wr1970

Mark is right that guy screwed up on the balance! Staying tuned good thread.

cdrod

I respect your opinions/experiences here, but there are 2 things I don't understand.
1. Why the new balancer was sooo much heavier than the stock part.
2. Wouldn't the crankshaft "twist" more from end-to-end if there is more weight at one end? That doesn't sound like a good thing for the health of the crankshaft.

Am I gonna break my crankshaft because of this? I guess I could order a replacement counter weight for the balancer and re-balance the crankshaft.

wr1970

You are confusing stock weight verses aftermarket part weight.The balance of parts is what you are {now using}not what was stock.The machinist will add weight or take away where he should but not on a balancer. This is to allow for engine rotating assembly to work as it should.They normally as i understand it do this with the crank this is where material is added or take away. They do take material away from pistons also when balancing to make sure they all weigh the same. Rods are checked for weight they may take material from them also but i am not sure on that. I think they call this the bob weight! I hope this helps. {Mark is the expert listen to what he says carefully.} Mark please come back and explain this to the op feel free to correct me on any statement. You are the expert here on this subject i was trying to shed some light.JMO

cutlassefi

The balancer is heavier because it's an aftermarket. Yes having more weight via a balancer or flywheel or whatever can effect the revving of the engine. It will typically rev slower the heavier the pieces. But you're confusing the two types of weight.
The point is you altered the weight on the balancer in order to bring it "into balance". As mentioned, you better not ever lose that weight, or allow it to get damaged in anyway. You'll have a hard time trying to repeat the balance. That is the wrong way to do it.
But with that said, a heavier balancer and/or flywheel can actually make it run smoother by dampening the pulses that much better.
Again, he should have removed the weight and flexplate to see how much weight he would have needed to ADD in order to make it internal. Then consider the difference in cost etc. Internal is always better as you're alleviating the extra counterweighting on the ends, even though that's what brings it into balance.
Hope this helps.

cdrod

Mark:
Even thought the counter-weight has been altered, the balancer should still perform it's primary function (to dampen harmonic vibrations) because the counter-weight is to bolted to the hub, not to the torsion ring. It seems to me that my machinist has done a sort-of hybrid external-internal balance here. By reducing the mass of the counter-weight he is closer to an internal balance (which explains why he only drilled 2 shallow holes in the crank counter-weights to balance it). If he had removed the balancer counter-weight completely it would have required adding expensive tungsten plugs in the crankshaft. It doesn't sound like he has totally screwed the pooch here. Sometimes halfway isn't always a bad thing.

cutlassefi

Correct to some degree. But it's still an external balance plus now it's inconsistant with the use of any other balancer. See my point?

cdrod

Yes, I see your point. I guess I better hang on to that "custom" counter-weight.

cutlassefi

Yes, good idea. Best of luck on the build. Keep us posted.

cdrod

Yesterday I started assembling the short block; I cleaned-up the block and oil pan and painted them both. I used VHT high temp engine paint (good to 650˚F) it's SP404 Gold Flake. It's a little on the bright side, but it sure sparkles in the sunshine. I also mocked up the block and heads to measure how much I need to remove from the intake manifold. The ProComp heads were cut down by Bernard Mondello to 70cc, and I had my machinist cut another .018" off to get the chamber size down to 67-68cc. By my estimate, the heads have probably been cut down a total of .083". I'll have my machinist take .065" off both sides of the intake manifold to get the bolt holes to line up. I've installed the freeze plugs, crankshaft, and the rear seal. The crank spins freely, no drag at all; I sure hope this Ford 292 rear seal really works OK. I expected the seal to be a little tighter. I'm waiting on the mailman to bring my new ring gap filer, then I can start on the the rods and pistons. Here's some pics:

olds 307 and 403

Awesome build I am jealous. I have a 3.9 to 5.9 swap to do on my Dakota first then maybe spring to get my 403 block machined for my stroker assembly. The AMC 258 straight 6 seal is supposed to be a tighter fit, seemed to be, I have used it twice. Just trim the little ears, very easy. Did you get the cross hatch polished down?

cdrod

I'm using the FelPro6141 and it doesn't seem very tight. I expected it to drag a little when you spin the crank, but it's pretty loose. I may try the AMC seal to see if it's any tighter. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by polishing the cross hatch?

