Babbitt and Shim Question

[juke joint johnny]

A friend is having his B engine rebuilt.
I know that Ford A & B engines were delivered with shims on the Main and Rod bearings when new.
I believe that the shims should be in place when line boring the mains and the rods when you rebuild one of these engines.Correct me if I am wrong.
But I have never seen what the thickness of these shims should be when setting up the line boring .

I ask because in the UK very few British Car engines are set up this way shims are thought of as some sort of Farmer Fix
So this has to be explained to the rebuilder which is why we need the shim thickness.

I realise that if the shims are left out then the bearing material will be very thin , possibly leading to early failure or the Cam & Crank gear mesh not being correct.
I would hate to see my hard working friend Pay out a lot of money for what would seem a poor quality job .
Thanks in advance
John Cochran

[Will N]

Brattons sells the shim pack with this note: Four layers per shim. Each layer is .003 thick. Two shims for the rear. Four shims for the front and center main. Use a sharp knife to separate a layer.

http://brattons.com/product.asp?P_ID...=any&PT_ID=all

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

John, I think somewhere down the road you have absorbed a little bit of bad info from several sources and it has now become worrysome for you. Don't fear as it is all good.

To start with, the original shims were like .004+/- thick steel (I'm too laze to go pull the print to find the exact #) but the reason for this is the original babbitt was reamed and then burnished during the assembly process at the factory. This created a much tighter fit. The issue with using too many shims under the cap is the cap can have a tenancy to 'walk' which prematurely wear the softer metal bearing.

With regard to shims being left out, --or omitted all together, that is actually a good thing and is often done in full-race applications. The babbitt will not be too thin either. The Camshaft-to-Crank gear mesh is actually controlled by finding the centerline of the crank in the block, so the quantity of shims do not affect the gear mesh whatsoever.

Now this is where the controversy begins, ...it is the opinion of many that the reason we see many shims is because the engine builder did not take the time to align-bore the babbitt and then fit the bearings to the cranks journal pin. If they do a poor (quickie) job, then you may only have contact coverage from the 11:00 - 2:00 position and the 4:00 - 8:00 position. therefore that little of surface support of the crank will lead to quick wear, thus resulting in the need to tighten the bearings (remove shims). Naturally the more surface contact you have, the more the crankshaft can be supported which distributes the load. The more area that carries the "load", the less wear you will have. Therefore, the builders that take the time to do the job properly including burnishing bearings can likely put .002" worth of shims under the caps and have their babbitt job last just as long as what a builder that installs .012" worth of shims on a 'quickie' line bore job. If you look at it in that light, yes I can see how some of your friends would view excessive shims as a "Farmer Fix".

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

No. 1. Long after the Model "B" was made, metal shims were offered for the adjustment part. Of all the Model "B" engines we have rebuilt, I have only had two engines that had a mix of steel and Brass shims. Steel does a bearing of any kind, no good at all. Steel shims can turn magnetic and pick up other particle of steel and cast which would other wise flush out the bearing.

When setting shims they have to be right up to the crank, Brass is fine, but a steel shim next to a steel crank is no good at all.


Yes, you can leave the shims out if your going to use inserts, but then you would have to Align Bore the block and caps, as the holes are not round.

As suggested, do not guess at how many shims any one engine is lacking. BE SURE.

Put on the rear main cap and Mic the shell up and down, and then side ways staying off, or just missing the part lines. Subtract the two and that will show how many shims you need in any one bearing.

This is very important on the rear main as that sets the cap so the cap is as close as you can get to close up the oil gap from cap to the crank.

Lastly, Burnishing bearings is 1930's, out dated techology, K.R. Wilson even knew it when building tools for the Model T.

Herm.

