I just received this counterbalanced crank from a friend. It is believed to be a Sure-Mike. It is also believed to be forged and not cast. I was told a forging will have a large parting line at the center line of the crank and a cast crank will have a narrow parting line .???? It is standard on all journals. I may try to use it if it is a forging. I have heard the stories of the cast Sure-Mikes, like they should be called Sure-Broken ect ... But I have also heard the forged cranks are OK .??? I would not think of using this in a high mile tour car but in my speedster project it may be OK. Im want to use all period correct parts on the speedster. No reproduction parts other than hoses, belts, wires, ect. Ill also do the engine myself so the loss will not be too bad if it brakes. Just another test project and learning experiance. I have lots of experiance with the T engines, just not much with this type of item. I do not expect anything as good as a Scat Crank would give me. but I want to be able to say the crank is from back in the day. ... Thanks ....
Was there supposed to be a pic.?
Based on the parting line, it looks forged to me, good find.
I think they were all forged, but still many of them broke easily just like original Model T cranks tends to do after much torsional flex, the main problem with the T crank design is the thin diameter in the rod and main journals.
One version of the Sure-Mike story is that early Sure mikes had a too small fillet radius at the end of the journals. If there's a difference, then it may reflect a design change Ford did in 1924 - it was not just the throws that were changed from diamond shape to straight, the radiuses at the rod journals were increased from 1/16" to 1/8". Ford's main journals always had 1/8" radiuses.
So if you're grinding the journals of your Suremike after it's been magnafluxed, make sure you get at least 1/8" radiuses at the end of the journals, then it's up to the gods of speed how far you'll get
Got a SureMike and fitted it in, still running fine. Just my opinion, can't tell all that much on smoothness. But sure must be
Original picture looks like my SureMike.
I didnt think that forgings had such nice writing on them and I can see the gates were cut off. I would think that you would not see that in a forging. And its a lot of money to set up to forge. You would need to run high volume to pat for such a set up. I think this crank is cast. Scott
Apparently, they were forged;
Thanks for the ad Jerry. I knew some of them were supposed to be forged. But I saw a real bad cast one at Chickasha. It was such a bad casting they had to weld and grind the bad spots. I wish I had known to look at the cast parting line to see if it was a wide parting line or narrow.
All I have ever heard about sure mikes is they are sure to break, I know of 2 of them that broke in recent years. I stay away from them.
I have a standard crank in my 23 Touring that Teresa and I take on tours. My 26 Coupe has a Sure-Mike. The 26 seems smoother to me, but maybe it's just my imagination!
A well known engine builder told me that the reason that Sure Mikes have a bad reputation is that they were meant for service replacement and not to be raced, but racers bought them and pushed them past their limit and they failed.
Looks like a forging to me.
Thanks for the input. I will probably run it. It appears to be new. I will be removing the magnets so that may give it a little help. I am not building a hill climber. I just want a car built with all original period correct parts. The engine is going to be a home built rebuild. Ill be using the best used stuff I have. New Babbitt, 4th main, and valves is probably all it will get new. I have done a couple more used parts rebuilds thru the years and they are still going strong. It will not be worn out just on the "loose" side compared to a brand new machine shop rebuild... a "loose" engine is a happy engine. My main concern was, is it a forging or not. The general concensus is, it is a forging ... Thanks again ....
Being a forging, or not, doesn't necessarily make it good, or bad. Metallurgy is a very complex subject. It is not necessarily good or bad to find that a part is a forging, nor is it good or bad to find that a part is made from chrome nickel versus carbon steel. Just those facts are meaningless. In the first half of the last century parts were often made with inappropriate levels of alloying elements, making the part more expensive yet less reliable than one without the alloying elements. It's a crap shoot, because the labels, while true, can be very deceiving to the uninformed.
Using modern metallurgy I would prefer a crankshaft grade nodular cast iron crankshaft over a forged steel one from the 1920's or 1930's. Cast iron with high nodularity, formulated specifically for crankshafts, was very successful in Ford products for most of the last century.
All that being said I would use that Sure Mike crankshaft, after having it magnafluxed and the radii checked and redone if necessary.
Reading this thread has now given me the confidence to instal the one I have. It is standard size.
Donnie I was at a farm sale yrs ago, and bought a TT wood cab truck , outside the original engine set, the engine in the truck was a 17 w/magneto side-drive, foot feed throttle, twin bladed fan, water pump, Muncie trans etc. so I bought it and we later in the day bought the correct 17 T chassis, It was 120 degree day, no breeze, and several fella"s had dropped and been hauled away in ambulances, and I too dropped, They put ice on my neck, and wrists, and the auctioneer said everyone go get something to drink, eat, or use the rest room he was taken a rest too, I got back up and we continued the auction, while laying on the ground I asked the auctioneer what they were going to do w/ the huge trash pile, he said burn it. I said I'd like the two wooden box's out of it so he put them in my trailer. At the end of the auction I'd purchased both the T chassis and the TT, w/ one engine in the truck, and one on the ground loose. When I got home I pulled the pan inspection cover off the truck engine and there was a sure-mike crank, and the 17 engine also has one in it, because I got home w/ two T cranks loose and two boxs that the sure-mikes came in. Haven't run it yet its still in the airplane hanger waiting on me. I've heard good and bad, but I think I'll run it someday. I"m happy you found your speedster body, NICE ONE, I've been to swaps, auctions for over 60 yrs and never seen one.
We had a SureMike in the speedster, it broke....
Art Solie installed a Suremike crank drilled for oil pressure in 1950 and it didn't break until 2004, so they do break but it can take some time.
(If my crank breaks 54 years from now, it will be someone else's headache ;) )
Royce: I will mag it for sure. Ill also check the radius. It looks like a big radius to my eye, but Ill have to get the radius gauge out to be for sure. I know it will be a crap shoot on using the sure-mike, but the original ford cranks are starting to have a higher failure rate also. I think it is age and fatigue getting to them I also plan on a 26-27 block with the bolts on the back of block. That should help on the torsional effect and strains to the crank. I also agree with you on the metallurgy. John, If you want to get rid of one of the boxes I would love to have one for my collection, or at least a photo so Ill know what to look for .. I also agree with Roger, If it lasts 54 years that will be good enough for me.....
I just ordered a stock Scatt crankshaft for my 13 ....the price in now around $1500.00 plus shipping/tax. WOW!
Donnie I sent you a message via MTFCA via your name.
John Ill have to check it when I get home this evening.....