I'm rebuilding my engine. If the original crank shaft is straight and not broken, should I reinstall it or go to the Scat crank? I've heard of old cranks being reinstalled in a rebuild and failing.
If you have the mean$$$ I would go to a scat crank
Otherwise, get a 26-27 EE crank. They are the strongest of the T cranks without forcing you to file Chapter 11.
Jonathan, if a crack free, well ground in spec original crank failed after a rebuild I wouldn't be blaming the crank, something else like pan alignment, balance, ball cap or??? several other reasons.
New SCAT cranks are expensive, but having piece of mind is priceless when you know you can count on the crankshaft for the long haul. Even EE cranks fail at some point. There's just no guarantees that the rebuilt crankshaft will give you dependable service for the long haul. The last engine I sent out for rebuilding had a SCAT crank installed. Worth the money. The engine runs very smoothly and I don't worry about being inducted into the "two-piece" club.
Well, I'll be the slave on the chariot of triumph here and remind you all the standard SCAT cranks still use the same rod and main bearing diameters as the old Ford cranks and thus will eventually fail from metal fatigue just like the old Ford cranks do. Some earlier than others, as Willi Kuhnis from Switzerland experienced last year after only 4800 miles in 2,5 years on a new rebuild.
The SCAT stroker version may have better chances since it uses larger diameter main and rod journals, but it takes a lot more effort and money to build an engine with such a crank.
Notice the SCAT is very strong and rigid between the standard sized journals, causing all the twisting forces that tends to resonate at certain rpms to concentrate where the weakest points are = at the journals.
(Message edited by Roger K on February 08, 2017)
That man had a scat crank break, also had several standard cranks break as well. He also never checked the pan for alignment. I also remember he used improper rods with insert bearings with out an oil pump. The crank was NOT the problem!
Out of idle curiosity, do Model A crankshafts survive any better in a T engine?
SCAT can provide a crank with oversize mains (to your specification) which can allow you to rebore existing mains to clean up and straighten if required.
I'll preface this by saying this is only my experience. Yours may vary, of course.
The engine in my 1919 Speedster was rebuilt in 1980 with new pistons, rings, valves, guides, re-ground cam, new cam bearing, all new babbitt bearings, etc. The original crank (not an EE) was also ground and re-installed. This engine also has a Rajo head with new pushrods, springs, retainers, tappets, lifters, etc. After the rebuild was completed, the engine was oiled-up and wrapped in plastic and stored for the next 30+ years.
Jump forward in time to 2013. With Joe Bell's help, the pan was straightened on his jig. and I re-assembled the engine. It's been running well for the last three years with no problems with the crank. In the summer of 2015, I had to replace the #4 rod and cap due to some babbitt that had chipped away on both.
I realize I only have a relatively few number of miles on the rebuild (probably in the neighborhood of 1800 - 2000 total), and hey, it could break tomorrow, but so far, it's running fine.
I know of another Scat crank that has broken. The owner does not wish for his identity to be published.
Roger nailed the issue
As a newbie here let me apologize in advance if this question has been covered already. My question is motivated by Rogers comment, which I tend to agree with.
My Question: When the STOCK (not SCAT) T crank fails due to pan/4th main misalignment does it fail at a predictable place on the crank? Decades ago when I rebuilt my first and so far only T engine I was cautioned about 4th main issues but was lead to believe it was more about avoiding a center main failure, no mention of cranks breaking.
Is the point of breakage of the SCAT crank pictured consistent with that? As Roger pointed out, the stock rod journal diameter makes for a very substantial, at least to my eyes reduction in the cross section of the SCAT crankshaft as compared with a stock Model T crankshaft. The incorporation of counterweights and other differences in the SCAT design would result in a crankshaft which will have different characteristics as far as tortional vibration.
The post for the pictured crankshaft in the T located in Switzerland was sometime last year but I don't think a definitive conclusion was reached to explain the failure. It was further complicated by other variables (insert bearings, etc) coming into play.
Another question, has anyone ever resorted to the most up to date crack or flaw detection process (magnaflux,x-ray) on a stock crank and then suffered a crank failure despite the crank having passed scrutiny?
Lastly, thanks to SCAT for stepping up and producing replacement crankshafts for the T enthusiast.
I put a SCAT crank in my TT rebuild. Turned it over a dozen times
now without a problem. Might have the pan on next week.
Well, this is a very important question to which we need to get some scientific answers. Considering the expense for a new Scat crank over an inspected original crank, is the engine owner improving his/her chances of not joining the "two-piece crank" club to a considerable extent? Is the T journal size just too small to insure a lack of breakage by using modern materials?