[Ron W]

Do not leave out shims if doing babbit. Removing shims after the engine is worn loose can make an acceptable repair. The center-line for boring (with or without shims) is the bottom face of the block (or connecting rod). If doing inserts, shims are not necessary. Ron W

[Tom Walker]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Most babbit/white metal bearing motors had shims in the rod caps and main bearings. When bearings acquire unacceptable clearance, remove a shim, apply engineers blue, reassemble, rotate rod on crank, or crank in mains, split caps, scrape high spots, perfect new bearings.
No mechanic would have simply removed shims, maybe a farmer.
You all got bad memories??!!

[juke joint johnny]

Thanks everyone for your input !! I do have a better idea how it should be set up now .
40 Years of Model A's and still learning!!!

John Cochran

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Ok I'm gonna pose this question for Tom Walker & Ron W, in your opinion what causes Babbitt bearings to wear prematurely so as the clearances "unacceptable"?

[Patrick L.]

Hmmm, seems to me that mechanics have been removing shims in this country for a century.

[Tom Walker]

Brent
I didn't say wear was premature, just wear from use. "Unacceptable" as in there is a spec for clearance in your bearing, beyond which you may need to do something about it.
Babbit is super bearing material, soft enough to absorb particles of metal in yr unfiltered oil, and not wear out your crank too fast, but resilient enough to not wear fast with very low/non existent oil pressure!

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Tom Walker

Brent
I didn't say wear was premature, just wear from use. "Unacceptable" as in there is a spec for clearance in your bearing, beyond which you may need to do something about it.

Babbit is super bearing material, soft enough to absorb particles of metal in yr unfiltered oil, and not wear out your crank too fast, but resilient enough to not wear fast with very low/non existent oil pressure!

OK, that is a fair statement, ...so how long (how many miles) does shimmed "super bearing material" go before it needs to be re-shimmed, --and why is that??

.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

There is no way anyone can tell how long a de-shim job will last. It depends on oil, owner, and quality of the engine rebuild at the time.

One thing for sure, when a New Babbitt job is align bored, what ever size the shim packs are when starting the align Bore, there should be the same amount of shims as when the crank is set!

You do not remove shims to set a New crank, just because you missed the Bore size!

On a splash engine, after removing .006, that is the turning point, no matter even if you started with .032 thousandths total. After that your bearing adjustment is all cobble.

On a pressure engine, by removing .002, after that it will show small to great signs of burning oil!

Herm.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

No. 1. Long after the Model "B" was made, metal shims were offered for the adjustment part. Of all the Model "B" engines we have rebuilt, I have only had two engines that had a mix of steel and Brass shims. Steel does a bearing of any kind, no good at all. Steel shims can turn magnetic and pick up other particle of steel and cast which would other wise flush out the bearing.

When setting shims they have to be right up to the crank, Brass is fine, but a steel shim next to a steel crank is no good at all.

I honestly do not know where this 'stuff' comes from. It is hard enough for folks here to understand the facts much less disproving other's myths & misinformation. Same applies for burnishing when it is clearly described on the print!!

.

[Barber31]

Well I guess I may be the first to find out how long a engine will go with no shims. Haha. When going thru mine, I did order a pack of shims in case I needed them. After using plastiguage, it showed only one connecting rod needed shims but none for the mains. So, hope I'm good for a while. I also have 2 complete spare engines in case something were to fail or my rebuilding abilities were not spot on. Just in case.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

I honestly do not know where this 'stuff' comes from. It is hard enough for folks here to understand the facts much less disproving other's myths & misinformation. Same applies for burnishing when it is clearly described on the print!!

.

Like I said, out Dated Info.

[Patrick L.]

Originally Posted by Barber31

Well I guess I may be the first to find out how long a engine will go with no shims. Haha. When going thru mine, I did order a pack of shims in case I needed them. After using plastiguage, it showed only one connecting rod needed shims but none for the mains. So, hope I'm good for a while. I also have 2 complete spare engines in case something were to fail or my rebuilding abilities were not spot on. Just in case.

You needed to add shims ?!

[Barber31]

Yes, on one connecting rod. It was way too tight. It would actually bind up the crank. The other rods and mains did not need shims. They were within tolerance.

