Should I install oil dippers?

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 2015: Should I install oil dippers?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Walter Rees on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:02 pm:

What is the best way to install oil dippers on caps that have no hole?: I have not taken caps off yet. Engine #5,987,825, titled as a 1923 but looks more like '22 or early '23.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kevin Whelihan Danbury, WI on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:29 pm:

Are you referring to the connecting rod caps? If so, you just drill a hole (Need some help with correct size guys), most folks groove and "X" in the babbitt if the connecting rod cap as well. Then install with the scoop facing towards the rotation of the crankshaft. I believe all the vendors that sell them have the instructions with the dippers. Not a complex job at all.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By joe bell on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:34 pm:

I install them all the time, I drill the hole to the back of the cap instead of the center, If you think where the crank is as it is going through the pan there is not much clearance for oil but as the crank is pulling the rod forward there is.001 clearance at the back of the rod. Some old boy told me this story, made sense to me so I bit on it. Grooving why waste the time and why remove bearing surface? Oil is going to get in either way.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:36 pm:

Walter, that number is listed for Monday, May 15, 1922.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:39 pm:

I read about Dean Yoder's experience getting more miles from non X-ed babbitt in his rods so I installed dippers without drilling any hole in the cap.. Reasoning the dippers may whirl more oil mist into the crank case, improving the oil access for the rods without reducing the babbitt area by X-ing. I'm not sure if I'm right, just testing and having fun ;)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John T. Tannehill III, Hot Coffee, MS on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:46 pm:

Does no good if they're not drilled. You will need to mark the caps so you will know which cap goes to which rod also make note of where the delta points to on the cap so you will have them back as they came off. When you drill the caps you'll need to file any burs that you may have created so the cap seats correctly. It's very important that you do those things because of wear patterns already created by your engine.running


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 02:53 pm:

I prefer no grooves and no dippers. If you like grooves or dippers or both then have at it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Walter Rees on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 03:36 pm:

Thank you for your quick responses.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 04:17 pm:

So, what is the collective opinion (opinions!) of dippers or no dippers. Ford did add them very late in production, and of course, used them in the model A engines.
Or is this like asking what oil to use???
:-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Saylor, Citrus Heights, Ca on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 04:52 pm:

I use a grease zerk with the nipple removed then drilled out inside to 1/4".
dipper


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 05:06 pm:

I drill a 1/16th. Inch hole in the rod cap and use, the dippers.
I usually do not x the caps. The oil will get in there.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Walt Berdan, Bellevue, WA on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 05:38 pm:

John - I like that. The stamped steel dippers from the vendors might do a great job of fanning the oil around and I use them but your solution provides for better direct feed as well as splash.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charlie B actually in Toms River N.J. on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 07:09 pm:

While not necessary they sure seem to be a positive addition. The drilling looks like a must but there seems to be a lot of differing opinions about X ing. That too would be a good addition in my book.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 09:11 pm:

99% of all dippers funnel oil to the center of the cap, the good ones have X grooves, as any other type is inferrer.

Chevy is the only Company that we have had with tin dippers that were replaceable.

The only rods I have ever seen that were drilled off center was the 1929, to 1953 Chevy rods, and that was because the rod was designed to take a tin dipper, and to get the most oil pick up, they went off center to the back.

They still had the centered X groove, on the 1929 to 1936, but also cut an oil pocket from the hole to the center of the oil groove, and also a web hole for release.

To say oil grooves make for less bearing surface, is just not true.

Bearing surface comes with the amount of oil that is put into a bearing, less oil the less bearing surface. The X groove wipes oil on the crank pin, 4 times per revolution.

Rods that run with out a grooving system, run larger clearances, as they break in, because of less oil.

The hole in the cap should be 3/16 to a 1/4, no smaller, or bigger.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Gregush Portland Oregon on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 09:37 pm:

I think the very early and very late T's had them and for sure the Model A did. Chevrolet did.
Mine have them. Many of us drive a lot faster then they did back in the day, the more oil you can pump to the bearings the better, my OP.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John T. Tannehill III, Hot Coffee, MS on Sunday, March 08, 2015 - 09:56 pm:

I like the idea of drilling the hole in the top of the rod for relief! I've often thought that the pneumatic pressure built up from forcing oil into the dipper and into the bearing would limit the amount of oil that is actually pushed into the bearing without some type of relief. I think I'll borrow that idea on the next build.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 12:00 am:

At the risk of being severely criticized, I think the X grooves in the rods pictured above are excessive. They look like they are about 1/8 or a shade over wide and a shade more than an 1/16 deep. The hole in the top of the rod is for oil to splash in, not a pressure relief. The pressure generated by the hydrodynamic forces are much greater than anything generated by an oil dipper and must be so in order to carry the load.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 01:46 am:

Ted, to put oil in to a spinning hole in the web of a rod, and have it stay would be like trying to throw chicken, manure on the end of a fan blade, and have it stay.


