Babbit

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Babbit
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bill Thompson on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 11:16 am:

I am looking t build up the Babbitt on my rear main bearing and all I can find is a 4 pound $200.00 bar. Where can I buy a small amount for this small job?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Thode Chehalis Washington on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 11:27 am:

Lang's has 2# for $43.
http://www.modeltford.com/item/R-BAB.aspx

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Chris Barker, Somerset, England on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 11:28 am:

If you have someone who does white metalling nearby, ask for a handful of their turnings. (They need to be the grade used for main bearings though)
Put these in a piece of 1" x 1" (or larger) angle aluminium, set in a V shape, then point a gas torch at them and 'cast' a pencil-sized bar in the angle.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 02:48 pm:

Check your email.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gene Carrothers Huntington Beach on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 06:40 pm:

Bill you don't have you local listed. if you were close I would give you some.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 06:51 pm:

For the little bit you will need, if you have some old rods or caps you can melt it out and make a stick by pouring it into a piece of angle iron.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 07:21 pm:

Aluminum angle, as Chris says, works better and the babbitt won't stick to it. And you don't have to worry about rust or slag. I would NOT use "angle iron" unless it's been ground clean of all surface slag. The slag is a product of hot rolling. When the slag gets hot it can pop-off into your babbitt. You might as well be pouring sand in your babbitt.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Shirley on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 09:51 pm:

Nickel babbitt is commonly use in paper mills to set chipper knifes, mill supply houses stock it at a cheaper price. They will have the MSDS that gives the alloy content.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Monday, October 01, 2012 - 01:15 am:

You can make nice babbitt sticks, by using a Model T Rod Web, and each stick, has a nice FORD name imprint.

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Monday, October 01, 2012 - 04:14 pm:

I sent a PM to Bill offering a couple of ribbons (sticks) of babbitt but he never responded. So I guess he got it handled.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Todd on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 11:25 am:

Is #4 babbitt any good? I bought a 5 lb bar for $4 in a second hand store.
If old rear axle babbitt thrust washers are melted down, is that good babbitt?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 12:14 pm:

I wouldn't trust thrust washer babbitt.. It's more crack prone than the babbitt Ford used in the engine, so it was likely mixed differently - with lead?
Ford's engine babbitt had 86% tin, 7% copper and 7% antimony.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 12:27 pm:

I had George King III, of www.enginerestoration.com, pour my babbits. One of his claims to fame is that the babbit formula he uses is exactly the same as what Ford originally used on Model T's back in the day, so it might be prudent to find out what that formula is so you won't make the mistake of using something that is too soft, or not suitable for the Model T. Ford engineers arrived at that particular babbit formula for a reason. Because with over 60,000,000 main bearings poured and over 60,000,000 connecting rod bearings poured from 1909 to 1927 it was the best, time-tested babbit for the job. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bill Thompson on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 01:10 pm:

Thanks for all the info, I haven't got that far yet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 02:49 pm:


quote:

One of his claims to fame is that the babbit formula he uses is exactly the same as what Ford originally used on Model T's ...



Trust but verify. Let's see the analysis. :-)

No one makes the original babbitt as a stock formula so it has to be special ordered. The order will include an analysis of the babbitt so it should be available.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 03:15 pm:

George King III has been in business a long time and in a business with a clientele in which one's word is his bond, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't claim it unless it was true. According to his website, He can be e-mailed at caen@rcn.com if you would like to contact him personally regarding the formula. If I had to guess, I'd bet that George, being the resourceful craftsman he is, probably orders the ingredients and mixes each batch himself in his own foundry. He does everything else. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 04:20 pm:

Ford used Dutch boy brand. It was 86-7-7, like Roger K. said.

There is nothing secret about Babbitt Formulas!

You can buy, any kind, and any amount, your little heart desires.

4X Nickel = 89.95--7.85--2.2, Price today 20.09, no shipping

Grade No. 2 = 89--7.50--3.5, Price today 19.92, no shipping

Ford Babbitt = 86.--7.--7., Price today 19.11, no shipping.

So if some one says you can't get a certain Grade, or the babbitt isn't as it once was years ago, has no idea what they are talking about!

Ken, No.4 has lead in it , don't try to mix it with Tin, unless some one has poured the cap with lead.

Roger K. is also right about Babbitt thrust washers.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 05:24 pm:

Hay, Bill, take your cap over to J and M Machine, you know where they are at!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Greg sarky K on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 07:59 pm:

I think I might be very lucky, dad had a stash of a few dozen of these..where he got them? who knows.......


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By roy palmer on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 08:25 pm:

Geez.....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 09:00 pm:

Actually, Ford used their own formula of babbitt provided by the National Lead Company. I think Dutch Boy is paint, isn't it?

I didn't say Ford babbitt wasn't available. I said it's not a stock (ASTM or SAE standard) formula. There are "near enough" standard ASTM B23 grades (#3 & #11) that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in performance or make-up except with a precision metallurgical analysis--They fall that close. But, you can order any smelted mix your heart desires. Or mix your own. Mixing equal parts of #3 and #11 will put you about spot-on to the original formula if your big-headed ego requires "Ford babbitt".