[Tom Walker]

Reading the above posts, there seems to be a deal of over-thinking going on. . You could re- babbit a motor without shims. You would simply then have no chance for re-setting the bearing clearance when they wear. When you have your main and big end bearings re-babbited, your chosen bearing man could install shims if you ask him to. . He would do this before boring the bearings.
If the boring is done incorrectly, the clearance will be either too big or too small. It is either right or wrong. Shims are not there to correct bad machining!
Its really not that complicated.

[Tom Walker]

I had a B block re-babbited specifically for a full pressure conversion. When discussing the job with the machinist, he pointed out that we could not use shims because they allow the oil under pressure in the bearing to leak, which defeats the object of pressurising the system. I have run this engine for 5years with half a dozen track races a year each year, and road miles in between, and it still holds 50 pounds pressure with hot oil.
Splash system is not affected in this way by shims.

[Patrick L.]

Originally Posted by Barber31

Yes, on one connecting rod. It was way too tight. It would actually bind up the crank. The other rods and mains did not need shims. They were within tolerance.

Hmm, OK.

[hardtimes]

Originally Posted by Barber31

Well I guess I may be the first to find out how long a engine will go with no shims. Haha. When going thru mine, I did order a pack of shims in case I needed them. After using plastiguage, it showed only one connecting rod needed shims but none for the mains. So, hope I'm good for a while. I also have 2 complete spare engines in case something were to fail or my rebuilding abilities were not spot on. Just in case.

No, you will NOT be the first , by a long shot ! And , you will most certainly NOT be the last. I have a short block, patiently awaiting , that was made up without shims in either mains and / or rods !

A lot of what has been said in this thread, is very informative and makes sense to me. For example, if your clearances are set correctly with poured Babbitt AND full pressure oil system, why wouldn't it work just as well as Babbitt inserts that are set correctly with full pressure. And, why wouldn't you be able to expect same service out of both, given that they are treated same, i.e.-good maintenance practices, maybe racing; normal driving mixed with hard driving at times ?
And, the idea that use of SHIMS (may) allow caps to 'walk' seems feasible, especially under todays use/conditions, i.e.-hard acceleration, high speed /high rpms ..to join traffic ,etc.. Whereas, no shims use means no shims to allow cap movement..no ? And the idea of steel shims that may magnetize and/or rub crank, seems plausible cause for not using such ?

Anyway, learned a lot here and thanks for that to all who participated. Long time ago, I learned that some old timer racers used no shims and must have put together near perfect engine clearances, as they ran more rpm and faster speeds than I want to go in a Model A/B engine equipped machines ! Do you suppose that these old timers knew something about shims/caps/walking causing them problems. IMO, they been there/done that,eh

I have a good B short block , in waiting, that has no shims and we'll see if it can take the heat

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Tom Walker

Reading the above posts, there seems to be a deal of over-thinking going on. . You could re- babbit a motor without shims. You would simply then have no chance for re-setting the bearing clearance when they wear. When you have your main and big end bearings re-babbited, your chosen bearing man could install shims if you ask him to. . He would do this before boring the bearings.
If the boring is done incorrectly, the clearance will be either too big or too small. It is either right or wrong. Shims are not there to correct bad machining!
Its really not that complicated.

Tom, if you leave shims out on a babbitt job, there is a good chance you will hit steel in the caps, as they are less then a half circle.

And when the caps are filed, or leveled again, it just add's to the shim pac.

[Ron W]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

Ok I'm gonna pose this question for Tom Walker & Ron W, in your opinion what causes Babbitt bearings to wear prematurely so as the clearances "unacceptable"?