David, that's the question I need answered. If the crank in my car checks out to be okay, why spend the extra money?
The crank in your car may in fact check o.k., but it's still got 100 years of metal fatigue under it's belt. A new crank has zero metal fatigue. However, it's been proven, NO crank will last if it's used incorrectly.
I have one car with a SCAT crank and 3 with stock original cranks. I don't plan to change any one of them any time soon based on fears of breakage. Start with a good crank, new or original, fit it properly, drive it sensibly and don't over think it, (as is the nature of forum postings to do).
I'll add, until you get your crank magnafluxed, it's all just conversation at this point anyway.
Since we are on the SCAT crank issue again, I'll ask a question, that I have asked before; does anybody know if SCAT cranks have their fillets "rolled"? I am pretty sure any prototype cranks they make for an engine manufacturer will have rolled fillets, but what about for aftermarket Ts?
Why are people thanking Scat? For what? We already had the USA made Dubats crank which has had no reported failures (as far as I'm aware).
Using a Chinese made product, Scat matched Dubats on price and (some people say "to") put him out of business. With no competition the price of a Scat T crank has since skyrocketed. Price gouging or Scat's Chinese supplier raised prices on them?
See the price of a Scat 350 Chev forged crank :
Why is a Scat T crank more than double the price?
No doubt SCAT makes good cranks, and Scat's owner Tom Lieb is a clever businessman; but as T guys should we thank him? I say no.
T guys who do thank Scat must I guess be looking forward to seeing the USA made KC Warford disappear only to be replaced by a $5000 Chinese import.
Just guessing Constantine, but I'm willing to bet that the costs of producing the T crank are about the same as the Chev. 350 crank. However, I suspect Scat sells 20 times more Chev. cranks than T cranks. There's the difference.
Jerry, yes sales volume plays a large part but so does this:
With Dubats taken out, Scat has a monopoly.
President Ronald Reagan famously said in the fight for freedom:
“Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!”
I say for the sake of fairness and the T hobby:
"Mr. Lieb, bring down the price of T cranks!"
It would appear you do not understand all the details of SCAT's mainstream products and additional Model T/A products?
Suggest you get ALL your facts correct before you alight from Mount Sinai with your specious stone tablets.
I'll buy a scat from anyone who is running scared...at a discount of course.....
The wall did get torn down, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Bring down the price of new cranks, and the supply of them will collapse, because they will no longer be made. Scat produces all its vintage Ford 4 cyl cranks from the same forging. This means they have to remove a whole bunch of material to make a T shaft. I have seen the machines that do this and they are huge. It takes a lot longer than to punch out an SB Chevy crank. Lieb doesn't make a huge profit on these given the volume of sales, he is a hobbyist too, and does it as a service that is needed. Tom is not afraid of competition. He knows you can not tool up and produce the same quality of product and sell it for the $500 you would like to buy it for. Just try it. I think it is bad practice to piss off the guys who have the resources and willingness to produce things that take this much to make available.
Yes, I am a user of Scat cranks. I have put a dozen or so of them in stock and modified engines. Are they a panacea? No. They have the same inherent weaknesses as any four cylinder crank of that size running in three main bearings. They can and have failed if improperly installed or abused. But they will far outlast a 80-100 year old stock T crank, EE or not, under any conditions and run far smoother. All this being said, a stock crank that passes a magnaflux and properly installed will give long service in a stock engine if not abused.
My next T motor will have a scat crank. Not getting the new crank is like using a old cam to me. I have drag raced for over 30 years and had good luck with scat products. It just seems like extra safety when having hard to find blocks and other parts that get damaged when they come apart. Tim
In addition to Erik's comments: SCAT is a major supplier to Detroit and we are lucky to have them taking time out for us.
I have been waiting for one of SCAT's new products for almost two years and am glad to do so, because it will be made correctly.
What facts do I have wrong? The Dubats crank didn't exist when Scat entered the market? Scat didn't raise their prices dramatically once Dubats folded?
Mr. Lieb didn't introduce a product we didn't already have. He's not a Moses (to use your Mount Sinai analogy) who came to save us. What he has managed to do though is knock off someone who had a good product at a good price.
I never suggested Lieb's T cranks and 350 Chev should priced the same; but yes, I do think his T cranks are overpriced. Scat's VW cranks are also cheaper than their T cranks. The "core" used for his T cranks are the same ones used for his Model A cranks; they're hardly making and selling a tiny number number of these.