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By R.V. Anderson on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 09:08 pm:

The brand of paint made by National Lead was called Dutch Boy. They used the logo on many of their products including the round ingots of babbit they sold.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Anderson, central Wisconsin on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 10:04 pm:

86-7-7 babbitt, as used by Ford, is good babbitt but it's not the best babbitt.
Genuine #1 babbitt, 90~92% tin, 5~% copper and 5~% antimony is the best babbitt you can get.
The addition of .5% nickel increases the tensile strength but increased tensile strength really isn't an issue in a Model T.
Just because Henry used something didn't make it the best
Dealing with 5 horsepower per cylinder doesn't really require the "best".


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 12:42 am:

I didn't say Ford babbitt wasn't available. I said it's not a stock (ASTM or SAE standard) formula." END QUOTE "

Ken, not true, the place I buy babbitt, 86-7-7, is a stock item, along with another place, that I don't buy from, as they are higher on shipping.

The addition of .5% nickel increases the tensile strength. "END QUOTE "

That is not true Craig, the only reason that 1/2 percent of Nickel is in New Babbitt, is because it is refined from Raw ore, and more refining would cost more then what they would get out of it. Nickel, does nothing for babbitt. It doesn't hurt any thing, but does not add any thing either.


The brand of paint made by National Lead was called Dutch Boy. They used the logo on many of their products including the round ingots of babbitt they sold."END QUOTE "

R.V. is right!




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 01:23 am:

Herm, you better do some more research on nickel babbitt, before making a statement like, Nickel does nothing for babbitt.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 01:34 am:

Oh Herm, now you've done it. I think you just pissed on the burning bush. ;-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Anderson, central Wisconsin on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 01:56 am:

Herm.....nickel ADDS tensile strength.

The end.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 06:57 am:

Can original babbit that has been chipped out or melted from the worn bearings and caps be melted down and re-used or does it break down and become contaminated over time and become less than what it was? Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Brandon French-Tigard, Or on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 10:20 am:

Im saving this thread. I just learned Ill be doing by bearings as well. Thanks for all the detailed info guys.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 12:40 pm:

Kerry, I have done 45 years of research on babbitt, almost every working day. I don't just have an opinion, and pass it around like truth, like you guys do.

My information came from the Foundries that refine, and mix the babbitt. I have known that even before I started pouring Babbitt. You have phones, give the foundries a call, and talk to the people that know about mixes.

It is like I said, the Nickel is not in the babbitt because they added it as part of the recipe, it is there because it would cost more to refine that small amount out, then the money they would recover.

It isn't hard to figure out, the Recipe for Tin base babbitt is Tin, Antimony, and Copper, Nickel is NOT listed as an ingredient.

Just think about it, how is a 1/2 percent of any thing, going to effect 95 percent of some thing!

Babbitt names, like Government Genuine, Has nothing to do with the Government, and "Genuine", Genuine WHAT!

Nickelite Babbitt, that has NO Nickel in it what so ever, it is a good Tin Base, how ever.

XXXX Nickel, again 1/2 percent, or less Nickel, it is a Tin base Babbitt.

These are just names that sound important, and the Companies put names on them, so they sound special to the Kerrys, and Craigs of the world!


The names on babbitt, is like putting a cool name on your DOG!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By roy palmer on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 12:46 pm:

So is that "Ford Virgin Babbitt" in the photo what Ford originally used? And should that be used if you have it?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 01:18 pm:

I used to have a big collection of all kinds of babbitt bars, and different companies, the Babbitt I had that had Ford, either stamped, or poured with the name, was all lead babbitt, and was sold in small auto repair shops, and passed off as just as good as Ford Babbitt.

The babbitt shown in the post, I would need pictures with more light, and from the back side to see a better view of the color of the babbitt.

From this side in the name part, it looks like lead, but the rest of it does Not?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 02:45 pm:

But that Babbitt is heavy pressure as opposed to light pressure? ;-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 02:55 pm:

I am not sure in what sense you meant that Mike?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 03:56 pm:

It says heavy pressure on the photo. Am I safe to assume there is a light pressure rating and is it because of the alloys and where would a light pressure babbitt be used? Or are the words Heavy Pressure on there for marketing purposes?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 04:26 pm:

Heavy pressure metal has always been referred to as Tin Base Babbitt.

Any babbitt with out a High content of tin, is a lead babbitt, and the crush per square inch, is much less.

Lead Babbitt is 4 to 5 dollars a pound, as Tin base is about 20.00, a pound.

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 05:05 pm:

"...how is a 1/2 percent of any thing, going to effect 95 percent of some thing!"