Brent, I don't why you would ask such a foolish question. I do not understand your PMs to me. Why argue over weather or not shims were steel or brass? It does not help answer the original question. Your info on shims is great but incomplete. It does not say how many were used at each joint. If you remove all babbit from a rod and a cap,You will notice that the cap is not as deep as the rod when measured from the flat. The difference is the approximate thickness of the original shim PACK! I understand you like to argue but in doing so you are not always correct or contributing to the forum! Ron W

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Tom Walker

I had a B block re-babbited specifically for a full pressure conversion. When discussing the job with the machinist, he pointed out that we could not use shims because they allow the oil under pressure in the bearing to leak, which defeats the object of pressurising the system. I have run this engine for 5years with half a dozen track races a year each year, and road miles in between, and it still holds 50 pounds pressure with hot oil.
Splash system is not affected in this way by shims.

Tom, the part about not putting in shims because of oil pressure , your machinist told you more then he knew!

Most engines we rebuild from 1950 on down have at least .006 to .008 thousandths shims in the mains, and rods that we bore and we cut the shims right along with the bearings, and they do not loose oil pressure of any kind.

You can put in even .250 thousandths or larger shim and not have an oil pressure leak. They have babbitt on both ends of the shim and are machined with the bearing. So the part line would be closed on each end, and a oil well in the middle.


If you would use steel shims in place of the Brass, you would Ruin every bearing you bored!

Herm.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Ron W

Brent, I don't why you would ask such a foolish question. I do not understand your PMs to me. Why argue over weather or not shims were steel or brass? It does not help answer the original question. Your info on shims is great but incomplete. It does not say how many were used at each joint. If you remove all babbit from a rod and a cap,You will notice that the cap is not as deep as the rod when measured from the flat. The difference is the approximate thickness of the original shim PACK! I understand you like to argue but in doing so you are not always correct or contributing to the forum! Ron W

Again, I sent you documentation to prove what I am saying is correct. If you still choose to disagree with me even after verifying it on the original blueprint, that is fine but my contribution to the forum is trying to ensure factual information is published.

[Tom Walker]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Herm, thanks for enlightening me, that makes a lot of sense.
Herm, if you melted the babbit out of a Model A main bearing, block and cap, which had not been messed with (ie filed or machined on the mating surface) and bolted the cap back on, what is the diameter of the hole?
Thanks, Tom.

[colin1928]

Originally Posted by Tom Walker

Herm, thanks for enlightening me, that makes a lot of sense.
Herm, if you melted the babbit out of a Model A main bearing, block and cap, which had not been messed with (ie filed or machined on the mating surface) and bolted the cap back on, what is the diameter of the hole?
Thanks, Tom.

Tom
1.6875
but I have seen many bored larger ??

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by colin1928

Tom
1.6875 but I have seen many bored larger ??

Yes, Colin is correct in that the minimum nominal size the caps were bored to was 1.687 but the tolerance allowed for the cap to be as much as 1.707, --this accounting for him finding larger sizes.


Now, to refute the idea that no shims would allow someone line-boring a block to "hit metal", look at this attached print. Using the centerline of the crankshaft with a .004" shim as specified (circled in Red), the Ford machine shop was to bore the cap to the internal diameter of 1.687 - 1.707. Now if an unaltered cap were installed on the block without shims, this would allow the babbitt to bored to 1.625 (.001" clearance on a Std. crank journal) and there would still be over .060" thickness of Babbitt at the bottom of the cap. This is substantially more thickness than 'one would find on many other engine insert shells lined with Babbitt from the 1940's thru the '60s.

Now, there is one other dimension given on this print to prove the babbitt was indeed burnished. My original prints of the crankshaft show the main journals were to be ground to a tolerance of 1.622" - 1.624". The print below specifies the babbitt was to be bored 1.618" - 1.620" (Noted with Green circle.). Now using the average of those two specifications, it is easy to surmise that inserting an object that is 1.623" in diameter into a hole that is 1.619" is going to create an interference.

While it specifies this on a yet a different print where the cap was bored in place with the shims installed, ...lets just suggest that the cap was to be bored separately, and later when the cap was install onto the cylinder case with the .004" of shims, this would bring the numbers to be the same. Even at that, you would have 0.000" clearance between the babbitt and the crankshaft. So if someone STILL chooses to believe that burnishing of the bearings was not done originally, then maybe they can show proof why Ford's engineers specified those interference-fit numbers.



