Crank shaft

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 2005: Crank shaft
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:21 am:

I thought I would post a couple of pictures of what I found in my engine.
Stamped on one of the weights is WISENBERG 31
and 12\77
Joecrank shaft


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:23 am:

one morecrank shaft


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim ( www.ModelTengine.com ) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:34 am:

Did you run it before you took it apart?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 02:23 pm:

Tim, if I had to make a guess the engine probable has over 20,000 miles on it. All the Babbitt is good with plenty of shims.
The engine is real smooth and I know it will do 65mph at about 3/4 throttle.
The fly wheel and transmission parts are balanced also.
I think all I will have to do is put in new rings along with a Stipe cam.

Joe


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack Jeffrey Cole on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 03:02 pm:

Is there info avaliable on how to balance these parts? I doubt I have the equipment to do it but it would be intresting to learn more and understand more about how it is done.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim ( www.ModelTengine.com ) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 03:15 pm:

Joe, 65 is up in the range where you probably would need the counterweights! What prompted the tear down?

Mack, We used a computer to balance down to the gram.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim ( www.ModelTengine.com ) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 03:19 pm:

I was wrong..... Assuming full size T wheels and tires and a 3:1 rear end, 65 is only about 2100 rpm. From what I understand, counterweights don't come into play until you reach about 2500, and that is around the same point where regular oil begins to foam up.

I had to look it up, I noticed there was no pump on there and it started me wondering.

Looks like you got a good crank there Joe, if those weights were going to fly off, they probably would have done it by now. Just to be on the safe side, I'd have it magnafluxed before reassembling it. Just for peace of mind.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 08:12 pm:

What prompted the tear down?

It all started with replacing one rear axle. I got into the rear end with a Ruckstell and found some wear on the gears. While I am waiting for those parts I decided I needed to find the noise I would hear from time to time. Plus I knew it needed a valve job and I thought it might need new rings. (Bud Scutter can vouch for that.)
I think the noise was a wrist pin on #1. It is a little loose.
Today after checking the cylinders I decided to bore it .060 over size.

The tires are 21" and a 3:1 rear end.
65 is 2100rpm? I'm not to sure about that.
The Tactometer (if it is correct) shows 1000 rpm at 45mph and 1200 at 50mph. I didn't check it at 65mph because my wife was hollering at me and I was holding on.
Joe


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim ( www.ModelTengine.com ) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:36 pm:

Well, research I did years ago shows that Coker 21 T "economy" tires worked out to be 29.75" in diameter. BF Goodrich was 31.10 21" A's were 29.75 so I guessed at 30 for this one. 1000 rpm and 45 mph worked out to be a rear end ratio of about 2.08:1. My template jumps from 1000 to 1300, which shows at 58.5 mph, and then 1500 rpm at 67.5 mph. So either you have a wicked overdrive (warford maybe?) in there somewhere or my chart is completely no good?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 01:19 am:

3:1 gears make 32 rpm/mph.

50 mph = 1600 rpm

Joe, either your tach is lazy, or your speedo has dreams of grandeur.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 10:25 am:

Joe, either your tach is lazy, or your speedo has dreams of grandeur.

Ricks, you are probable right.
My speedo only goes to 45 and when it goes past 45 and back to 0 I figure it at about 50 to 55 mph.
The reason I know it will do 65 is because that is how fast the car beside me was going.

Tim, I measured my tires and they are 32.75.
What does your chart say to that?
Joe


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 10:38 am:

32.75" diameter is 16 3/8" radius. If you take away 3/8" for "squish" of the tire, that is a working radius of 16 inches. 630 revolutions per mile of the rear axle or 3 x 630 or 1,890 rpm at 60 mph or 31.7 mph/1000 rpm.

A tire that large sounds like a 5.50 x 21.

Sorry, I don't have, or need, a chart.

BTW, the crankshaft looks nice - a welded-up copy of a Sure Mike crank. Some folks say that welding on counterweights is folly. 20,000 miles goes a long way toward debunking another myth.

Seth


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kenneth H. Todd on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 11:26 am:

Joe, has that block been repaired at the left rear crankcase bolt hole?
The reason I ask is that I have a '23 block that has been repaired at that point, almost looks like a factory repair.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By warrenrollins on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 11:37 am:

Why do you plan to replace the camshaft if it runs that good? Just wondering


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 01:48 pm:

Just out of curiousity; how safe is 65 in a T?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 02:48 pm:

"Just out of curiousity; how safe is 65 in a T?"

