455 crank

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 12, 2014 | 12:09 PM
  #1  
455man's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,070
From: Wichita, Ks
455 crank

What's the max you can turn down a 455 crank and still use Olds rods? I'd seen bearings for .040 undersize so can I assume that's the max?
Old Mar 12, 2014 | 12:43 PM
  #2  
joe_padavano's Avatar
Old(s) Fart
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,829
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by 455man
What's the max you can turn down a 455 crank and still use Olds rods? I'd seen bearings for .040 undersize so can I assume that's the max?
It's a function of the bearings you can get. I'm guessing that 0.040 is probably the max, since as the bearing shell gets thicker, it can move around more and run the risk of spinning. The crank journal itself really isn't the limiter, as people turn them down all the time to use Chevy rods with a smaller big end.
Old Mar 12, 2014 | 01:15 PM
  #3  
455man's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,070
From: Wichita, Ks
Gotcha. Thanks Joe.
Old Mar 12, 2014 | 03:21 PM
  #4  
RetroRanger's Avatar
72 Olds CS
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,657
I *THINK* i read on a site that they could add material via welding to the crank and turn it back down. did I understand that corectly and if possible is that a good idea ?
Old Mar 12, 2014 | 06:30 PM
  #5  
cutlassefi's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,500
From: Central Fl
Originally Posted by joe_padavano
since as the bearing shell gets thicker, it can move around more and run the risk of spinning.

Hmmm not sure I agree with you there Joe, at least I'm not sure exactly what it is you mean.

As per a Clevite engineer;

Std and .010 under bearings use the same thickness on the outer shell.
Then .020 and .030 under share the same shell as well. Only a .040 will have a bit more tin and copper in each half than either the .010 or .030 under bearing. So I'm not sure how a thicker overall bearing shell will move around more. Remember the bearing thickness will increase on the i.d. so the bearing tang will still hold them in place no matter what the overall thickness of the shell, not to mention they will still have the same bearing crush all else being equal.

Last edited by cutlassefi; Mar 12, 2014 at 06:37 PM.
Old Mar 13, 2014 | 08:48 AM
  #6  
joe_padavano's Avatar
Old(s) Fart
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,829
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by cutlassefi
Hmmm not sure I agree with you there Joe, at least I'm not sure exactly what it is you mean.

As per a Clevite engineer;

Std and .010 under bearings use the same thickness on the outer shell.
Then .020 and .030 under share the same shell as well. Only a .040 will have a bit more tin and copper in each half than either the .010 or .030 under bearing. So I'm not sure how a thicker overall bearing shell will move around more. Remember the bearing thickness will increase on the i.d. so the bearing tang will still hold them in place no matter what the overall thickness of the shell, not to mention they will still have the same bearing crush all else being equal.
Mark,

Yeah... maybe that wasn't the right term. I'm ***-U-MING that there's some upper limit on the overall thickness of the bearing shell. At some point (consider a half inch thick shell for the sake of argument), the added lever arm of the bearing thickness could lead to the shell walking around in the rod, probably fore-aft, actually. I don't have any data on this, but I've got to believe that there is some practical limit on this.
Old Mar 13, 2014 | 09:25 AM
  #7  
cutlassefi's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,500
From: Central Fl
Originally Posted by joe_padavano
Mark,

Yeah... maybe that wasn't the right term. I'm ***-U-MING that there's some upper limit on the overall thickness of the bearing shell. At some point (consider a half inch thick shell for the sake of argument), the added lever arm of the bearing thickness could lead to the shell walking around in the rod, probably fore-aft, actually. I don't have any data on this, but I've got to believe that there is some practical limit on this.

Hmmm... not really. King Bearing has been making rod bearings that allow you to run larger journal SBC rods on a small journal SBC crank. They work just fine, even in mild race applications.
Old Mar 13, 2014 | 09:42 AM
  #8  
joe_padavano's Avatar
Old(s) Fart
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,829
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by cutlassefi
Hmmm... not really. King Bearing has been making rod bearings that allow you to run larger journal SBC rods on a small journal SBC crank. They work just fine, even in mild race applications.
OK, cool. I stand corrected.
Old Mar 13, 2014 | 10:06 AM
  #9  
47 Convertible's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,009
From: Woodland WA
Crankshaft repair/modification - welding

Originally Posted by RetroRanger
I *THINK* i read on a site that they could add material via welding to the crank and turn it back down. did I understand that corectly and if possible is that a good idea ?
__________________________________________________ ____

Short answer: It depends.
Here is a link: http://crankshaftrepair.org/welding/#more-134

Author suggests there are limits to how far it is practical to grind a crankshaft before welding it back up to specs is a better solution.
Caveat: they are in the crankshaft welding business.
Jerry
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bernhard
Big Blocks
20
Nov 24, 2022 09:12 AM
bob p
Big Blocks
109
Apr 10, 2015 01:55 PM
Bernhard
Small Blocks
2
Jan 6, 2013 09:27 PM
sx455raidercelticfan
Parts Wanted
3
Nov 23, 2010 05:45 AM
VITO
Big Blocks
7
Jun 21, 2007 08:00 PM




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 PM.