Yes the, the rod has large grooves, on purpose, as chicken scratching dosn't do much of anything. We have sold over 30,000 of just Model T rods, just like that one. I have never heard of a rod bearing going bad because it got to much oil, and in 48 years, we have never gotten one of our rods back for rebuilding.

In fact, we have never gotten any our bearings back.

Ted, I know you make that up as you go along, but, man you are way off base this time.

To get air, water, or oil into something, you have to have a way for air, water, or oil to escape. If you try to get water in a glass, I don't care how hard you hit it into a bucket of water, it won't work until you put a hole in the glass for the air to escape.

You can't move oil in to a bearing, "unless under pressure", with a dipper and have it efficient, with out a back door.

From what I have read, there is about 200 pounds of pressure at the dipper, on a Model T. I think it was in one of the Vintage Fords, years ago.

Ford made all the last Model T rods with dippers, X Grooves, and two holes in the web. all Model A rods with dippers, all Model B rods with dippers, same thing.

They all have dippers built in, and a hole drilled on each side of the web.

Your whole post was your unfounded opinion, and no facts.

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 01:48 am:

I'm not a big fan of a top oil hole or grooving on such a small bearing as the T, I can't see it being of any benefit trying to collect splash or gravity feed while running when the internal bearing pressure is far higher. At least the dipper has some force behind it.
Oil, like any fluid will take the easy way out, like with a modern bearing with having some wear and oil having an easy way out, will lose the oil wedge, although pressure feed will start to knock under a heavy load.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 02:13 am:

Chevrolet also used an oil pump that fed the mains directly and ran a piping system that squirted oil into the rod dippers at pressure.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Philip Berg on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 02:56 pm:

All I know is my 16 coupelet's engine lasted for fifty years without dippers. I see no value to add them now.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Gregush Portland Oregon on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 06:50 pm:

Yes but how fast and how many miles a year do you put on? What kind of traffic do you regularly drive in? Cast iron or aluminum pistons, heavy or light rods? I am not looking to pick on, just would like to know.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Trent Boggess on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 08:41 pm:

If you want to start an all night argument with a bunch of Model T enthusiasts, just make a statement like "I use rod dippers because they extend the life of the rod babbitt and I don't have to adjust the rod clearances as often..." Then stand back and let the fight begin.

1909 Model T connecting rods came with dippers forged into the cap. While dippers were used in the early rods, the size and shape changed over time. It seems to me that the design of the dipper changed about every 2500 cars. Then they were eliminated until the introduction of the pressed steel piston. These were produced in limited quantities, and the pressed steel piston required a much different rod. The rod had an X-shaped cross section rather than the traditional I-beam cross section. This rod also had a dipper.

The pressed steel piston and X-cross section rods were used about 1926 in what Ford called "Experimental Production". Whatever the value the new design offered, it was not enough to cause Ford to eliminate production of the regular I-beam design rod, which was used throughout Model T production. The pressed steel pistons and their matching rods are somewhat scarce in the Model T world. The piston pin used in the pressed steel pistons is larger in diameter than the regular Model T piston pin, and the rod was made accordingly to accept the larger diameter pin. Without some sort of a modification, the x-cross section design rod cannot be used with modern aluminum pistons.

What is really interesting is that from what I have found in my research the Ford engineers did not place that much emphasis on dippers during Model T production. What they did emphasize was the oil groove present where the rod and the cap meet. The Ford engineers seemed to think that this was the most important way of getting oil into the rods. I want to add as well that the groove also extends through the babbitt at the edges of the rod. Go back and look at Herm's picture of the big end of one of his rods and you will clearly see the oil groove at the parting line between the rod and the cap, and that he correctly cuts through the babbitt collar to provide a way for the oil to get into the oil groove. This is the way Ford did it.

I have some experience rebabbitting my own rods, while under the careful supervision of a Model T machinist who babbitts his own rods for his Montana 500 engines. I do use dippers, and drill a hole in the cap of my rods (call it superstition- my model T mentor told me many, many years ago that he thought the dippers on his '26 coupe were what kept him from ever having to adjust the rods). I do not X the cap or the rod babbitt. It seems to work for me, and I drive farther and faster than most other Model T owners. I do as Herm does, and spend a lot of time making sure the oil groove is present at the parting points of the rod, and that the babbitt collar is cut to allow oil to get to the oil groove in the rod.