If one feels, as I do, that Scat is taking advantage of their monopoly it's best to speak up, push back. That's what happening with the OCF. You're suggesting we all skulk; be in fear that he stops making them.
Let him stop making them; if he does the Dubats crank might come back, or the Burlington Model A crank guys might start making a T, or... Something new will appear as the demand for the product exists.
John Regan's new correct driveshaft will hopefully put the muppets who have knowingly been producing incorrect parts for years out of business. My point? Just because you making a T part doesn't make you a good guy. Some T part suppliers deserve to vanish.
Skulking will lead to the price moving to $2000 then to $3000. Most people don't have that type of money.
When SCAT entered the market, the price was comparable to the DUBAT's. While the DUBAT"s crankshaft was a good product, the SCAT was superior. DUBAT's crankshaft cast iron. SCAT crankshaft forged steel. I intentionally waited for SCAT to come out with their forged crankshaft instead of settling on the cast iron DUBAT's when building my overhead equipped RAJO engine. With all the flexing encountered in a high torque T engine build, a forged crankshaft is the better option unless you want to shell out really big dollars for a billet crankshaft. End of discussion.
I have never understood people's deal with the Dubats crank. Scientifically and in practice it was and is the superior product. And to say it was made out of "cast iron" is unfair. Austempered ductile iron (ADI) is not remotely the same thing as what our blocks are made from. Dubats crank is significantly lighter than the Scat crank, tougher (scratch resistant), and is more flexible (would survive a misaligned pan longer and better). Scat may not be in the business of fooling with ADI, but it's cheaper and easier to machine than 4140.
On top of all of that ADI literally absorbs vibration. It was the perfect Model T crankshaft. Don't just shoot off at the hip about forged steel is better blah blah blah. Go read some articles about ADI versus 4140 and anyone will see that ADI objectively makes more sense. And to top it all off it was cheaper than a Scat crank is now?!? It's a travesty everyone didn't get behind that product.
When I finish my engineering degree and make enough money I'll see if I can talk Mr. Dubats into letting me get a handful of them made again just for me.
Competition is a good thing. As previously mentioned, I think the DUBAT's crankshaft was a good product and believe it should have continued to be produced; however, my personal preference is the SCAT. I'm sure if SCAT believed the benefits of using ADI in the production of their crankshafts was superior to a forging, they would have done so. As previously mentioned by others, SCAT has an extensive history of making outstanding products for both industry and the model T hobby. They must know what they are doing or they would not be so successful. They must be doing something right.
A forged crankshaft is indeed better than a billet, but since SCAT's raw hot forging is so large that they can use the same for all three versions: Model A, stroker T and standard T, then they're cutting away a lot of the nice material flow lines the Chinese manufacturer created in the forging - maybe the flow lines deep down where the standard T journals are found isn't as nice?
Here's a comparison sketch between methods:
Cold forging makes the nicest flow lines that helps stop metal fatigue. That's why Roar's question whether SCAT rolls the fillets is relevant - that is a kind if cold forging that would help against breakage. If introducing fillet rolling would raise the price of the std axles, it would still be worth it, since it would help them live up to the expectations seen here. Most std SCAT's hasn't been driven long distance yet.. Even if everything is aligned as good as can be, you'll still have the twisting that causes metal fatigue from the power strokes that resonates at certain rpm's that is impossible to solve in a std T engine since there's no room for a harmonic balancer due to the shape of the pan in front.
(Fillet rolling in a computer simulation picture)
I bought five EE cranks before finding one that was not cracked. I paid about $1200 before all was ready to install that .020" undersized 90 year old crankshaft. Every one of them will fail eventually from fatigue. You are hallucinating if you think there is a way to predict when.
Mark, I have no idea what Scat has looked at or not. However, I disagree that they would use ADI just because it's better. For one, it's relatively new. For another, they have economies of scale using 4140. As previously mentioned, they start with one forging and make multiple cranks from it. They're in the business of making money. Maybe they don't make as much money on T cranks, but I can about guarantee you they don't lose money making them. I'm not saying they make a bad product. They make a good product . . . that happened to not be too much trouble using materials and processes already in place.
I don't think that's anywhere remotely the same as having a T person who is also an engineer research crank shafts and look to solve the crank shaft problem with the best design and materials at a reasonable price.
