Go Back   The Ford Barn > General Discussion > Model A (1928-31)

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2019, 10:42 PM   #81
gilitos
Senior Member
 
gilitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 202
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Ron rebuilt my engine In '85 and it was so tight that I had to tow the car to get it started; the starter motor couldn't turn it over. The main bearings broke up within a few thousand miles. He rebuilt it again (full price) and they failed again within a few thousand miles; this time it was also tight, but the main cause was the crank was set so far forward that the flywheel bolts hit the thrust bearing and destroyed it. Ugh. He said he would take care of it but I declined his offer. Too many rebuilds in too few miles.
gilitos is offline  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:59 PM   #82
gilitos
Senior Member
 
gilitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 202
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

The last picture in post #62 is the thrust that failed due to the crank being set back too far.
gilitos is offline  
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Old 09-14-2019, 11:20 PM   #83
Mike V. Florida
Senior Member
 
Mike V. Florida's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Florida
Posts: 13,983
Send a message via AIM to Mike V. Florida
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C View Post
You also jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"! Ford DID use lead-based Babbitt during the teens & earlier in his engines, however based on what I have seen on factory documents, he NEVER used 'tin-based Babbitt'. If you can prove otherwise on M-Specs, I will retract my statement but my research at the archives (-not based on hearsay) counters what some are saying. While some may consider my statement above as splitting hairs, -IMO it was some of you that started this nonsense first.

.


I "jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"!" What did he use? Never mind I don't believe I would get a straight answer.


Let me see, here it is, the definition of Babbitt, "Babbitt metal or bearing metal, is any of several alloys used for the bearing surface in a plain bearing." If Ford did not use an alloy for the bearing surface in a plain bearing what did he use?


I commented on what was in the video! The video about a model A engine stated Ford used lead based Babbitt in the A. You say he did not use Babbitt at all. The video is on Ron's facebook page with NO corrections. That tells me he accepted the video as fact on the content and procedures.


You have comments, make them with Rons Machine shop since he accepted the video as fact.
__________________
What's right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity - intellect and resources - to do some thing about them. - Henry Ford II
Mike V. Florida is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:13 AM   #84
dumb person
Senior Member
 
dumb person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South pacific island
Posts: 1,558
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C View Post
You also jumped to the conclusion that Ford used "Babbitt"! Ford DID use lead-based Babbitt during the teens & earlier in his engines, however based on what I have seen on factory documents, he NEVER used 'tin-based Babbitt'. If you can prove otherwise on M-Specs, I will retract my statement but my research at the archives (-not based on hearsay) counters what some are saying. While some may consider my statement above as splitting hairs, -IMO it was some of you that started this nonsense first.

To clarify my statement above, it was in the 1830s that a guy named Isaac Babbitt blended alloys to create a poured casting that was suitable for high-load bearings. By the time Ford started producing engines, Babbitt's patents had expired and other companies were manufacturing Casting Alloys too. And, by the time Henry Ford got around to manufacturing the 2nd generation of Model-A, he & his engineers were manufacturing their own blend of casting alloy consisting mostly of Tin, Copper, & Antimony. This was not something that Isaac Babbitt, -nor his company had engineered, nor were manufacturing, ...and my research shows that Mr. Babbitt nor his company had anything to do with supplying Ford the casting alloy used in the Model-A engine. Many people erroneously call the cast bearing material Babbitt however it really is no different than telling someone to blow their nose on a Kleenex, -or telling someone they need to get a Jeep to pull them out. In both scenarios, any manufacturer's Facial Tissue, ...or any 4-wheel drive vehicle can be used with success. So trying to tell someone that Ford only used 'Tin-based Babbitt' is as false as saying Henry Ford never used lead-based alloys in his engines and axles.
I don't think sane people use lead in engine bearings in this day & age but...
I highlighted where you seem to imply use of lead, but then contradict saying that tin based (babbitt, as i call it. Maybe you call in 'bearing material') was not tin based but the first ingredient you listed was tin.
So for clarity's sake the bearing material should be tin based?
__________________
<Link> This is how we roll<Link>

"I'm Convinced that no one really reads posts anymore; they just fabricate what they think the post says then ramble on about red herrings."--Bob
Outcasts rules of old cars
#1 Fun is imperative, mainstream is overrated
#2 If they think it is impossible, prove them wrong
#3 If the science says it impossible you are not being creative enough.
#4 No shame in recreating something you never had
#5 If it were not for the law & physics you would be unstoppable
dumb person is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:24 AM   #85
Kurt in NJ
Senior Member
 
Kurt in NJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: on the Littlefield
Posts: 4,794
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Here's some pictures of fresh caps,the peining marks are visible on the rear cap, the front and center cap have the circular surfacing marks, and it was done after the cap was poured, the rear cap had the circular machining, then it was further smoothed in a linear direction
The finished cap shows very fine tool marks from the boring process, fine enough that they can hardly be felt with a fingernail
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2103.jpg (55.6 KB, 39 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2104.jpg (58.5 KB, 40 views)
Kurt in NJ is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:53 AM   #86
Joe K
Senior Member
 
Joe K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cow Hampshire
Posts: 3,345
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Steve Ross USED to have a most excellent web site of "Rebuilding the Model A engine the KRW way." His original site is gone but exists in words only at http://www.antiqueautoranch.com/mont...n/babbitt.html

In this article he cites the Ford prescription for babbit.

Quote:
That neither the block nor jigs be heated for cast iron components prior to the Babbitt pour. They had metalurgical proof that the Babbitt had the best chemical and physical composition if this procedure was followed. Ford Babbitt was composed of 3 metals, Tin, Antimony and copper.
Unfortunately the Steve Ross article does not specify the percentages - but he had a separate web page which DID cite the Ford blueprint numbers, and compared it to Babbitt available today. And unfortunately this is no longer available online - somewhere I have the page printed off (the wisdom of hard copy) but try to find?

Joe K
__________________
Shudda kept the horse.
Joe K is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:21 AM   #87
mike657894
Senior Member
 
mike657894's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Bay City Michigan
Posts: 940
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilitos View Post
Ron rebuilt my engine In '85 and it was so tight that I had to tow the car to get it started; the starter motor couldn't turn it over. The main bearings broke up within a few thousand miles. He rebuilt it again (full price) and they failed again within a few thousand miles; this time it was also tight, but the main cause was the crank was set so far forward that the flywheel bolts hit the thrust bearing and destroyed it. Ugh. He said he would take care of it but I declined his offer. Too many rebuilds in too few miles.



Sounds like you were out thousands of dollars. 5k total? more or less. i'm just guessing what 3 rebuilds would cost in 85. Im a cheapskate and order ala carte at the machine shop and try get out the door as cheap as possible. A 300 bore turns into a 5k build if you just say ok. Just the thought of having to pay to have 3 rebuilds makes me sick. cause the shop cant even fix it worth a damn after they failed to take the time to do it right the first time. And on the third go round now its free. Ugh. And I just realized you may have had to pay someone else to pull and place it.



What im not seeing in this thread is the. " I got mine fixed at rons and the last 50,000 miles have been smooth sailing!" If I had and an engine and there was a tight crank I would have to knife the mains. And my joints are screaming PAY THE MONEY YOU CHEAP SON OF A ........as in go somewhere better that doesn't require follow up work. or god forbid a triple rebuild.



This also makes me think of a conversation I had about how many miles the lighter users put on their cars. I have three older cars/trucks. That reduces the amount of miles I can put on them. I'm wondering if they are getting away with doing bad work because their customers don't put 1000 miles on their car in 10 years. Or people just dont come back after it falls apart.


ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE A REBABBITT THAT JUST WONT DIE????
mike657894 is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:23 AM   #88
rotorwrench
Senior Member
 
rotorwrench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 10,173
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

If a person does some net surfing on this subject, they will find all sorts of stuff about it for Model Ts & As. Very few are exactly the same in how they attack the rebabbitting and finishing of main bearings (although they are all very close they are just not completely the same). There is not enough info out there to tell a person new to the subject on exactly how to perform this type repair due to its complexity. The info is generally incomplete in one way or another. Most folks that do it with very good results were likely an apprentice of someone else that did the work well. In other words, don't try to do this at home folks unless you visit with a few specialists in the know and watch them a few times. Even then, the results will likely not be what they should be the first time out.

I've seen differences in the way folks peen the mains in the block but most seem to have decent results as long as they don't skip this step completely. An old used block is harder to clean for the process than a nice new casting like Ford had to work with so that complicates things to some degree. Cast iron is too difficult to tin so peening is the only way to get the new babbitt to stay put whether it's a new block or an old one. The caps & rods are not near as problematic as the block. The rods are steel so they can be easliy tinned.

Line boring the mains is also a source of contention in how much a person should cut the clearance to. Ford published the specs for clearance giving the ideal size that they sought to accomplish so that can't be disputed. It wasn't .000 clearance either. I'd be relatively certain that they were shooting for something just barely over .001" with .0015" being to the upper limits. This is why they turned them with those electric motors to get the extra .0005" clearance. They would still be a little tight at those figures but they would turn. Ford did keep things to relatively tight tolerances. You can see that in the films they made. They checked everything instead of every other item or every five items. They checked them all. It didn't take that long to run the stuff through. They had multiple stations for time consuming items like this so that they could keep up with production. The Rouge had a well equipped machine shop that was always being improved. They certainly didn't let to much get by them. The problem engines went back to a separate repair shop where they were torn down and evaluated for repair. If they could easily be repaired then they were, if not, the parts were sent back to the foundry and used for another charge in the smelters. A person could be relatively sure that someone would check and find out why problems were happening on the line so as to find a way to minimize those problems. To build a million engines per year was quite a feat. If problems got much over 5% of production then something was wrong with the system. Charlie Sorensen eluded in his memoir that things rarely ever got that bad. The exceptions were for short periods when they were setting up for a new product but that is to be expected with any new product line.

Some of the information I've found shows folks turning the cranks in the blocks after initial machining with set ups to do that. Others just run them in on a completed engine run up stand but for the most part, the engine will turn over with the starter so you know there is some clearance. Some information out there is utter crap but you have to get familiar with the procedures to even know what is good info and what is crap. I would say that Ron's machine shop has an issue that the young fellow needs to work on there. 99% of his work could be completely fine with no defects but there seems to be problem there that he needs to look into. Any business can have problems, it just depends on what they do about it as to whether there will be any damage to a reputation. We need younger guys in this business but they need to gain their own reputation and keep it good. Knowledge comes from experience that can be both good and bad. No one needs their problems aired on You-Tube. That's just a nightmare. I'm surprised the young fellow with Hagerty didn't do more research on the subject before starting that whole mess. It certainly doesn't help him any either.

Last edited by rotorwrench; 09-15-2019 at 05:44 PM.
rotorwrench is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:24 AM   #89
Railcarmover
Senior Member
 
Railcarmover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,239
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilitos View Post
Ron rebuilt my engine In '85 and it was so tight that I had to tow the car to get it started; the starter motor couldn't turn it over. The main bearings broke up within a few thousand miles. He rebuilt it again (full price) and they failed again within a few thousand miles; this time it was also tight, but the main cause was the crank was set so far forward that the flywheel bolts hit the thrust bearing and destroyed it. Ugh. He said he would take care of it but I declined his offer. Too many rebuilds in too few miles.
There is an old saying in my trade,'there is never enough time the first time,there is always enough time the second time'

You try to do quality work as quickly as possible to turn revenue.If the repair fails you do whatever it takes to make it right, spare no expense.Its a good policy for both the shop and the customer,the customer gets made whole,and the shop learns to change its process to avoid failure.Success is built on customer satisfaction.
Railcarmover is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:41 AM   #90
mike657894
Senior Member
 
mike657894's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Bay City Michigan
Posts: 940
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

one ive seen here is "if you have time to do it twice you had time to do it right the first time." I cant remember the user name of the one who said it.
mike657894 is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:59 AM   #91
mike657894
Senior Member
 
mike657894's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Bay City Michigan
Posts: 940
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

What questions should be posed to the shop doing your babbit? What clearances are you going to hand me? Where do you get your babbit and what is its make up? Or brand name and type so I can research that? What other questions should be asked? Before I do a rebuild I try to do weeks of research and watch every method I can. And find all measurements that can be made to check for proper build. We have a good amount of information. But it pales in comparison to say the chevy sbc or honda rfvc singles.



Also I have seen the drill rigs for cutting it. Are those as trusted as an expensive align bore machine. My machine shop said he had a guy local he sent Babbitt to. And im thinking it may be a drill rig. I didn't know what to ask and he didn't offer further info.
mike657894 is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:12 AM   #92
dean from bozeman
Senior Member
 
dean from bozeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bozeman, Montana
Posts: 899
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

So I had an engine rebuilt some years ago. The rebuilder said that he liked to bore engines tight so that when they broke in they would last a long time. The engine runs but then you can't restart it while it's hot because of expansion. If you wait for a while it will eventually cool down and then you can restart it.

At first I thought that it was that the pistons were too tight. I replaced the .040 pistons with .030 pistons. It runs but still "freezes up" after running for a while.

I would take it back to the rebuilder but he is no longer in business. I wonder why?!

Short of having the engine rebored (cylinders and main) are there any suggestions on how to get this engine useable?

Thanks.
Dean
dean from bozeman is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:23 AM   #93
Railcarmover
Senior Member
 
Railcarmover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,239
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dean from bozeman View Post
So I had an engine rebuilt some years ago. The rebuilder said that he liked to bore engines tight so that when they broke in they would last a long time. The engine runs but then you can't restart it while it's hot because of expansion. If you wait for a while it will eventually cool down and then you can restart it.

At first I thought that it was that the pistons were too tight. I replaced the .040 pistons with .030 pistons. It runs but still "freezes up" after running for a while.

I would take it back to the rebuilder but he is no longer in business. I wonder why?!

Short of having the engine rebored (cylinders and main) are there any suggestions on how to get this engine useable?

Thanks.
Dean
Depends on what is causing it to bind.The best solution to your issue is to disassemble your engine completely,then re assemble insuring everything is in spec. There are many possible causes,the only way to know for sure is to 'put your finger' on the problem,anything else is speculation.The only way to effectively repair an issue is to find the root cause.
Railcarmover is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:48 AM   #94
dean from bozeman
Senior Member
 
dean from bozeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bozeman, Montana
Posts: 899
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railcarmover View Post
Depends on what is causing it to bind.The best solution to your issue is to disassemble your engine completely,then re assemble insuring everything is in spec. There are many possible causes,the only way to know for sure is to 'put your finger' on the problem,anything else is speculation.The only way to effectively repair an issue is to find the root cause.
We disassembled the engine, "miked" it and then reassembled with the smaller pistons. I'll look around for the measurements. It was real tight but we thought that it would work. Obviously not.

Thanks Railcarmover.
dean from bozeman is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:51 AM   #95
Railcarmover
Senior Member
 
Railcarmover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,239
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dean from bozeman View Post
We disassembled the engine, "miked" it and then reassembled with the smaller pistons. I'll look around for the measurements. It was real tight but we thought that it would work. Obviously not.

Thanks Railcarmover.
If I were to guess Dean I would say the main bearings are set up too tight.
Railcarmover is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:52 AM   #96
katy
Senior Member
 
katy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,046
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dean from bozeman View Post
So I had an engine rebuilt some years ago. The rebuilder said that he liked to bore engines tight so that when they broke in they would last a long time. The engine runs but then you can't restart it while it's hot because of expansion. If you wait for a while it will eventually cool down and then you can restart it.

At first I thought that it was that the pistons were too tight. I replaced the .040 pistons with .030 pistons. It runs but still "freezes up" after running for a while.

I would take it back to the rebuilder but he is no longer in business. I wonder why?!

Short of having the engine rebored (cylinders and main) are there any suggestions on how to get this engine useable?

Thanks.
Dean
Have you checked ring end gap?
__________________
Don't go away mad, just go away.
katy is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:00 AM   #97
mike657894
Senior Member
 
mike657894's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Bay City Michigan
Posts: 940
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dean from bozeman View Post
We disassembled the engine, "miked" it and then reassembled with the smaller pistons. I'll look around for the measurements. It was real tight but we thought that it would work. Obviously not.

Thanks Railcarmover.

How I would deal with that tight engine. Would be to put it on a stand. I would start with the rods remove one rod and piston at a time and rotate the engine with a torque wrench. youll be looking/hoping for it to free up at one point but you may find it frees a little over say the three mains or across all of the rods. then if you dont find a problem there, put the mains back on and go through the valve train. I wouldnt think it would be in the VT but im often wrong. To know your right is often the best way to be wrong. Go to the local auto parts store and get platigauge and get a reading on the mains and rods.


katy has a good point about ring gap. Is the A in the standard .012-.018 ?
mike657894 is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:18 AM   #98
Jim Brierley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 2,908
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Too tight pistons will seize, and scar pistons and bore, so easily seen. Tight rings might do the same but am not sure. There are 2 guys that do babbitt near me, with a good reputation. I've had them do babbitt for me, and usually add a shim because I like looser engines. I've never had a problem with their work, I do my own cylinder boring, set at a minimum .0035", more on my performance engines. [B]Mike[B asks if anyone has a babbitted engine that just won't die, I do. My race engine still has the babbitted mains that were done in 1959. It has been on the street, in a dragster, on the Bonneville Salt Flats, consistently turned 6,000 RPM, run on Nitro, straight alky and gasoline. It is a B block/ crank, full pressure oiling engine. B rods were used for quite a few years but they got iffy, so replaced them in 2008 with Eubanks rods and insert brgs.
Jim Brierley is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:35 AM   #99
BRENT in 10-uh-C
Senior Member
 
BRENT in 10-uh-C's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Eastern Tennessee
Posts: 9,000
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumb person View Post
I don't think sane people use lead in engine bearings in this day & age but...
I highlighted where you seem to imply use of lead, but then contradict saying that tin based (babbitt, as i call it. Maybe you call in 'bearing material') was not tin based but the first ingredient you listed was tin.
So for clarity's sake the bearing material should be tin based?
I think this entire thread boils down to most posters that are commenting are giving opinions based on hearsay -and have not truly researched from the source to know what is factual. Forming opinions solely based off of something that was posted here or on a hobbyists webpage does not always make it factual.

Ford did NOT use Babbitt in his 1928-31 Model-A engines. He manufactured his own Casting Alloy. Babbitt is/was a trade name of a company who provided alloy blends suitable for casting and machining into bearings. The man that invented & patented the process was Isaac Babbitt. His patents had expired some 50+ years prior to Henry ever making his first engine, and by then there were other manufacturers of casting alloys.

As for Tin-based, -yes testing has proven that alloys that are tin-based typically last longer over lead-based alloys in conditions that are subjected to cyclical loads however remember that Mr. Babbitt invented his lead-based alloy for the railroad industry to use as wheel bearings carrying heavy cyclical loads.

So will lead-based alloys work in a internal combustion engine? Sure, ...and it was done for years. Is lead-based alloys the best available in today's engine rebuilds? I don't think so, however there are other areas inside of a Model-A engine that rebuilders today typically overlook. Isn't it funny how rebuilders today point out that lead-based alloy is not the best to use but will use cheap foreign-made cast pistons whereas the better product would be a forged alloy piston? What about those rebuilders who use cast-iron piston rings instead of better quality ring materials? We could go on pointing out items such as piston ring widths, timing gear materials, gaskets, valves, tappets, et/al. I could go on, but that is not what this thread was intended to be about.
__________________
.

BRENT in 10-uh-C
.
www.model-a-ford.com
...(...Finally Updated!! )

.
BRENT in 10-uh-C is offline  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:01 PM   #100
Railcarmover
Senior Member
 
Railcarmover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,239
Default Re: babbit tolerance? .000?

Too tight ring gap doesn't care if the engine is warm or cold,it will bind every time it travels the taper of the bore.

Quality babbitted model a engines with splash and gravity fed bearings can handle far more compression pressure and load than Ford designed.
Railcarmover is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 AM.