Saw a depressing post at the "Model T Club of Facebook".
Willi Kuhnis from Switzerland, occasional poster here, posted this picture of his recently cracked crankshaft:
Info is scarce, obviously he's pissed about this - but it looks like a new SCAT crank with their new rods?
Willi says it cracked after just three years - and among the archived threads here we find this: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/331880/384663.html?1377733537 about his last broken crank, actually less than three years ago, so this new engine with top of the line stuff didn't last more than perhaps 2.5 year??
Even if the pan was all crooked (of which we know nothing) should the new crank last more than that?
The SCAT rods are marketed with insert bearings for pressure oiling in the catalogs, but this looks like cast babbitt?
Would this be the 1.25" std replacement crank? Then maybe we still can have some hope for the ticker stroker version..?
I was wondering WHEN this was going to happen. And no I am not gloating. He has my sympathy and deserves better.
Studying the picture it seems like a "stroker " version. And yes it looks like babbitted rods
Hopefully no block damage
Looks just like my stroker SCAT crank except mines not broken.
Hope he sends it to SCAT so that they can examine it. Maybe they will find a pre-existing flaw that caused the crack to start.
I recall a discussion where Bill Dubats had analyzed the steel in a SCAT crank and found lots of flaws in the material, so maybe we'll hear about more problems with SCAT cranks in the future
Ok, the old Model A and 20's Chevy crank alternatives begins to look better again..
Christmas... You're talking 2 cranks in 2.5 years? What else is going on? Probably wrong but it seems there's a number of guys that have joined this club more than once with the same car.
SCAT makes a LOT of crankshafts for a lot of applications. I bet they ship a dozen or more cranks a day. Their quality is top notch Roger, despite what someone might have said on an internet forum.
Let's hear what actually happened and then discuss.
Interesting that it is flush with the bearing. I have not noticed that with original cranks.
I have had concerns about the "notching " in the Scat design by the throws. So I will say I'm not surprised
With so much information missing, it would be hard to simply blame the crank. With likely hundreds of scat model t cranks in use this is the first failure I have read while following model t stuff in the last six years. I have a standard crank with a straight pan. Hope to get many years from it.
Royce you are running a stoker SCAT crank.I am running an E-timer. What would Henry say?
Absolutely we are missing a lot of information. Obviously living in Switzerland he likely drives a lot of hills. It also seems like he is a "high mileage " user, so potentially has put the equivalent of 10 years use by a lot of people. We also know nothing about his driving style. So much we don't know
Does that area near the rod look like it has been hot?
*4 rod, Model A rod. Unsure if Babbitt use as no shim in place. I woul never use inserts on a splash system. I'm using SCAT rods with Babbitt. Also dont see any Babbitt present on the outside edges of the rods. Possible metal on metal contact between the rods and crank caused premature failure.
Looks like there's babbitt on the edge look at between 6 and 9 o'clock. It may have been sheared/wiped off when the crank broke. I put a set of the modern babbitted rods in an engine I did. They looked to be up too snuff.
That is a bummer anyway.
Maybe not enough radius at end of the journal.
The scat cranks have a more than adequate radius. Due to the absence of shims present on the A rods, I'm going to say inserts were used with no oil pressure. Big no no on a splash system. SCAT advises against this practice. Hopefully the gentleman that had the failure will provide more information.
Where are they made?
Forged in China, machined in US.
Does SCAT "roll" the fillets on the T cranks? Most volume production crank fillets are rolled. The purpose is to impart compressive stress in the fillet area in order to improve fatigue life.
Im buying if anyone is selling their unused SCAT crank in a panic! Half price of course.
Here's the 2012 thread where Bill Dubats shared his analysis of the steel in the SCAT and the NZ BuMac cast crank: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/257047/319720.html?1352561686
"I X rayed and probe spectrometered both the Bu Mac and SCAT T cranks. The Bu Mac showed quite a bit of shrink based porosity, esp. near the 4th crank throw. A sure prescription for stress concentration and breakage.
The SCAT showed sulphr strings in X ray, and way too little nickel to be the 4340 it claims to be in the spectro. The SCAT (a China blank)was also he "dirtiest" steel I have ever seen in a spectrometer test. "
There can be numerous factors in the failure. Was the pan straightened on a proper jig? Was the rest of the trans assembly trued? Does he have an auxiliary trans on early hog heads head? If so is it properly supported? Was there adequate lubrication? Adequate clearances? Proper bearing materials? Properly align bored? These are things to check in an engine that has reportedly broken crank shafts before. One shouldn't just install new crank and expect it to correct everything.
This does not look like a scat crank and the Rods are not Scat. So lets not pull an Obama and hold our judgement until we have all the facts.
I think the original Facebook post said that this was a Dubats crankshaft.
