Wondering what a shrewd fellow would have to pay for good useable setup to pour and align bore model T main bearings.
Seems to be some systems available in our area where the owner has passed away, with no one to carry on.
Gene French is your best bet for Babbitt and line bore tooling. Give him a call and kick things around.
Here you go.
Original old babbitt & bore setups are often worn, etc. If you donít have the machine skills to build your own setup from scratch, you may not have the skills to repair an original to the point you are satisfied with its performance. The new setup from Gene is your best bet. Many of the old-timers that use antique equipment will disagree, but Geneís moulds actually follow correct modern foundry practice and if properly heated will produce a good casting that doesnít need to be peened.
One problem we have seen with old tooling is that it was made to use standard size crankshafts. Often there isn't much material to bore out for an undersized shaft. We remake the tooling with mandrels .050" smaller than original, just takes a little more time to bore out. We have also used Gene's products with success.
We have a Hempy-Cooper poring fixture at the shop, re the size of the mandrel, that's what I found when I checked it. Might be able to go first undersize, but just barely/maybe.
as Adam and Erik mentioned ...often times the antique fixtures are worn out and parts missing ...and there is seldom any complete and correct information regarding operation of the tooling ...( usually there is a bunch of mis-information ) ...my tools are designed for the small shop or hobbyist and are compact and light weight ...you will not need a fork truck to move my items or a warehouse to store them ...and I include procedure sheets and my e-mail or telephone support are available ...I regularly export my tools also ...always an optimist ...Gene French 970-581-2808
My first observation of line boring using a worn out KR Wilson jig was an education for me. The craftsman doing it was in poor health in a hurry and for me never seeing the proper procedure before I could pick out several parts I would not have done----in fact I made two trips half way across the state re doing part of it that was still wrong.
The gene French tool is very well done in my opinion. The boring tool is just part of the cost of a line bore. Babbitt, fuel. electric, several different measuring tools, a heat gun, and more. About 1700.00 American is a ball park number for starting.
Mike Benders web site I think is called tinkering tips is also well done using the gene French tool and there is lots more information on it.
and if properly heated will produce a good casting that doesnít need to be peened. " END QUOTE "
Now, Adam, that is just plain false Information.
KR Wilson used a reamer to finish boring the mains. The boring jig was to rough cut the babbitt for the reamer. The feed screw is too course for boring anything other than the rough cut. To use a KRW Combination machine you need either only STD cranks or undersize reamers which KRW did not make. I have had reamers ground undersize and it is not cheap. Dan
Per Herman's posting,I'm not sure how "properly heating" can change one of the facts of basic metallurgy- that almost all molten metals shrink upon solidifying. It is this very fact that requires that a bearing cast into a non-tinned shell be peened to lock it in place.
If you want a machine that will work good, get a Tobin Arp TA 14 or 15. Dan
Peening the babbitt is very important. You need to start that process as soon as you can while still hot. A couple of things happen in my option, the babbitt conforms to the block and helps expand the babbitt into the anchor holes. Very important process. Note the KR Wilson tool for this is the wrong tool.
Peening pictures. Before, and after.
Ok got to ask, why is the KRW peening tool wrong for the job?
Yes, Mark. I am wondering the same thing.
Pictures to big, will try again.
KR Wilson tool has to large of contact area. Will not move the Babbitt as needed. Note Herms pictures. Just my opinion .
Mark, Great question me to?
Like Mike said, a Babbitt hammer has to large of a area to compress. The factory did use the same kind of hammer end, but they didn't use a hand held hammer to compress the Babbitt.
What they had was a air, or electric hammer that held the peening end. I seen it on IPT several years ago. I have been looking for that movie, ever since.
They also show making Pans, and Ball caps. It clearly shows why the pan has Brass all over it.
Any way, when you try to peen Babbitt with a hammer like that, from what I have seen, the babbitter tried to peen the bearing in 4, or 5 blows. I have had a 1914 block, and two others, with the rear mains broke out from those heavy blows.
The whole idea of peening is to compress the Babbitt, push the Babbitt hard against the shell so NO oil gets behind the Babbitt, as oil is not a good conductor of heat, so the Babbitt has to be tight, If you don't peen it, the crank will do it for you when it is way to cold, and that is most of why Babbitt breaks up. With this also, do not drill out the oil holes, only to a few thousandths to finish size. Use punches of different sizes to punch to oil holes out because you also want the oil holes peened tight so no oil will flow in there, between Babbitt, and block, and it can, if you just drill.
About the anchor holes. I have heard many times that Babbitt don't have to be peened, as the anchor holes hold it. Not True! They are there to keep the bearing half from turning under load. That is their Lock Lip, like Modern bearings.
If Babbitt is not peened, the Babbitt will make clean breaks right off the Anchor holes.
If your Babbitt pours have any at all wrinkles, slag, or dirt, air holes, moisture holes, ect., melt them out and do them over, until you find out what you have to change to clean them up.
I have seen Guys on U-Tube after a pour on a rod or block, take a cutting torch and melt all kinds of imperfections on the surface of a block, rod, or insert Babbitt, every pour, so the Babbitt looked better after they were machined.
You have to remember that what ever you see that is bad on the inside, is also on the outside of the bearing. So there still bad bearings that are covered up so no one can see the the bad stuff.
Thank you. Good information to digest.
Sounds good, but there are other ways to do it...
(Message edited by Adam on November 26, 2017)
Agree with Adam 100%
Dave, when you acquire your tooling, PM me and we can run through the best way to suit.
Don't stop now, Adam, lets hear it, or is it one of those Babbitters Secrets, that you and Wrong Way Frank would have to commit Suicide over, if anybody found out.
At the risk of Chris deleting another thread because of your foul typing finger, I'll tell you who's the Wrong Way Machinist.
By your own admission you posted that you end up with 25% at 1/4" off-set in your rebuilt rods on a now deleted thread. By any machinists standard they are a re-do's. The other 75% only come up OK, is because they were straight when you started.
Babbitt rods are- build bearing to suit a straight rod.
Shell bearing rods- straighten rod to suit the bearing.
To implement the later as you do, on a 1/4" off-set rod, alters the centre to centre of a rod by upto a 1/16".
There's not a solid material on earth that you can put in a 1/4" or take out a 1/4" crank and maintain the same length.
Go old school Herm and you will get it right a 100% of the time.
Oh boy, this is getting good.
Frankie, you don't know what the H&%% your talking about again! Like always.
Posting anything here that is much different than the way one forum member has done it for the last thirty or fourty years is futile. There is still much opportunity for successful innovation in these procedures. That doesnít mean that the way someone else has been doing it for decades is wrong, and certainly isnít any sort of attack against others in that line of work either. Itís too bad that anyone considers this a personal attack and retaliates with name calling and an awful comment about people committing suicide! HolyCow! If anyone is truly interested, open minded, civil, and even just barely respectful of other peopleís ideas and research, send me a pm and Iíd be happy to share my ideas.
Thanks Adam. There is much we can learn from each other, but it breaks down when start insulting each other.
Could this penning issue be based on mechanical bond (mains) versus a chemical bonds (rods)?
Main caps are tinned or chemical bonded as well as the rods and caps.
To peen or not to peen as you see has different opinions.
It's not really a difference of opinions but on methods of doing the job, as you can see we never get to the full story on 2 ways that go back 150+ years in babbitting.
Reading all this makes me squeamish to ask about if there is a video tape or cd I can buy that shows how to check,and scrape to fit Babbitt bearings.
That is exactly what it is, John.
By Dan McEachern on Saturday, November 25, 2017 - 03:27 pm:
Per Herman's posting, I'm not sure how "properly heating" can change one of the facts of basic metallurgy- that almost all molten metals shrink upon solidifying. It is this very fact that requires that a bearing cast into a non-tinned shell be peened to lock it in place. " END QUOTE "
Dan said it all, in this post, about why you have to peen !!
There is no one that can argue with that, or you lose!
Now for wrong way Frank!
By your own admission you posted that you end up with 25% at 1/4" off-set in your rebuilt rods on a now deleted thread. By any machinists standard they are a re-do's. The other 75% only come up OK, is because they were straight when you started. "END QUOTE "
W,W. Frankie. That whole paragraph, you have so screwed up. I didn't say anything like that. With you it has always been trying to teach someone how to fly an airplane that has never seen a cockpit, and don't have the luxury to look at one.
First I said that 25% of rods have a 1/4 inch off set, and that is true. I DID NOT say the other 75% are OK. So this is where the hard part comes in at, when you W.W.Frankie do not have the slightest idea, or concept of what is involved in Babbitting, machining, or alignment of a rod. The 75% is the rest of the rods that have less then 1/4 inch offset. The reason, again not to go bending around on a rod is because, there isn't a machined surface to set up off of. The sides of the rods are most times, NOT the same distance from one side to the other. The Rod will have to be Aligned anyway when the machining is done.
Babbitt rods are- build bearing to suit a straight rod.
Shell bearing rods- straighten rod to suit the bearing. "END QUOTE"
Frankie, all I can say is that you have really out done yourself this time, with such an amazing statement of pure B.S.
To implement the later as you do, on a 1/4" off-set rod, alters the centre to centre of a rod by upto a 1/16". "END QUOTE "
This is also B.S. If it would change .002 thousandths Center to Center, I would be surprised. But Frankie, 1/16, being .062-50, and by changing the off set, you are going to make a rod longer, or shorter, by that much!---- L.O.L.
There's not a solid material on earth that you can put in a 1/4" or take out a 1/4" crank and maintain the same length. "END QUOTE "
Frankie, another statement that tells me you have no idea of what correcting offset means, and or how it works. You see W.W. Frankie, it's NOT what you think at all. It's not putting in a 1/4 inch of metal some place to make the Rod longer as your thinking suggests, but in reality only moves the wrist pin end over to be in line with the center of the crank pin end. That will not change the center Distance.
And, Adam, I said someone SHOULD commit Suicide, Really Adam, is that what my post said!
O Herm, you have a good shovel, you only dig your hole deeper!!
There's not a hope in H#ll that a 1/4" off set rod has come out of a running engine, in case others mist it the last time.
A 3-1/2" wrist pin and a 3-3/4" bore with a 1/4" off set over the centre line of a rod, puts the wrist pin an 1/8" through the bore.
So Herm that 25% is your doing in a total screw up and now you are admitting that the other 75% are not much better! and you bend, twist, pull and push and press to fractions of inches instead of a few thou!!! and there's no consequences on the end result for a true aligned rod. WOW!!
Would the two of you go get a room???
I'm with Ed will you two COOL IT enough is enough, agree to disagree and be done with it
You see Ed and Spencer.
You as a customer pay the price, how many have you's bought a Z head and when checking for fit, find that a piston hits, you blame the head casting and grind away but not giving a second thought to a rod that is longer.
If one knows anything about diesel rebuilding then after the rods are aligned, all pistons are then measured for the lowest TDC and the rest of the pistons are turned down to the same height.
I agree with Adam. I have use the French pouring fixture for several main bearings. A properly tinned and preheated bearing does not need to be peened.
More than just the Babbitt on this thread could use a little peening.
Well, Ted. The sure is a lot of peen-ness swinging around in here.
Ted, once a Dumas, always Dumas!
That's right Brendan, you never should try to Peen a tinned shell, that is never done.