rod end play

[Dirtslinger]

I have another question, I've got my bottom end together on my 8ba, I noticed that there's very little end play on the rod journal's, is there a number that I should be looking for? Possibly use a feel gauge to check?

[KiWinUS]

.006” min to.016 is the number I have used for ever.

[Dirtslinger]

KiWinUS, what's the measuring method that you use?

[KiWinUS]

Feeler gauge. Building for over 50 years

[Dirtslinger]

Thank you, appreciate it.

[KiWinUS]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

You need 2 feeler gauges one on each side so it keeps square.

[Dirtslinger]

Ok, and I would need at least .003 on each side then for a total of .006 min?

[KiWinUS]

No. Use feeler gauges of same size. You are using each side of journal to keep rod square.

[Dirtslinger]

Sounds good, thank you.

[Bored&Stroked]

BTW, having larger clearances (on the higher side of the spec Tony posted) is not a bad thing for any higher performance flathead. It helps in letting more oil out of the bearing (faster) and cooling it.

[Dirtslinger]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

BTW, having larger clearances (on the higher side of the spec Tony posted) is not a bad thing for any higher performance flathead. It helps in letting more oil out of the bearing (faster) and cooling it.

That makes sense. Im getting about .009 on mine, it will have to do.

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by Dirtslinger

That makes sense. Im getting about .009 on mine, it will have to do.

Sometimes a tight reading is caused by the fillet radius on the crankshaft being large. This causes the rod bearings to push towards the center of the rod journal. When that happens the connecting rod bearing edges that faces the crankshaft radius needs to be chamfered doing this now gives more clearance between the rods. Sometimes a large radius happens when the crank rod journal is ground undersize. And can also happen when your using an aftermarket crankshaft especially if its a specialty crankshaft made for higher performance out puts.
Ronnieroadter.

[KiWinUS]

Originally Posted by Ronnieroadster

Sometimes a tight reading is caused by the fillet radius on the crankshaft being large. This causes the rod bearings to push towards the center of the rod journal. When that happens the connecting rod bearing edges that faces the crankshaft radius needs to be chamfered doing this now gives more clearance between the rods. Sometimes a large radius happens when the crank rod journal is ground undersize. And can also happen when your using an aftermarket crankshaft especially if its a specialty crankshaft made for higher performance out puts.
Ronnieroadter.

Great point from Ronnieroadster. I find this very common on the stroker cranks I have ground so now always check this as some bearings are way too tight at radius.

[Ken/Alabama]

Originally Posted by KiWinUS

Great point from Ronnieroadster. I find this very common on the stroker cranks I have ground so now always check this as some bearings are way too tight at radius.

This is exactly what I just finished doing. Gotta make them floaters float.

[Bored&Stroked]

It is important for a crankshaft to have a good fillet/radius in the corners of the journals - it sure helps in strength and to prevent cracks right in the corner of the journal. I've had to chamfer bearings on quite a few engines to account for the chamfer.

For some modern engines (SBC, BBC, etc.) you can order "narrow bearings" to deal with the issue (especially on the mains) - we don't have that option on standard/stock flathead bearings - they may need to be "fitted".

On the H-beam rods with Buick bearings, the bearings are narrow, so the typical place you can get into trouble is with the big-end rod bore itself. You'll notice that in many rod designs, they will have a big chamfer on the outside - to NOT rub on the crankshaft journal fillet/chamfer radius.

Newbie engine builders sometimes don't pay attention to the rods and which side has the clearance/chamfer for the journal fillet. They install the rods with the fillet to the inside, then the rod drags on the crank and really bad things happen . . . like a rod thrown through the side of the block.

[Dirtslinger]

After further consideration, Im thinking I may need to chamfer these rod bearings. It still seems quite tight in there. The other option would be a different set of rod bearings that are more narrow?

[cadillac512]

Have you tried removing the bearing shell from a rod and cap and checking side clearance with it bare? May not be the bearings touching at all.

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by Dirtslinger

After further consideration, Im thinking I may need to chamfer these rod bearings. It still seems quite tight in there. The other option would be a different set of rod bearings that are more narrow?

What brand connecting rods are you using are they Ford 8BA rods? What crankshaft is it Ford , Scat or?
Ronnieroadster

[Dirtslinger]

Using 8ba rods with oem merc crank. I put the arp rod nuts on and again checked side play and I’m satisfied with it. I’m going to run it, next I need to make an engine run stand. I’ll be asking for help with that.

[Pete]

I always have to chamfer all of the bearings to clear the radius's in the cranks we use.
We run .030 total side clearance and the rods have piston oiler grooves in the side face.
Running tight side clearance and tight chamfer clearance is guaranteeing a spun bearing.

[Dirtslinger]

Pete, are these oem cranks? That is a good amount of side clearance, what's your method of measuring that clearance?

[KRSheeler]

.006

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Dirtslinger

Pete, are these oem cranks? That is a good amount of side clearance, what's your method of measuring that clearance?

Some are. Some are billets.
We ran welded steel OEM cranks in the old dayz.
Measure with a feeler gauge between rods.