When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Okay, so I'm resisting trifocals. I only have bifocals.
I use single magnification reading glasses for detail work. I find it's easier to see everything I'm working on with those as opposed to dual (or triple) magnification glasses where you have a small area of focus.
I use single magnification reading glasses for detail work. I find it's easier to see everything I'm working on with those as opposed to dual (or triple) magnification glasses where you have a small area of focus.
Are you kidding, Ken? I have three pairs in the house and two in the shop! It's computer screens I have a hard time with
Every day life - Progressives Computer Screen (the larger screen at work) - Bifocals
Working on car - Magnification Glasses 2.00 (might be more).
You must have a longer reach with your bifocals. I'd have to have my face up against the screen! Lol. But to be fair, I'm overdue for a new prescription.
Thankfully tomorrow is Friday. Hopefully I'll get out there this weekend and take some measurements and practice my mic-ing skills. I'll also see if I can make sure the anvil and spindle faces are flat.
You must have a longer reach with your bifocals. I'd have to have my face up against the screen! Lol. But to be fair, I'm overdue for a new prescription.
Thankfully tomorrow is Friday. Hopefully I'll get out there this weekend and take some measurements and practice my mic-ing skills. I'll also see if I can make sure the anvil and spindle faces are flat.
The upper part of the bifocals are calibrated to about 3' away for the computer screen. The lower part of the bifocals is for reading papers on my desk. If I walk through the office with them on, nothing is in focus.
Tunnel sizes should be 3.188-3.189. Are there hone marks in the saddles?
I talked to the machinist, without giving him any of the above info, and he said he put the tunnel right at 3.1885.
I plastigauged just for good measure and I'm still coming up at .002", or even a little tighter, maybe .0019". I'm going to try and measure the tunnel again (without the bearings) but I don't think my cheapo bore gauge has the needed anvils (although it's cheap, the reading were verified somewhat by the plastigauge).
Question: When I use the ARP lube on the main studs, the lube tends to squeeze out and leave a lip of lube around the stud. It seemed obvious I couldn't leave it there when I torqued down the caps so I cleaned it off with Q-tips and brake cleaner. But I worry that the brake cleaner is being pulled into the stud threads/block area and thinning the lube. Thoughts anyone?
I talked to the machinist, without giving him any of the above info, and he said he put the tunnel right at 3.1885.
I plastigauged just for good measure and I'm still coming up at .002", or even a little tighter, maybe .0019". I'm going to try and measure the tunnel again (without the bearings) but I don't think my cheapo bore gauge has the needed anvils (although it's cheap, the reading were verified somewhat by the plastigauge).
Question: When I use the ARP lube on the main studs, the lube tends to squeeze out and leave a lip of lube around the stud. It seemed obvious I couldn't leave it there when I torqued down the caps so I cleaned it off with Q-tips and brake cleaner. But I worry that the brake cleaner is being pulled into the stud threads/block area and thinning the lube. Thoughts anyone?
On wiping off the ARP I would just use a rag or paper towel, and if really wanted more off for some reason, but worried about the solvent seeping in, I would use 99% isopropyl which has fast evaporation. Rubbing alcohol is usually 70% and not quite as good just easier on th skin. 99% also works great as a windshield wiper fluid, with a few drops of dish detergent.
.002 is tight if you're making any real power.
When it comes to the studs, a fair amount on the threads then a bit under the nut is all you need. Then just wipe off the excess with mineral spirits if you want, or not at all. It'll show up in your oil as a shiny film, that's normal.
.002 is tight if you're making any real power.
When it comes to the studs, a fair amount on the threads then a bit under the nut is all you need. Then just wipe off the excess with mineral spirits if you want, or not at all. It'll show up in your oil as a shiny film, that's normal.
Yeah, I'm probably using too much but wanted an accurate torque. Wouldn't it get between the caps and the block, changing the clearances and doing other nasty things? It was about a 1/16" bead that squeezed out all around.