olds 307 and 403

There is kind of a x pattern on the crank that the original rope seal rode against. Some people smooth it out, claiming it eats the neoprene seal, just making sure it wasn't ground down. My AMC neoprene seal was unaffected after thousands of miles on my 403 with x pattern intact. You can't miss the ears, a razor blade easily removes them, then it looks like the 292 seal except supposedly thicker.

cdrod

I used my nifty $50 ring filer tool to gap the top rings last night. The paper from ICON said to set the gap at .004"xBore size. My bore is 4.125" so I've gapped them at .016" probably a little larger than .016" (the feeler gauge fits in the gap but is not supper tight). I can't get the .018 feeler gauge to fit in the gap so it's at least .016" but maybe .017". I used a .012" and .014" gauge to "sneak" up to my target gap.

Do I gap the 2nd rings the same as the 1st or do they need to be slightly bigger? I read all kinds of different opinions on the web about ring gaps and ring flutter. These ICON pistons have a little curve between the 1st and 2nd rings to relieve any pressure that leaks past the 1st ring. Does that mean that I should gap the 2nd rings the same as the 1st? Here's a pic of my ring filing.

cutlassefi

For that bore size I notmally run .018-.019 on the top and .015 or so on the second ring. Is the second ring a napier or tapered style?

cdrod

You run a smaller gap on the second ring? From my web reading it seems most run a larger gap on the second. Just curious, is there something different about the ICON Pistons?
I don't know how to tell if the second ring is a Napier. I ordered the ring set from UEM when I ordered the pistons, they were described as plasma rings and came in an ICON box. There is a small bevel on the bottom, inside edge of the second ring and they seem to have a slight taper on the outside of the ring. I can post a pic tonight when I get home from work.

cutlassefi

Yes, always run a smaller gap on the second ring.
Sounds like you have a simple tapered second ring, that's fine though.
Your machine shop honed it for moly rings correct? The wall finish needs to be done for the type of ring used.

cdrod

Mark: It looks like you prefer the STREET TOWING gap spec of .0045"x Bore size. I used the NATURALLY ASPIRATED spec of .004"xBore size. So, you prefer .018" on the top rings and .016" for the seconds?

Yes, I have a moly top ring and a beveled, cast 2nd ring. I gave the rings to the machine shop so he knew they are moly rings. Is there any way to tell if he has honed it correctly for the moly rings? What gap is best for the oil rings?

I pulled the rear main cap to check the fitment of the Ford seal. It looks like it fits pretty well, so I think I'll stay the course with this seal. I found the crosshatch pattern that Olds307 mentioned. It is still visible on the crank along the thrust face but looks like it has worn smooth near the seal. I don't think it will be a problem. Here's a pic.

olds 307 and 403

Most people suggest that seal offset in the map cap, RTV where the two halves meet and at the block to cap mating service. Just don't go overboard with the RTV. If that seal did happen to leak it will be easy to remove, unlike a rope seal but it will probably be fine.

cdrod

I got the bottom end assembled over the weekend. Re-gapped the rings at .018" and held them up to the light while pinching the ends together to check the ends for squareness. I deburred the edges with some 220 emory cloth wrapped around a small putty knife - really helped to keep the edges straight while remove the sharp edges.
Now I'm degreeing the camshaft (never done this before, read about it but that's it). I need some reassurance from you guys that have done this more times than me. I mounted my degree wheel to the crank snout and used a dial indicator to measure piston travel to find TDC. I rocked the crank back and forth to find the start and stop point of the piston dwell and then split the difference to right down the middle.
When I measure the #1 intake lifter opening point using a dial indicator, the lifter just starts moving up up at 13.5˚ BTDC, and reaches .050" at 4˚ ATDC. But here's where I'm really confused. The intake closes (.050") at 28˚ATDC which doesn't match the cam spec card. Am I doing this right or what am I missing here? Thanks.

Intake just starts to open 13.5˚ BTDC


Intake opens (.050") at 4˚ATDC


INtake closes (.050") at 28˚ ATDC


Cam Card

coppercutlass

Degreeing a cam is always a pain as there is a few methods to do this. First find your centerline . I found that if you draw a lobe on a sheet of paper and draw where the opening and closing events need to happen along with notes on what needs to be divided and why it helps before you go into it. I will dig my sheet up it helped me . Also your timing chain can be off. I have a cloyes set its 1 degree off with the timing chain being advanced 4 degrees. My Icl is 107 instead of 106 . I achieved this with the sprocket in the 4 degrees advanced postion. I should have achived an icl of 106 with it installed straight up.