Well, I wouldn't drink water with 1/2% arsenic in it so, maybe 1/2% nickel has some influence too.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 05:43 pm:

Thanks Herm. I got ya now. I know when I was doing stainglass we worked with solder that was either 50% tin and 50% lead or we used 60% lead and 40% tin. The 60%/40% was preferred because of a lower melting temp and a lot easier to control the heat of our iron. That being said I don't see the link Mr VanOoteghem is making between water and arsenic as opposed to babbit and nickel. I guess you use Babbitt with a little nickel in it for rods and mains in an engine and if you're going to consider drinking water with arsenic in it, you're a damn fool. I guess if you could do a little metallurgical research under a microscope you'd find out there's more than tin, lead, and nickel in your babbitt and they don't make any more difference than .5% nickel. Hell you might even find a little arsenic in the mix.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Anderson, central Wisconsin on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 05:46 pm:

From >>> http://stellartechnical.com/4xnickelbabbittingot.aspx

"Our 4X Nickel Babbitt Ingot is the highest quality material available for re-surfacing Babbitt Bearings. 4X Nickel Babbitt is an alloy of Tin, Antimony, Copper and Nickel and is lead-free. 4X Nickel Babbitt is similar to Grade 2 Babbitt but with a little nickel added for higher tensile strength over 300F."

While that may not necessarily apply to old engines it is fact.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 06:05 pm:

Tuftin is another that make a lead free tin base and nickel hardened, for heat and speed, poured bearing applications.

And again, While that may not necessarily apply to old engines, it is fact.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 06:08 pm:

So it sounds to me Craig like putting your babbitt in the bearings is not really gaining much except the increase in cost of the babbitt. And I guess if I was going to have an engine done I'd take it to the guy who's going to perform the optimum build at the best price. And right now it sounds like Herm is performing rebuilds with material that provides those optimum costs. Now if I ever do decide to fire my engine up and use it in a 300 degree environment than I'm probably going to want "4X Nickel Babbitt". "The highest quality material available for re-surfacing Babbitt Bearings".


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Anderson, central Wisconsin on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 06:34 pm:

Mike, I have NO DOUBT whatsoever regarding Kohnke's work.......it's just a little "discussion" going on....... :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 07:12 pm:

I understand that Craig. I've been enjoying the conversation right along. Actually its been educational. Really there can't be any doubt regarding Herm's work. He's sensible with the materials he uses and optimizes his costs to the customer as I would hope anyone would with adequate knowledge of the materials they use. It's just that, to put babbitt in an engine that's more expensive because it has additional capabilities that aren't necessary. My opinion is the better babbitt is the one Herm uses. Stellar Technical is touting their babbitt as the highest quality when in fact it sounds like they don't understand that it's more sensible to use the best babbitt for the job. I don't know if Stellar Technical knows what Quality is. They seem to define it as having the most features or capabilities instead of fitness for use at optimum costs. For years American car companies thought bigger was better while the Japanese were utilizing a system of Quality Function Deployment and Total Quality Control to build the best cars at optimum costs. Today I drove my domestic Chevrolet Corvette to town and was surprised at how many Kia's are on the road. Hell, Cadillac has a lot of features but probably doesn't have the quality built into their cars that Honda does. Well maybe I shouldn't be too rough on Cadillac, they have learned a few lessons over the last 20 years but it's been slow.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 07:44 pm:

Craig, I just went back and reread your previous posts and mine and need to apologize for sounding confrontational. I thought you had written the description you quoted. And I called it your babbitt. After looking at it again I can understand why you might become a little irate with the way I stated myself. I apologize and hope you'll forgive me. I enjoy being part of the conversations on this forum and I know that sometimes I say things in a way that makes what I'm saying sound like I'm trying to get under someone's skin. However I want to believe that's not my goal. I don't have much knowledge in these old cars and all that goes on with them. And when you guys get going I have a hard time keeping up. Especially when it comes to electronics. But I try. And I have to admit I'm a little partial towards Herm because he's a hands on kind of person. It's like I feel people can spout theory all day long, but Herm gets right into it and walks the walk. Sometimes he might have a different way of saying things because in many ways he's an old school kind of guy but there's a lot of us that didn't always learn from a book. We had to learn it by doing it. And the vocabulary that goes along with it isn't always familiar to all but it's not how we say things it's how well we get the job done that counts.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Anderson, central Wisconsin on Thursday, October 04, 2012 - 08:25 pm:

Not to worry Mike......nearly everything I learned I learned in the machine shop from my Dad or the hard way........probably much like Herm.
I did plenty of babbitting too....... :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 12:34 am:

My Dad taught me as much as he could on a lot of old flathead fords. He was really good with the flathead V8. I hate to say it though but he wasn't worth beans with anything with overhead valves. I had to learn them when I got into my teens and I'd get together with my friends and tear down some old Chev or Ford. Dad taught me how to weld though I was hard to teach because we didn't always see eye to eye on everything. I went to Technical School for tool and die but could only get jobs on production machines and I hated it so I went into Quality Assurance for over 40 years. Now I'm just retired and spend my time on here and on my T's and playing with my Corvette. Thanks for understanding.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 09:42 am:

Like many from my generation, coming of age in the in the sixties (b. 1953), I am fairly mechanically inclined and know a little about alot and on some subjects, alot about alot, but on subjects like this (metallurgy), electrical systems and machining tolerances, I depend solely on the advice I get here. Unlike many here who know how good something is and how much something, such as a quality of a particular babbit formula can take before it fails, I don't like to take any chances and prefer to go with the very best. This decision is usually based on how much work and money it would take to redo a job should I have made the decision to take a chance and save money over going with the best quality. On something like babbiting, whereby it takes a lot of effort to tear down the engine in preparation for the job, in addition to the $1,000.00 plus in crating and shipping costs to get the engine safely from Florida to George King III in Connecticutt and back again, as well as how much damage a catastrophic failure of an inferior or improper babbit could cause, I would prefer that he go with the best possible babbit for the job, regardless of the cost, because I certainly don't want to risk all that effort and money and have to do it all over by settling on less than the best to save a few dollars, so that is why, before embarking on a task, I try to find out what is the absolute best product for the job, so it will last as long or longer than the original and so, hopefully, I won't have to do it all over again, or risk destroying my engine, with matching numbers original to the car. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Doug Money - Braidwood, IL on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 11:06 am:

I figure if the person has been a professional producing good work for a number of years, who am I to tell them what to use and how to do it. They should know what is best that works for them. After all, they are the ones guaranteeing it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 12:13 pm:

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more. And that's why the professional needs to know what the best product for the job is. If your spending a lot of extra money to get what someone thinks is the best based on features as opposed to performance over time than that's not fair either. The most expensive isn't necessarily the best. If the babbitt has .5% nickel in it and your paying extra for it and it's not doing you any good then it seems the guy doing the rebuild for you isn't necessarily dealing in your best interest. Though it's nice for you as the consumer to know what the best is, it's most important the supplier, in this case the mechanic, know these things. If the .5% nickel was to add some advantages in terms of wear resistance or an improved bearing surface I could see it. But if it's adding un-necessary tensile strength and I don't need it than I'm not going to want to pay for it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 12:28 pm:

Yes. That is why I like the fact that George King III uses the exact babbit formula Ford used on Model T's back in the day. Since I am not up on the new babbit formulas, which, may or may not contain zinc which may or may not be beneficial, I do know that the Ford Babbit Formula was used on over 120 million, main and connecting rod bearings, in over 15 million Model T's and the babbits in my Model T lasted over 80 years before George King re-did them, so who am I to argue with success. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 12:31 pm:

Mike,

Mr. Kohnke specified 1/2% of "anything" & 95% of "something", so his statement would be as true for my water & arsenic scenario as for his nickel & babbitt one. I was just trying to suggest that his theory may not apply in all cases, (e.g. anything & something), and perhaps, therefore, may not apply in the nickel/babbitt case either. I was trying to do this subtly however and maybe with some tongue-in-cheek humor as well. No harm or insults meant. I have great respect for Herm's skills.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 01:01 pm:

Oops. I meant to say nickel instead of zinc on my 12:28pm post. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Marc Johnson Helotes TX on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 01:25 pm:

Don't worry about the nickel. Add a few ounces of silver to 10 pounds of XXXX Babbitt. That was the "Trick" the old timers used when they were running "A","B" or "T" engines in there race cars.I think that is where a lot of the silver dollars went. Especially helpful with chip loading on stock Model T's when boring the mains.
Many Navy Mine Sweepers (WW2 Vintage), according to a friend of mine that spent many years on them, used solid silver for the bearing surface in the engines.
Comments???


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 02:09 pm:

I looked at Craigs web sight he posted, and went to it. That company is a company that sells babbitt, and other products, Only, and they do not have any thing to do with making babbitt.

They sell FRY babbitt, so I went to there sight, and yes, they list Nickel as a selling point, but that is all it is, a selling point to make it sound important, or better then the rest.

So I called ARCO metal sales, and asked about the XXXX Nickel that they make, and they make all grades, and the boss said that any Nickel in a Tin Base babbitt formula, is treated as an Impurity, as Nickel is not called for in Tin Base babbitt, and the most of any thing it could, is change the color of the babbitt!

He said, why I did not use Ford 86-7-7, as it does not have Nickel.

He also said, most of the Tin Base Babbitt made NOW, has about 0.1 percent Nickel in it, because of better refining techniques.

Then I called United American Metals, in Chicago, and the Boss said, that any Nickel in a Tin base babbitt is an Impurity, like zinc, Arsenic, Ect.

Both places said they would send me paper work to that effect, on there Company Paper Head.

Both companies have web sites, and phone numbers, call them your selves!

You Guys sure make me go through a lot of work, defending what I know!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 02:21 pm:

Don't worry about the nickel. Add a few ounces of silver to 10 pounds of XXXX Babbitt. That was the "Trick" the old timers used when they were running "A","B" or "T" engines in there race cars.I think that is where a lot of the silver dollars went. Especially helpful with chip loading on stock Model T's when boring the mains.
Many Navy Mine Sweepers (WW2 Vintage), according to a friend of mine that spent many years on them, used solid silver for the bearing surface in the engines.
Comments??? "END QUOTE"

Heard all those wives tails 45 years ago. Yes they did do it, but it was done buy shade tree "JOE".

I have a whole story on that with R.G. Reader, from Texas!

It is all B. S.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 02:30 pm:

Thank you Herm. I checked all of your posts in this thread but did not see the answer to my next question for you.

Question: What would you say is the "Best" babbit formula for use in the Model T engine? Main bearings; connecting rods. Thanks. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 02:39 pm:

Grade 2, Grade 11, Fords 86-7-7, and ARCO's Nickelite. There are all good.