And one more thing... Hard as it is to believe, Ford did not put shims between the rods and the caps, at least not in the 20's.

Your results may vary.

Respectfully Submitted,

Trent Boggess


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Monday, March 09, 2015 - 08:41 pm:

Well, Kohnke, looks like I scratched your chicken. I stand by my opinion. You know oil somehow reached 60 million connecting rod journals without oil grooves. I would like to add that grooves in the rod itself,where the primary load is, are most unnecessary.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 01:03 am:

Ted, don't be a Dumas.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Philip Berg on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 01:08 am:

G'pa bought the coupelet in 53 from the second owner. Engine was all original, he drove it 200 miles from Stuart NE to Omaha NE. In mid sixties on a HCCA tour it developed a knock.

From what info I have it was the original owners only car from 16 to his passing in 40 or 41.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Michael Seager on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 01:28 am:

Some one must of thought they were good as all the vendors sell them. Interesting how this thread drifted from how to do a task to whether it was necessary or not.

What is the best way to install oil dippers on caps that have no hole?: I have not taken caps off yet. Engine #5,987,825, titled as a 1923 but looks more like '22 or early '23.

typical of why lots of people don't post on this forum

I know there are folks who only read the forum, and don't post for varying reasons. Sometimes one of those reasons is that they think they have to be MTFCA members to participate. No, no, no. There's no such requirement. Forum registration is open to everybody. Some of our regulars have never joined up because they're on a tight budget, or for other reasons. Most of us are MTFCA members, but it's not a requirement.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 01:28 am:

Trent, one thing, Model T rods always came with shims, but like the gas engines, they were paper, I have had some out of Ford garages in the 50's.

The later rods, we put snap rings in the pistons, and put a thick wall bushing in the wrist pin end, seamed to be the easiest for us, and it worked ok.

Thanks

Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 06:12 am:

"Interesting how this thread drifted from how to do a task to whether it was necessary or not."

Isn't that usually the case? :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 06:24 am:

Trent.

I believe you are right on that Ford did not put shims on the rods, well not on the production line anyway, the only reference to shims in the Ford service book is to remove the paper shim if fitting a "new rod" on a worn shaft. In the procedure of the engines original rod, it's filing of the cap to tighten.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 12:28 pm:

Herm,

Your "clever" treatment of Ted's last name was unnecessary. It's a shame that you think you need to do that in order for your viewpoint to be taken seriously.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Kossor - Kenilworth, NJ on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 01:16 pm:

Jerry, Good to know you are on watch should divisive Troll behavior ever rear its ugly head again this forum.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By steve johnson on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 01:30 pm:

Yes add dippers I used to adjust my rods a lot then I added dippers and no more adjusting.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 06:42 pm:

I believe you are right on that Ford did not put shims on the rods, well not on the production line anyway, shim if fitting a "new rod" on a worn shaft. In the procedure of the engines original rod, it's filing of the cap to tighten."END QUOTE"

Frank, you wouldn't know what Ford done if it hit you in the head.

It would make no sense at all not having rods on line with out shims, and other shims on rods sent to Dealers, and shops, with shims.

All rods were bored 1.250, with out shims the owners had no adjustment. Do you think!




I believe you are right on that Ford did not put shims on the rods, well not on the production line anyway, the only reference to shims in the Ford service book is to remove the paper shim if fitting a "new rod" on a worn shaft. In the procedure of the engines original rod, it's filing of the cap to tighten."END QUOTE"


Frank, you just don't read very well, or slant what you read, like liberal News.

They talk about a New rod with two shims, trying to fit to a well used shaft, and what you might have to do to get a new rod, with a 1.250 bore, to work on a used shaft, everything else staying constant.













Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 07:11 pm:

And another case of you shooting your self in the foot Herm. What I said and what you have posted 393 say the same thing. FITTING A NEW ROD!! on an old shaft.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 07:57 pm:

Zoom over your head again, Frank.

Ford didn't sell used rods, Frank!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 08:05 pm:

For those who are still taking any interest and trying to make any sense out of Herms ramblings.
384,
Ford never offered the option of removing a paper shim from an engine removed from a T.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 09:19 pm:

Your reading is about old rod take up, which tells nothing of a new rod there.

The shims would be already used up. Your in the wrong section again , Frank.

Section 393 tell about a new rod replacement, shims, and how to fit it to a worn shaft.

