Tripple Gear Bushing

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 2013: Tripple Gear Bushing
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Gregory on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:41 pm:

What size reamer will i have to get to ream the tripple gear bushings


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By J and M Machine Co Inc on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:57 pm:

Gary:
It all depends on the size of the triple gear pin.
lately we have seen two different sizes coming from the suppliers.
before rushing out to buy a reamer I would measure the pins you have.

I wouldn't recommend just reaming them; when you install the bushings they distort and there's no guarantee they remain on center.

I bore them first and then hone out the last two to three thousands so it's a perfect fit to the pin.
The accepted clearance is about 2 to 2 1/2 thousandths.




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By R.V. Anderson on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:58 pm:

You will need to ream them to fit your pins, assuming they are round. What size are they?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Gregory on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:05 pm:

Have new pins and bushings...not sure what size.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:09 pm:

The "book size" of the pins is .675" and the bushings are reamed to .677" (.002" clearance). But check your pins and proceed accordingly.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:33 pm:

0.002 is too tight. Should be 0.004. Better too loose than too tight.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:44 pm:

I think the new pins are of a poor finish, I put the fly wheel end of the pin in the lathe and with fine grid paper, polish the pin to a mirror finish at high speed. Then ream the fitted bush to size.
Also agreeing with Ted.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Don Skille on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:47 pm:

I agree with Ted. At least some of the Montana 500 boys run .005


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 10:56 pm:

The last time I said this I was called every name in the book including dummy.When will this argument stop? Ford did not say 0.002 clearance. He said 0.002 running fit which means 0.004 clearance. Ford then went on to say if there was more than 0.005 clearance to replace the bushing. I think this is very clear.If you set the bushings up any tighter than 0.004 they will seize on the pins.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 11:20 pm:

Glen is right, Glen is right, Glen is right. I think he knows what he is talking about. Precision fitting transmission bushings to a 0.002 diametral clearance will guarantee you a noisy transmission and likely some seized bushings and a real mess.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 11:44 pm:

I'm embarrassed Ted. No one agrees with me on this. But I will say this, none of the transmissions we have built have ever seized up. Thanks for the support.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 01:18 am:

K.R. Wilson reamers make the bushings .003 bigger then the standard size Ford pin which are.676-50 to .677, the reamer hole comes out Exactly at .680.


All 3 sets of Wilson reamers I have, cut them all the same size, and 2 sets were N.O.S. when I got them.

A running fit is no more then moving fit, as opposed to a slip fit, or one that is not going to run.

.002 will in most cases stick on the pins, and turn in the gears, if they don't break the pins first. I do know a too large of a clearance on the triple gear shaft will tip up the gear away from the drum gears, and eat into the flywheel.

Yup, you can run .004 thousandths on the pins and they will run, but not without undue wear.

Just like setting rods and mains at .003, clearance, instead of .001-25 to .001-50, they will run but not with un Due wear.

I can't help but think, If a Running fit of .002 really ment .004, why does the Wilson reamers cut them .003?

Also, you will notice the pictures in the shop Manual on Transmission repair, predate K.R. Wilson Tools.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 01:35 am:

Why would Ford call for a .004 clearance then call for replacement at .005? On reamer cut bushings, that's about 100 miles or less of service. Or you'll be driving around in a thrashing machine.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 02:06 am:

Yup, don't make sense does it!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 10:05 am:

Someone uploaded a Ford factory drawing of triple gears showing a .002" total clearance a couple years ago.
That's not to say that .002" is what to use on a rebuild. Its just that the same old discussion about what Ford used puzzles me.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Smith on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 10:20 am:

Doesn't the Ford Service Book specify a .0025" running fit? Ford does say to replace them at .005. I wish I had the reamers that Ken has, but I don't. I use an adjustable Critchly reamer, and have never had any triple gears seize up ever.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 12:53 pm:

