Jump to content

Fluid Drive, Conversions, and some thoughts on it.


Recommended Posts

I dunno, if the low line FAF bearing has last 70+ years it must be good enough.  My concern is that these days even the top quality versions may be of worse quality compared to the original FAF bearing.  When it comes to bearings I am very picky about country of origin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dodgeb4ya said:

The biggest problem is having FD vibration/balance issues after the couplings have been cut open and welded  back closed.

It would be nice to see how they were originally serviced....cutting the housing open  welding and jig equipment.

Modern torque converters are easy compared to a FD.

 

I agree. I wish I had more information on that. I talked with the company last week that purchased Gyrol from Howden. They said that the fins and the oil hole is what most likely would toss the thing off balance. He suggested that IF we marked the housing(s) in multiple places and made sure that we welded it back in the same spot and took care to lay down a consistent weld...he felt that we would not have an issue.

 

I REALLY would like to find a way to check the bearing without cutting it open.

 

As to Snipers comment...bearing manufacturing technology has come a long way in 75 years.

 

James

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem when welding is  keeping the housing halves exactly in the same dimension.... as some movement of the housing will occur when welding.

The back crank side of the FD can always be mounted accurately on a lath....the front half no.

Unless a jig that would screw accurately and tightly into the bellows seal thread.

That if done right would let you mount  to the tail stock checking first for run out on the jig.

Still plenty of orientation marking,dial indicating before and after cutting and re-welding.

With the right jig the FD could be checked before and after repair for balance .

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dodgeb4ya said:

The biggest problem is having FD vibration/balance issues after the couplings have been cut open and welded  back closed.

It would be nice to see how they were originally serviced....cutting the housing open  welding and jig equipment.

Modern torque converters are easy compared to a FD.

maybe a fixture could be built to put a FD coupling on a modern tire balancing machine and you would know where to add a little extra weld? Balance it dry then add your ISO 32?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2020 at 2:26 PM, Dodgeb4ya said:

The problem when welding is  keeping the housing halves exactly in the same dimension.... as some movement of the housing will occur when welding.

The back crank side of the FD can always be mounted accurately on a lath....the front half no.

Unless a jig that would screw accurately and tightly into the bellows seal thread.

That if done right would let you mount  to the tail stock checking first for run out on the jig.

Still plenty of orientation marking,dial indicating before and after cutting and re-welding.

With the right jig the FD could be checked before and after repair for balance .

I was thinking of a part that would go OVER the output shaft like the flywheel and bolt down using the stock flywheel nut...one that stick out and "mimic" a torque converter. I have also thought of the same for the crankshaft end. Something that would bolt to it and look like a flat plate with 11 inch "flexplate" threaded holes.

 

If I can come up with that, I think that the torqe converter houses like ATI could them mount them into their regular machines and lathe the weld off, change the bearing, and weld them back and an balance them.

 

Next week I am going to call ATI and talk with them. I watched a bunch of videos they have on their site and it I spend the time and money to make the parts...I do not see what they would care about doing it. At that point to them it would be just another converter...

 

If I can make this happen then the jigs would fit in a small box and anyone could barrow them to get their fluid couplings rebuilt.

 

Yes, the little flywheel and clutch would have to be balanced separately, but if it was, I doubt that "mate up" would be any worse than a new clutch hung on an old coupling.

 

I am thinking this is a better way to go.

 

Thoughts?  James

 

Link to post
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • 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