This is it for me, Frank.

You would rather look like you won some debate, then make any sense.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 09:38 pm:

Herm, before you call it a day, I'll tell you something of interest on a statement you quoted.
"Ford didn't sell used rods, Frank!"
On the contrary, new or reconditioned, it makes more sense that they are shimmed for worn shafts when selling a rod as a spare part.
From a Ford parts book'

*Connecting rods requiring new bearings will be exchanged at Branch or Factory for 75c each.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 09:45 pm:

Jerry,

Herm is Herm, I just take him with a grain of salt. I knew the minute I disagreed with him he would come on in his usual way.

Ted


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 09:53 pm:

A few of you may be aware of a splash lubricated oilfield engine / compressor called "AJAX" (made by Cooper Cameron). The bearings for this are made by Federal Mogul. They have determined that X grooves are a poor design for splash lubricated babbitted bearings


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dean Yoder, Iowa City IA. on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 10:41 pm:

Ford prints show NO shims.
Babbitt cast 1.200- 1.203 I DIA.
For broaching Not Boring.
Broached after assembling with cap to 1.2475-1.2485.
This is from print dated 11-26-19 through 10-27-26
.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 10:50 pm:

It would be much faster to broach the diameter than to bore it. A secondary operation would be required to add a radius to each face. In a production environment where everything is new and to size adding a shim would only add to the cost and to the complexity of the assembly.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 12:02 am:

A few of you may be aware of a splash lubricated oilfield engine / compressor called "AJAX" (made by Cooper Cameron). The bearings for this are made by Federal Mogul. They have determined that X grooves are a poor design for splash lubricated babbitted bearings"END QUOTE"

That's odd Les, Ford, Chevy, and just about every other make car, and tractor that had rod dippers, splash main bearings, and hundreds of gas engines rods that we done with oil scoops, and grease cups, all had X grooves. in the early years of bearings, lots, and lots of different types of oil grooves were tried, but later, most come to the X grooves, Ford was not the first, by a long shot.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 12:14 am:

It would be much faster to broach the diameter than to bore it. A secondary operation would be required to add a radius to each face. In a production environment where everything is new and to size adding a shim would only add to the cost and to the complexity of the assembly."END QUOTE"

There are only two operations to a broached rod.

. The rod is rough bored, and the Radius, or chamfer is put in at the same time.

2. Then the broach is slammed through.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 09:37 am:

Been
FM and Ajax have learned something in the last 75 years. They spent a bunch of time and money to find out what the BEST design is for long reliable bearing life. I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar they put on for service technicians where they explained it all


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 11:37 am:

Quoting from my Aunt Ann's, "Words of wisdom from Grandma's kitchen":

"You must realize that those of you who think you know everything are sometimes very obnoxious to those of us who do."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 12:14 pm:

I Agree Ted, you might take some of that advice.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 12:31 pm:

Ford prints show NO shims.
Babbitt cast 1.200- 1.203 I DIA.
For broaching Not Boring.
Broached after assembling with cap to 1.2475-1.2485.
This is from print dated 11-26-19 through 10-27-26 "END QUOTE"

Those figures are suspect, as standard Ford rods are cut to 1.250, no exception.

That size of hole would lock the crank with no means for adjustment.

Fords cranks were ground to 1.248 to 1.248-50, so how could the rods be of that size?

Prints may not have showed the shims, as the sizes are wrong to begin with.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 12:40 pm:

Been
FM and Ajax have learned something in the last 75 years. They spent a bunch of time and money to find out what the BEST design is for long reliable bearing life. I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar they put on for service technicians where they explained it all"END QUOTE"

Questions Les.

How is the oil fed to the rods in those Ajax engines?

Do the rods run Horizontal, or Vertical?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Adam Doleshal on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 02:21 pm:

Even though it isn't marked on the print, I have generally figured that the 12/14/21 T-641 assembly print that some of us have copies of may be the SERVICE CONNECTING ROD referred to in PAR#393 of the service manual...

...And the rod that was assembled into new engines at the factory may have been slightly different... I'm curious if anyone might have any concrete evidence of that in the form of actual research at the Benson Ford or a copy of a different print?