.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Tom Walker

Herm, thanks for enlightening me, that makes a lot of sense.
Herm, if you melted the babbit out of a Model A main bearing, block and cap, which had not been messed with (ie filed or machined on the mating surface) and bolted the cap back on, what is the diameter of the hole?
Thanks, Tom.

I don't know Tom, as the Block is bored, and the caps are Rough. You just get it with in 3 or4 thousandths of round. Most of the time we use .032 thousanths to get it that way.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Here is the problem with your prints, that is when the blocks were new, after 80 plus years, they are not.

The biggest concern is the cap not to close, and not to far away from the seal area on the crank, just like the Aluminum one in the block.

Do 3, or 4 hundred of those, may be you will get it!

The last thing on shims, NO car company's used steel shims in the bearings of there New engins, including Ford, The ones that were used were after the fact as steel is and was cheap!

If you want to use steel in bearings today, you won't even get it Align Bored with out Ruin of the bearing!

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Here is the problem with your prints, that is when the blocks were new, after 80 plus years, they are not.

The biggest concern is the cap not to close, and not to far away from the seal area on the crank, just like the Aluminum one in the block.

Do 3, or 4 hundred of those, may be you will get it!

The last thing on shims, NO car company's used steel shims in the bearings of there New engins, including Ford, The ones that were used were after the fact as steel is and was cheap!

If you want to use steel in bearings today, you won't even get it Align Bored with out Ruin of the bearing!

Herm, respectfully I do get it!! I am NOT saying you aren't a good machinist or that you are not a good engine builder however often times you give out information that just isn't factual. While you may believe that steel shims did not exist back then, nor were they used at River Rouge, I have personally seen them in very low-mileage engines I have worked on, AND the factory blueprint above even specifies the steel material. Others have seen them too, so how is it you continue to argue against what we know are the facts? Misleading others or trying to sway their opinion just because of your beliefs differ does not change the facts. This site has lost many knowledgeable people's participation over the last year or so just because of this very nonsense.

.

[darrylkmc]

Just an observation, I have mentioned this before, but here we go.

I have a three original engines, a 1930 Model A, 1932 B non-counterweighted crankshaft, and a Diamond Block B, the latter one I am running today.

All three are standard crankshaft engines with the original shim packs and standard bores.

All three have Steel Shims.

Darryl in Fairbanks

[40 Deluxe]

So what would cause a steel shim to become magnetized?

[James Rogers]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

So what would cause a steel shim to become magnetized?

Steel is inherently magnetic all the time. I had a surveyor to prove this to me in the 60's when I was helping pull rod. He would not let anyone get close to the instrument with anything in their pockets that might disturb the compass. To make sure I remembered this, he took his pocket knife and passed it within 2 feet of the compass and it drew the needle out of orientation. All steel has some magnetism in it. As for the rest of this (shrug).

[Ron W]

The magnetism is in the compass, or did your pocket knife always point north? Ron W

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

I don't know Tom, as the Block is bored, and the caps are Rough. You just get it with in 3 or4 thousandths of round. Most of the time we use .032 thousanths to get it that way.

Originally Posted by James Rogers

Steel is inherently magnetic all the time. All steel has some magnetism in it. As for the rest of this (shrug).

Hey Mike, I guess I agree with you but if steel is a 'No-No' because the magnetism (that someone says would attract metallic junk and ruin the bearings), why did Ford use steel for the Crankshaft?? It would seem THAT would be WAY worse than a very thin piece of steel used as a shim. I guess I am just too new at this Model-A business to understand!

Also, since you are also one who "has done 200 or 300 engines", how often have you seen the main bearings in the block bored smooth from the factory yet the caps were unmachined and left rough?