You all missed the point. Why did Ford say set to 0.002 running clearance and then say replace if clearance exceeds 0.005. He didn't say 0.005 running clearance. These are two different specs. I believe that those making reamers in the old days also misunderstood Fords spec. I think that most of us agree that 0.002 clearance is too tight especially when we are driving the cars much faster today than they were designed to go. The specs for pistons, piston pins, piston rings, cam bushings, cam gears, and most every other bushing calls out clearance or side play. Ford used running clearance only for the transmission bushings. This is different and significant. So don't argue with me argue with Ford.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 02:58 pm:

Glen you would have made a good tax lawyer picking out subtle differences in language to support a position. Maybe the Franchise Tax Board is looking for new blood. ;^)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 03:20 pm:

It's not too tight with original bushings. The clearance had to be increased for modern replacements because the new bushings are a lower quality bronze and expand at a higher rate when heated.

The facts have already been presented numerous times, including drawings, proving the clearance was .002 on the original bushings. I don't know why you keep arguing otherwise.

Larry - I don't use reamers and neither did the Ford Factory for final clearance. Only repair shops used reamers.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 08:01 pm:

ken, Snyder's uses C92300 leaded Tin G Bronze for their bushings. This is as close to z-Bronze that you will ever get. It is virtually identical. We have tested several original Ford bushings, both used and new old stock and none of them match the original spec perfectly. They all vary. Snyder's bushings are as good or better than the originals so I do not believe this is a problem. Ford used the terms clearance, play or side play for every clearance in the Ford shop manual except for the Transmission bushings where he used Running fit. He would have done us all a favour if he had simply said 0.004 in. clearance. Then there would be no argument. You can believe what you want but I will never set a transmission up with 0.002 in. clearance. You are just asking for disaster.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 08:10 pm:

Glen is still correct. My view is transmissions are the strongest link in the power train and unless a drum is cracked they are best left alone. The spur gears have found a home and disturbing their routine often wakes up a screaming giant.

If a transmission must be rebushed then use an 0.004 diametral clearance.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Wayne Sheldon, Grass Valley, CA on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 02:39 am:

I agree with Ted D. Glen is right. What is wrong is the use of an imprecise language. I have practically given up on some of these arguments about fit. For me, myself, and I, I have begun referring to clearance and fit issues by including XthousandthsR or XthousandthsD for radius and diameter. It is pretty hard to misunderstand and easy to figure out.

Sadly, I have seen too many blown rebuilt model T transmissions, both in person, and on this site. Somehow, too many people are setting the bushings up TOO tight. If any reasonable oil can get in them, they will not get hot enough to expand enough more no matter what kind of brass is used. Expansion is a percentage of a size. Most things circle-shaped expand outward. If anything, expansion from heat should loosen the bushing on the pin, not tighten it. There are however, many factors to consider here.
As long as there is almost enough oil between the pin and the bushing, only the softest brasses could even begin to gall at even a hundred degrees over normal operating temperatures found in a T engine. They will gall, seize, and spin in the gear or break the pin only if they are not getting enough oil. Bushings too tight on pins does not allow enough oil in.
Too loose will eventually chew up the gears, hammer the pins loose (which becomes self compounding), or become so noisy that you give up and park it.

One other thing that I have mentioned in previous threads.
Make sure the new bushing is plenty tight inside the gear. Most of the original gears I have (a bunch) were never machined smooth inside. That is okay, except what has happened, over many years of abusive use, is that the original bushing wore the "high spots" off the inside of the gear. It is no longer the hard press fit it was when new. It also no longer has the "teeth" that original rough finish had.
New bushings or old. If the bushing isn't locked into the gear, it will as likely lock onto the pin. About two years ago, after a similar discussion, I looked at several gears I had. There is a several thousandths variation in the gears themselves for bushing fit.
Check your bushing fit! And make sure the bushing does not want to spin in the gear.
And do not set the bushing-on-the-pin clearance too tight. .004D minimum.
Drive carefully, and enjoy, W2


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 07:41 am:

The specs in the Ford manual are what was acceptable during engine / transmission overhaul. If there was .005" clearance found on in service gears then it was acceptable to reassemble with good expectation that the bushings would last until the next overhaul.

