Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

Good stock engine can handle 7.1 if you drive it correct. Larry Brumfield did test on this many years ago. have fun modelAtony tony white Lafayette, LA

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

I have used these inserts in over 100 engines over the last 5 years. Prior to that time I was using Clevite bearing inserts. They are the same as offered by Snyder's and others. They are the AER bearings.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

I heard the same that the inserts made today, may not be here tomorrow and that has me concerned, but why? aren't all modern cars inserts, or are the inserts for the model a a whole different product?

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

Many bearings go obsolete every year.

Sometimes the one's that are used are for 1950 on up.

If the bearing companies don't sell as many as they need to make money, they just up and quit.

Happens all the time.

Herm.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

The "scare tactics" seemingly never die? Folks talk about bearing shells becoming obsolete, ...but never state the facts. For no more than we bore out of a block to convert to insert bearings, the block can always be rebabbitted if 'one feels compelled to do away with inserts. Also, a person who is concerned about present insert bearing obsolescence can spend an additional $80.00 on an extra set of bearings to keep n the shelf to be used at a later date. A third option is to have the existing bearing shells rebabbitted as this method is used on many engines which parts have become obsolete. I have a Hudson Jet engine presently in the shop having this done. This is also a good option for G28T rebuilds. Bottom line is when there is a sincere will, there is always a way. ;)

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

The one thing that is bad with inserts, are, the inserts you used today, may not be made tomorrow, and or in the size you need. It happens all the time.
Herm.

You maybe right, ---- I would be more concerned that unless the art of doing Babbitt work is not passed on to others then those that can do it now wont be around tomorrow.
Regards Brian T.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

A week, or 3 ago, some person said that a crank ground down to much caused thicker babbitt that made the bearing weaker, and after I called them on it they pulled their false post.

Now some people say you can just fill that big bored out hole for inserts you can't find inserts for with now 10 times the babbitt over the .015 thicker wall thickness, that a ground crank would make, and that would be ok.

Can't have it both ways!

Mybe when some people get several more hundred bearing job experiences to the good, they will understand how it really works in the real world.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

Again, more false information coming from you Herm. The pulled post was regarding use of too many shims, --NOT about thicker babbitt.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

[QUOTE=1929;1046986]what has the better advantage? is it true that with babbitts the head should be no more then a 5.5. If you are going to rebuild your motor, why not go with inserts even if it costs more.[/QUOTE]

Our personal opinion is that compression ratio for babbitt is to 5.9 to 1 as "Brumfield heads" are designed to that spec.

The better advantage is babbit since it's ability to ingest dirt and not damage crankshaft journals also the benefit of years of adjustment to the bearings, whereas if the insert is damaged then time for a rebuild.

The first two pictures show a poor job at insert bearings and you can see they're torn up from residual grit left in the engine at 200 miles.

Also I have enclosed our babbitt as a finished example.


Last pictures shows the dirt impregnated into a Model T babbitted bearing again recently done but engine was still functional due to the principal fact that babbit eats dirt. This according to customer was at 5000 miles.

These are two examples babbitt versus inserts though both poorly done but show the features and results of both.

Most recent example was Seth Kestenbaum's 1929 engine still had original babbitt and I was able to grind his crank to 10/10 with room to spare. This engine hadn't been rebuilt and was hardly taken care of.
This engine is 86 years old in the contest of durability it is by far Babbitt the clear winner.

www.jandm-machine.com

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

Here is a link to the engine tear down which includes a close up of the contest winning babbitt.

https://oldcarroadtrip.wordpress.com...kian-brothers/

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

It seems like everything is 50/50 on this site, I just wish all can come to an agreement on one subject with the model a, Iam more confused then before.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

That second picture of the rod insert bearing sure shows a loss of bearing surface when those inserts were used. So right from the start you are loosing.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

Might have to sell your Model A and buy a 1950 Studebaker. They have inserts, and everyone that owns one agrees they are a great car.:D

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

it depends if you want to be held hostage by the babbitt gods.
i run inserts on all mine and many club member motors. when done properly with no oil filter they have not shown any abnormal wear on the last disassemble...

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

I like that Mitch,( Babbitt Gods), that makes sense to me, Iam starting to understand that statement, know what you mean.

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

You asked for opinions :)

Re: Babbitt vs Inserts
 

I am in the process of building an A engine. Quote from shop used for inserts on prior 3 engines was $800 for align boring mains plus inserts and thrustwashers. Quote from popular So Ca babbit shop was $625 for rods and mains. Mains only $525. Babbit in this engine looks okay so will refit rods and mains with shims. No longer "brainwashed" about needing inserts. Those that feel the need for inserts go right ahead. I started messing with 4 cylinder engines in the late 40's and they seemed to last just fine with babbit unless they were, truck and/or automobile, run too fast too long. I feel this problem is not quite as critical with the use of overdrives.