This morning I went to look at a 1911 touring car that had an engine knock. I pulled the lower cover and found a broken crankshaft. The car's owner wants a new one rather than installing another original. My question is which one should he buy? I have read on this forum about certain new crankshafts breaking. He needs a non-drilled crankshaft with stock bearing journals and stock stroke. Which one of the new crankshafts is best?
I would go with the Scat T replacement. There has been no breakages that I am aware of regarding a Scat crankshaft. It is pricey at 1200.00.
scat, i agree..
Here is a Dubats crankshaft. Made in USA. Happy 4 th of July.
I'm with Gary. To my knowledge, the cranks made by Bill Dubats are the only current American made cranks that can be installed without modification the the block or pan. I have heard of no failures of his cranks either.
How come the throws between cylinders 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, of the Dubats crank, look suspiciously like a Model A? Is that intentional?
There is a new BU-MAC crank on USA Ebay at the moment.
Bu-Mac, or Du-Break? Why do you think he's trying to get rid of it. This is at least the third time I've seen it on Ebay and he's lowered the price every time. Nobody will buy it because of their reputation. I'd rather take my chances on a SureMike.
Does someone have a Sure Mike crank for sale?
I bought and installed a Dubats crank before the Scats were available and am very happy with it. It certainly was finished very nicely.
Time will tell but the counterbalancing must be a real advantage for the motor over an original hairpin design.
Terry, It seems that you're equating the quality, American made, austempered ductile iron (ADI) cranks produced by Bill Dubats, with the much maligned, failure prone, SG iron New Zeland cranks. If so, you're comparing apples to turds.
Bill is a friend of mine, so I'll clear that up right away. But, he is also an engineer and he did all his homework with this project to produce a crankshaft that would surpass all available reproduction crankshafts available at the time of production. He chose to use ADI because it was economical, more fatigue resistant than forged steel and could be used to make a properly counterbalanced crankshaft that would fit without modification of the Model T block and crankcase.
I researched Austenitic Ductile Iron fatigue properties and compared them to 4340 as rolled in Mil Std 5. The ADI material is equal in fatigue. My suggestion to any one is call Bill Dubats, find out what he has done and check it out. The secret is the microstructure produced by the ADI process and the properties that result.
Eric, I didn't mean to belittle Bill Dubat or his cranks. My reference was only meant to point toward the BuMac crank, which has the poor reputation in the US. When I wrote "Du Break", I was referring, again, to the BuMac crank. I can see the similarity of my choice of phrase to "Dubats". My apologises to him. I'm sure he makes a superior product to the BuMac.
Oh, and Royce, someone on ebay has been tying to sell one and the last price it was offered at was, I think, $1000. Not to be confused with the BuMac.
Eric;; When I put in a standard S.C.A.T. crank I made no modifications the block, and the rear counterweight lightly rubbed the nut plate. I could have used a Dremel for 5 minutes, but I split the plate and anchored the two pieces with Right-Stuff to the pan. In the picture the amount of rubbing is easily seen.
Eric, I had the same experience as Jim Weir in putting in a standard S.C.A.T. crank but did not have any rubbing.
Does Bill Dubats have a website? I'd love to get more information on his cranks.
Bill is also a friend of mine and to the best of my knowledge he no longer is producing these, but may have a crankshaft or two left, but these are seconds, because the had to be ground smaller than standard. He couldn't compete with the foreign made crankshaft market.
The 1923-28 Chevy crank is same stroke as T, but 25 lbs vs. 15 lbs for T crank. T nose and flange conversion costs about $200+.
Mine uses 1.5 inch Chevy rods, with 1.6 inch mains, and special pistons. I wonder if anybody has ground the journals down to T size? Chevy cranks are cheap.
I would look at that, rather than $1200 for new.
The Scat crank is forged outside of the US true, but is machined here in the states. Not sure that makes it foreign made as many Mfg's are out sourcing castings and steel, sorry it is just a fact of life today.
As stated above most of the installs will require some work on the rear horse shoe of the inspection cover, never had to do anything to the block. I have installed over 20 Scat cranks.
If putting in the stoker Scat crank it will require dimpling the oil pan for clearance of the rod cap bolts when using Model A type rods.
I reluctantly closed my “Made in USA” crankshaft business over a year ago. I never heard of any breakage, and never grew tired of getting calls saying this crank “made the smoothest running T engine I have ever driven”. There were some negative and incorrect postings such as “a cast iron piece is likely to break…” No sense in trying to correct all the ignorance in the world, but heat treated ductile iron is very unlike cast grey iron in strength, E Modulus and toughness.
With the SCAT crank available, there was no need to continue my less cost efficient manufacturing plan. We did spectrometer testing on an early SCAT and found it was NOT the 4340 alloy claimed, but much closer to 4140. The Chinese only cut corners on one ingredient – the most expensive one, nickel. It has about ½ the amount to make it 4340, but that is moot, because to be stronger and tougher, 4340 would require a complex double heat treat process. As used, 4130 might have been a better material, less prone to stress hardening and embrittlment.