If you understand exactly what I am talking about, I would appreciate your feedback via Private Message. Thanks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 02:56 pm:

Herm
Splash lube rods and mains


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dean Yoder, Iowa City IA. on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 03:36 pm:

Herm , The Information I posted is from prints at Benson ford
I trust those prints. The size they broached them to surprised me. I have 18 photos of rods and caps taken at Benson Ford on my cell phone.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 04:02 pm:

Herm, you are forgetting that all the new engine assemblies had to be burnished.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 11:29 pm:

Oops, I just found out Herm has a water pump on his Model T.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 01:43 am:

Herm , The Information I posted is from prints at Benson ford
I trust those prints. The size they broached them to surprised me. I have 18 photos of rods and caps taken at Benson Ford on my cell phone."END QUOTE"

Dean, I don't doubt what you say at all with the prints.

BUT any rod print, I have ever seen "NOT MODEL T", I have never seen one, but including, Model, A, and Model B rods, and other brands that we babbitt, do NOT show the shims, in a print.

They will show them in a parts break down, but NOT in a print, because it is not part of the structure of that item.

The Model A, and B Ford have there own set of shim prints, just for the shims, as well as other brands of cars , and tractors.

Dean, I am still not convinced, for the reasons I have stated.


Frank, you can run rods, and mains in, with or with out shims.


Ted, actually, I have two on my 22 coupe right now. One is on the motor, and another is on the running board, I just got for my 14 roadster.

It is common place around here to have several water pumps, so don't get to excited, and S*&^ your pants!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 02:20 am:

Herm,
I had a brother who ended up with mental health problems from working with lead all his life, please get your self checked out!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 11:17 am:

Herm,

I enjoy your posts. Where people get upset is when they take you too seriously. I knew from the moment I disagreed with you, you would come back with a tirade. I hope its all in fun, it is for me.

Happy motoring,

Ted


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 12:06 pm:

Good for you Ted. After all, it's a hobby, and hobbies are supposed to be fun. Otherwise, why do it?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 12:10 pm:

I had a brother who ended up with mental health problems from working with lead all his life, please get your self checked out!"END QUOTE"

I think it just run's in your Family Genes, Frank.


I knew from the moment I disagreed with you, you would come back with a tirade."END QUOTE"



Well, at least your learning something Ted, it's not a total wast.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 12:14 pm:

Herm,

It's "runs" & "you're" & "waste".

Now I'm having fun too!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 01:53 pm:

Oh,Jerry, I just love a good spell check piety party. Did you bring your party hat, Jerry.

I am either going to have to take time to read over what I wrote, or send you copy first for any correction that there may be, and that, should keep your gayety up so it isn't so long between your having fun nows!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 03:21 pm:

Thanks Herm!

"Piety party", that's really good, I like that! (No party hat though.)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 03:26 pm:

A piety party:

"piety

noun: piety

the quality of being religious or reverent"


I think a pie party would be more fun!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 03:41 pm:

Now, Ted, you are way out of line.

Frank,is first, then you, and lastly, is Jerry!

Now Frank is going to have to make two posts in a row to catch up. One is hard enough for him.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dean Yoder, Iowa City IA. on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 03:43 pm:

Herm, Or any one do you have part # for ford
T Shims ? IT would help me find them when I get back to Benson Ford .
Thanks
Dean


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 03:47 pm:

Dean,

Lang's seems to use Ford part numbers for most catalog items. If that's true for shims, they are saying that they're 3027 for rods & 3039S for mains. Hope that helps.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 03:53 pm:

Only the one Herm,
Heavy metal poisoning is no joking matter, especially for a man in your trade.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 04:23 pm:

Jerry, to answer your post, yes they are listed in parts books, 1923 as #'s 3038 for the rods and 3039 mains, as brass ones.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 04:26 pm:

We don't use lead.

I use spry can 1200 degree paint, to get off on.

Using the babbitt pot, to hang over, and sniff, makes your head to hot, and you also get bored looking at slag.





Dean, the number should be 3038, parts number.

Factory number is 502B.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 04:49 pm:

We can tell Herm, all must be good stuff for you.
And you also show your ingnorance on heavy metal poisoning, lead is only one of several toxic ones and you would use many of the others in babbitting.
And in case you mist what I posted for Jerry

3038 & 3039 are brass, not paper!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 04:59 pm:

Sorry a little miss leading, no shims listed for rods at all, those #,s are the mains, 3038 is the centre and front caps.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 05:13 pm:

Your right, Frank, I got that one wrong.

I am so proud of you!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Solak on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 05:45 pm:

...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Karl Gilchrist- New Zealand on Thursday, March 12, 2015 - 06:03 pm:

Herm - a lesson for you. Never do battle with an Aussie. There is no one else you would like more to have beside you in a fight but you certainly don't want to fight against them. And Kiwis have been proud to fight alongside them for 100 years
Go the Anzacs -Karl


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