[hardtimes]

Hey johnny,
Well , at least you got a succinct/straight answer from post #24, forever4 ! And , you got the rest of what is going on straight/succinct from Ron !
IMO, we all come here to hear from guys like you and the input about the situation you face and express. Surely, we come for input/opinions from ALL, but whether any input/opinion given....is FACTS, is debatable, informative and entertaining... most of the time ! Up to you to use your 'filter',eh

[Tom Wesenberg]

I think we may need to call in Wonder Woman with her trueth lasso.

[juke joint johnny]

Well Hardtimes Looks like we Rattled a few Cages on this one !!! 5 Star Thresd as Well
I'm worried Folks will be out with their Shootin Irons if it carries on.!!!

Just to set the Record Straight and to lighten things up
Are Wonder Womans Bracelets Steel or Brass or did you even notice she had Bracelets?!!

John Cochran

[Mitch//pa]

i voted for an excellent thread very entertaining..

[hardtimes]

Originally Posted by juke joint johnny

Well Hardtimes Looks like we Rattled a few Cages on this one !!! 5 Star Thresd as Well
I'm worried Folks will be out with their Shootin Irons if it carries on.!!!

Just to set the Record Straight and to lighten things up
Are Wonder Womans Bracelets Steel or Brass or did you even notice she had Bracelets?!!

John Cochran

Lasso/Bracelets....where !
Hey John,
Very interesting is your inquiry. Maybe since you are involved in informing the engine builder just ...what Americans say, you could let us know whether he decided to use (farmer) shims or no Hm, wonder if he ever heard of Henry?

[hardtimes]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

I think we may need to call in Wonder Woman with her trueth lasso.

Hey Tom,
You are a funny guy...with CLASS, A..eh !!

Shouldn't even ask what she looks like today...huh

[Tom Wesenberg]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Hey Tom,
You are a funny guy...with CLASS, A..eh !!

Shouldn't even ask what she looks like today...huh

I saw Lynda Carter on TV a few days ago, and she is still very beautiful.

Her bracelets must be krypton to deflect the bullets.

[zzlegend]

Hope the bullets aren't made of steel. They might magnetize to her bracelets.

[hardtimes]

Originally Posted by forever4

See Ford Babbitt and Shims on Ford Garage for more on steel shims.

Hey forever4,
Thanks Vince , once again, for your great site into !
This time focused on types of shims , proper shimming and shimming vs no shimming informtion
Put a smile right on my wrinkley face , as I've been ...reading and applying and sometimes that can be dangerous/costly ! In this case, I've followed some advice from other old timers , who essentially have said what you have written. Consequently, I now have a full pressure B short block with poured Babbitt without main/rod shims ! First time read of your writings here, re shims, adds confidence that such will be good !
However, I've got to wondering at what RPM did Ford drive dry short blocks with electricity ! When breaking in , 1200 rpms for X minutes is recommended. Do you have any idea what rpm, elect motor drove these engines ?
Wonder if anyone here has ever tried to do as Ford did to break in their short block And, what HP motor do you suppose it would take to do the job ?
I'm guessing my used wash machine motor wouldn't do, eh !!

[Mike V. Florida]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by hardtimes

When breaking in , 1200 rpms for X minutes is recommended. Do you have any idea what rpm, elect motor drove these engines ?
Wonder if anyone here has ever tried to do as Ford did to break in their short block And, what HP motor do you suppose it would take to do the job ?
I'm guessing my used wash machine motor wouldn't do, eh !!

I read that they ran the engines while looking at the current draw of the electric motor. The stiffer the engine the more current it would draw. One the current when down to a certain amount the engine was loose enough. At least that is what I read. Sounds good but I have no Ford documentation to confirm it.

[darrylkmc]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Wonder if anyone here has ever tried to do as Ford did to break in their short block !

All of the photos that I have seen were Fully Assembled engines and not Short Blocks.

Frosted here the last 2 nights, could be coming to a town near you soon.

Darryl in Fairbanks

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Hey forever4,
Thanks Vince , once again, for your great site into !
This time focused on types of shims , proper shimming and shimming vs no shimming informtion
Put a smile right on my wrinkley face , as I've been ...reading and applying and sometimes that can be dangerous/costly ! In this case, I've followed some advice from other old timers , who essentially have said what you have written. Consequently, I now have a full pressure B short block with poured Babbitt without main/rod shims ! First time read of your writings here, re shims, adds confidence that such will be good !
However, I've got to wondering at what RPM did Ford drive dry short blocks with electricity ! When breaking in , 1200 rpms for X minutes is recommended. Do you have any idea what rpm, elect motor drove these engines ?
Wonder if anyone here has ever tried to do as Ford did to break in their short block And, what HP motor do you suppose it would take to do the job ?
I'm guessing my used wash machine motor wouldn't do, eh !!

A couple of things to think about. The crankshaft was burnished early in the assembly process with a different type rotating machine, so that was a different process than what most people think of when they look at the pics of the row of dynamos with the assembled engines mounted on them.

FWIW, I have shown that picture to several electrical engineers asking why the motor was so large, and I have been told these would likely be very low-speed, hi-torque electric motors. Therefore I would suspect the RPM to be well under 60 RPM. I also suspect the engines were not spun long on the dynamo as I see no evidence the pan nor the transmission had any oil added during that process. The reason I feel water was added during this process was to check for leaks due to porosity in the castings/gaskets/etc.

As for the need to run-in, I think there are two key factors in saying No need. First, Ford used quality machines during the boring & honing process which ensured the cylinder case walls were as true as necessary for a good seal. Second, consumers back in the day understood the "break-in" process for a new vehicle, and since they accepted this process, then there was not a need to break-in a new engine at the factory. As for today, those of us who have good quality professional machines to do the engine machining processes find our rebuilt engines "sealing up" within minutes of the initial start-up.

[hardtimes]

Originally Posted by darrylkmc

All of the photos that I have seen were Fully Assembled engines and not Short Blocks.

Frosted here the last 2 nights, could be coming to a town near you soon.

Darryl in Fairbanks

Hey darryl,
Frosted...ahhh, I can only dream ! 110 in the shade here ! At times 115 in my tiny work shed. Why even the four polish bars MELTED when set in direct sunlight for a short time. Picked up the container, and ha..noticed that it sagged a bit. Pocked with finger and all four bars were liguid..who knew that that could happen !
Several years ago I drove up and stayed 2 months in your beautiful state. Always said coming back you to stay 4 months..leaving sometime in Sept, as that's when we've determined that the snow/freezing storms can make first appearance.
Anyway, yeah I've seen the HUGE motors that are in the same pics as the ford engines. And, the engines did appear somewhat complete. However, the engine still had to be broke in/burnished bearings..whatever it was named. Here's another question, (in my mind,eh ). When turning those engines over,i.e.- metal/metal..no lube (?), was that a very short (breakin) event or how could the heat be handled..to prevent galling/scoring, without coolant. I did not see anything that looked to be water hose ?

Finally, Vince says that TERMS used to describe lifters are confusing.
What confuses me, personally, is that a lot of smart guys here use the term motor ...when talking clearly about an engine Splain that to me please

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Anyway, yeah I've seen the HUGE motors that are in the same pics as the ford engines. And, the engines did appear somewhat complete. However, the engine still had to be broke in/burnished bearings..whatever it was named. Here's another question, (in my mind,eh ). When turning those engines over,i.e.- metal/metal..no lube (?), was that a very short (breakin) event or how could the heat be handled..to prevent galling/scoring, without coolant. I did not see anything that looked to be water hose ?

Finally, Vince says that TERMS used to describe lifters are confusing.
What confuses me, personally, is that a lot of smart guys here use the term motor ...when talking clearly about an engine Splain that to me please

If you would read all the posts, you would see this is addressed. The bearings were NOT being burnished with the dynamos where the engines are completed and have the transmissions mounted. Also look at the pictures of the assembled dynamo and you will see the cylinder case is filled with coolant through the inlet port. The coolant was not circulated, therefore no need for an outlet connection.

As far as engines vs. motors, some people use Ford nomenclature to avoid confusion. The term Motors was the standard back during the Model-A era.

[Purdy Swoft]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Hey darryl,
Frosted...ahhh, I can only dream ! 110 in the shade here ! At times 115 in my tiny work shed. Why even the four polish bars MELTED when set in direct sunlight for a short time. Picked up the container, and ha..noticed that it sagged a bit. Pocked with finger and all four bars were liguid..who knew that that could happen !
Several years ago I drove up and stayed 2 months in your beautiful state. Always said coming back you to stay 4 months..leaving sometime in Sept, as that's when we've determined that the snow/freezing storms can make first appearance.
Anyway, yeah I've seen the HUGE motors that are in the same pics as the ford engines. And, the engines did appear somewhat complete. However, the engine still had to be broke in/burnished bearings..whatever it was named. Here's another question, (in my mind,eh ). When turning those engines over,i.e.- metal/metal..no lube (?), was that a very short (breakin) event or how could the heat be handled..to prevent galling/scoring, without coolant. I did not see anything that looked to be water hose ?

Finally, Vince says that TERMS used to describe lifters are confusing.
What confuses me, personally, is that a lot of smart guys here use the term motor ...when talking clearly about an engine Splain that to me please

I've been told that the term MOTOR describes an electric motor. Engine would be used to describe a piston engine.

[bbrocksr]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

A couple of things to think about. The crankshaft was burnished early in the assembly process with a different type rotating machine, so that was a different process than what most people think of when they look at the pics of the row of dynamos with the assembled engines mounted on them.

FWIW, I have shown that picture to several electrical engineers asking why the motor was so large, and I have been told these would likely be very low-speed, hi-torque engines. Therefore I would suspect the RPM to be well under 60 RPM. I also suspect the engines were not spun long on the dynamo as I see no evidence the pan nor the transmission had any oil added during that process. The reason I feel water was added during this process was to check for leaks due to porosity in the castings/gaskets/etc.

As for the need to run-in, I think there are two key factors in saying No need. First, Ford used quality machines during the boring & honing process which ensured the cylinder case walls were as true as necessary for a good seal. Second, consumers back in the day understood the "break-in" process for a new vehicle, and since they accepted this process, then there was not a need to break-in a new engine at the factory. As for today, those of us who have good quality professional machines to do the engine machining processes find our rebuilt engines "sealing up" within minutes of the initial start-up.

Brent, You were told that these were low speed high torque "engines" by several electrical engineers ?
Bill

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by bbrocksr

Brent, You were told that these were low speed high torque "engines" by several electrical engineers ?
Bill

Good catch! I'll go back and change that! Thanks!!

[5window]

Originally Posted by Purdy Swoft

I've been told that the term MOTOR describes an electric motor. Engine would be used to describe a piston engine.

Typically, we'd only call it an electric "motor" while an internal combustion engine-is also frequently referred to as a motor. The reality is that the situation is much more complicated and the words are, at least technically, pretty inter-related.

http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what%...tor-and-engine

[5window]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

Good catch! I'll go back and change that! Thanks!!

No need to change-the "engineers" are technically correct: "The Oxford English Dictionary defines “motor” as a machine that supplies motive power for a vehicle or other device with moving parts. Similarly, it tells us that an engine is a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion." See the reference in my other post

[Chuck Sea/Tac]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

I read that they ran the engines while looking at the current draw of the electric motor. The stiffer the engine the more current it would draw. One the current when down to a certain amount the engine was loose enough. At least that is what I read. Sounds good but I have no Ford documentation to confirm it.

Piece of useless information : that's how milkshake machines( at least 50 years ago) controlled the thickness of the mix. Maybe they borrowed the idea from Ford?