Again this is an inspection of used, otherwise damage free Ford parts.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George_Cherry Hill NJ on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 09:40 am:

You know guys and girls...

This is actually a GOOD thread on this topic (for once)

IMHO, the 'facts' relating to 'dimension' are totally correct so far right up and including Royce above. Any 'personalities' with personal rationalizations trying to justify the 'fact' will always be what they are. No real need to rationalize...simply say FACT based on modern experience!

The goal as I have always seen it is to come up with a plug-n-play way for an Average Joe with reasonable skills to be able to keep his T going reliably and to alert them to the pitfalls of why transmissions have an inherent desire to swallow themselves BEFORE they lap in to final operating conditions. No matter how we as a group arrive at a good plan, there will still be a few newbies who think they can pull a pin out from the triple side :-(

I don't believe anyone has done more actual research and expensive forensics more than me. Not a brag, just a fact. I have not undertaken this Don Quixote quest to disprove the Average Joe approach to plug-n-play, not at all. Guess who actually belongs to the 0.004" club? :-):-)

We will always have 'some' who want to try and do better in the sense of trying to match Ford 'originality'. My own forensics and research have convinced me that Ford did do as claimed and I have my own thoughts as to why this was possible 'then' and why even the best of machine tools and best of white haired knowledge and 'hands' have not been able to replicate it today. This small group mentioned will always know the risk involved, always be willing to do a further tear down (or tear downs) if that be the case and yes it gives them bragging rights when and if successful...but in the end what they can do or maybe achieve vs. what the Average Joe can do and also have available to him as 'tools' are on two different planets!

Keep the thread positive, good sound dimension 'facts' for the Average Joe who wants to tackle a rebuild himself is where it is heading and I hope it stays that way. For that other crowd...play nice and don't water it down with diversions...pretty please :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Gregory on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 11:35 am:

Well said George! Of course I want the bushings correct but all these different opinions can be overwhelming for a newbe like me!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 12:12 pm:

Kerry,
My personal opinion is some what the same as yours.
If you look at the thred What am I looking at posted January 13th The picture at the top is a new pin full screen at about 200 power. As you can see its rough.
The picture below it is a new pin with several trys to make it smooth. It was pushed backward through a used bushing for an arbor to expose the bushing end for modifying.
Starting with 400 grit--then 1200-- and last--2000 grit it now has a nice finish. But thats half the issue, the other half is the bushing.
After lapping the pin with the finest yellow timesaver in the lathe each pin will be matched to its own tripple gear bushing.
The total amount removed on a pin is about 1 thou.
The parts I checked for a number for finish will be rechecked with a better checker and an engineer doing the checking.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 01:09 pm:

I went and dug up a set of N.O.S. Triple gears, I also have Samples of the other N.O.S. parts of the Transmissions somewhere.

All Ford replacement parts in the Transmissions, are ready to use, all machining was done.

I checked the calibration of the mike, and measured the hole size in all 3 and they all came out to .680 minus .000-10 of a thousandths, Wilson reamer is a .680 hole.

The thrust sticks past the gear from .008 thousandths to .010 thousandths. The variance comes from the gears not being machined together, but riveted together, and the side of the gear not being finished off.

The mic I used is the one I use on Model T cam bearings, it gets the same reading same hole every time right to a 1/10 of a thousandths.

All the N.O.S. parts I have, came out of Ford Garages in the late 50's, and early 60's.

Well, this is all I can offer for Spec's.






Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Adam Doleshal on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 01:12 pm:

I target the bore in the bushing to be .0035" larger than the pin. I rough hone with a sunnen stone that is around 320 grit, and finish out the last couple tenths of a thousandth with a 600 grit stone, and then finish the bores with a micro-finishing hone (brush style).

The new pin needs to have all the little dings and dents smoothed off of its surface and then needs to be polished before use.

I've done a few dozen transmissions this way in the last couple years and have had no issues or abnormally loud transmissions.