Peter, in the Facebook thread Tim Foye wrote: "Past sources of replacement cranks. NZ crank, SCAT, who was the other one, the one that was making them 100% in the states.... Old-timers kicking in here..."
Then in the next post William Harper wrote: "The made in USA crankshaft was produced by Bill Dubats."
So it was an answer to Tim Foye's post, not a suggestion about the original posting from Willi Kuhnis.
The front of that crank does seem to differ some from a Scat crank.
I use one that is 100% made in the US from known quality material. Yes it costs more (about $2,000.00)!! But I hate doing things twice. Do it right, do it once, move on!!
I'm now having one made right here in my home city of Calgary for my aluminum block/BB Rajo engine. My engineering and a quality CNC machine shop
All your comments about external back end loads are worthy. Which is why the "Schubert floating transmission shaft" has existed since 2010
Maybe you can get the costs down if you make a larger series of cranks, Les?
I think you may find some buyers who are interested in quality?
Frank, look at the cam shaft - I think we're looking at the rear throw, not the front.
Roger, I agree it is the rear and definatelly looks different than the Scat. I no longer have a Dubats or Bumac crank to check.
Roger, rear is the same.
To me it doesn't look like a Dubats:
Neither a BuMac (that likely wasn't available anyway in the autumn of 2013)
So what else could it be than a SCAT?
If it's a stroker, then maybe it had to be ground a little for clearance at the end of the inspection lid?
The cranks I have been involved with have all been "billet". Always first grade material. No good way to drive the costs down.
Funny thing happened recently with the transmission shaft. A person inquired and I quoted the same cost as 6 years ago. They were shocked that it hadn't gotten cheaper in 6 years. What can I say
Looks like a SCAT crank to me.
Royce I know you have a Scat so I'm looking at the black and white photos and the color photo first posted. The crank has flat sides but then the color picture just above my post with the made in America forged or stamped in it has rounded sides. I've never seen a scat in person so I'm looking to be educated. Does the scat have flat sides or the rounded sides? If it's the rounded sides then clearly this is not a scat but what is it?
Here is a Scat stroker crankshaft. For comparison.
The title says "cracked", it looks to me like its broken, Don.
How about someone get some more details from Willi. SCAT or not? Babbitt or inserts? Pressure or no pressure?
first I was very surprised, when it broke, but then I was reading a lot here if the forum and I have seen, there are hundreds of broken crankshaft, so now I think, this is the normal way;)
It's not a stroker, it's a normal SCAT, undrilled.
I use the expensive inserted connecting rods, (because we cannot send cores back to the USA to babbitt them). They were drilled by a professional company to fit the bolts on the crankshaft.
Also the 3 main bearings were aligned very exact by a specialized company.
At the moment, I think, I made a mistake, because I didn't really align the 4th main very exactly.
I will do this time very exact, but I don't know till now, if there is a problem.
But I am sure, the quality is also a big problem, I have seen this in the last few years with a lot of products form the USA, but I don't know, if it's allowed to write about this here ;)
But I couldn't disassemble it till now. After that, I will know more.
I checked now my notes and have seen: I drove 7800 (4800 miles) Kilometers in 2.5 years with this new crankshaft. I use a Z-head and I drive normally between 60 to 68 km/hour (42 mph) , sometimes till 80 km/h ( 50 mph)
It it was running very smooth now with very few vibrations.
I drive the same speeds on a 100 year old crank!!
Must be the only modern part of a E timer that's ringing the last few years out of it!!
Well - there's your problem right there. Rods with inserts but no pressure oiling. Mark Chaffin called it.
I can supply you with a Crower made billet crank. Contact me off list if you're interested. I'll start a new thread with some pictures of some options to choose from!!
Explain why insert bearings don't work in stock Ford, please. Dave in Bellingham, WA
I hope SCAT will want that crank back to analyze as I think it is premature to conclude the cause is the choice of bearing (insert vs babbitt). I'm not saying it is NOT the reason, but I would expect that if bearing failure is the root cause there would be more discoloration (bluing) around the journal than we can see here. Earlier comments (forged in China!!!!!YIKES) and metallurgical analysis make SCAT cranks suspect in my mind at this point.
David and Gary
I'm with you. I see no evidence of bearing failure. To the best of my info, the shells offered are not "trimetal Clevite 77" thin wall style. They seem to be a comparatively thick layer of Babbit on a steel backer. Similar to what Chevy used in their 6's with splash oil
I've just checked and now realize that I don't have any available inventory of cranks. They are all committed
It's possible the crank was not at fault but something else was miss aligned. If the mains are not in alignment or if the crankcase is twisted to the side or drops at the rear it could cause the crank to bend at every revolution and eventually metal fatigue set in. Broken crankshafts have been happening ever since the Model T was first invented. I remember my grandpa telling me about one which broke on a trip in 1926.