We also noted that the SCAT steel was the “dirtiest” steel I have ever seen. (sulfur and prosperous are “dirt”” in alloy steel.). Also did a hi-def. X ray of a new SCAT, and found it laced with tiny random spider web like inclusions. A metallurgist friend identified them as “sulfur strings” caused by excessive amorphous sulfur in a forging. Even so, and despite their high weight and over damping of cylinders 1 & 2, SCAT cranks seem to be working out OK.
You have produced a quality item .
You are correct "No sense in trying to correct all the ignorance in the world" .... amazing all the metallurgists that come out of the woodwork to express their take on your formula.
Thank you for your work.
Bill you and Mike Kossor belong to the same club of guys that produced a Quality product that all the " X" perts here love to discredit others work.
Your right, your counterbalanced crank makes the smoothest running T engine!
I didn't know their was a weight difference with the Scat? How much does your crank weigh?
Thanks for a great product and sorry to hear they're not available.
That's one heck of a lot of work down the drain. I would call it a damn shame.
Is there any inventory or are they all gone?
I am looking around trying to find the metallurgists who said anything bad about the Dubats crank - I don't see any of them. No doubt Austenetic Ductile Iron - known as crankshaft grade high nodular iron to Ford FE enthusiasts - is a great choice for a T crankshaft.
I don't see how this has anything to do with Mike Kossor but Bob J. is still in the marketing department and evidently has to say something like this in every post.......
There ya go, Bill.....
You have the stamp of approval from Royce Petersin.
No only if he could get off his high horse before the nosebleed ?????
Any metallurgist worth their salt will tell you Bill is right on with ADI. There is plenty of documentation verifying the properties of ADI.
As my friend Joe Moore, now passed, said many times: Science and engineering will never overcome ignorance and superstition.
Thanks for the good words and thoughts guys.
Using round numbers, the stock T crank weighs about 17 lbs, the USA crank weighs 27# and the SCAT crank weighs 34#. The Bu Mac weighed about 28#, and the SurMic weighs about 19# (if you put the 2 pieces together).
Some of my analysis had to do with quarter dampening. The nice about ductile (w. or w/o Austempering) is that it tends to absorb shock and vibration, whereas steel effectively transmits vibration. Yes, the oblique torque arms do look a lot like Model A cranks, which are remarkably durable.
I am out of inventory. Turning away good friends hurts, but restarting production is not economical.
Well Bill, I guess I'll have to empty my piggy bank out somewhere else. I looked at your cranks at the tour in Rochester a couple years ago and decided I was going to buy one when I got the money rounded up. Sorry it didn't work out for you, I thought they looked great and you obviously know what you are doing.
I've never heard any "X perts" try to discredit the Dubats crank, as suggested above. I've only heard it spoken of in the best terms.
I had the privilege of speaking with Mr. Dubats several years ago in Chickasha, OK, just before he introduced his crankshafts. In talking, he discovered that I am a mechanical engineer and so he began to cut loose with all manner of technical jargon that he assumed I would know. To some extent I could roughly follow what he was saying. However, the 2 main things I concluded were this; 1. He was going to make a damn good crankshaft. 2. He was far and away a better engineer than me.
Hats off to you sir. Sorry to hear you've retired from the crankshaft business.
I was fortunate enough to buy one of Bill's crankshafts while they were available... Now I just have to break my car so I can justify the rebuild to install it.
I'm only going to comment once ....
If "someone" took the effort to read and comprehend my post:
You have produced a quality item .
You are correct "No sense in trying to correct all the ignorance in the world" .... amazing all the metallurgists that come out of the woodwork to express their take on your formula."
...agreeing with Bill with the negativity he endured, while Gene commented the similarity that
Mike Kossor endured.
I also agree with Gene's comments on the posting negativity, just because Gene commented did not hide the fact that I thought the same correlation, just did not post my opinion....
Then the Petersin post:
"I don't see how this has anything to do with Mike Kossor but Bob J. is still in the marketing department and evidently has to say something like this in every post......."
The challenge of anyone investing their money and time to manufacture quality replacement or improved items,research, trial & error, leading to the eventual product, advertising, ..... only to be vilified by a ignorant gallery.....puts a damper on future manufacture and acceptance.
Not afraid of going out on a limb, BUT if Lang's, John Regan or Ron Patterson produced the SCAT crankshaft or the E-Timer, would there be the same negativity ???? Think about that.
The "little" guys still come out with quality ideas and products.
Gotta do your homework before being a professional againster.
Again, Bill, Thank You.
and Thank You Mike Kossor.
....and thanks to anyone who has the guts to do what these gentelmen have accomplished.
Excuse my wrong thought above, meant to say "Made in USA" Dubats crankshaft instead of SCAT.
Bill, how many prepaid orders would it take to make production economical for you? Might not that be a reasonable way to approach the problem of committing resources to a project with minimal economic risk to you. You have a proven formula that people clearly have confidence in so committing to purchase one or more of you crankshafts would make sense to me and I assume enough others to make it work.