I could tell you 65 in a T with good front brakes is no less safe than 65 on a motorcycle, but that would start an argument, so I won't tell you that...

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 02:48 pm:

"Just out of curiousity; how safe is 65 in a T?"

I could tell you 65 in a T with good front brakes is no less safe than 65 on a motorcycle, but that would start an argument, so I won't tell you that...

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 03:05 pm:

Kenneth, the block is at the machine shop. I'll check and let you know.

Warren, I had some loose wrist pins, the rings were bad and It needed a valve job. Looking at the wear on other things I decided that I would just rebuild the engine and put in the Stipe cam.

Just out of curiousity; how safe is 65 in a T?
Richard, not very safe. I personally wouldn't recommend it. I have done it twice just to see if it would.
Normally I drive 35 to 45.
Joe


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 03:58 pm:

Rick

I have seen you post this photo of a freeway in the past. What are we looking for in it?

I was never too good at finding waldo, and unfortunately I doubt that the object of interest in this picture is stripped in red and white.

Richard


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By gene k. french on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 04:15 pm:

Joe:
can not be absolutely sure but the crankshaft marked "wisenberg 31" may heve been built by Roy Wisenberg in Denver...
Roy pased away several months ago at age 90...he was a longtime antique car and aircraft hobbiest...roy was noted for his engineering changes to both antique engines and aircraft
roy built a copy of the Sure-mic" crankshaft for a while...Western Foundry" in Longmont cast counterweighted crankshafts for Roy ...unfortunatly the shrinkage was not properly calculated so the crankshaft was too short,and rod throws were out of position...much machining had to be done to block and rods to fit crank in engine block...
Western foundry has cast several crankshafts for me also...were for very early engines of obscure type
i have also added weights in the same fashion as the crank in picture...it works ...care in welding and inspection is necessary
hope this adds some correct information ?
best regards


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 04:27 pm:

The folded brass Mezger Automatic windshield is at the bottom of the pic, which was taken by my passenger, President of LMBTC, who actually rode with me by choice.

Here's a semi-famous bridge, but the speeds are slower. Note the motometer in corner.
rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 07:00 pm:

Thank you for clearing that up for me. The first time you posted it, I thought it could have been a windshield, then I dismissed it thinking it was one of those fancy barriers to keep people out of the HOV lane. I then figured the guy in the red minivan was a bit of a rebel soon to be suprised....

Now it all makes sense.

Richard


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kenneth H. Todd on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 11:30 am:

Joe, did you ever get a chance to inspect the block regarding a weld repair?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 07:11 pm:

Kenneth, I'm glad you reminded me.
I just checked and I don't see a repair of any kind.
Joelamp


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 08:12 pm:

It is unfortunate that Mr. Wisenberg has gone to the great model T land. I would be really interested to learn more about the welding process he used.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 09:37 pm:

Less,
I don't know a lot about welding.
I just checked it with a file and it is harder than the crank shaft.
Sorry I mis splelled the name. It is Eisenberg.
Stamped on the end of one weight is Eisenberg 31.
On another is 12-77. I guess that would be the date the engine was built or maybe just the crank.
Joe


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Sven Jakobsson on Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 01:20 pm:

Joe,
Just a thought. If those counterweights are designed for cast iron piston, how will they then work with new aluminum pistons (if you fit that)?
Best regards, Sven


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Joe Jeffers on Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 06:37 pm:

Sven,It had aluminum pistons it it. .040 over.
I bored it .060 over size.
The old pistons were 15 grams lighter than the new ones. We machined 11 grams off the new ones.
Joe


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck on Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 06:49 pm:

Sven,

Those counterweights are not big enough to balance even the big ends of the connecting rods and the crankpin journal - in other words, not even all of the rotating mass couple is balanced.

Since all of the rotating mass couple must be balanced first, none of the reciprocating mass is being balanced - so they were not designed for either iron or aluminum pistons.

Any T engine, whether it has a counterweighted crankshaft or not, benefits from aluminum pistons because they weigh about a pound less each.

Seth


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Sven Jakobsson on Monday, March 03, 2008 - 01:05 pm:

Seth,
Hmmm, looking at the crankshaft picture again, I see what you mean.
Best regards /Sven


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