As mentioned before, the fillets on the SCAT journals are very generous. I suspect the non-SCAT model A rods used with the inserts did not have the same liberal radius wore rapidly on the edge over time and caused metal on metal contact between the hardened rod material and the crankshaft fillet. That, coupled with possible misalignment of the fourth main, caused the crankshaft to fail at the intersection of the fillet and throw.
SCAT has also given clear warning advising against using inserts in a non-pressurized and non-filtered system. Unlike the VW engine, the Model T engine shares the oiling system with the transmission. The likelihood of the bands wearing on the transmission drum and depositing iron particles into the oil alone will likely find there way into the rod bearings and in time wear the insert bearing material in short order.
For this very reason, my current engine build with the SCAT oversized (1.590) striker crank is utilizing the SCAT rods with Babbitt and the proper radius to fit the fillets present on the crank shaft.
Lastly, Tom makes a great product I would be hard pressed to blame this failure on the crankshaft. Although they come from China, they are a forging and not a casting. I have never liked the idea of using a cast crankshaft in a build. The only better option available would be the billet Crower Les has mentioned; however, as we all know, most model T folks are very conservative with their spending.
If the the rods with inserts is non SCAT and has radii at the ends that doesn't fit with the SCAT crank, then where are they supposed to be used? Do they fit standard Ford cranks?
I wonder if a new Ford crank back in the day was so sensitive that it broke after only 4,800 miles if the fourth main was misaligned?
(Message edited by Roger K on July 25, 2016)
I would like to see photos of the other three rods and rod journals. I bet they are scuffed and showing signs of why the crank broke.
Willi You say that this is a Scat Crank but it does not look like a Scat Crank. I have four in stock and none of them have a recessed shoulder as shown on the left side of your photo. The rods appear to be Snyder's rods as Scat rods do not have dippers. Insert rods and mains must be oil pressurized or they will fail. You said that your crank was not drilled for oil. Big mistake. Pleas let us know if this is not correct. Glen
I'm inclined to take that bet. You sound really confident. What odds are you willing to offer?
Glen and others
Please visit Snyders website Here is the link
Please review carefully the three attached pages of technical data.
I am quite impressed with the thoroughness of their presentation.
I think it should stop a lot of the idle speculation by those who appear to have a vested interest in suppressing or distorting the truth. I hope I am wrong in suggesting this!!
After studying there very informative details I will offer the following observation.
1. WHEN the crank broke it ripped the thrust flange from the insert bearing. This explains the appearance of a somewhat sharp and ragged corner
Heres some clear pics of a scat crank from a previous post to compare to the broken crank.
I've been following this since Rodger posted it and would be nice to get all the details before the hanging.
(Message edited by Jsteele on July 25, 2016)
I couldn't agree more
I am not predicting anything - I just want to learn what happened.
My sentiments exactly
I'm in no position to ask this but does that lining on the number four rod look a little "Jumbled/rolled/galled" around the shaft?
I'm wishing to see/know all or more too.
Hi guys, I see some mention of bu mac cranks, I have an early crank in car from 2003, no probs up hill down Dale and over 100,000km. Second t is bumac since 2005 and over 50,000km. Only had motor out for the odd cracked transmission drum. Just bought the last two bumac cranks around from chaffins a little while ago. Just using what I know I've had the best run out of. Both engines white metal and, balanced wright through and high compression heads. Both cars will sit at 80k all day long. I'm not putting any cranks down, but just saying for the last 13 yrs, ive had a great run out of bumac, which used to be a short drive up the road for me. Bumac has had its negative comments, but ive driven my cars hard at times, but on inspection, they look as good as the day I put them in. Even ran a big end, and the journal was ok. I have two other motors to do, so I hope they go just as good on these cranks. We kiwis used to have Firestone make vintage tires here, we had brass lamps made here, and a good crank as well, but no more. I like to read the information on this forum for a true and informative view on our hobby. Facts are a great way to the truth. No guess work. Thanks for all the informative advice you have given me on here to help me restore my cars.
To Ed in California: Me too!
On my posting of July 25 at 7:05, I explained what you are seeing.
I have felt for many years that most crank failures were heavily influenced by;
1. Transmission miss alignment
2. Poor driving habits ("lugging" the engine"
I don't know from experience but I have been told that the inserted Snyder rod does not have a sufficient radius at the sides to match the Scat Crank. If that is true you will have a hard metal to metal contact at those points which will certainly cause problems where the crank broke. Does anyone have a Scat Crank that has the recessed shoulder as seen on the left side of the first Picture? Look at it very closely. you will see a recessed shoulder I have never seen a Scat Crank that looks like that.