Or am I worrying too much? Wouldn't be the first time, lol.
On wiping off the ARP I would just use a rag or paper towel, and if really wanted more off for some reason, but worried about the solvent seeping in, I would use 99% isopropyl which has fast evaporation. Rubbing alcohol is usually 70% and not quite as good just easier on th skin. 99% also works great as a windshield wiper fluid, with a few drops of dish detergent.
Capitol idea! Although I think I've only seen 91% around here, and of course the nasty 71%. I have noticed that brake kleen doesn't evaporate as quickly as I thought it would.
Yeah, I'm probably using too much but wanted an accurate torque. Wouldn't it get between the caps and the block, changing the clearances and doing other nasty things? It was about a 1/16" bead that squeezed out all around.
Or am I worrying too much? Wouldn't be the first time, lol.
Clean the studs. Oil the base thread with regular motor oil. DO NOT tighten the studs. Thread them in about a qtr turn back from fully tight. Then after lubing the nuts/studs as described, hold the studs with an Allen while you just snug the nuts with a wrench. Then torque from there.
Last edited by cutlassefi; September 24th, 2017 at 05:44 AM.
If you come up with the same measurement, get the Federal Mogul main bearings from Mark, .0026-.0028 is probably fine for clearance. My TCI vacuum switch setup seems to be working perfectly now that it is on my 88 with the 260 and it's massive cam. Just run a manual toggle to override if necessary.
I spoke with the machinist and I'm taking the block back so he can double check my measurements and re-line-hone if necessary (no charge). I'll go from there.
What is re-line-honing? The way to increase bearing clearance (if that's your intention) is to machine the crankshaft.
It's a good way to need a different timing set
This doesn't really make sense though, does it? I mean I'm not the first person to buy Clevite std bearings for a 455. He must have shaved the caps. Clearances don't get smaller from high miles. Right?
Right, but that doesn't change the crank to bearing clearances unless it was line bored incorrectly in the first place. Your line boring to correct alignment and to bring the bearing cradles to spec are you not? Forgive me but I understand once you order a particular bearing size the only way to increase the clearances is to grind and polish the crank.
Or are you saying you can increase the bearing clearance by utilizing the line bore tolerance to increase the bearing clearance?
so you go a bit lose with clearances (mains, rods) with engines for performance use, right?
and that would also cause lower oil pressure readings especially at idle? is there a point where you would need to modify / change oil pump for example to compensate for the loser clearance? and where would that point be (certain clearance or PSI at certain RPM)?
Right, but that doesn't change the crank to bearing clearance. YES IT DOES.
Or are you saying you can increase the bearing clearance by utilizing the line bore tolerance to increase the bearing clearance?
Yes. Look at the factory service manuals, they give both crank and main saddle tolerances and subsequent clearances. Add them up and you'll see the range incorporates both dimensions. I use main saddle sizing to get the clearance I want as well.
So I would ask that if you "think" you know something please say it that way initially. And if you don't know for sure then please don't post. There's enough bad info on the net as it is. Thank you in advance.
And yes, increasing clearances typically lowers oil pressure. However the main bearing clearance tends to have more influence on that than the rods do.
I am not trying to post bad information, I'm simply trying to understand because I will be needing this information myself. I was not aware that you include outside bearing saddle tolerances in the clearance equation. Thanks for clarifying.
I am not trying to post bad information, I'm simply trying to understand because I will be needing this information myself. I was not aware that you include outside bearing saddle tolerances in the clearance equation. Thanks for clarifying.
Oil pressure at idle doesn't mean much, and can show close to zero and be fine, but once you touch the throttle it should climb fast where it does matter, as now there is load/stress on the parts.
Large main and rod clearances keep the parts from touching, as the crank bends and whips around as the loads go higher with the rpms. As BTR would say when things touch its bad. Virtually all high performance engines are built this way, but specially needed with the larger main bearings of the Olds and mostly cast cranks. I would throw in a third reason, and that is bad machine shop work not getting the numbers right, to get the correct clearances.