I'm curious about the photo of the triple gear in the lathe chuck that is posted above... Must be a damn good 3-jaw chuck and an EXTRAORDINARILY good triple gear to just be able to grab the tips of the gear teeth with a plain old three-jaw chuck and end up with the bushing bored exactly concentric with the pitch of the gear teeth...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Scott Conger on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 01:22 pm:

The following is a cut/paste and I am not the author:
*A specific degree of surface roughness is also required in order to accommodate wear-in of certain parts. Most new moving parts do not attain a condition of complete lubrication as a result of imperfect geometry, running clearances, and thermal distortions. Therefore, the surfaces must wear in by a process of actual removal of metal. The surface finish must be a compromise between sufficient roughness for proper wear-in and sufficient smoothness for expected service life*

Now, my comments: looking at your Jan 13 post, if the pin was a 32Ra finish, then it was too rough (but at high enough power, even 1u"Ra can look rough, so be careful with magnification). No more than 7X would be typically used to evaluate surface finish (not 200). However, in any effort to reduce surface finish, you should use caution when altering surface finishes so as to not alter straightness during the effort. You only control that if you use a lap somewhat shorter than the shaft, and run the lap past the end of the shaft...and use great care, turning the lap periodically end for end. Similarly, the bushing should be lapped with a lap that is longer than the bushing, with the bushing being run off the end of the lap slightly, and periodically being turned end for end.

Even more importantly, a non-embedding material, such as garnet or products such as Time Saver, should be used on soft materials like bronze, so as to not impregnate the bronze and turn it into the actual lap. This is a slurry lap, and will slightly round off the very ends of the part if you measured with a Form Taly Surf (not really a worry here so long as there is no bell-mouthing of the bushing, effectively reducing it's bearing length). In fact, a bronze bushing, hard charged with a lapping compound such as diamond works well at lapping much harder shafts (Hyprez, Engis and Spectrum compound work well here). No extra compound is added after the lap is charged...only a fine oil is used to lubricate the part. This is called dry lapping.

Lapping/honing and polishing are really two different things, created in different ways and you really want to avoid polishing, as a polished part will not maintain the same boundary lubricant condition that you are looking for. Using fine sandpaper on a rough pin as mentioned above really isn't polishing...but it will reduce the surface finish as desired (at the expense of straightness to some extent)...folks say "polish", but it's not really the right word to use here.

To folks like me who will build transmission bushings to looser fits, this is all pretty esoteric, but I think that many times, folks who build to close fits and experience premature failure have torpedoed their own efforts by the methods that they used to create the close fit. Additionally, I believe that folks who have successfully built transmissions to closer fits have enjoyed success specifically due to the methods they employed and finishes they achieved.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Scott Conger on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 01:59 pm:

I was typing while Adam was posting :-)

Reading what Adam does, tells me that it will give the size, straightness and surface finish which will give a very nice bearing.

Additionally, while reamers were/are used successfully for repairs, many, if not most people are not aware that they do not produce round holes...rounder than a drill, but still lobed. Boring will create a round hole so long as the lathe headstock bearings are in good shape, and there is no chatter... honing will create a round hole. Boring relies on fixturing and can actually move the location of the hole, while honing will work the existing hole in its original location, and will work nicely to finish a bored hole.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 02:08 pm:

Additionally, while reamers were/are used successfully for repairs, many, if not most people are not aware that they do not produce round holes."END QUOTE"

Not all reamers are created equal Scott. Have you ever Miced a Wilson reamer hole, I have.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Scott Conger on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 02:29 pm:

Hi Herm

I suspect that this will be a no-win discussion, but the following is generally accepted and can be found quickly with little effort in the world of micro machining and surface finish study:

One problem with standard reamers having evenly spaced teeth is that such reamers typically produce finished holes that have a lobed pattern. Lobing is caused in part by vibration and unequal rubbing forces on the reamer during operation, and often create form error that exceeds the allowable size tolerance specified in a given application, such as the tolerances specified in ASME Y14.5.

