. WORTH EVERY PENNY. Quote
packratc Posted January 13, 2018 Author Report Posted January 13, 2018 I've put it together with the external rope seal. The crankshaft was effortless to turn before the seal and now requires 35 ftlbs to turn. I've read before, somewhere, what this number should be but can't recall where. What do you all think? Is 35 ftbls too much resistance for turning a crank in new bearings and only the rear seal installed? Thanks, Carl Quote
Adam H P15 D30 Posted January 13, 2018 Report Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, packratc said: I've put it together with the external rope seal. The crankshaft was effortless to turn before the seal and now requires 35 ftlbs to turn. I've read before, somewhere, what this number should be but can't recall where. What do you all think? Is 35 ftbls too much resistance for turning a crank in new bearings and only the rear seal installed? Thanks, Carl If memory serves, the crank in my HEMI took about ~30ft/lbs to turn with all 8 pistons installed. Are you sure is wasn’t 35in/lbs? 35ft/lbs is tooooo much unless the pistons and rings are installed. Edited January 13, 2018 by Adam H P15 D30 Quote
packratc Posted January 13, 2018 Author Report Posted January 13, 2018 No, it was 35 ftlbs. I thought 30 to 35 with pistons and rings would be about right too. I'm going to take it back apart after spinning it a few times to look at the squish pattern on the seals. Any other suggestions? Wish someone else had a torque reading they had taken. Thanks, Carl Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.