When you use large main and rod clearances it is usually a good idea to not do the same on connecting rod side clearances. It helps keep the oil at the bearings longer by slowing it down and making sure there is oil there with tighter clearances.
It helps keep the oil at the bearings longer by slowing it down and making sure there is oil there with tighter clearances.
Most of what you said is correct, except for this. How would you explain engines that run .100 side clearance with piston guided rods and no issues? And the oil doesn't stay there "longer", flow is flow, and it's constant. It may however build a bit more pressure regardless of the vertical bearing clearance.
But don't be discouraged if you can't answer the question. Bill couldn't either.��
Last edited by cutlassefi; September 27th, 2017 at 11:10 AM.
Most of what you said is correct, except for this. How would you explain engines that run .100 side clearance with piston guided rods and no issues? And the oil doesn't stay there "longer", flow is flow, and it's constant. It may however build a bit more pressure regardless of the vertical bearing clearance.
But don't be discouraged if you can't answer the question. Bill couldn't either.��
Pretty easy to explain, if restricted elsewhere before getting to that point, and the lack of pressure and pool of oil at the bearings is not good, and if caused by tighter bearing clearance the metals are moved closer together where they may touch, as flex from stress increases, from increased power and rpm loads, and not to mention expansion from heat.
Bill's maximum is .012 for normal steel rods, and it works, even with very large bearing clearances.
Pretty easy to explain, if restricted elsewhere before getting to that point, and the lack of pressure and pool of oil at the bearings is not good, and if caused by tighter bearing clearance the metals are moved closer together where they may touch, as flex from stress increases, from increased power and rpm loads, and not to mention expansion from heat.
Bill's maximum is .012 for normal steel rods, and it works, even with very large bearing clearances.
You missed the question. Apples to apples otherwise, how would you explain being able to run .100 side clearance vs the "no more than .012" Bill says without any issues?
I'm going to let you off the hook, the answer is it really doesn't matter. Bill isn't God, there are a lot, repeat a lot, of really good Engine Builders out there besides Bill that do things all different ways and amazingly 90% of them work out just fine.
I run bearing clearances a little more than a half thousands less than Bill but my side clearances are every bit of .020 and I have no issues, ever. I've run his bearing clearances as well with the same .020 side clearance, again no issues.
You might want to consider the "Bills book is bible" notion is only ONE way of doing it, but it's not the ONLY way.
For the record, the engine masters challenge Oldsmobile that placed second last year had over .100 rod side clearance in it. It ran just fine.
Last edited by cutlassefi; September 28th, 2017 at 04:17 AM.
You missed the question. Apples to apples otherwise, how would you explain being able to run .100 side clearance vs the "no more than .012" Bill says without any issues?
I'm going to let you off the hook, the answer is it really doesn't matter. Bill isn't God, there are a lot, repeat a lot, of really good Engine Builders out there besides Bill that do things all different ways and amazingly 90% of them work out just fine.
I run bearing clearances a little more than a half thousands less than Bill but my side clearances are every bit of .020 and I have no issues, ever. I've run his bearing clearances as well with the same .020 side clearance, again no issues.
You might want to consider the "Bills book is bible" notion is only ONE way of doing it, but it's not the ONLY way.
For the record, the engine masters challenge Oldsmobile that placed second last year had over .100 rod side clearance in it. It ran just fine.
Moldex cranks in diesel blocks, at only a 3.7 stroke if not the average components of Olds builds nor with Pankl rods, if you want apples to apples. Greg did well on making power, but how well were the bearings doing on tear down. Maybe "fine" and maybe not.
Decades ago I had an local expert on Olds and other engines build my BBO, and without any stress on the motor and less than 50 miles on it I tore it down to see why it was using oil, and pulled the rod caps. It had badly eaten the rod bearings "clearancing itself", so I fix it. He didn't. Now it has seen plenty of stress, and 100,000+ miles. (Stock rods and rod bolts on a turned cast crank)
Bill is not always right, as I know about engine builders and experts, through my experiences, but he has seen the results on lots of bearing on Olds over many decades, and many which have been under extreme stress on the street and at high rpms and power levels, to learn from.
