After many days of reading and hearing about our economy I thought something about Ts that is eating me should be said to start a new war!
It finally occurred to me that all the tests done on ball cap movement are probably done by me unless some one can show me otherwise. Henry for sure did them.
The four dip pan used on a pre 26 block is over a 100 percent weaker then a three dip, and is at least 1200 percent weaker then a 26 setup. The three dip is already to weak even for what it was designed for.
Why didn't Henry warn that the four dip was designed for use on a 26 and should not be used on an early block? He did warn that five to one and four to one steering gears should not be mixed, but that would have been an obvious liability.
To many cranks and parts to unload with the coming of the A? An oversight? I doubt it.
I think the pan came before the 26 block. The pan's primary function was to make easy adjustment of the #4 rod bearing. Comment welcomed.
Thanks for your pioneering work, Paul. Reid Welch made some measurements and had some recommendations on this Forum near ten years ago, but his study was limited to his '20 T. Your work is part of what makes these Forums so great. We all have the opportunity to be much smarter than before.
Are transmissions with zero slop too tight for the real T world? I think so. My old baggy one has lots of slop before it gets to the 4th main, meaning there isn't any strain on the crank with 4-dip pan and earlier block. . I haven't found any drawback to it, save for possibly a little shudder while engaging the low and reverse.
I think Henry should have warned us that after 90 years of use, the crank MAY break and that the bands MAY need adjustment!! Seriously, Paul, I know I appreciate your research. Interesting, and relevant stuff that could prove to be very useful.
Paul, Show the forum some picture of how you tested the pan. I think your tests was very interesting and useful for me. Im looking for more three dip pans. Mike
Paul - I, too, appreciate the tests you done on the pans.
As Warren says "The pan's primary function was to make easy adjustment of the #4 rod bearing". Of course, but didn't Ford realize that the new pan was substantially weaker? I can't help but think that they had to know. As Warren said: comment welcomed.
Fordially, Keith Gumbinger
4 dips pan were introduced in July 1924
But it is said from the T cyclopedia that:
"Pressed-steel reinforcing brackets used at the engine/ transmission junction corners sometime later"
Maybe early 4 dips pan were not so good
Thanks Pat, I had some four dips with out the L brackets spot welded and others with them welded. Now I know why. They made little difference in the last tests done. Think I will double check to see if there were any changes in pan design between the two.
Gad, another test, I am counting 3/8" bolts in my sleep. There is a difference in four dip pans, the early four dip I was testing has a slightly smoother ridge from the transition of the area around the brake drum. Henry had to make that area larger for the increased size of the brake drum. It takes a few hours to switch parts so I will be back in the future with more tests.
I have lots of 3 dip pans 20.00 ea plus UPS
As John D. alluded, 3-dip pans are cheap because everyone wants the 4-dip for ease of adjusting the 4th rod. I don't think that Henry or anyone else realized when they made the change to 4-dip pans how weak they would be. I think it took a couple of years until the problems began showing up with them, then they came out with the extra "ears" on the hogshead to compensate for the weaker pan. They certainly weren't going to go back to the inconvenience of the 3-dip, so they had to find a way to make the whole assembly stronger. Anyway that's my take on it.
Paul,A huge THANKS for all you do!!Had alot of fun tonight at the T club meeting/dinner.Talked alot with a friend who is now using the new disc brake setup and he thinks their great!!! Bud.
Send me all your "weak" 4 dip pans. I have had seen more crankshaft failures than pan failures.
Uh,tell me about the actual failures.Where do they occur on the pan?
How did you test the pans to come up with these stats?
I aint real smart,but I know there are alot of folkes that have upgraded to the 4 dip pan.Includeing me.
You might be right Mike! should have both the early and late four dip tests done tomorrow. I personally cant see how there will be that much difference but the test will tell.
Because the pan, ties the engine to the trans, without a surface mount like modern cars, the pan flexes, between the engine and the trans. The four dip pan, is a bit weaker, in the area between the two assemblies, right where id widens for the hogshead. To resolve that problem, without going back to the three dip pan, the stiffeners were installed where the engine and trans meet. So even though its the pan that flexes, its the crankshaft that breaks.
On modern cars, the trans bolts to the rear surface of the engine block. So thats where they get their strength in that critical area. No flex between the engine & trans, no need for a fourth main.
Paul,are you doing this flex test with a crank and tranny /4th main all bolted in place?
Paul - It would be interesting to know how many crankshaft failures have occurred on pre-'26 engines without the two upper hogshead lugs that permit bolting the top of the hogshead to the engine block, but that have been equipped with 4-dip pans for convenience in rod bearing tightening, etc. Sounds to me like "upgrading" to a 4-dip pan on a pre-'26 engine is "asking for trouble" in the form of a broken crank!
A bigger question is how many have an aux tranny hanging right behind the tranny, or in the middle of the driveline.
Harold, Exactly my point. Jack, some tests were done with a bare block and some with a complete engine all were done without the ball cap. An interesting point is as soon as the ball cap was installed the tests would start improving at a low push weight.
The only reason this can happen is the main shaft and transmission were bending to help on the support of the hogs head. How many transmissions have you seen bent?
Just waking up second cup of coffee after the grandchildren spent the night!
An 1 1/4 inch shaft bolted in there with fourth main in place has to count for something?
Yes Jack it counts, the transmission starts to support the the ball cap instead of the the ball cap supporting the transmission. Like the crank supporting the main bearings.
Snowing here, glad I have a heated shop. Did another sixty tests on an early four dip compared to a late four dip. The late four dip won although its a perfect pan compared to the early one I was using in my tests. Both are still weak and my opinion of the start of this string is the same.
There is simply no way you would build over ten million cars and not test a part as important as the change in three dip to four dip.
Here is a few numbers all with the down push.
26 setup----- at a 100 pounds-------0.001
truss---------at a 100 pounds-------0.002
three dip-----at a 100--------------0.005
four dip early-----100--------------0.012
four dip late------100--------------0.010
This is the work around modified truss. It tests within one thousands of a 26 setup, it weighs 17 pounds and is ugly.
It has enough power to easily push a stock pan anywhere vertically, and will push a fully bolted up 26 setup eight thousands or more in each direction vertically. That takes lots of push.
I do not intend to build them, but would be happy to tell you what was done and why.
If you run anything less then a 26 setup especially with good brakes and or an over and under OR A FOUR DIP PAN ON A PRE 26 SETUP the work necessary to build something like this WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO SAVE YOUR CRANK.
To install it would require standing the engine on its nose. To remove it would take about an hour from the bottom.
It has never been on a running engine, and one modification of drilling out the vertical threads on the ball cap that is easy to restore is required. On some Ts the front cord might be to close to the wishbone but that could be modified.
If you think that a 200 pound push down will never happen with good brakes the math shows otherwise.
I haven't seen enough 4 dip pans to recognize the difference between the earlier and later ones. Could you post photos of each please?
One easy way to tell should be that the "L" brackets in the corners are spot welded on the later version. Until this thread I thought that the four dip was only used on the 26-27. Shows you how much I know! I will post a picture of the two setting together.
I have never seen the L brackets spot welded. I once owned a 27 roadster with an engine number in the very low 15 millions. The L brackets were bolted with the engine/transmission bolts. I am wondering if the spot welding was done as an improvement after the cars left the factory.
Discovered that the four dip I described as "late" was still bolted to the test engine. While roiling under the test engine I bent the camera cover so this is a picture taken a few days ago. Its hard to see but easy to "feel" the pan on the right is described as late. you can feel a fairly sharp bend four or five inches above the ball cap flange, and a some what different ridge down from the drain plug. For all I know it could be Canadian. Ken Todd from Canada said his was spot welded.
I had a 4-dip w/spot welded reinforcments - appeared to be factory.
Here is a few pictures of old ugly and the test method. I am no longer nervous of reinstalling my original 22 engine with the truss. It will be painted black and stamped with "Ford experimental"
The test platform is is used with an upper end bath scale that is adjustable.
For the push up the sale is raised with two all threads with a two pound platform under the ball cap. the platform weight is adjusted to zero with the ball cap.
The push down is much harder to get right. The scale is placed above the ball cap on a platform and a cross bar with springs just strong enough to support it. The platform and the scale weight are neutralized with another spring. A shaft with a notch goes down to push on the top of the ball cap flange.
A solid 1 1/2" square tube is bolted to the block and extends above the ball cap flange.to hold the dial.
One extra dial is placed on top of the hogs head to see how much it moves with a push.
If you build a test stand for your self remember that the sequence has to be push----scale---ball cap. On my fist try I had push---- ball cap---scale.
There's nothing ugly about that truss/girdle thingy you have developed. The only thing "ugly" I see in it is that it looks mighty expensive to produce - but it's your baby and it no doubt works. Good job!
I wish that you would produce it so that others that don't want to can hang whatever they want off the back of the four-dip pre-'26 set-up and tour fearless.
A picture of it bead-blasted, primed, and painted with the satin black of your choice would be just grand!
Thanks Seth, from you I consider that a compliment!
I am sure your method is more conducive to a production cost, Just try-ed to build it with what many on this forum would have in there arsenal.
Well, I'll take all those 4 dip pans you don't want, as long as they have a good ball socket on them! If Steve says some of the pans had reinforcements spot welded in I guess they did, but I'll agree with Richard, I've never seen one. The only problem I've seen with them, is if they were in a car that got hit, the ball socket can get pushed back, and needs to be straightened. I made a simple tool to check the alignment of the ball socket, and it saves a lot of time on having to check the pan. The best bet is to have your pan checked on a KRW pan jig before installing it on an engine, and don't forget to check the ball cap alignment.
As far as I can see Larry there are other ways to improve the four dip weakness without the truss. The problem with them is not the size of the opening but the diagonal brace part being much shorter then a three dip. Henry could have used a triangular brace even larger then a three dip and probably made it better then a three dip with the opening the same.
On the other hand I don't see why two holes with a hole saw above the rear main bolts to allow a extension and socket to loosen the bolts on a three dip with a plug to bolt them in would not work. While assembling the engine custom cut some 0.001 shims with a slot so they could be pulled out for adjustment, then adjust by feel as Henry suggested.
If there were a way to attach a brace to the top of the pan running forward to the block that would work.
0.010 does not sound like much, but the numbers go way up fast after a hundred pounds on a four dip. A three dip is 0.008 at a hundred fifty pounds, a four dip is 0.019
I am going to try an easy way to improve a pre 26 setup but it will require attaching to the top of the pan.
Alignment is important, but you simply cant keep it there with the weakness in the pan.
Trent Boggess posted Ford allowances for ball cap clearance. They are 0.006 to 0.008 if you take half of that say 0.004 look how much you bend the transmission with a four dip. At forty pounds push down a four dip is 0.0041. The back of the transmission weighs 11 or twelve pounds held by the ball cap. Add the weight of part of the hogs head, then add the weight of the front of the torque tube, drive shaft, bracing, rods, you have probably used up all the clearance before any weight is applied from brakes, or other necessary, or unnecessary items.
And still ,they ran. Far as I can tell,all you've proved is the four-dip pan is weaker. I could have told you that a long time ago and saved you a lot of time. You'd been better off sticking with the box of concrete I suggested. Would work on any pan. Just as butt -ugly,but effective.
Thanks so much Jack- your negative comment is very much appreciated!
I knew I would lose this war. When I do tests, publish the data that proves the design solves a problem, then get negative comments by folks so obviously sure as yourself, then there is no reason to continue.
I believe that you can search long and hard and you'll likely find that the single biggest reason for crankshaft breakage is due to the weak pan and the fourth main bearing moving all over the place. If not Ford wouldn't have changed the design for the last two years of production.
Paul, I have a 23 block with a 4 dip pan and I am very interrested in your work. I drive this car much faster than Henry planned, and find I often have to stop hard in traffic. Anything I can do to prevent a 2 piece crankshaft is a plus. Thank you for your work. I'm closely watching it. I'd love to find a way to brace from the rear of the pan to a higher area on the rear block to prevent the flex you show occurs.
As I read your posts I read you discovered the four-dip was weaker. If my comments were taken personally,they were not intended so. I appoligize for that. I realize you spent a lot of time to prove your point,whatever it was.
Thanks, Paul for quantifying the difference in pans, and for coming up with a good solution. You saw a potential problem, measured it, and made a fix. That's important.
Certain people complain there are not enough technical questions from the unwashed on this Forum to satisfy the egos of the gurus who deign to impart their great wisdom. No, Jack, I'm not talking about you. . Of course not.
One of the vender's is selling a setup that bolts to the water inlet on one side of the block and catches a couple of studs on the manifold side And is adjustable. Without testing it I cant tell you how good it is but any thing to help the push down cant be bad. Think it sells for about 370.00 I intend to try a simple way that many could do and test it. If it works I will post it.
Apology excepted Jack, Have a great T day
Appreciate your efforts Paul ! and Larry - I just did a 4-dip pan for my wife's '14 Fire Chief's car chassis and I thought the ball socket was grand but looked a smidge bent in. Didn't take long after bolting the block to the pan (1 turn of the crank) to realize the pan was indeed pushed in just enough to excert pressure on the bottom of the field coil (set @ .040) and eliminate my air gap ! Needless to say - apart she came and I adjusted accordingly. I have my own copy of a KRW pan jig and this was one of the nicest 4-dips I've had.
Paul,etal, I'm sorry but I was in the testing business for 25 years. Two pans,out of nearly 15 millon,do not constitute a test. The reason I asked if the crank and tranny were in place during these tests was to see if all of your measurements were taken the same.(with the one exception of a different pan.) You told me not all . This would seriously slant the results toward whichever pan you wanted to look better. Since you haven't even tested 0.001 % of all that were produced,how can you make conclusions? I don't question that what you have shown probably adds to the flexing problems of the cranks,a subject which has been presented here many times before. Also in play is whether to pin the fourth main down or not,tailshaft run-out etc. So many things including the age of the cranks come into play here. It is a difficult question with no simple answers. So far no real good repop cranks have come on the market,so one day we will really be in a pickle. Your milage may vary.
All of the tests were done the same, without the ball cap. Same scale, scale setting in the same position, same test on each setup.
The crank, transmission, run-out, drive plate wear, and transmission wear did not come into play. The test was strictly on the strength of the hogs head and the pan that were going to hold the ball cap
The tests done with the truss were on the weakest pan, a four dip. The same pan was used to test The 26 setup.
The two different four dips I tested were of slightly different design and tested 0.010 and 0.012 much different then the 0.001 and 0.002 with the 26 setup and the truss or the 0.005 with the three dip
I bolted up one ball cap I cant remember on which setup and the tests would start to improve at very low pounds say 20 or 30. I discarded the results when I realized what was happening.
The problem with it was every test would have to have the engine aligned and fresh bushings to make it some what accurate. And it would only prove how much you were bending the transmission not how much pressure it takes to move the ball cap that was designed to support the transmission.
Unfortunately I have about six or eight pans probably more then many people have and the best were chosen. There is to much difference in the tests to say many of the same have to be tested. And after inspecting a four dip its not hard to see where the weakness is in them.
Grammar is not one of my better points, hope I have made myself clear.
I understand completely. You have bolted a hogshead and a crankshaftless block to Henry's wonderful weak-as-all-hell stamped pan. Then you added loads to move the fourth main end of the "power unit" just exactly like external loads could be experienced at the fourth main in an engine in the car.
You didn't have to test as many as Jack says to prove your point that the pan is a joke and that is an awful way to build an engine. You could test hundreds and you'd find similar results.
Just because Henry and his boys produced something that worked does not mean in any way that the design can't be improved.
His brakes certainly sucked or folks wouldn't have bought so many aftermarket brakes.
I cannot for the life of me see how a fourth main that always runs on the same axis as the other three can be bad.
Carry on with your excellent work and just ignore the detractors.
Seth,I think your right as it cant be bad buts thats the rub,it dont stay there! Please keep up with the good work Paul and some may learn.Jack,in about 25 years experance with Cement i have learned oil deteriates cement so a leaky model T engine will rot your cement.Bud.
Bud,I have no intentions of putting anything on mine that didn't come with it when new. I accept the fact that they move and flex. they've been that way for 100 years now.
Ok maybe I missed it; would adding the L corner brackets on a 3 dip be good or bad. 35 to 40 is my top speed over halled stock motor. City streets.
Its certainly not going to be bad Mark, although that particular test I do not remember the results that I forgot to file.
The 26 setup has a horizontal push- pull on that part of the pan with the weight of the hogs head carried by the two bolts into the block.
On a pre 26 the weight of the hogs head is carried by the pan so the L brackets would help keeping that transition flat at the hinge of the two
I admire those who can keep there Ts stock, Every thing modified on mine can be returned to stock easily, and the parts necessary to do so will be saved, and not sold.
I am a driver, during the summer at the coast my T is driven almost every day with a lots of enjoyment.
With todays traffic the speeds a stock T needs to not create a hazard are higher then in the days past. Even in my area better brakes are a must have along with other parts to keep you from spending your time working on the car, and spending unnecessary green many of us are lacking.
The T is a wonderfully designed car for its day. But the unknowing should be warned of what to expect from them.
I don't know why any tests need to be done on a four dip pan anyway. They worked fine when new, and they still do, if they haven't come out of a car that had the ball socket pushed in. I have two '25s that use a four dip pan, and they are fine, although I found the one I just built had been pushed in, and I had to pull the engine out to correct it. Now it is fine, and I now know what to look for next time I buy a four dip pan. I also have the gauge I made to check the alignment. It is nothing but a rear horseshoe with a ball welded to it to enable it to drop into the socket. If the pan is bent it won't drop in. If your socket is worn out, read the article in the Vintage Ford that Steve Coniff wrote on welding up and machining the socket.
Larry, how about a picture of your ball socket alignment test jig?
Paul. I am assembling two motors this winter. After seeing your tests i am convinced that i will use the three dip pans. Have you done any tests with the three dip pan and your laser cut brackets? Also I am very interested in your simple fix you talked about. We have 16 inches of snow here in Vernonia. Winter is here for sure. Mike
Have an interesting e mail from a 74 year old gentle man who has good ideas. if we get some heads together the problem might be solved with a easier method.
Gad, fifty miles away and 13 inches of snow difference!
Paul, keep up the great work. Some time back, I discussed with you about the new longer, 1/2" thick T6 aluminum reinforcements that I made and am using on our 13 touring with original 3 dip oil pan. I previously tried the standard reinforcements and still had oil leaks. Without removing the oil pan or hogs head, I replace the standard reinforcements with the new...."Heavy Duty" reinforcements that I made and the oil leaks around the pan and hogs head stoped.
If they significantly help, they are something that could be produced in quanity and added with out any engine or pan modifications. I used grade 8 longer bolts in order to compensate for the thicker reinforcement.
Heres some food for thought. I clamped a three dip face to face with a four dip, you can see that the diagonal brace from the pans are much different. The four dip is only 1" out into the pan cover area and the socket area is almost vertical.
The three dip is 3" out into the pan cover area and the socket area also serves as a brace because it is angled.
Its like trying to brace up an 8 foot wall with a 2 foot 2x4 on the four dip.
I cut some plywood to show that the brace could be ran much further out as long as it clears the wishbone. If you can see the pencil mark on it that is traced from a three dip. the masking tape arrow is the distance I am talking about.
It could be designed with a bend in the bottom and bolted with the pan bolts, or at the least through the sides of the pan.
How the upper side is attached is another story
weld, bolt, catch the drain plug? My bet is it would make a four dip as good or better then a three.
One picture shows masking tape over the drain area of the pan from the brace . It would be nice to transfer the push to that center brace running down toward the ball cap.
Scout the wrecking yards for a good tie rod from a front end with the adjustment, Build a mount some how at the front of the engine to hold it. Use the drain hole to mount the top.
There is lots of triangululation on this one but I don't know if the drain could take it.
You could easily force the ball cap in alignment vertically and the push at the drain would be in the best place.
With your own engine in a setup such as mine hang a bucket of sand or some other known weight off two of the horizontal bolts on the back of the ball cap flange with out the ball cap installed.
Check any 4 dip against a three dip. A bolted up bare block, or a complete engine without the ball cap installed would be fine.
100 pounds would be ideal but 50 will be obvious.
Then ask yourself why Henry would install a 4 dip on a 24, see if you reach the same conclusion I have.
Been reading this post with much interest, seeing as how I'm in the process of installing an aluminum warford in a '26 touring. Looking at a cross brace that came with my cast iron warford, I planed on fabbing up a similar brace to assist in supporting the added weight to the rear of the '26 power train. In my simplistic mind, it would appear that this brace would seem to solve the problem, or am I missing the whole point of the post.....Byron
One of the reasons I keep asking the two-piece crank members to offer up where a fatigue break happens is to get a general feel for if the breaks are random, or more often then not seem to occur at the same general location. If the fatigue breaks have a scatter diagram with more localized area, then it can be pretty safe to assume that that it is flexure [ok...so everyone knows that already], but...since all thows are theoretically the same dimensions, it would show that the flexure is occuring at the weakest point being defined as where a 'bend' decides to work itself out....and I'm sure the answer will be defined by deflection that was not counted on!
External trussing can and will control deflections in the stamped pan and if another consensus is that the coil ring moves closer during deflection on one side than the other, some ideas can be evolved on when and how to truss.
As Jack says, sometimes it is best to leave things alone and live with the results, i.e. some will and some won't as adding a restraint could simply move the problem to the next 'weakest' link' My guess and only a guess is that the engineers felt that the pan was 'tight'in compression with the block and the hoghead and therefore would have acted as 'one'. Your test show different and do explain why the late lates have the two ears to keep the hogshead and block 'in line' better. But then again that is engineer speak, and I can't imagine the original engine builder of the later derivitive design spending any more time than saying 'pan is straight'; Short block goes here; hogshead just bolts up as in old; and throw these two bolts in here tight as a more rigid insurance policy. Manufacturing differences in tolerance range of the iron parts could have then added 'more' bend than the old way...so the quest goes on.
While I appreciate scientific deduction as root cause, I sometimes wonder tho'...did Ford simply resort in built in 'slop' to get by in many areas? Does make me wonder
I wonder about the "built in slop," too, George. One or other of the trannies I use has a lot of slop at the 4th main, and flex of the 4-dip pan without hogshead attachment makes little matter that I can see. I'm not sure about the other tranny.
Adding the weight of an aux tranny just multiplies the challenge. If there is no Ujoint between the 4th main and aux tranny, a brace to the frame from the aux tranny may only complicate matters, as the frame will bend and flex between that point and the pan arms.
I have a heavy Chicago mark e behind my 26 setup, There is a neat little U joint between the transmission and drive plate I am sure helps. I built a solid cross bar that the transmission just sets on and is allowed to slide horizontaly. Seen a post a few weeks back with someone with a Muncie with a stock mount and installed with springs at the frame rail. The springs could be adjusted to hold the transmission weight and would have some give a good idea in my opinion. I have been ruining my setup hard for five years or so.
Just a great Thread
I have often wondered how this idea might work.
Install/bolt a 1,1/2' box frame across the top of the chassis just above the ball cap. Cut a 1/4" plate, inverted Y shaped, to bolt onto the top 2 bolts of the ball cap and a single bolt through the box beam above. Use a single bolt through the top of the inverted Y to allow any twist in the chassis to not be transfered to the ball cap.
This arrangement would possibly dampen lateral and verticle movent of the ball cap buy using some strength of the chassis!
Just a thought!
I just read thru some research on how Ford made the cranks; and also how Ford made the Pans.....
By and large, the answer is that they just beat the crap out of them with huge drop hammers, sledges and cold formed everything to final fit into the master jigs! Did not see any evidence of a final anneal after 'sized' and 'straightened' and with cold forming, would imagine that they did not as in relieving the stuff would maybe go off again!
For what it is worth, my 'engineer' side tells me that at about 375 - 400 degrees and after about 4 hours at that temperature, a natural 'anneal relief' would have occurred...and I now wonder where those cold formed stresses would have decided to relieve? Would the fact that it was all clamped up tight by then kept everything in some form of natural balance? Probably!
Now...go and change blocks, or go and change pans, or go and change cranks and whaddaya got? Hmmmmmmm........
Maybe the pan solution offered above by some is the best old tried and true remedy as it then matches the 'form and function' of the Ford original way. Get ahold of a pan jig, beat the crap out of it with hammers and sledges to get it to conform, bolt it up tight to a short block that is made correctly, mount the tranny as straight as possible, and then let it normalize as a unit in use? May sound strange in todays 'ways', but I could possibly be convinced that it 'worked' for Ford and the times.
Just guessing, don't have a firm idea or a direction yet...still digging....still sorting! More research to follow.
I WAS able to confirm that the crank metal was probably Bessemer process steel making as the fuel Coke was mixed in with the Pig and the Reclaim prior to 'firing'. I had begun to surmise that with the cranks, the properties achieved were more of a result of trial and error with getting a Bessemer process of steel making under control for the application, then it was of the actual metalurgy and use of Vanadium in a 'plug-n-play' recipe. I'll keep digging, someday maybe the 'key' will be revealed
I am a builder, not an engineer. After this post I will likely have to wear a bullet proof vest.
In my fifty years of dealing with game players I have learned to read between the lines. Think about this----
Any brain dead engineer would have known early on in one hour that the best method of holding the the fourth main solid was two bolts into the block.
Employed engineers can only suggest and supply the math for some one else above them to make the business decisions.
Why was this obvious improvement made fifteen years into production? It certainly could not be because Chev was catching up and Henry made a bunch of green selling parts up to that point could it?
The shoes on the late transmission were easy to engineer, why were they held back so late in production? Wonder how many transmission drums were sold by that decision.
I read some where Henry wanted to do more testing before selling Ts his partner told him to sell cars we will worry how to fix them later. This obviously was very profitable and I think a page was taken from that book.
In the early twenty's Henry wanted to buy back his stock so he announced he was retiring, of course the price dropped. Then he was having trouble making payments so he shipped a ton of unrequested parts c.o.d. to his distributors, and broke many of them. But he made his payments.
The four dip pan is obviously designed for the 26 setup with the push pull design of it. Henry simply used up his three dips he knew would be a dust collector on his shelfs with the introduction of the four dip. But then he started installing four dips on a pre 26 as everyone seen as an improvement to this day he could not say why could he?. I wonder how many unwanted T parts were sold long after the introduction of the A with this decision.
In the second world war Henry said he would give back any profit from it. As I understand that did not happen.
The Idea that the Ts crank is designed to flex with a magic alloy is probably part of the war, I consider it a myth. But stabilizing the fourth main is the most important battle in the war in my opinion. The crank was simply built to withstand a given amount of stress revolutions from 9 to 26 That could have been helped a bunch with the stability of the forth main early on.
I read in a set of vintage correspondence repair books I bought that T cranks were not worth grinding because they were so cheap, How things have changed
My crank broke between one and two. I know my ball cap was way low now with the disks and iron over and under. If you push down on the transmission the crank will pivot up between the third and second, then back down between one and two at least thats the way my bearings scraped if that helps you.
Getting my vest on!!
The four dip plan was used ,as stated earlier, because rods were routinely adjusted and # 4 was hard to get at.
Where your crank broke seems to be most prevalent breaking point regardless of the type pan used. All T cranks have broken or will break.
Your research is appreciated but heavier cranks such as developed for the Model A were obviously the only real cure for this T weakness.
OK my previous comment didn't seem to light any fires, so perhaps I can get some opinion on this!
Have those with 26 and 27 T's had the same crank failures as the earlier models?
I'm working on a 13 engine right now, so I have also wondered if anyone has tried to run a brace from the rear head studs to the aluminum hoggs head, or to the two bolts on the top of the ball cap?
No need for a bullet-proof vest! Your views, and your testing are exactly the point I have been trying to make in many other posts on many other topics.
T's worked as they did, simply because they did! That to me is the total extent of the 'science' but now to replicate what 'was' people want to try and include science or scientific deduction. [Myself included at times]. What you had was a tinkerer who knew how watches worked, and two emegrees from Europe who thought they knew how things worked. Read the Ford annals and you find they really didn't get around to trusting those college boys until about 15 or 16...and by then Henry was pretty set in his ways that wholesale change was not in the cards...that efficiency improvement was the key to the kingdom!
I follow all of the threads on testing closely...yet with equal vigor I listen to the 'tinkerer' side. I may question Ford and the slop, but at what is coming up on 2K plus for a nice crank...I'd sure like to find a modern way to keep everything more 'in' line and to reduce 'flexure' which is the prime cause of fatigue failure !!!!
Wilf, both are good ideas, I cant even get someone to stick a dial on top of the hogs head without the floor boards with someone watching the dial while braking, hitting bumps, etc. I have the data on how much the ball cap is moving with those measurements.
Warren, if thats the most common point of breakage then the logic of a sagging moving ball cap is the most common reason for it to happen
six years ago when I broke my crank with the stock 22 engine A machinist with a shop who builds steam engines from the ground up told me that you will almost always find 26- 27 engines much more worn then earlier ones. He told me lots of other things at the time that have been found to be true. I was a bit greener then now. Thats why I run a 26 setup in my 22.
Paul, Ill drive my sedan down when the weather breaks and well do the Measurement on the hogs head with the floor removed. Weve been with out power for three days. Mike
Thanks Mike, you are a driver like me, and you watched the tests in the to short of time we spent together.
Lets use a little logic here,
In I think 19 Henry offered the starter, generator, ring gear, and demountable wheels as I remember for 85.00 The hogs head was from that point on cast and machined for a starter, as well as the generator without buying the 85.00 setup. How much more would it have cost to cast two ears on the hogs head, and bosses on the back of the engine block Even if the pan was left three dip,and the hogs head were left for a narrow brake drum?
Paul,That's a mute arguement. You have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight,whereas Ford didn't.
I'm not sure if the following question is relevant or not. While it does not address the horizontal movement, could/would a bellyband offer the type of vertical support for the crank you are talking about?
I agree with what you say to a point, but I do believe that there was something more at work and it wasn't mechanics. We will never know what it is or was.
There's also an old engineers maxim that if it looks 'wrong' it probably is!
The first time I looked at a T arrangement, and realized that the pan was carrying all of the weight, my thought was, 'You gotta be kidding me!' Then when I learned that the wishbone socket had a function, and was not just there to 'hold things up' and that all of the impact of road bumps was taken by that socket, and the socket was simply a part of the pan...I started feeling that there was going to be a lot that was 'art' and was not 'science'
To each his own, I love to try and figure out the old 'whys' in industrial stuff...and on these very questions that you put in this topic the answers to original thought process are still elusive!
An aluminum hogshead to a cast iron one? More weight....There is enough land on the back of the block, where the felt seal goes to do 'something' for support, yet they let it float...and I do wholeheartedly agree with you that if there IS a '4 bearing' arrangement in effect and not a 3-bearing with a 'floater' as part of the 'force diagram', that using a piece of Swiss Cheese stamping was NOT the way to do it!
Keeps bringing me back to some old codger standing there, getting red faced and saying, 'Look guys...it's only suppose to replace a horse!' And it took them from 11-15 years for the engineers to finally have their day in court and even then they were stuck with the 'envelope'.
I wish I could understand this PC better I would post a joke that is my feelings, Les might do it!
You as an engineer George said "you could see it the first time". Tell me how Ford could not see it years before and millions of cars made by that time? Tell me how the obviously designed 4 dip was installed on a pre 26?
Ancient Indian Knowledge
The Lone Ranger and Tonto went camping in the desert. After they got there tent set up, both men fell sound asleep.
Some hours later. Tonto wakes the Lone Ranger and says, 'Kemosabe, look towards the sky; what you see?
The lone Ranger replies, I see millions of stars.
What does that tell you? asked Tonto.
The Lone Ranger ponders for a minute then says,
Astronomically speaking,it tells me there are millions of Galaxies.
Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three in the morning.
Theologically, The Lord is all powerful, and we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically,it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What does it tell you, Tonto?
You dumber then buffalo shit. Someone stole the tent.
I wish I had the answer, but it is one we may never know.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the change from three dip to four dip pan was simply done on the fly, not as an improvement per se...simply copying what some were doing to existing pans to get access to the 4th. Since there is no apparent logic or forethought on the impacts of the change, my only guess is that 'locals' were cutting away bits of the pan and replacing with a homemade cover. Can't prove it, unless someone has a pan that has been 'nibbled'.
The quest goes on
Sorry George! you are cutting a little to much slack.
Metallurgy and manufacturing processes were in their infancy when Mr. Ford was designing his autos. The pan on a model T is a deep drawn pressing and it was likely difficult to fabricate without shearing the steel. My guess is the initial pan shape was due to the manufacturing capability available at the time. As metals were developed with better properties and manufacturing processes were refined the Ford engineers may well have realized they could solve a service problem for the mechanics by extending the access panel in the crankcase pan. The Ford engineers were very busy trying to satisfy demand and reduce cost to expend time on solving what was likely a very low priority issue. I doubt there was any real consideration of pan deformation due to loads. If they had considered that aspect of the design there would have been a mechanical attachment between the engine block and the hog head, as they finally did in the 1926 - 1927 model years.
Has any consideration been given to adding an internal doubler to the pan in order to increase the pan stiffness. I haven't investigated the internal clearance available but possibly an internal doubler could be spot welded in place to stiffen the pan. There are several computer programs that could be used to investigate the effect on pan distortion by use of an internal doubler. Such a modification would be hidden from view and not detract from authenticity. If there are any stress analysts with access to the required computing capability this might be a worth while project. I'm sure a finite element stress analysis would provide visibility to this pan distortion issue. While this may not have been a problem in 1917 operating conditions it certainly may be a problem under current operating conditions. Just my thoughts on this issue. Cecil
If you weld on a pan,you must straighten it afterwards. (if you get it to stiff,you won't be able to.)
I have a 15 Im working on with a 4 dip pan, and when I bolt it on, I have to pry the trany shaft down 1/8". Further checking with a staight edge shows the pan is bent down .200in, almost 1/4". I will be straightning the pan, then adding a stiffener-doubler inside and also on the outside of the pan [a triagular gusset] along the pan rails and verticly up the bellhousing portion of the pan.There is room for a 1/8-3/16 stiffener on the inside on the cam side and lots more room on the other side. From what I see, the weakest point is just in front of the flywheel, and this should take care of some of the excess flexing?? I have never done one this extensively before [new babbit ect,] so this is a very interesting project. I have a backwoods metheod of setting the magnet spaceing to .001 if anyone is intested. George from Lena...
The doubler could be riveted to the pan and the rivets sealed.
I certainly agree welding would distort the pan. Perhaps the stiffners could be partially attached by welding, the pan straightened and the procedure repeated several times.
I'm still trying to get some feedback on the idea of running a piece of angle iron or threaded rod from the rear centre head bolt to an inverted Y 1/4" plate using the upper 2, 3/8 bolts of the ball cap!! It would run down the center above the transmission cover plate, and would still allow access to the bands.
If a slot was cut in the Y plate and have it bolted with 2 3/8 bolts to the angle iron/threaded rod, one could adjust the tension.
I wonder if the head bolt would take the pressure, or would I be in trouble of causing head leaks ?
Read part two, its going to take a while with some good thought to improve the problem