Now, to your challenge :-) I've miked many reamers. When new, good quality reamers are very precise. However, when measured closely enough, the holes they create are lobed. If you hone a reamed hole with an expanding hone, you will see that the first material removed is across several lines, running the length of the bore. If your clearance is around .003, the point is moot.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 02:55 pm:

Thanks Scott,
Your post sort of says what George was saying, we all have different tallents-----and tool quality.

Time saver does not polish in fact it will dull a finish, I have found that Timesaver mixed thin with transmission oil exposes a pin out of round with sanding. The triple gear is turned both ways for lapping in the lathe.

After seeing a 152 Perkins wrist pin at 200 power you cant see a grinding mark, those engines run 17 to 1 compression for a very long time.

There is plenty of sanding marks on the pin I sanded to run in. Before road use the rear wheels will be jacked off the floor with the transmission locked in low speed then reverse for say a half an hour each with a warm engine.

Two points I would like to know more about is shock load, every time you go from high to low at any speed there is a shock load.
Going from low to high after running for a time in high you would have boundrey oiling, the triple gears would be pushed out so the bushing would contact the pins. Just my thoughts!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 03:25 pm:

Very true Adam. Even with a Set True style adjustable chuck, there is no way to grab or index the triple gear to insure the bore is concentric with the gear pitch. The outside edge of the gear is not machined accurately and cannot be used for that purpose. You do better reaming the bushings because the inside bore of the gear hole is concentric with the gear pitch and assuming the bushing collapses evenly when pressed into the hole, the inside bore of the bushing will remain pretty much concentric with the gear pitch. Since a reamer follows the hole in the bushing, it gives a reasonably good job so far as concentricity is concerned.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 03:32 pm:

Very true Adam. Even with a Set True style chuck, there is no way to grab the triple gear to insure the bore is concentric with the gear pitch. The outside edge of the gears is not machined accurately. You do better reaming the bushings because the inside bore of the gear hole is concentric with the gear pitch and assuming the bushing collapses evenly when pressed into the hole, the inside bore of the bushing will remain pretty much concentric with the gear pitch. Since a reamer follows the hole in the bushing, it gives a reasonably good job so far as concentricity is concerned.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 03:33 pm:

Sorry for the double post


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 05:50 pm:


quote:

Even with a Set True style chuck, there is no way to grab the triple gear to insure the bore is concentric with the gear pitch.



There sure is! It will be as accurate as the gear.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By J and M Machine Co Inc on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 05:51 pm:

I'm glad I posted as this has turned into a very interested thread.
I do have very good tools by the way ;referring to the comment of my 3 jaw. Richard/Adam.

We do this for a living and this isn't a hobby of one or two engines.

We haven't had any failures. The O.D. is concentric as I typically check each set to ensure what I am doing to give good results.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 06:15 pm:

This is the way I do it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 07:06 pm:

Rich, the Wilson reamer does NOT follow the hole where the hole comes out at. The Wilson cuts a hole where ever you set the gear or drum to. If you didn't use a Jig, it would.

The Wilson reamers cut on the largest part of the reamer, and not on the sides as the sides just are for cleaning the brass reamings out.

Any triple gear I gave a spin in a lathe, the out side of the gear was on with the bushingless hole.

The main thing besides center is that it is cut to a 90 degrees to the gear.

Rich, if the out side of the gear in not centered with the hole, what do they line up on to cut the gear teeth?

How would you line up on the teeth any way, especially if worn?

Wilson uses the small gear O.D. to center for reaming.


Ken, I looked in the N.O.S. gears at the inside of the bushings, I can tell they were Not bored with any kind of a lathe, they were not broached, and they had 1/8 to 3/16 machine marks "in the same bushing" in them like a reamer, and it looks like they didn't take all day to do them.

I would think the boring tool would be a type of reamer, what say you, if not, what.

K.O.Lee expanding Mandrels, You always know how center is, or what is sprung. I have them from some where around, 1/4 inch up.

I use these Mandrels to true up the band surface, after reaming the bushings.

If you don't true the drums, it would be like putting on new brake pads, with old roters!




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 08:21 pm:

Herm, if the outside of the gear is concentric with the bushingless hole then I see no problem grabbing the gear by the teeth to center the cut. You asked how would they cut the gear teeth except by reference to the outside of the gear. I think the gear teeth were cut by reference to the hole where the bushing goes. That's why I think the ID of the pressed in bushing is fairly concentric with the gear tooth pitch and allows a reamer which follows the hole to give good results.
Ken, yours is an excellent idea. I have a Set True adjustable chuck. I am wondering what I can measure to adjust and center the cut. Usually I use a dial indicator to measure the piece and adjust accordingly, but in this case there is really nothing except perhaps the pins that I could rely on.
Really good input, thanks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 08:29 pm:

Herm, if the outside of the gear is concentric with the bushingless hole then I see no problem grabbing the gear by the teeth to center the cut. You asked how would they cut the gear teeth except by reference to the outside of the gear. I think the gear teeth were cut by reference to the hole where the bushing goes. That's why I think the ID of the pressed in bushing is fairly concentric with the gear tooth pitch and allows a reamer which follows the hole to give good results.
Ken, yours is an excellent idea. I have a Set True adjustable chuck. I am wondering what I can measure to adjust and center the cut. Usually I use a dial indicator to measure the piece and adjust accordingly, but in this case there is really nothing except perhaps the pins that I could rely on.
Really good input, thanks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 10:32 pm:

Additionally, while reamers were/are used successfully for repairs, many, if not most people are not aware that they do not produce round holes"END QUOTE"

If that is true, the out side of the gear should be true to the center, as it is a machined surface, and the Wilson Jig centers off the O.D.

If you center off a used gear on the pitch as it would have wear, I just don't see how it could be as accurate as the O.D., especially if the gear tooth like so many did not line up, and a few thousandths had not touched another gear at all, but the O.D. does not wear.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan McEachern on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 11:33 pm:

I can assure everyone reading this that the OD of the gear teeth on these parts are not concentric with the gear teeth. After having indicated hundreds of these things over pins I can say this with more than just a guess. The three piece gears are much better in this respect than the 1 piece gears- better, but not perfect.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 09:42 am:

Interesting method Ken. Its fun to learn other methods. What do you use a roller bearing?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Musegh Kalon on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 10:52 am:

Dan:
When can we expect some new triple gears?
Been waiting for almost 2 years now!
Thanks


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 01:52 pm:

Musegh. We have new triple gears. We also have a lot of good used ones.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George_Cherry Hill NJ on Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 08:19 am:

As a thought, that probably is a brain-f**t…but I’ll share the thought anyway.

One of the best ‘helper’ books I’ve seen is the MTFCA green book on rebuilding the transmission. Lot’s of great information that points out most of the ‘how’s’ and ‘why’s’.

Perhaps we could coerce the author and contributors to take a look at it with the idea of an updated edition? As the late Bruce pointed out in all of his own works…times change and information evolves and that is why he went to CD editions...each time he’d find a new tid-bit of solid information or a new view towards something he’d update his hard drive. Not asking for a constantly updated work here as those sometimes daily and weekly updates Bruce would do were his personal passion and ‘gift’ to the hobby but maybe every now and then an editorial review as an idea on these MTFCA booklets?

We have some guys who have access to machine tools with 6th decimal place accuracy spindle control, some who have the real KRW type aftermarket tools and fixtures, and some guys who think they are good enough to go at it with a standard stock reamer. Maybe somehow a review of the prior work could take these possible variations into consideration?

The forum is a great tool for info and advice…but as Gary points out, a seemingly simple question (in this case on anything transmission) turns into almost an immediate overwhelming flood of sometimes conflicting information for a newbie.

Think about it...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Musegh Kalon on Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 05:01 pm:

Glen:
Are those Dan's gears or Gearless?
I am waiting for Dan's gears as they fit perfect.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 09:01 pm:

Musergh, Yes, we buy our gears from Gearless and have had no problems. They make a lot of the Model T gears. Crank, Cam, Generator, Steering Column, speedometer And transmission. It might be along wait with Dan.


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