I think your Rajo head is a decent comparison: if Edlebrock or Trickflow had an employee or owner who likes Ts and took one of their four cylinder head castings and machined it to work as a T overhead, that's just nowhere near the same thing as what you did reproducing the Rajo head. I can hear the same kind of arguments playing out "But Edlebrock has the latest and great flow bench testing capabilities, of course their head is better."
I just don't like seeing Mr. Dubats crank knocked or stated as inferior when the facts just flat out don't support that. I personally think what happened was a lot of folks wrinkled their nose at a "cast iron" crankshaft and were wooed by the big name company.
Without engineering knowledge, most folks just heard "drop forged crank" and just assumed that would be the best.
Actually, I was kind of surprised when Dubats called it quits. It seemed like Scat was offering cranks for about 5 minutes when Bill said "done". I think he too was wooed by the big name, just in a little different way. Perhaps my perception of the situation is not an accurate one, but I sure wished he would have hung in there a while longer. I spoke with him in Chickasha just before he offered his cranks for sale. I was going to buy one, then blink, he was done. Ultimately bought a Scat instead.
I'm no expert, and certainly don't doubt any of the explanations posted here for this or other crank failures. The close-up of this breach leaves me questioning whether this failure may have been aggravated by a metallurgical fault in the part. The bead-like streak near the center of this diameter section looks like a porosity variation. Looks like a portion of this exposed billet is smooth, where I would expect a more uniformly shard surface resulting from a tinsel failure? Do these breaks normally look like this under magnification?
It was informally determined that the cause of that break was the use of insert bearings that were a tad too wide for the journal. They rubbed on the corner radii and gouged it just enough to initiate a stress point.
Regarding may comment about the variation of this break surface....does this look like a normal tinsel failure to you? Not implying one way or the other....curious?
Very unlikely that a failure would initiate near the center, as that is where the stresses are at their lowest.
Ford has used "cast iron" cranks since the forties, at least, they are tougher to grind than steel cranks, and since I've been around them I've seen one broken crank that I remember, an old flathead, don't remember what year. Machine shop I worked for did many of these each year in those days. Dave in Bellingham,WA
Many thanks for comments Roar.
Ford invented "Crankshaft grade nodular cast iron" in the mid - 1950's. It is very suitable for what it was designed for. Problem is, Model T cranks are small and weak. When they get to be 100 years old, they are still small weak and now they are old and have major stress history. A cold forged crank will always be stronger and more fracture resistant than a casting. The Dubats crank likely was better than a 100 year old forging.
You need to do everything that you can think of to keep yours from breaking including straight pan, straight bearings, light pistons, balancing.
I have spent a lot of my career engineering "rotating machinery ". I did have Crower produce a run of replacement T cranks that could be installed as either standard 3 main or as 5 main with a bolt on "girdle " cast assembly. I looked hard at getting some cast from 4130 steel. Yes, it is quite possible to produce a top quality cast steel crank.
Currently my "fleet" of T's is a follows;
1, EE crank with bolt on Dunn weights (been running since '78).
2. A crank with pressure oil and bolt on weights of my own design (been running since '75)
3. Ford "C" crank drilled (has integrated weights) not too many miles yet
4. EE crank totally stock in my '13 since 2001
5. Drilled EE crank in a speedster with Roof 40 head
6. Crower crank
And then my 5 main projects which are not relevant here
I'm not going to get into a dissertation on the Scat crank design.
Ed you kill me heheheh, Royce I would sold you 2 off them at that price bolt in,I put one up on classifieds recently, I agree with Eric we have talked extensively on this, Tom is a good guy! This is what I do know Eric and I use to buy cranks together Time time time 3 years just to get 20 together
Here's how we did it and pissed people off doing it. some! we pull up to there swap space ask how much for the crank and then tell them. If good we will buy it
step 1 measure rear crank main bearing 15 or under (cause we grind to 20)and check others for same, some would grind less coarse. We paid more for those!
step 2 (ring test) yes there was controversy (GIGGLES)
Then we fired up the generator to mag test it
if good we would buy it throw it in the wagon and head on And yes 60 percent were JUNK!
Some were thrown out while others got put back on the table for sale, after we left
Never the less scat came and Eric had 25 hang in the barn for some years even late cranks, now. I think the other day I saw 10 hanging in barn not early but not EE all ground and mag tested for cracks, never the less I'm glad that scat offers this! I DON"T MIS SHOPPING FOR cranks
as for current cars
3 model T's with late cranks not EE and yes I belong to the 2 piece crank club, broke early crank with counter weights
If you don't drive them they don't bust right Mr. Dewey
If I were rebuilding one of those motors today I'd put SCAT IN it. If I had the MOney$$
On anther note in my 1914 wild cherry 2 Race car
I have a SCAT with a phonic balancer W/ over head Gemsa with C4 auto trans
Eric and I run F.A.S.T
Jonathan, this is a very tough choice and there is a lot of imput here, what it comes down to is how hard and fast you drive your T and the pocket book $$. I think one of the main things people mis after doing there crank and bearings is straighten the oil pan. This is a must. Don't let anyone tell you different. Good luck on your T motoring. Robert
Robert, your 1914 Wild Cherry 2 race car sounds very interesting. I would love to see pictures
What is a "phonic balancer" and where is it placed? Do you use the thicker stroker SCAT in that wild engine?
Out of curisoity Robert any idea how many would pass a "ring" test and still fail the mag? On my speedster we rang a few cranks and picked one. No speedometer/odometer so I have no idea how many miles were on it when it was traded. I do know that I wore the tread off the tires which were bought new when we built it. I don't believe it but I was told by someone following I was doing 70 at one time (warford).
On the engine I'm starting now I will be using a scat.
I had four that passed "ring test" and were cracked in various places when checked with mag particle. It's meaningless.
You can't build engines like this with out a good crank. Buy the time you buy, modify and grind a Model A crank you will have spent quite a bit of money and many of them brake. Exception might be how Les Schurbert did his but I'm guessing if it was treated like the one Rodger keeps pointing out it would break also. Million of miles have been put on Model T cranks, if you going to drive down to the Dairy Queen, in a parade on the weekend or tour at moderate speed they would be more than fine. The Montana 500 guys run standard T cranks hard and seldom brake one, but those engines are put together with great care, well balanced, straight pans and no run out on the mainshaft. It would be interesting to know how many people brake cranks because the driver was lugging the engine up some hill. If you want to run the snot of of your car and you have the $$$ put in a Scat. It's my understanding that some Model T guys had to convinced Tom Lieb to build these cranks. I would bet money Scat sells hundreds of 350 cranks for every Model T crank. High volume means lower cost which gets passed on to the consumer. He is in business to make money but I doubt he saw this as big money making opportunity. If the T cranks went away he would probably never notice it on the bottom line of the balance sheet. I think Scats are worth the money, are they necessary, no, but there would be a big void if they stopped making them.
I suggest that better than mag test and the ring test the best way to determine the composition of your crankshaft is to have it industrial x-rayed.
My 1909 Stoddard Dayton has historically bad front axle spindles. I had them mag'ed and they came out good. I then decided to have them x-rayed.
The results were astounding. The core of the spindle was completely flawed and full of crystals.
looking at the film it appeared there were diamonds throughout the spindle. These crystals according to the lab tech, were actually the beginning of fractures in the spindle. They rang good, mag'ed good but still were on the verge of breaking. I machined new spindles and drove the car with no hesitation.
I took one of the original spindles and put in in a large vise. I took a 10 pound sledge and hit the spindle several times, it rang with a very clear tone. Then guess what a couple more wacks and the bearing snout of the spindle broke off.
Examining the break there was much discoloration and flaws in the snout. My advice is to ex-ray all critical pieces of any car you are going to restore and drive I do.
As far as which crank is better or not I prefer to have my cranks machined out of solid billets as I have done for my 1 and 2 cylinder cars. The cost is more than a Scat but it is proven stronger and all NASCAR motors have billet cranks as do Ferrari, Maseratti, and other high performance cars. Spend the money do it right and tour with piece of mind.
I love my Bill Dubats Crank and have several thousand miles on it, many at pretty high rpm's around 2800. Still going strong and hated to see him stop but relived that a Scat is now available.
I built my speedster engine with a Scat crank. It is running a measured 6.5:1 compression ratio. I have short aluminum pistons and custom billet longer rods with insert bearings. I have no concern with the inserted bearings in a splash oiling system when they are properly fitted. I have run this car at 65 mph many times with stock gearing and no overdrive. Of course, everything is well balanced. I think balancing the transmission is critical. You sure don't want that thing hanging out the back flexing the crank.
My brother builds 4 cycle racing engines for go-karts. I realize a Model T is not a go-kart, but some of the things he has learned over the years were applied to this engine. His engines typically run in the 8800 to 9200 rpm range, all with splash lube and insert rod bearings. Rod bearing failure or crank breakage is not something he sees.
I'm going to start hoarding all the Model A & B cranks I can find. So when SCAT decides that the limited Model T market is not worth the aggravation and gets out of the business and no one has the capital (or the desire) to tool up, I'll make out like a bandit. Early retirement!
Joe, that's a great plan. I hope Mr. Lieb considers that the one Constantly bitching about his product, does not speak for all of us. I am grateful that he's taken the project on. -Ed
If you look on the Scat website they do make cast cranks for certain applications - it is their 9000 range - so if they thought this method of manufacture was suitable the Model T requirement I am sure they would have used it, rather than go to the expense of making forging dies with all the associated extra costs. Also I believe the cast cranks used today in production applications of 4 cylinder engines will be of a 5 main bearing design, not 3 as in a Model T. You cannot compare a T application with a modern application. I too, am pleased Mr. Lieb took the project on and we can benefit from it.
I think straightening the oil pan is imperitive and should be checked no matter which crank you use. A straight pan will solve a multitude of problems down the road.....
Chad if my memory serves me right 3 out of ten rang and the other 7 were cracked and picked up with the mag.ALAWYs MAG THEM IS WHAT I LEARNED That was 16 years ago when I was just learning model T 's.
My buddy Eric has been my mentor.. And John love the pictures,
as I get close to april I'll post on the phonic balancer on the front of scat crank
It's a harmonic balancer. I think Bob's spell check may have done that. In the Wild Cherry II race car we use the stroker Scat crank, "A" journals and stroke. Tom made us a special order one that is longer at the back end which helps with the C4 auto trans conversion. The same special crank is also ideal for the Fronty pan/A tranny engines. We will get some pics of the car up.
On the ring test: If it doesn't ring, it is cracked. If it rings, it is possibly or even likely cracked. Always magnaflux a prospect crank. I am thinking of having another run of T cranks ground, but I send them in batches of about twenty to get a price break. That's hard to do when only about one in every ten or fifteen cranks is worth grinding these days.
There's a lot to be said for installing a newly made part that hasn't had any of its finite fatigue life used up in prior service, even if the metallurgy and geometry are no better than the original. If the new part has superior metallurgy and/or geometry, well so much the better.
Ed, I have no complaints about SCAT products, as I said above "No doubt SCAT makes good cranks". Did you see that?
My issue with Lieb is the large price rise in SCAT cranks SINCE Dubats went out of business.
Has Lieb taken advantage of the fact that he now has a monopoly? If so, that's not okay with me.
Lieb was not the driving force behind the T crank that SCAT sells. A number of well known T guys asked SCAT to produce a small batch of cranks (at $2000 each) which they themselves designed. With most of the hard work done, Lieb saw an opportunity to make money. And good on him, I just wish Dubats had stayed in the game.
We gained the SCAT at the expense of the Dubats, that's what happened. Lieb didn't come to the rescue.
If you and others believe he's a knight in shining armour; well, better that I guess than going off to Iraq or Syria to join ISIS. Keep on dreaming.
So would I buy a SCAT crank? Probably yes, because he now has us over a barrel.
I always ask myself what I think things are worth when buying. As Royce did, he considered an alternative to get a good 90 year old crank and the numbers start adding up with a higher risk of failure still. When I am not willing to pony up and take the business risk it is hard for me to dictate price other than choosing to not purchase. It appears Dubats bowed out from a business or ROI standpoint. It was a T crank but it was a different raw materials cost and he may have been cheaper or he chose to cover overhead with less. He obviously chose to leave the market so the lower price may not have held in the long term. His money was at risk not mine. SCAT got in for his reasons and chose a price point based on what the market would bear. I don't disagree competition is good, but it appears he did not illegally create a monopoly if that is really what it is. It appears several will make a T crank, but at a greater cost, so we have choices albeit more cumbersome to get when custom. Until someone invests again, it is probably a good option and does not seem to be gouging from my view. I cringe when I know what a SBC crank goes for and an AMC 401 crank is significantly more, yet the same shop and materials are used with a design that is not new. Just economics. Volume as someone suggested drives business price points and I have to deal with it or do without. Maybe not a hero but not a bad guy either. Just my view of the deal. Great technical and spirited thread.
Supply and Demand Constantine....nothing more complicated than that.
I learned a long time ago, the "ring" test on a crankshaft doesn't mean squat. In the mid '60's, my old buddy took a 312 Ford crank to a machine shop to have it reground. It had passed the ring test. He had it in the back of a pickup and when he got to the machine shop which was about 40 miles away, it was in two pieces. JMHO Dave