Now are wider side clearances on the rods OK, on high stress Olds. Maybe, but maybe not for long. Wide clearance is the way it has been done, by most, in the past, including Mondello, with his "Notching" the rods" (same thing). And many have eaten the bearing and thrown rods. Some blamed this or that, and it might have been, for a mixture of reasons.
Now, if .008-.012 works for Bill all these years, for steel rods, and a little more for aluminum ones why use more, except cheaper and easier to get in that range? Were the custom Pankl rods Greg used aluminum??
I am letting you off easy, as always
Wide clearances on steel rods more than the Olds engineers or Bill recommends may or may not be the correct answer, for long lasting trouble free Olds engines engines.
Well fellers, my measurements weren't terribly accurate. I took the block back to the machinist and, for a case of Bud Light, we opened up the main clearances to .003". His readings were .0025" and I saw it on his bore gauge (which cost about 12X what mine did), myself.
When all is said and done, it was totally worth it to me just to get to help line-hone my block. That was pretty cool.
Oh, and I was wrong (again), he did cut the caps before the first hone. I misunderstood his text answer when I asked.
Whatever happens I hope you end up with a stout engine that lasts for a long time. I remember beating on my 72 350 without let up. The motor ran like a clock past 150k when I sold it and it still had great compression. I did change the oil religiously though.
Whatever happens I hope you end up with a stout engine that lasts for a long time. I remember beating on my 72 350 without let up. The motor ran like a clock past 150k when I sold it and it still had great compression. I did change the oil religiously though.
Amen on the oil, but small blocks with their smaller bearings and much shorter strokes can tolerate more abuse, while BBO can not take near the same higher rpms, without more special parts and attention to detail, and I have had 7000 rpm shifted 350s, as well as both 425 and 455 BB versions. Also a 215, which well tolerated my 18-20 year old hammer it no tach self.
Whatever happens I hope you end up with a stout engine that lasts for a long time. I remember beating on my 72 350 without let up. The motor ran like a clock past 150k when I sold it and it still had great compression. I did change the oil religiously though.
Thanks man. I wish I had gone this deep with my 350. Then again, if I had I may not be working on a 455
Macadoo- glad you got it sorted out.
Firewalker- Greg happens to be a close long time friend of mine. I know way more about that build than was ever printed. The .100 side clearance came from piston guided rods. And the bearings were perfect upon disassembly.
Amen on the oil, but small blocks with their smaller bearings and much shorter strokes can tolerate more abuse, while BBO can not take near the same higher rpms, without more special parts and attention to detail, and I have had 7000 rpm shifted 350s, as well as both 425 and 455 BB versions. Also a 215, which well tolerated my 18-20 year old hammer it no tach self.
7K?! My plan is to get nowhere near that. My trans currently shifts around 3900 at WOT. But I know that can change with the BB (maybe?) so I'm considering a rev limiter.
7K?! My plan is to get nowhere near that. My trans currently shifts around 3900 at WOT. But I know that can change with the BB (maybe?) so I'm considering a rev limiter.
My TH400 shifted about the same behind my BBO for many years, but never got around to trying to pull the governor and raise it some so say a max of 4500.
I heard after I had decided to swap for a 4 speed automatic, that not having the kick down solenoid in them would cause this low shifting, and mine was taken out on the build. Probably saved me some grief with no kick down, and with the lower rpm shifts easier on the motor.
It should still shift at the same rpm as long as the TV is adjusted right. I got my shift points from 4000 to 4900 rpm by modifying the small weight on the governor along with changing the line bias spring for the 2004R in the big Transgo kit. 3900 is pretty low but a safe rpm. Hopefully there were upgrades in your 2004R.
September 20th, 2017, 01:23 PM