80 Rocket

cdrod, how accurate is your lifter travel on the dial indicator? Does the pointer move around in the lifter plunger?

I made a cam degreeing tool out of two lifters glued together. Both ends are the cam face side. The reason being is for a flat surface to affix the indicator pointer to and weed out any lifter plunger vs. pointer discrepancies.

I use the actual valve opening and closing points to degree a cam, not the icl method.

coppercutlass

Don I think I did all methods when I degreed the cam in my 355 lol. I did the centerline method and what you mentioned as a means to make sure everything was good. I think I degreed the cam like 4 times total just making sure.

cdrod

Don & Copper:
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm getting good consistent readings, so my dial indicator set-up is good. My opening and closing numbers don't match the cam card, but if I use the intake centerline method I get the following results. My Int opening reads 4˚ ATDC on my degree wheel, Int closing reads 208˚ATDC. ICL is half-way between these 2 numbers (i.e. 208-4=204; 204÷2=102). My cam card says ICL=107, so I'm 5˚ advanced (I think). Does this look right?

Rodney

coppercutlass

Using the icl method I found my cam was retarded. I had to advance it to end up with a 107 icl after that I checked all the opening and closing events and matched my card pretty damn close. I was using a cloyes true roller chain set. Dunno if that makes sense but once i found the icl everything else fell into place. or so i think but my opening and closing events where damn near on the money so i called it good.
Set your crank sprocket on the retard position and see what you get.

cutlassefi

You're approx. 8* too far retarded. Your @.050 number is after tdc, it should be before tdc.
What marks did you align on the crank sprocket?

cutlassefi

Your first part is correct, the last part isn't. It's not 10* advanced, it's 9* retarded.
223/2=111.5.
Based on the cam card, at .050 tappet lift and an icl of 107 you should see 4.5* BEFORE tdc, not after.

cdrod

I double checked the crank gear last night to make sure I am using the correct "dot". My Cloyes set has a triangle, a circle and a square "dot" on the crank; I'm using the circle "dot" which is supposed to be the "factory" straight-up position. I'm puzzled as to how the "dots" can be so far off. Is it normal for timing sets to be this far off? What is at fault here? Are the gears wrong or is the cam pin in the wrong location?

I'm going to make a piston stop to make finding TDC a little easier and quicker. I only have one dial indicator which I'm using to find TDC off the piston and then have to move it to check the lifter travel. The piston stop will save me the hassle of moving the dial indicator back and forth each time I change the gears.

Another question, when a cam is ground with 5˚ advance, is this CAM degrees or CRANK degrees? The cam spins half the speed of the crank - right? I have the Cloyes 9-3113 timing set which only has + 4˚ of adjustment at the crank. Assuming I am 9˚ retarded, I can advance 4˚ with the crank gear, what's the best way to adjust for the remaining 5˚? Should I drill out the cam gear and use one of those offset bushings to get the cam straight-up?

cutlassefi

It's crank degrees.
I have yet to see any of those 3 keyway sets be any good. That's why I don't use them. I'll bet you'll find that that's your problem.

coppercutlass

Cdrod as mentioned I have a cloyes timing set and it was off. Had to run it advanced to be near the desired icl. I used a pro gear unit on my current engine and it it worked great. The current build I got the cloyes free and near new so I'm using it since it degreed in damn near close.

olds 307 and 403

Mark, has the Cloyes 9 way Billet set been more accurate? I plan on using that on my stroker and will be degreeing my cam.

cutlassefi

Way more accurate. That's all I use, best one for the money imo.

cdrod

Today I made a piston stop out of some plate steel and a 3/8" bolt. This was so much easier way to find TDC. The dial indicator was a huge PITA and I had to move it back and forth to measure the cam lift. I degreed the cam again this time using the 4˚ advanced keyway on the crank - I ended up Int opening at 9˚ BTDC. So I moved the crank gear to the straight-up keyway and degreed a third time. This time I got 4˚ BTDC for the .050" intake opening and 34˚ABDC for the .050" intake closing. Bingo! One thing that's not working out for me is the measured ICL, maybe I'm doing the math incorrectly.

Intake opens @ 4˚ BTDC
Intake closes @ 34˚ ABDC
ICL = 4+34+180÷2 = 109˚

The cam card says ICL should be 107˚. What am I missing here or is this just minor variances in my measurements?