What does Snyders say? I assume you have talked to them?
Please give SCAT a call and have them get into the picture. They are the folks who should be concerned about this and would need to talk to Willi.
I called Scat and talked to Tom. At first he thought it might be one of his cranks Then I asked him to go on line and look at the crank. I pointed out that the crank has a shoulder protruding about 1/4 in high on the left side and that the thrust surface at the left side of the bearing is round neither of which is like a Scat crank. The sides of the throughs are flat , not shouldered and the thrust sides are not round. What we need is for willie to give us more information and better pictures. All Scat cranks are clearly marked Scat. After looking at it more closely Tome agreed that it did not look like one of his cranks.
The truth is all model T cranks can break. A stroker crank with bigger bearings will be less likely to break. Tom said that it looked to him like the rod had seized on the crank. He also said that his rods are more narrow than the crank journal so that the bearings do not ride on the radius. The rod in the picture appears to be the same width as the journal. I will call Snyder tomorrow and find out how wide their rods are.
So the mystery deepens. It is obviously not a Dubats or a Bumac!! Certainly not like any Crower I have ever seen!!
Hmm. A knockoff Scat!!
I find it a "stretch " that it would survive 5,000 miles with binding in the corners. That certainly has not been my experience with journal bearings. A tight fit in the corners would prevent proper oil flow. The oil enters at the dipper. It flows across the bearing surface and escapes at the sides. The oil accomplishes several things
1. Provides a film so that no metal to metal contact actually occurs
2. Carries away the heat generated by the hydraulic pressure and the constant shearing forces on the oil. This is as important as the first
IF the oil wasn't able to escape around the corners and carry away the heat you would know very soon!!!
Anyway I hope that we get some real information and end all this speculation!!
I agree Les. Too many things get thrown on the forum without all the facts. That can ruin a reputation. Tom is more than willing to help with the problem and more than willing to take responsibility if it were his fault. But after looking at the picture more carefully he agreed with me that it didn't look like a Scat. Willie says it is a Scat but maybe he was told it was a Scat by the builder and it wasn't? We certainly need more information.
If it is a Scat it will be marked on the front counter weight with the name Scat and what the stroke is. It should have a number stamped there. Dan
When you talk to Tom at SCAT, please ask him if they "roll" the fillets. I am curious.
Roar, Are you talking about the radius on each side of the rod bearings?
Question, Is the bearing in question the front or rear rod bearing?
The camshaft seen below and the direction of the dipper points towards the rear rod bearing.
Rod and/or main journal fillets.
New evidence has surfaced that Willie was a "pedal to the metal " driver. He wanted ALL the power and torque he could get. The potential exists that his driving habits could well have contributed to this failure. Today we are so used to the computer protecting our car from our foolishness. The T depends on the driver to use their brains. As I have stated before, driving habits have often contributed to crank failures.
We certainly still don't know all the facts, but they are trickling out!!!
Could the rod journals possibly have been reground to fit the insert bearing shells? A re-grind could have left undercuts at the radiuses or changed the radiuses at the end of the journals which would create stress risers?
Good thought, Art.
I stand corrected. Received an E-Mail from willie with new pictures of the broken crank and an order for a new one. It just proves that pictures are deceiving. The original picture posted did not look like a Scat crank. However, the new pictures sent leave no doubt that it was a Scat crank. It plainly says Scat on the front counter balance. Willie also said that he believes the reason for the failure was that he was not careful to properly align the 4th main bearing. I might add that he was using inset bearings without a pressurized oil system. Hope this information helps in the discussion.
Thanks Glen and all posters. This is a very interesting and educational thread.
There may be hope for Dubat's crankshaft yet. It is even 100% made in USA.
The Scat crank rod journal is 1.500 wide. The Snyder's rod insert is 1.490. That is too tight unless you relieve the insert width. But there is not much material to work width. That with the fact that the 4th main bearing was misaligned and there was no pressurized oiling system makes it a miracle that it lasted 2500 miles.
I hope that Scat gets the crank back to do their own analysis of what may have contributed to the failure. It could help in refinement of design if called for or possibly just more information sent along with any future cranks about installation considerations (alignment, bearing fit, whatever). I would trust them to want to improve the product or instructions if warranted. OK, possibly I'm naive but I think many suppliers actually want to provide a good product.
My offer still stands to buy any unused scat crank at half price
I'd match that offer Ed
I don't think we ought to be bashing the Scat crank or Snyder's rods at this point. I don't see why Snyder's inserted rods shouldn't work in a splash l lubricated Model T engine. These inserts are vastly different from the engine inserts I have worked with,
.010 is quite sufficient side clearance to allow good oil flow.
A bad transmission alignment would cause significant wear in the centre main. I've never seen it not!! So it is easy in the "post mortem" to determine this possibile issue.