The bigest thing, is it has to be installed correctly!

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 02:41 pm:

Thank you Herm. Good to know. Jim Patrick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 03:41 pm:

Jerry, I really didn't take you too seriously. The absurdity of the arsenic comparison was a little humorous for us all. However your point was quite valid. I think this thread is entertaining in an educational way. And Herm is becoming the professor. There's a certain quality about Model T owner's to beat a subject to death and I think that is a testament to their resolve to keep these old Fords alive and kickin. I strongly suggest however that we never throw politics into the mix. Not even a discussion that's .5% politics.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Patrick on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 09:17 pm:

Good point Mike. The introduction of politics, religion and water pumps into the mix, is the fastest way I know of to destroy a good thread. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Marc Johnson Helotes TX on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 10:54 pm:

Herm

If you have the story about using silver in bearings with R.G. please send it to me. I did quite a bit of his A and T babbitt work in the 80's. He had some nice T's. I'm going to use silver in my OHC T engine for my speedster and see how it holds up.
I think I have it in my A but I did it 30 years ago and slept a few nights since then.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 04:39 am:

Herm, what part of using silver is BS?
The standard of bearing babbit used in most parts of the world to comply with the reduction of toxic elements like, cadmium and arsenic, is replaced with silver.
'Gold' brings excellent technical improvements for bearing metals as well, but is far too expensive.
The babbit chemical composition of the ASTM B23-2 I use has as much silver as nickel.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 12:28 pm:

Herm, what part of using silver is BS?
The standard of bearing babbit used in most parts of the world to comply with the reduction of toxic elements like, cadmium and arsenic, is replaced with silver.
'Gold' brings excellent technical improvements for bearing metals as well, but is far too expensive.
The babbit chemical composition of the ASTM B23-2 I use has as much silver as nickel."END QUOTE"

"ALL" Tin Base babbitt made for engine bearings, that we use, is made from, Tin, Antimony, and Copper, all other small amounts of metal in the mix is an Impurity,

Kerry, I don't know how many ways I can say it.

It is NOT in the Mix because it needs to be, but because it is stuck in the metals that has to be used!

Now, it may be true about sliver replacing Cadmium, and Arsenic, OK, fine, but the babbitt that we use does not call for, Cadmium, Arsenic, and, or Sliver metals, so it does not apply.

I know Sliver has been used on precision inserts in the 50's at least, but along with 1, or 2 other metals, I think were copper, and lead, and that was plated on like 1, or 2 thousandths thick. It was nothing you could do in a babbitt shop.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 01:06 pm:

One other thing Kerry, Sliver, I know is a whole lot harder then the babbitt mix!

How did you say dirt was going to embed its self in the bearing by adding a harder metal as Sliver, which isn't called for?

Will it now peen with out cracking?

Will it mix with the babbitt, and at the Temp. it needs to be to pour?

I don't know, do you?

It just seams to me, if it was that good, some one would offer it, or, at least in the past.

I have never seen Sliver as a part of a Babbitt Formula!

Modern inserts has nothing to do with poured Babbitt!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 02:53 pm:

Herm

If you have the story about using silver in bearings with R.G. please send it to me. I did quite a bit of his A and T babbitt work in the 80's. He had some nice T's. I'm going to use silver in my OHC T engine for my speedster and see how it holds up.
I think I have it in my A but I did it 30 years ago and slept a few nights since then."END QUOTE"

Marc, the story, is more of a Once Upon A Time.

R.G. I had known for 20 years before that time, as I sold him Spun poured Rods, Ball Caps, and Cam Bearings, and in later years, it was just Ball caps.

For a long time he was going to have, and he used the term "OLD GUY", pour some bearings in one of his blocks that he drove, and was going to send for me to align bore. R.G. said the OLD GUY had been a Babbitter years ago, and was a master with bearings, and bearing knowledge.

He said the Old Guy, said that adding Sliver to the babbitt would make it indestructible. R.G. said the OLD GUY went to a jewelry store and bought a small bar of sliver to mix into the, and what looked to be lead babbitt, can't say for sure!

Long story short, R.G. sent the block and caps, for me to align bore. I put the block on the Tobin-Arp align bore, and set it up. The babbitt in the block, and caps, was like a deep, dark Gray Charcoal. The babbitt was not stuck all around the Caps, and I tapped the caps on an small anvil and the babbitt fell out, not stuck.

The block babbitt was very loose, as it had been peened with a Wilson babbitt Hammer, you could see the grooves.

You could take hold of each end of the bearing, and see, and hear movement.

I called R.G., and told him about what had happened, and he said to try to peen the babbitt in the block, and send the caps, and babbitt back, to redo. I told him, the block was past peening, but if you knew R.G., that I should try!

When I got done Peening, all that was left in the block, was cast iron, even the anchor holes were cleared out. I sent him his Babbitt scraps back to him.

He didn't want the expense of sending the block again, so I poured and align Bored it, and sent it back.

The End.

