|
Babbitt vs Inserts 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.
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts IMHO there aren't many around that really know how to pour babbit. If the babbit gets too thick because the crank has been turned I don't think that is good either. Anyone else agree? When I had a motor built it was built with inserts on mains and rods. Inserts need machine work knowledge which I believe is more widespread than babbit knowledge.
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts I have one of each and and use them for touring. Quite frankly, it's difficult to really tell any difference. The Babbitt engine has an original CRAGAR head and a 5 speed and the insert engine has a Brumfield super head and a '39 three speed. You pay your money and takes your choice.
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Babbitt as a bearing material will handle anything that inserts will. Don't worry about compression ratio. The difference comes at over 4000 rpm when pressure oil is needed and no one that I know of is making babbitted rods set up for pressure oil at that speed. I have heard that pressure to the original babbitted A and B rods was done back in the day, and maybe Jim Brierley has some historical knowledge on that. Jim has run pressurized babbitt mains on his Bonneville car for many years and that is a pretty good testament for babbitt.
My suggestion to 1929 is save the money (put it into your pocket, or a good camshaft and counterbalanced crank depending on your use) and go with babbitt unless you plan to go over 4000 rpm in which case you need pressure oil and only inserted rods are available for that so far as I know. That said I think inserts are probably the wave of the future just because more people are learning how to machine for inserts than are learning to do babbitt. Maybe the market will change that if there is enough demand. Babbitt is cheaper because the machining is not necessary. Either way, ask questions and get recommendations. A bad job on either will have the same result. |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts :rolleyes:
Quote:
Excellent question, to which there is a lot to consider when making choice. For example, I have a B block that was machined for inserted mains. Then new high end inserted rods were added. I did it this way, for what I considered...the loong run idea. That is, I envisioned running across the USA, to Alaska, etc..and wanted an engine that would give no trouble doing that. Now , you do not have to run full oil pressure to run inserts or badditted rods/mains, but for durability (look to modern engines longevity) , I decided to go to full pressure WITH full oil filtration ! Clean oil is the key, IMO, either way you go. I'm now building another B block with poured battitt both mains/rods, but again with full oil filtration system. I'm expecting the babbitted mains/rods to perform perfectly , if perfectly done ! That's a mouthful these days, that is , getting perfectly done Babbitt job, for reasons already stated-vs- buying modern inserts which are factory made and where the best machining/assembling IS the key. As you go along this information trail, you will see that the more perfection that you want (either way) will cost you more money. Someone said, put the money in your pocket, where the heck was he many years ago :rolleyes: ! When the 'bug' to go farther, smoother, faster hits you...this quest can be a bottomless $ pit, eh :) ! I say done correctly BOTH can and have been used successfully, even at higher RPM. Do either wrong, and you will end up wishing that you had done the other 'correctly'...maybe. BTW you can use full pressure with babbitted rods. You just have to block of stock oil holes in rods, and get crank shaft that is drilled for full pressure AND do a number of other 'things' to accomplish the job. I recommend that you obtain/study a book by a member here (Jim B), as it will help explain a lot of how to and why/why not questions/answers. I do not think that on a 'good engine', that high compression ratio of head has detrimental effect. Just more power to be gained if tuned right and run with complimentary equipment, i.e.- cam/carb/exhaust, etc. I've run 8:1 on a sturdy B with positive results. |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts A models work fine with both Babbitt and inserts and both will handle almost any compression or power an A model can generate
I choose inserts because where I live good Babbitt guys are few and far and have long wait lists I drive my A 10,000-20,000 miles per year on average so in 7-10 years my engine will need a rebuild and my chances of finding a Babbitt guy then will not be any better but I will be able to change my inserts myself quickly and easy |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts I was told by parts and restoration shops that send their engines to an engine rebuilder that has over 30 years experience and a great reputation doing both inserts and babbitts with a I think a 2 year warranty that will not put over a 5.5-1 head on a Babbitt engine. Its not about spending too much which is easy to do with this car as Ive begun to notice, its what is the best choice. I would like to get the oil filtration system cause I did see when I removed the oil pan and valve cover not such a clean motor, but then again previous owner was not using detergent oil which I heard some will not do. thanks for the advice.
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts If babbitt is superior to insert bearings, than we would still have babbitt bearings today. Insert bearings are the way to go.
The last babbitt bearing car engine I am aware of was the 170 cu. in. Ford six cylinder used in the 1960s Falcons. Did you know that GM and Chevy 6 cylinder engines through 1953 used splash (spray bars) oil lubrication of its connecting rods. |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts With Babbitt the bearings are made to fit the crankshaft --it is somewhat adjustable to a crankshaft not quite an exact undersize
With inserts the crankshaft is made to fit the inserts, has to be the exact size for the inserts to have proper clearance When there is a babbitt failure most likely the crankshaft and bearing bore are not damaged---just the babbitt with inserts when there is a failure most likely the crankshaft will be damaged, and if the insert spins, the rod, or block Babbitt has a greater capacity to absorb "dirt" than inserts ---the babbitt layer on an insert is thin |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts This one
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/...ies/Banger.jpg Contact details here https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?p=731124 Cheers Juggs |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts "If babbitt is superior to insert bearings, than we would still have babbitt bearings today."
Inserts are quicker, cheaper and easier to mass produce and replace. Babbitt bearings are still common in industrial applications. |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
Personally, I'm amazed that the myth of 'babbit sensitivity' is so pervasive. Diesels used babbitt for decades under much higher cylinder pressures than we would ever see with a 5, 6, or 7:1 head. For my build, I chose a counterweighted crank, lightened flywheel (36#), and stock oiling on babbitt bearings. I believe babbit is far more forgiving of unfiltered oil and feel confident that even a 'moderate' performance engine is really not capable of spinng RPMs that would exceed the ability of the rod dippers to do their job(s)...valve float is our friend here. |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
Herm. |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Has anybody use these and are they the same as offered by Snyders and maybe others?
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/...u/bearings.jpg http://www.antiqueenginerebuilding.com/insert brgs.html |
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts Quote:
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 Quote:
|
Re: Babbitt vs Inserts 5 Attachment(s)
[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 Quote:
|
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 Quote:
|
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.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.