Buy a floating transmission shaft from Dan Hatch. Cheap insurance
I would rather straighten the pan and use a Ford shaft. They are high quality and have a 100 year proven record. Every one who tries to improve on Ford usually fails with the exception of bronze rear axle thrust bearings.
The shaft is not a substitute for a straight pan. Look at Paul Vitko's tests of how much the back of the pan moves around under ordinary use. Then make your comments.
"Sure Mike" cranks bust like that don't want say how I know
"Sure Mike" cranks bust like that don't want say how I know
Here are some more pictures
All the inserts looks very good, they had enough oil. They get oil from the hole at the top and also from the dippers at the bottom.
Of course, the insert of the forth rod was destroyed when the crankshaft broke.
Standard "cup and cone" brittle fracture. Interesting crack propagation
How about elaborating on that description? Does it indicate flexing at that point possibly from a mis-aligned 4th main, or ??? Or is the metal too brittle at that point???
I also notice some interesting-looking patterns on the journals, any ideas there?
Don't read too much into the scientific terminology.
1. The crack grew (that is the relatively flat part of the failure). After it had reduced the strength sufficiently (about by 1/4).
2. The remaining metal "fatigued " and then "snapped " extremely quickly (possibly in one revolution) in a mode called "brittle fracture " the slight "cone and cup" of the two sides indicates this
That's my read from what I see.
I don't have sufficient information to speculate on what, if any effect the transmission might have had.
Similarly for the "colouring " on the bearings.
Willie says the rod shells are OK. I wonder what the main bearings are like, especially the centre one?
Of course I have thoughts, but prefer to stay with hard facts
The Ford crank is much more flexible than the Scat crank. The only flexibility in the Scat crank appears to be in the journals. Perhaps it is less tolerant to misalignment than the Ford crank as it's rigidity would drive the stresses higher.
We sometimes cuss Ford cranks but the ones in service now have run for nearly a 100 years. Perhaps Glen is right, when you depart from original Ford you should be prepared for problems.
From another thread it appears that Willie has a 26-7 transmission and also probably engine block. Assuming (dangerous word) that all was assembled straight then cyclical flexing would likely be minimal. I realize a lot of assumptions here
Les, I think that the crank has been cracked for a while. Looks like flexing from misalignment or driving to hard. Scott
So if the crank is more rigid, perhaps one does need to couple it with one of Les' "flex" shafts??
Looking towards my '16s engine rebuild in the future sometime--certainly don't want to lose that original block!!
The one thing I noticed immediately on the first photo, and was confirmed in the last photos is that the journal and the crank where it broke appeared to be blue. On the last photos, the rear main journal and the flange are also blue, and even the 3rd rod and center main appear to be blue as well. That's some SERIOUS heat going on! I have never seen a T crank turn blue, SCAT or otherwise. Something was obviously not right here.
I doubt that sort of heat would be involved Jeff, to turn a crank blue the babbitt would melt long before that.
As for driving hard! If 1700/2000 rpm would destroy a Scat then the stroked out 350 chevs for a NASCAR would be in big trouble at 11000rpm.
Maybe Willi will post a few pics of the inserts for review.
No self respecting Nascar competitor would even consider a Scat crank. They typically use much more expensive billet cranks from vendors like Crower.
I'll agree with Frank
I am not an authority but if you use a crank designed to run in a straight line then misalign the fourth main pushing the rear of the crank constantly out of alignment in one direction or another it might cause an issue like the posts above.
A bent drive plate or a transmission drum not true to a right angle to the shaft or other reasons would do it. Wonder if the builder had a lathe to check some of the possibilities?
Do we know if he was running a ball bearing or Babbitt 4th main? I am running a ball bearing 4th with a Scat crank in my speedster. Bad combination?
I think that the Scat Crank is a very fine product. We are lucky that Tom will even bother will the T and A motor,s. He sells a huge amount of cranks to the performance industry and they are abused at levels that a T can never reach. Very high rpm, large stroked, slamming gears, 7,500 rpm launches on giant slicks and they live for years.
The Scat crank is a BARGAIN and we are lucky to have they. I love my Ford cars and products but will get a Scat Crank the next time I need a crank. Last time I checked there was not one single Model T on the starting pole. So maybe Iam the lost one but where are you going to drive your T? I think we owe Tom at Scat a big thumbs up for his great product. Scott Owens
IF the transmission is out of alignment you will find indications in the rear (3rd) and centre main. If the rear main is still fitting good, then transmission miss alignment is doubtful, especially if the centre main is also fitting well.
By miss alignment I am generally referring to bent pans and related issues. Obviously excessive main transmission shaft "runout " would also figure into this possibility. It is probably fair to assume that the Scat crank flange ran "true" as delivered and most even used transmission shafts seem to run pretty true.