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 05:24 pm:

Herm,
If you can find it, or I can send it to you, a 5 page article,
'Improved Bearing Alloy'
By Rolf Koring, General Manager
ECKA Granulal GmbH
Bearing Technologies
Essen Germany

This will explain why the other elements are controlled additives in pouring babbit, for what you believe as impurities.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 06:39 pm:

Interesting article. Seems to back up virtually every point Kohnke has stated:

Click here:
http://www.artec-machine.com/_images/documents/Improved_bearing_alloy_for_the_en vironment.pdf


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 10:38 pm:

I was going to post a remark about perusing a dissertation that was long and boring. However because of the experts involved and the direction of this thread, I'm going to stick around and see where this exercise takes us.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Marc Johnson Helotes TX on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 10:52 pm:

Boy did I stir the pot. Pun intended.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 11:26 pm:

This will explain why the other elements are controlled additives in pouring babbit, for what you believe as impurities. End Quote

They are impurities, Kerry, read your own article again!

Thanks Royce for putting up the web site, I enjoyed the Read, and made a copy.

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 11:28 pm:

Good Job, Marc, Good Job.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 02:41 am:

Herm, Thanks for your advice, read it over again and still the same conclusion, as stated in the Abstract, There are differences between European and US bearing metals.
Only reference to impurities is lead, every other element has a balanced job to do, under 'Additional Alloying Elements'
it clearly states, adding further alloying elements. Those that you consider as impurities and if not used or present, an equivalent substitution.
Just the first 2 pages will tell you that it's technology, not black smiths stuff of anything over the 'tin, antimony and copper' are impurities. It clearly states as well as those basic elements, additional alloying elements have to be used.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Michael Deichmann, Blistrup, Denmark on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 03:28 am:

Boliden - a swedish metalwork sels a bearing alloy called "Ford":
88.7% Tin (Sn)
7,8% Antimon (Sb)
3,5% Cupper (Cu)

It's not the "T-formula" but did Ford eventually changed it later?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 02:36 pm:

Boliden - a swedish metalwork sels a bearing alloy called "Ford":
88.7% Tin (Sn)
7,8% Antimon (Sb)
3,5% Cupper (Cu)

It's not the "T-formula" but did Ford eventually changed it later?"END QUOTE"

Short answer, I don't know, as I have never read any thing on it. I do know in the early V-8's, they did try a Copper- Lead bearing, that didn't work out to good!

Michael, the recipe you show, would be equivalent to Grade No. 2
and is what we use most of the time. Every company has it. That is what is also in the babbitt article above.



United American Metals, the trade name is Government Genuine, which is 89% Tin, 7-1/2% Antimony, and 3-1/2%Copper.

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SUBSTITUTION
OF THE ELEMENTS CADMIUM, NICKEL, ARSENIC
The results of the alloy analyses performed show clearly that the
low quantities of nickel do not have the desired effect of improving
the gliding properties. For this reason, nickel can be excluded from
the alloy altogether. The crystal refining can be achieved, for
example, with silver instead of arsenic."END ARTICLE QUOTE"

OK, the Key word here is "SUBSTITUTION". It doesn't make the babbitt better in the sense that you put Sliver in it, "which is 0.1 per cent by the way". It makes it better that it in more environmentally safer, while not degrading its integrity!

It also puts the question of Nickel to rest! If Nickel was necessary, you couldn't leave it out, and substitute any thing else, not even for the environment!

The only thing I can add, to this, Kerry, is call the foundries that make the babbitt, and tell them they have been doing it wrong for over a 175 years, and set them straight. And you can add that I will be expecting my next batch of Babbitt to be much Improved!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 05:06 pm:

OK Herm, I set the challenge to you, as you are closer for a phone call.
this is a typical grade 2 formula in the US, ours differ with less arsenic and cadmium but with silver.
Seeing that any thing over the 3 basic elements, you have been defending as 'impurities' make a call to this 200 year old foundry and confront them on the 'Certifcation'

NT Nathan Trotter & Co. (215)821-8461


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 06:56 pm:

Oh, Kerry, what you are missing is there are only three called for metals to be in Tin base babbitt!

All the rest are NOT needed to use in the babbitt, the rest are "Impurities" they have to list because they can't refine any more, because of cost. If it is in there, they have to list it.

Look at what you posted, Tin, Antimony, and copper, all the rest are trace amounts, they are not needed, they just can't get them out!

Like Nickel listed, what is One hundredth of one percent going to do!

Somebody else will have to get through to you, I am out of ways to say it.

You will maybe get it some day, but if I remember right, it took you about 3,or 4 months for you to understand why all Rods have to be checked for Alignment, no matter what kind of Machine they are cut on!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 07:09 pm:

I can see you did not read the part of 'certifcation' 100% virgin meaning 'pure'

And yes your memory is failing you. the rod debate was in regards to starting with a straight rod, so the babbit would machine parallel to rod, do you wont some I have from the states that I have rejected for use with as much as 10 to 15 thou run out?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 09:31 pm:

Kerry, what you posted is a certificate that lists the metals in Babbitt. It's not the actual recipe for Babbitt is simply the desired amounts of Tim, Antimony and Copper. The rest of what is listed are impurities that show up when chemical analysis is done in the metallurgical lab. The purpose for listing these "impurities" is because the people purchasing the metal don't want these trace minerals to be beyond tolerated amounts. They are impurities.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 09:40 pm:

Oh, and virgin material does not mean pure. It simply means its material such as or in it's raw form. The way it comes from the earth. And most ore in it's virgin state have impurities. Trust me, I've worked with enough ore samples and enough material certificates to know what trace elements are and why they're listed on the certificate. It's the control of these trace elements that cause this babbitt to be considered grade 2.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 10:19 pm:

Notice that the trace impurities do not have a minimum listed because zero is the minimum for those. The maximum is listed because it is the most that can be tolerated.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 10:21 pm:

Exactly Royce. You said it so much better than I could have. Thank you.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 10:33 pm:

Mike, you sure have a way with words, that says it all!

