Scat Crank Dimensions??

[GOSFAST]

Hi guy's, am in the process of assembling 2 Flatheads for a couple of members up here this week and could use an EXACT dimension (measured with a micrometer only) on the main journal sizes as they are shipped from Scat brand new?

We don't use the Scat shafts but we decided order 6 sets of their brgs (Kings) due to the unavailability at the time of the Clevite MS109P's, we generally only use the Clevites.

The brg clearance with the Eagle shafts and the King brgs is unacceptable, coming in at .004"/.005". When we installed the Clevite's (using last set we had on the shelf) brg clearances came in at .00250"/.00275", perfect, exactly the dimension we generally aim to hit.

The sizing on the Scat's (I assume) will be somewhere between 2.498" and 2.499". Even at the 2.499" number with the Kings it would still not make it through over here?

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. We ordered 6 more sets of the Clevites yesterday and the Kings are packed up and going back to Scat today! It's not the first time we've encountered issues with the King line (on some BBC's), I should have known better to even try them for the Flatheads??

[Ol' Ron]

I've always used the Clevites and can't remember having any problems with them. Not building many engines any more but have considered using King's in a future build. This is good to know. Thanks.

[Ronnie]

All this conversation going back and forth is good except if it were me I would contact Kings tech line and get it from them and then have a more concrete info.
I have some background experience with King and they do have an aircraft division and they really do know about quality and tolerances. If there was dimensional issues they should be made aware and a call to them would solve that. Then we would all know.


R

[flatjack9]

Did you measure the thickness of the bearing?

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

All this conversation going back and forth is good except if it were me I would contact Kings tech line and get it from them and then have a more concrete info.
I have some background experience with King and they do have an aircraft division and they really do know about quality and tolerances. If there was dimensional issues they should be made aware and a call to them would solve that. Then we would all know.

R

Hi Ron, both Scat AND Ron @ King Brgs have been made aware of this issue, this is about the 5th time I've had King issues, it's the first time however I chose their brgs for the Flathead, and I know for a fact I have a bunch of "company" with very similar issues?

Hit the following link and do a bit of reading. The customer who did the original post ended up here to fix everything just a few weeks ago!

https://www.chevelles.com/forums/18-...rust-face.html

This is headed down the same path as the Navarro heads we just evaluated (post is up here somewhere) and I suspect it's going to have the very same ending?? You'll most likely NOT see any changes anywhere, I'd "bet-the-ranch" on it?

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.s. A very good friend of mine (years ago, part owner of Dart Machinery) taught me well about what goes on "behind-the-scenes". A "non-entity" (that means general customer for lack of a better word) would never get past these vendors' "buffer-zones". It's just the way it is, one thing they do understand extremely well is the amount of parts actually getting sent back however.

[Ol' Ron]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

during the early 60's i started building engines and I worked with a fellow Name Bill Barth. He had allot more experience than me and once e said," I stopped using any other bearing and switched to Clevite". FM's were the most common, and came with allot of engine kits, but bill wouldn't use them. Since then neither do I. However, I end to prefer floaters when building a Race Flathead. Now has anybody ever converted a set of "H" beam rods to floaters.?????

[Ol' Ron]

Just did alittle arithmtic, and if I had a set of "H" beam rods for the small 1.998 journal. I'd only have to bore them alittle over .030" for floaters.. Interesting.

[Bored&Stroked]

Originally Posted by Ol' Ron

Just did alittle arithmtic, and if I had a set of "H" beam rods for the small 1.998 journal. I'd only have to bore them alittle over .030" for floaters.. Interesting.

I think that is a good idea - why not try it! I have a new set of H-beams that I'm going to use for an Ardun setup - may have to consider this. I like the full-floaters and have "enough in my cabinet" for awhile.

Thanks for the good idea Ron!

B&S

[flatheadmurre]

Just make sure the material in the rods are a good bearing surface...
Needs to be hard enough...sometimes highstrenght materials are to soft and might need nitrididing the surface...

[rotorwrench]

On that note, it would be interesting to do a harness test on floater rods versus lock in types to see what Ford did on them. Nitriding can make things grow a bit on forged metal components. A person would have to check the rods closely after the nitriding process to see it they are still within specs. I've had crankshaft crankpins grow as much as .001" after nitriding. It's great when a worn crankpin ends up back within standard specs after the process. I don't know how a con rod would react.

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Ron, both Scat AND Ron @ King Brgs have been made aware of this issue, this is about the 5th time I've had King issues, it's the first time however I chose their brgs for the Flathead, and I know for a fact I have a bunch of "company" with very similar issues?

Hit the following link and do a bit of reading. The customer who did the original post ended up here to fix everything just a few weeks ago!

https://www.chevelles.com/forums/18-...rust-face.html

This is headed down the same path as the Navarro heads we just evaluated (post is up here somewhere) and I suspect it's going to have the very same ending?? You'll most likely NOT see any changes anywhere, I'd "bet-the-ranch" on it?


Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.s. A very good friend of mine (years ago, part owner of Dart Machinery) taught me well about what goes on "behind-the-scenes". A "non-entity" (that means general customer for lack of a better word) would never get past these vendors' "buffer-zones". It's just the way it is, one thing they do understand extremely well is the amount of parts actually getting sent back however.

Wait, Gary:

Can we circle back to the Navarro heads thing? You think H&H isn't going to do anything about it? The owner posts here every now and then. It would be shame if he doesn't. The heads you dealt with were screwed up.

[GOSFAST]

This is where we're at today with the main brgs. After a discussion with my friend at our warehouse and Bryan out at Scat (Bryan did return our call, that means a lot by itself to me), King never did!

We all decided to open another set to be absolutely certain to see if what we saw with the first ones was the same. We were assured they would be returnable for a credit even though we opened them. Second set proved OK, called Bryan back and was instructed to call him Monday with the date codes on the one bad set, will do!

Also, once we saw the next set OK we opened the rest and checked every last brg in them all, turned out all are OK. In this case I now believe this is an isolated incident. I'm glad, especially when I reflect on the many issues with the BBC brgs from King. We no longer order any King's for the BBC platform as of about 2 or 3 years ago!

Just to give you a further idea of how some of these vendors operate, many here are aware we will not use the Eagle H-beam rods on any Flathead build. Many years ago, 2005 to be exact, on a stock-stroke 255" Merc, we ordered our first set, this was well before we learned the differences between the Eagles and the Scats. I'm not even sure the Scats were available back then?

From this single build we realized the Eagle's weren't going to fit these units without clearancing the blocks. Every thing was done and half assembled and I wasn't about to start over and grind on the block at this point. It turned out to be a relatively easy fix, some extra labor on our end, but since I chose the rods I wasn't about to pass any add'l cost to my customer. I knew it wouldn't be fair, he would have been just as satisfied with a set of recondition rods done here! I actually talked him into the Eagles from the start.

In any event, over time as we ordered the Eagle cranks I would often mention this to Tim down there thinking they would "fix" the problem. Never happened, for a long time after they'd question why I don't use their rods, oh well! Turned out at every "team-meeting" Tim was in on he would bring this issue up, that's where it still stands today. So it's Scat that ends up the winner here for conn rods anyway!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

Originally Posted by Tim Ayers

Wait, Gary:

Can we circle back to the Navarro heads thing? You think H&H isn't going to do anything about it? The owner posts here every now and then. It would be shame if he doesn't. The heads you dealt with were screwed up.

P.S. Tim, I would really be surprised if any changes are made to the Navarro's, honestly?? Time will tell. I will give Mike credit out there, he's was a gentleman enough to at least show an interest AND return our calls. This is more than we generally find!

[rotorwrench]

I remember reading something about Barney casting some of his heads so that they could be machined for different applications. If they are using his casting patterns then they are likely trying to do the same thing I guess. Quality control is everything when that much machining has to be done whether it is computer controlled or just preset machines doing the cutting. Barney was good about stuff like that since he wanted to keep his reputation up. Whom ever is doing the work now, needs to do the same thing.

[Ronnie]

Sounds like there is progress happening. I have dealt with Ron @ King and he a stand up guy. Your WD who sold you the bearings may also be in contact with King. There should be more info coming. Nice to have this conversation as more is known now than could be derived from the first couple of posts Gary keep us in the loop.



Cheers Ronnie

[Ol' Ron]

I read some articles on King bearings and they sound like they have a handle on the design. But I'm to old to get involved with something new. so I stick for what has worked for me in the past. Good luck

[Ronnie]

Bump

[Lawrie]

Has any one used the scatt H beams that are the larger size on the journal,(2.-139) on the scatt or eagle 4 inch crank .
Surely the larger bearings would be a better setup.
I have a scatt 4 in crank with the 2.139 and floater bearings in the 33, great engine.
But for a new engine for our dragster thought about the H beams with 2.139 and 4inch crank using lock ins ,or maybe floaters in the H beams.
Lawrie

[KiWinUS]

Lawrie I’m building an engine with the large big end scat rods & 4inch Merc crank right now for a friend that wanted this combo. Lock in bearings.
Cheers

[Tim Ayers]

I can't speak to floaters v. locked in for I'm in the process of building my first "high performance" flathead @ 296 c.i.

I will say my builder is one of the best out there and holds records at Bonneville and has been messing with flathead for almost as long as I've been alive.

When the topic of bearings came up, he stated he only uses locked in bearings and has not had an issue.

He has run blown flatheads and Arduns with a lot boost going over 200 mph without a bearing failure.

After hearing that, locked in bearings were good enough for me.

I went with King mains for a 59AB and I used an old set of NOS Michigans for the rods. Should be together in a few weeks.

[JSeery]

Don't know about flathead, but in general on high performance engines, the smaller bearing diameters are desirable. The reason being the smaller diameter bearings has less drag. This mainly applies to main bearings, but would think the same reasoning would also apply to rod bearings. You wouldn't think there would be that much difference (and I'm sure there isn't!) but when you are attempting to get every last bit of hp out of an engine these things add up.

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Don't know about flathead, but in general on high performance engines, the smaller bearing diameters are desirable. The reason being the smaller diameter bearings has less drag. This mainly applies to main bearings, but would think the same reasoning would also apply to rod bearings. You wouldn't think there would be that much difference (and I'm sure there isn't!) but when you are attempting to get every last bit of hp out of an engine these things add up.

Makes sense. This may be a question for Pete, but I'm curious if anyone attempted to make a roller bearing mains/split crank set-up like an Miller/Offy engine?

To me, that seems like it would offer the least drag of any bearing set up.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by Tim Ayers

Makes sense. This may be a question for Pete, but I'm curious if anyone attempted to make a roller bearing mains/split crank set-up like an Miller/Offy engine?

To me, that seems like it would offer the least drag of any bearing set up.

Not sure how big an issue it is until you get into the really high rpm ranges. We ran one of our overhead cam engines in the 9000 rpm range and it was capable of 12,000 rpm with the right components (way out of my price range!).

[Lawrie]

Kiwi,
how to the larger rods clear the bottom of the bore,no grinding?
You watch the all blacks last week.
Lawrie