My Piston Stop


Intake Opening = 4˚BTDC @ .050"


Intake Closing = 34˚ABDC

cdrod

Joe:
Check out my previous post, I made my own piston stop and got the cam dialed in correctly.

cdrod

Because of the clearance issue with aluminum heads, I'm planning to run an in-tank electric fuel pump. Do I need to install the stock fuel pump eccentric (even though there won't be a mechanical fuel pump) or is a bolt and washer all that's needed? I read somewhere that the pin in the camshaft could come loose and fall out without the FP eccentric to hold it in place. Is there any truth to this?

I also have a question about setting the clearance for the cam thrust button kit. The suggested clearance is .005" between the bronze button and the front cover. Should I grind off the end of the cam bolt or do I need to take material off the bronze button to get the proper clearance?

Mr Nick

Good call on the in tank pump, instead of inline pump.

I'm running one of these combos, but I have to admit it's wasn't easy to install the pump module and fuel level sending unit by myself with the tacky sealant they recommend.

http://www.tanksinc.com/index.cfm/pa...cat/cat153.htm

If I were to do it again, I'd use one of these. Ready to go out of the box!

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/aei-18301

cdrod

Nick:
I'm planning to run a Tanks, Inc. TM34R-T with one of their GPA-2 pumps. Is this what you installed? What don't you like about the set-up? I've heard good things about the Aeromotive tanks but they're kinda spendy. The Tanks Inc. tank w/pump is around $450 and the Aeromotive set-up is $650-700. I'd really like to hear more about your experience (good or bad) with Tanks Inc. as this is the next major purchase for my project. I plan to install the motor onto the frame to break it in, and without a mechanical fuel pump, I'd need an electric pump. I don't really want to spend money on an external electric pump just to break in the motor. I'd rather buy the tank and run the whole set-up in the car. Thanks for the comments.

cdrod

I decided to dial in my cam one more time to be extra certain I'd done it right. Today I learned that the angle of the dial indicator affects the the accuracy of the measurements (basic trigonometry). The first time I degreed the cam today my numbers were way off from yesterday - because the dial indicator set-up was positioned at a rather large angle to the lifter bores. So I eyeballed the dial indicator set-up more closely to better match the angle of the lifter bores.

This time my numbers were as follows:
Int Opening =5.5˚ BTDC @.050"
Int Closing =38˚ ABDC @ .050"
MeasuredDur = 223.5˚
Int Cntr Line = 106.3˚

SO... It looks like my cam is about 1˚ advanced with this Cloyes timing set. I double checked TDC with the piston stop and degreed the cam one final time just to confirm the above results. I have to say, this was much more difficult than I expected and I learned a lot in the process. The usefulness of the measurements you obtain is greatly affected by the accuracy of the measuring set-up so take your time and double check things as you go.
It looks so easy in the engine building books - LOL.

Hey Mark:
Do I need to use a 1˚ retarded bushing on the cam gear to dial this back to 4.5˚BTDC or am I OK to run with a little more advance on the cam? Thanks!

Mr Nick

Nothing wrong with the Tanks Inc. set up, just tough to install the gasket and pump/sending unit. If I had a helper it would have been much easier, but I usually work alone.

I installed the gasket onto the pump, then slide the assembly in the tank. Then I had to hold the pump a few inches up off the tank, put sealant on the gasket (both sides) which is extremely tacky and messy, line the gasket up with the holes, slide the pump down, start the bolts... Just a headache to do alone. If there is a more convenient sealant that will work, that would make a world of difference.

The tank itself is great, I've ran it down to 2-3 gallons with zero fuel starvation with my EFI. I like that is has a "bucket" which the pump pulls from and the return line feeds into.

cutlassefi

Leave it, it'll eventually stretch a bit making it correct.

cdrod

I have the short block assembled so I'm moving on to the top-end now but have some questions.
Do I need to check the piston to valve clearance on this build? I've got .005" deck and the cam specs .557 valve lift.
What's the best spark plug to use with these heads? I've never run Auminum heads before this build, but I noticed the stock AC brand plugs are too large in diameter and the threaded part looks to be too short to reach the combustion chamber. Please advise me what to do about the plugs.
I also haven't purchased the pushrods yet because I want to get the rocker arm geometry correct. Any advice here would be helpful too! Thanks