Herm

And yes your memory is failing you. the rod debate was in regards to starting with a straight rod, so the babbit would machine parallel to rod, do you wont some I have from the states that I have rejected for use with as much as 10 to 15 thou run out?"END QUOTE"

Now Kerry, you know the debate was not about starting with a straight rod. I said that when a rod was finished machined, they had to be checked for alignment. You said your Milling machine machined them straight, which can't be done.

Then you said you should start off with a straight Rod before you pour, and I said you can't start with a straight rod, as there is no points to check the rod from, for alignment, and would be a waste of time, as you would not know which way to bend it, to make it straight with out babbitt, and before you machine it set up in a rod lathe, you can tell which way to bend it as it would then have babbitt!

Kerry, I am sorry, I thought you learned something out of that, I was wrong!

All rods need Alignment, the same as Rings need the gap checked, even yours Kerry!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 10:38 pm:

Royce, I never looked at it that way, you are right!

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:48 am:

Always learning Herm, God, I just learnt that your that good at rod alignment, you can do it with un-machined babbit and with no starting points to work from on a rod, I'll bet you can even establish a centre to centre with out a starting point.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George_Cherry Hill NJ on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 10:05 am:

Royce and Herm are correct.

Whenever you see a 'max' or a '<' next to an alloy material specification it is a sign of 'impurities' that go along for the ride and have not proved harmful or contributing to the alloy properties mechanically.

As far as the silver and arsenic debate...it all depends on where the original ore is mined. Usually, ore from way up north is silver free, ore closer to the equator carries some silver over which is just too expensive to recover so it goes along for the ride.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:14 pm:

Kerry,

Herm is correct here. The very spec. sheet you posted proves it, as Royce and others adequately explained. The honorable thing to do would be to admit it, rather than look for other sticks to throw.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:15 pm:

<is> which means "more than"!! I guess if you want to interpret it as "impurities that go along for the ride" well, ok. However I don't figure I use the symbols that way but to each their own. As far as calling it a "MAX" symbol? No! It means "less than" as in 3<4 (3 is less than 4).


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:39 pm:

Well that post came out all screwed up! If I can get this in here, the symbol (<) only means "less than".

It's a mathematical symbol and the inverse (>) symbol means "more than".

I guess if you want to use it to say "max" it would have to be "max allowed" and even that is a pretty loose translation. But in this case your using it as a form of literal expression and not necessarily as part of a formula. So ok I'll let it go that you can say it means max but I prefer to use it in the mathematical sense as in "less than".


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:49 pm:

No Jerry, wait, let him go after Herm. The old guy probably deserves it because of some of his past individual choices that caused the rest of us to question his ability to function normally within the general populace. Hahahahahahaha

Sorry Herm, I couldn't resist the temptation. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stan Howe Helena, Montana on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:50 pm:

In this instance it means there is LESS THAN the MAXIMUM amount of whatever is stated. In other words, no specific value is given, just that there is less than whatever the maximum allowable is.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:54 pm:

No, I still can't call it Max. Because they state "Max" in the head of that column. They're trying to state that the (<) symbol means the quantity measured is less than the stated max allowable value. Christ, I'm starting to question myself. These cert's aren't that hard to read and understand.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:56 pm:

Sorry Stan. I just haven't got the gift for explanation you've got. You truly are a wordsmith.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:58 pm:

I'm quitting this thread. It's giving me a headache.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 04:08 pm:

Mike,

As an auctioneer, and old-time story teller, Stan is supposed to be eloquent in what he says. Before you now it, he'll sell you some babbitt before you even know you've bid.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 04:11 pm:

Who cares what crap is in it, my biggest issue was the tech statement, what is removed needs to be replaced with something else.

Onto something more important, WAKIE_WAKIE Herm,
Just finished 2 transmissions, another of the shelf, rivet gears, no marks, I'll slip it onto the bench and with your help try to assemble as a out of time screw-up.
So please slip over to the triple gear thread and post how one might do it. Thanks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 06:48 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 01:48 am:

Always learning Herm, God, I just learnt that your that good at rod alignment, you can do it with un-machined babbit and with no starting points to work from on a rod, I'll bet you can even establish a centre to centre with out a starting point. "END QUOTE"

I just seen your post Kerry, I must have missed it, and it looks like you still have a little Distortion of the Rod machining Process?