I would be on board with getting one of Bill's crankshafts if I knew when they were going to be available. I can't get one today, but if enough people signed up and then they were available in a few months, I'd be ready to pay for one.
Count me in for a Dubats crankshaft.
Mr. Dubats has done all of the hard work already if I understand correctly. It's just a matter of having enough orders for the price to be right (and for there to be enough orders) to make another production run make sense.
I don't know what the magic numbers are, but I bet if you get a waiting list going, you can then have everyone pay, and then they receive their brand new crank in X number of weeks. I personally wouldn't have a problem with waiting a while, even after I paid, for such a high quality part.
I would be on board to buy a new Dubats crankshaft. I don't have an issue with paying in advance and waiting (hopefully less than a year) until the parts were produced. Heck, I might buy two....
I guess the important person that needs to weigh in is Bill himself.
I also would be interested in one of Bill's cranks
In case you want to read about Austempering. It is just plain incorrect to say the crank is Austenectic. For the crank to be austenectic it would have to be CONSIDERABLY less magnetic
A quick question: If you were buying a counter-balanced crankshaft today, what would you buy?
PM’s have asked if I was the metals guru that had negative things to say on the ADI crank material.
NOPE! I’ve liked what Bill was putting together even before he offered it for sale!
No need to get overly technical about it, Bill did his homework right from the outset. While some may want to debate that ADI wants to behave a little different than forged steel...Bill more than made up for the differences in possible behavior in the way he built in the counter weights and the throws. It comes out being a slightly stiffer shaft on a 3-point (4 point) bearing load…has an endurance limit that will exceed anything forged in the era and maybe even today…and if poured correctly which I’ll just take for granted that he does as the technology today exists to do Ductile pours with no ‘gas traps’ does exist before you even do a trial pour...those little spider crack things and occlusions that are part of folded forging technology that eventually become the origination points in failure just don’t get trapped in there in the first place!
That said, this is not a knock on the current forged steel versions…the predicted endurance limit for both mounted correctly ‘might’ be out in the 22nd century anyway. Point is, Bill did his homework IMHO, and did all the right things in making his product. Comparing what Bill did to any other cast-iron crank product is actually apples and oranges.
So far in just this thread there are 7 folks that would buy a Dubats crank (one or two might buy more than one) if they were available and no one has said they wouldn't be willing to wait after paying up front. If Mr. Dubats gets back on and checks this thread maybe he can/will give us some numbers in terms of how many orders he needs at a minimum and what the resulting cost per crank would be.
I bet if I start a different thread "Bill Dubats Crankshaft Waiting List" even more people would sign up, since we've drifted a bit off topic from the original post.
A little history.
Chrysler put its first nodular iron crankshaft in production in 1970 when the 360 cubic inch V-8 engine went into production at the Windsor, Ontario, engine plant. Others followed later. Iron is less dense than steel, so some of these cranks were "externally balanced", meaning that additional balancing was needed at the flywheel and/or the torsional damper at the front (welded on balancing tabs on the torque converter). A lot was learned about the grinding and polishing process. Grinding could raise micro-sharp edges on "ferrite caps" in the cast structure, and if these were not polished in the opposite direction so as to break the sharp edge, it would "eat" bearing material very quickly.
When something stronger was needed for higher performance, austempering was looked at, so the process obviously is capable of producing a quality product. However, in the volumes needed by an entity like Chrysler, it was concluded that they did not have the technology to adequately control the process to assure the necessary quality. In the volumes Bill Dubats operates, the process should be very well controllable, and I am sure it was/is.
I am not a metallurgist, but I worked around enough of them to have picked up enough just to make me dangerous!
I have installed several SCAT cranks with good results. They are heavy, run smooth and are perfectly balanced right out of the box. On the down side, they tend to run large on the journal size, as if SCAT builds the bearing clearance into the bearing rather than the shaft size. This has caused problems with bearings bored to Ford specs being tight on the SCAT crank. The A stroke crank requires mods to the crankcase for clearance.
I have also installed one Dubats crank. The shaft size was just right and it fit in the block beautifully. I did not have the balance checked so I can not comment on that. I will say that the casting was not perfect as there were two journals with voids or inclusions visible that did not clean up when the shaft was ground. That being said I sent the job out with confidence and I will install either a Dubats or SCATcrank with my name on the job.
Ford used crankshaft grade nodular iron for its new FE (Ford - Edsel) series engine crankshafts beginning in 1958. The 332 / 352 / 361 / 390 / 410 / 427 / 428 engines were made in the millions. The crankshafts have proven to be extraordinarily durable.
Yes, some of the 427's used forged cranks.
It's a pity Bill stopped production. It's not good for anybody (except those who have the monopoly) when there's no competition.
Bill, perhaps you can sell your blueprints/business on to someone? I believe there is someone in the USA producing a good quality Model A crank apart from SCAT. Perhaps they can take on making your T crank?