At this time we have no "hard facts " about the pan or related transmission parts, other than it is a 26-7 version. And while the attachment is the most "robust " , it is certainly possible to be pulled out of alignment by poor assembly processes. This should however leave indications at the main bearings.
I wish to make it clear, that even if it was only the fault of the crank, this does not mean that the Scat crank isn't a decent product. Stuff happens, good businesses make it right!!
If a drive plate was bent or the rear of the brake drum was not at a right angle to the shaft or both as I have seen a constant wobble would be made probably worse with a 26 design with two bolts holding the hogs head to the block.
I have had 17 thou run out on drive plate face and poor work on Babbitt alignment by a craftsman who has done many jobs but was in poor health and in a hurry to get it done with Babbitt folded between main caps and the block. I suspect poor assembly practice is the issue with no way to check over the internet or ever with the broken crank. My opinion!
Has there been any word on the Babbitt job?
It has been my experience that one or two people per year ask me if I can pour & bore just one babbitt bearing. It just doesn't work out satisfactorily that way. They usually don't end up having me do all three, they always wind up going to someone who is willing to do just one...
I have also run into a number of people who will also fit a crank into used bearings with "timesaver" lapping compound. I've heard of people fitting new cranks in this manner and am baffled why someone would fit a $1600 crank in old babbitt to save a $425 babbitt job...
Adam-- you are lucky if they leave before you do a cheap job for them. The loudest boos come from the cheapest seats and the guy who is nickle-dimeing you for a cheap job will be the last guy to ever tell anybody he had it done as cheap as possible; he'll tell them who did it but not who ordered it done cheap and fast.
Here is something to think about as far as alignment. If your crank is .001 out of alignment so it is flexing ONE THOUSANDTH out and back and is running at 2000 RPM it is flexing a total of FOUR inches every minute. True it is making the same ONE thousandth flex but it is doing it TWICE each revolution, once out and once back in alignment. At TWO thousand RPM it is flexing a total of FOUR inches. Think how many times that crank flexes in a thousand miles. Then think how much it is flexing if it is out .005.
Personally, I am a believer in Timesaver and introduced it to the T Forum about 15 years ago. But only for final bedding of the crank.
I agree with your view of Timesaver Stan but I think it could be used for transmission and triple gear fitting I am talking abut used gear teeth. Yet to try it but bet it would work.
Probably several faux pas here, but to the few implied lemonade stand comments, SCAT does good things and does provide a very nice option to the t world. Like all social media this forum has leverage with an audience. They make billet stuff I am sure. Nascar is not the only endurance standard. They did some neat v4'S used for desert racing and midgets. Stout stuff as a buggy we ran was powered by one of these. Just a comment on their knowledge and skillS during a period of their business. Good people.
Itís time to set the record straight. SCAT has been in business since 1962, has been making crankshafts since 1966 and has been making connecting rods since 1970. SCAT has one of the most modern machine shops in the United States.
Our bench mark daily production is 100-120 cast, forged and billet crankshafts per day and 800-1000 connecting rods per day. On top of all that, SCAT has made blocks, heads and other engine components. SCATís current customers are GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Racing and the industrial and automotive aftermarket, worldwide. Our quality control methods have been reviewed and approved by our OEM customers. SCAT cranks, products and complete engines have won many many championships and races worldwide including Indy (except Formula One).
My name is Tom Lieb and I am the owner of SCAT. I am an ďold car guyĒ with a collection of 20 some cars starting with a 1906 Autocar. The Long Beach Model T Club, the Horseless Carriage Club, the Classic Car Club, etc have all toured the SCAT facility. If any of you are in the neighborhood, I encourage you to stop by for a tour.
Early on the folks from Bu Mac visited and Bill Dubats called wanting SCAT to make their cranks. I refused because they were cast cranks. A casting has only 30% of the fatigue life of a forging. The max tensile strength is 60% of a 4340 forging, no matter what space age material you talk about.
Several years ago at Hershey Bill Dubats was giving to pitch to Joyce and Bill Smith (Speedway Motors). Billís last trip to Hershey before he passed away. I was standing there. I have known the Smithís for over 40 years. Since we had never met, I let Bill Dubats rattle on. I asked him for a copy of the test report and the serial number of the crank he cut up for the testing. I stuck my hand out and introduced myself. He did not shake it. He just turned and walked away. I never did have the opportunity to review the report. You be the Judge.
SCAT crankshafts are forged in China at a facility approved by GM, Ford and Chrysler. The steel is approved by all of the Big Three and used by SCAT for all of the forged cranks and connecting rods we have furnished to them for over 20 years. The ĎTí cranks are fully machined and heat treated by SCAT in Redondo Beach, California. Willís crank was a standard ĎTí crank. The connecting rods and bearings are not SCATís. The SCAT cranks are ground to 1.500/1.501 rod width with an 0.125 radius. The rods used were 1.490 wide with bearings 1.490 wide. The break clearly shows that there was no clearance. The bearing being too wide rode up on the radius, eventually locking the rod up and the crank snapped. Installation error for not straightening the pan, together with rods and bearings not properly machined caused the crank to break. One tough crank to last three years under these conditions.
SCAT puts every effort to furnish the best possibly product for a reasonable price. Forums are a great way to share. I wish to thank those of you who support SCAT. And to those of you who have an index finger on your computer, get the facts before you take your finger on a trip, to question or trash an individual, a company or their products.
P.S. Les Schubert, SCAT has made billet cranks for Tís and Aís, 5 main bearing for years. Most 4 cylinder class records at Bonneville are engines with SCAT cranks.
Tom Lieb, Owner, & CEO
SCAT Enterprises, Inc.
1400 Kingsdale Avenue
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Thank you !!
FACTS are nice.
5 main cranks for T's. I don't know of anyone else in the last 15 years that has built 5 main T blocks, other than me. All my cranks are billet from Crower. Just to make sure that the facts are clearly out there.
I'm sure you make a fine product. So do I.
Interesting in that you have not addressed this particular failure in any factual fashion.
Why you chose to single me out when I have not "slagged " you or your product is curious!! I have strictly tried to pursue the hard facts and stay away from slander and unsupported guessing.
Have a nice day
I must add that I take the fact you singled me out as a real compliment
I had the pleasure of a tour at Scat by Tom himself when I picked up my first crank years ago. Everything they make is in itself a work of art. While I was there there were making some billet cranks for WWI V12 Liberty aero engines. They were magnificent. Thanks, Tom, for making these products available. They are all I use in performance T engines.
Les, I have tremendous respect for your engineering talent and the ingenious products you make. That being said, Tom did not single you out at random. The tenor of your postings makes it abundantly clear you have a problem with Scat cranks. Fordially, Erik
My "tenor" was only against those who appeared to be trying to do a "white wash ". Those who appeared to be trying to blame the user with nothing resembling the hard facts being presented. We still seem to be woefully short of hard facts in this case.
My experience has been when people seem to be trying to suppress the facts or seem to be discouraging the digging for the facts, I get more determined to dig for them. I DON'T scare easily!!!
Thank you for the compliment
Tom Leib's explanation provided above makes sense and sounds perfectly logical to me. "The connecting rods and bearings are not SCATís. The SCAT cranks are ground to 1.500/1.501 rod width with an 0.125 radius. The rods used were 1.490 wide with bearings 1.490 wide. The break clearly shows that there was no clearance. The bearing being too wide rode up on the radius, eventually locking the rod up and the crank snapped."
My guess is the break is a fluke and not likely to happen again.
Mind you it is a guess. There are not enough facts here for much more than a guess. We have only 2 facts: the crankshaft broke and it was manufactured by Scat
It would seem if the rods were in a bind as has been speculated that the engine assembler would notice it pronto when he put it together. My guess of course.
Snyder's inserts wrap around the "corner" with Babbitt. Ford used to burnish bearings in. My guess is if there was just a little kiss of a bind the forgiveness of the Babbitt would take care of it.
Another guess, Mr. Dubats appears to be alive and well and hold office in the T-Totalers and other clubs in Minnesota. I guess I would not be too thrilled to put my heart and soul into a project and get to meet the fellow who wouldn't help me out and put me out of business.
My guess Scat makes a good product and has every intention of delivering a quality unit to each and every customer.
Can't see it my self, that babbitt thrust that is still visible on the other side of the rod surely looks thicker than .005"
From here in the Antipodese, I'd like to add that I own just one Scat crank, in an as yet un-started, worked over T speedster engine.
When I had the engine built my only real option was to buy a Scat crank and being on a very limited budget I was only just able to afford it.
At that time I was really pleased that a really decent crank was easily available, so I lashed out and bought one.
Having made this (big for me) investment it was only natural for me to take a close interest in this thread. As a result of people like Glen Chaffin, Tom Leib and Ron Patterson making positive posts, it has just concreted my faith in the product.
BUT....please, PLEASE don't upset Tom Leib. We (The Model T fraternity) need his fabulous product, and given the high volume of "other" cranks he makes, it would be very easy for him just to say, "stuff it" and cease making the T crankshaft, given its low(er) production figures.
Les, I concur it is unfair to both the parts user AND the manufacturer to perform diagnostics from online pics. The only hard facts are the pieces in Europe at present. I am certain that Tom would like to examine the parts in person. As an investigative individual, I wish you could see them as well. I for one would be particularly interested in seeing the rods and journals on the other three rod throws. Lacking that, I will have to defer to Tom's experience.
Tom, thanks for making a great product. I know you did a lot of research using the original Ford crankshaft blueprints before you went the into production. I've used your VW products for years and have been very happy with them. The crank I got from you is in my1924 T truck and doing fine. Thanks for your continued support of the hobby. Kim Dobbins
I specified a SCAT crank last time I needed a engine rebuild for the engine in my '26 Touring. I consider it money well spent and am very happy with the results. For the next engine I have done, I'll specify a SCAT crank as well.
I don't have a dog or a peacock or a kitten or anything else in this fight but I think not wanting to be part of a project you don't believe in is the prerogative of any business owner. Tom did not and does not believe in cast cranks and therefore turned down involvement in Bumac and Dubats cranks for a legitimate reason. I don't see that as being "The fellow who wouldn't help me out."
I would not be a part of a project I didn't believe in and would not put my name on it. That is the kind of deal that comes up pretty often where suddenly you have your name or something, the person or company you did the work for has run out of money or interest and folded and you are left with warranty claims, loss of your reputation and more crap to deal with when you probably didn't make any money on the whole project to begin with. It has been my experience that most of those deals happen when you are trying to help somebody out.
Rule number one about being in business is printed in large type on the first page of the book of how to stay in business: Take care of your business or you won't have one to take care of. Tom looks to me like he has done a pretty fair job of taking care of his business and deciding what he will put his name on and what he won't. In my world, it is his business and he can (an apparently does) run it how he chooses.
Rule number two should also be in large type: Not everyone will love you, your product, your company or your service. That is why there is Walmart and K Mart, Home Depot and Lowes. Worry about the business you have and your customers instead of about their customers and the business they have.
After 35 years in the auction business and involvement in some other businesses over the years I find those to be true, especially about taking care of your business. You can't run a business sitting in the bar when you should be standing in front of the lathe or delivering fuel to a customer -- whatever it is you are supposed to be doing. The reality of business survival is that the cows have to be fed no matter how cold or hot it is and if you don't put up hay in the summer you won't have any to feed the cows in the winter.
Meet Tom for the first time when Gary Hylton set about to have at our Winter Clinic Tom present his Crank in 2011. The week following the HME 2013 I was rewarded a personal tour wile SCAT was on shut down for the Christmas week.
Here are a few from the SSC Clinic in Jan 2011
I looked but could not find post clinic photos on the forum.
I think we should give a big thank you to all who have produced new crankshafts for the Model T. The Bumac was the first and there was a few problems but they worked well even though they were castings. But it is a process of development. We asked Scat to make cranks years ago but they were to busy back then to consider it. Then Dubats made some new cranks that were very high quality but still were castings. We had very good luck with these cranks with few problems. But when Tom Lieb finally decided to make Forged cranks for the model T it killed the market for the cast cranks. So I can understand why the manufacturers of cast cranks were unhappy. It was a lot of tooling costs down the drain. But that being said, as I said it is a process of development and the forged crank is the best option. So thank you Tom for finally deciding to supply the hobby with the best you can get. Sure, there are still going to be problems. It's a small Model T crank. It is not invincible. We just have to treat it with respect and common sense. Any crank is going to break if we do not use it properly. Proper clearance, proper lubrication, proper alignment and sensible driving and the crank will outlast us all. Even Ford's original crank has a phenomenal record of longevity.
Come on guys, where's the thank you's. Aren't you thankful for all of the sweat an tears given by these guys on your behalf?
The Scat crank in my 26 should be running long after the care of the car is passed on to my son. I had a scat crank installed by Dave Szumowski when he rebuilt the engine. The old girl runs smoother than she ever did.
I will extend my thank you by buying another Scat crank for my next engine build in the near future.
I am very grateful that Tom decided to make forged Model T cranks. I have a Scat in my 1912 Torpedo and it runs so smooth sometimes I wonder if the engine is even running. It's a great product and I highly recommend it.
Thank You Tom and Glen for making quality products.
I have purchased a Scat crankshaft for my '14. If funding "appears" the coupe will receive one as well.
OK.... I'm sold. Partly from this thread and partly from our Forum Friend Paul Mikeska's recent original crank breaking in his '14 touring. I've also enjoyed high performance with my '14 runabout's rebuilt engine with an original crank. As soon as this movie rental business ($400 @ day utilizing the runabout) is over, I'm taking it Lilleker to have a SCAT crank fitted.
I have a standard SCAT in my recently rebuilt engine. Having a new (and counterbalanced!) crank available for a car made nearly 100 years ago is a luxury most vintage car owners can only dream about.
Most appreciative here in Tennessee.
Have a Scat Crank and love it. Wouldn't do another engine without one.