1. When we first get a Rod in, and that is any Rod from a Model T, to a Packard, or a John Deere Tractor, we check to see if you can PHYSICALITY, see if it LOOKS BENT, if it is not, there is nothing else we can do to it at THIS POINT! WHY, because many rods when they come in do NOT have any, or most of the babbitt in them! That is why they sent them to us! So, to do any alignment on them with out, or poor babbitt, you would be doing more harm then good, as you have no direction, to bend, that you know you are improving the alignment!

2. The rods that do have the babbitt in them, and look fairly good, they are also wore, if you try to Align a wore Rods babbitt, if the rod was straight, you just bent it all out of alignment.

3. The correct way to pour the rod! Cap, and Rod are poured to the bolt holes in the Rod, both sides are then poured Square to the shells.

3. So, NOW, with the Rod now put back together, we move to the PRE-ALIGNMENT STEP, at the rod lathe. Kerry, if you are doing this on a Mill, it is the same process!

4. Kerry, you talked about starting points, OK, the one for center distance is from my rod lathe, it does have a scale on the side for that, but they are never right, so don't count on them to be Accurate. I will try to put pictures on here also.

5. The way to get the center distance true, I use a 24" Caliper, and take 1/2 the thickness of the boring shaft, and 1/2 of the wrist pin shaft that I use, and add that to the 7"'s C to C, on the 24 inch Caliper, and set the wrist pin holder to that distance, from out side the boring bar, and the wrist pin holder that I use. Then you have a perfect 7" C, To, C,.

6. Now the Rod lathe, to check straightness of the rod before Machining! With the rod in the lathe, and ready to bore, I made a Cone to slide on the boring shaft. One side is cone, and the other is a 90 Degree to the shaft. I put the 90 Degree to the rod side, and when I role the carriage with the rod to the 90 Degree side of the cone, I compare, the cone to the rod side, or flange, that is poured in alignment with the bolt holes, and that gives me an INSTANT ROD ALIGNMENT STATUS.

7. If the rod is bent right, or left, or if the Rod is twisted Right, or Left, you can see, and correct it easily. Now with that said, you still have the check alignment after machining, for twist, Bend, and Off Set, as that is the only thing that can cause piston Slap.

Pictures, if I can find something that matches.






Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 07:49 pm:

Good onya! Herm,
'Poured in alignment with the bolt holes'
isn't that a starting point?
The first Number 3 statement, how's that different to squaring the wrist pin to the bolt holes with out babbit.
If some one had removed a piston and twisted the rod in doing so, very easy to do, why do you persist in saying that a T rod has no starting point, it's not hard to check a rod to make sure that the pin is running parallel and square to the bolt holes, both are starting points, if I didn't check a rod first, as you are doing before machining, rod clamped using the wrist pin as the squaring guide, and still twisted and or bent, then the machining is not square or parallel to the bolt holes and parting line.
That's the nature of my machine set up.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 09:56 pm:

You have twisted my words Kerry, I didn't say pouring the babbitt to the bolt holes, put them in any kind of Alignment, before machining. Ford never machined the Model T, or Model A rods holding on to the bolts, and I don't know of any other Company that did either, no other car, or tractor rods that I have done used the bolts to machine from. Even 216 Chevys, had a flat on either side of the rod the hold the Rod in the rear. I said the babbitt sides were poured to the bolt holes, and that has nothing to do with putting the Rod in alignment, but that is giving the crank end of the rod now, a base for alignment to be checked, but in the process, the bolts are being Ignored!



Kerry, I know it is hard for me to explain to some one, meaning you, about bearing building, when you are self taught, and only know about 0.001 percent of what there is to know about bearing Rebuilding! If you knew the rest of it, you wouldn't even have asked a question like that!

Kerry, it would be like me asking you the proper way to saddle a Kangaroo! I just don't know.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 11:30 pm:

Don't accuse me of being ignorant on the ways of machining.
How is it not, 'any kind of alignment.
No 6 and your photo's show it all. If the babbit wasn't square to your starting point of the bolts, the rest of the rod could be pointing up the wahzoo of my Kangaroo.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 12:34 am:

Kerry, the whole last Post a few months ago, you said rods had to be straightened before pouring, and then when you machined them, you didn't have to check them for Alignment, as your milling machine bored them perfect, and we all know that is B.S., as that is all wrong, in fact I told you it would do more harm then good, and that still stands, as all you could do is make the bolts at a 90 degree, to the wrist pin.

But you still have bend, and Off set to contend with, and ANY BENDING with out knowing where you are going, and I assure you, you don't. Most of the time, bend, and or off set will take the other further away, and when you start moving twist around, with out any knowledge of the other two, it makes it worse.

To make matters worse, when you use a pouring Jig that were made for small gas stations, to get a guy going, the rods can be way off in alignment, and the Rod gets poured in any Alignment Scenario.

Like I said, this is not worth my time trying to help you, and besides, my Customers, don't really care what your Customers end up with!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Huson, Berthoud, Co. on Sunday, October 14, 2012 - 02:59 am:

Kerry:

You might want to listen to what Herm says. I did my first T Motor 62 year ago and still listen and learn from Guys like Herm, Ron Patterson, RV Anderson and Glen Chaffin.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration