News:

Classified ads are not allowed on the forum.

Main Menu

Looking for advice on short block assembly

Started by Richard 302, August 06, 2022, 09:56:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Richard 302

I'm stumped.  In an effort to explain my problem, this will be a long winded post. The machinist I have used for years and several engines has always been spot on.  In fact, I don't even purchase bearings anymore, he has the correct bearings packed when I pick up the parts. I always check bearing clearance, early on, just with plastigage, but years ago I purchased a set of micrometers and a dial bore gauge, learned how to use them, and now rely on those measurements.

So now I'm measuring the main journals.  I take 8 readings on each crankshaft main journal at different points, average the results for each journal, and zero the bore gauge to that value for each journal.  One journal at a time, I clean everything, install the provided standard bearings and torque the caps to 70 lb-ft.  On journals 1 - 4 I get readings right at .003. Main 5 comes in around .0035 with the oil pump torqued to 50 lb-ft.

So now I'm thinking if I put a set of .001 unders in the caps, I should be right where I want to be at .0025 on mains 1 -4 and at .003 on main 5.  So I do that.  Recheck everything and according to the bore gauge I'm right where I want to be.  As one last cross check, I decide to plastigage each journal also.  I install the crank dry, torque each cap 25 -50- 70, add the oil pump at 50.  When I remove the caps the plastigage is really wide on each journal. Easily showing less than .002 clearance on each journal 1 -4 and right at .002 on number 5.  I repeat the process.  Same result.

I've never had this happen before and I don't understand why the readings are so different. The one thing I wonder about is how I install the caps. As it should be, the caps are an interference fit in the register. Right or wrong, I've always used a rubber mallet to seat the caps in the register.  Could that hit on one side of the cap be smashing the plastigage?

Kaanderson

I would guess the .oo1 oversize bearing was made a little fat. I would and always pull the cap down with the bolts evenly, but hitting with the mallet to seat the cap is not going to get the bearing crush on it. I wouldn't think twice about running .0035 on the wide rear main bearing. Go with what the plastigauge says it won't lie to you.
Good luck

Richard 302

Alright.  Thanks for the response.  I've assembled other engines just using plastigage and they're still running.  What - me worry? said Alfred E. Neuman.

adjudimo

Quote from: Richard 302 on August 06, 2022, 05:09:34 PM
Alright.  Thanks for the response.  I've assembled other engines just using plastigage and they're still running.  What - me worry? said Alfred E. Neuman.

Now, That's just MAD :-)

ko-lek-tor

Are you using .001 shim stock? If that would have brought you in spec, I still wouldn't use anything under a bearing. That creates a heat barrier, I would think?
Bentley to friends :1969 SS/RS 396 owned 79
1969 SS 350 (sold)
1969 D.H.COPO replica 4spd. owned since 85
1967 302 4 spd 5.13