To Babbit or Not To Babbit vs Inserted??

[msmaron]

Well folks looking into a NEW Engine, Not a rebuild, Getting a stipe touring cam, counter balanced crank, High Compression head. The question is weather to go with inserted bearing or Babbit.. Looking at 2 different scenarios and have heard many different opinions. I drive the car daily between 45-55 mph for about 35-45 min intervals at a stretch, to work and back. Drive in the cold or heat and all flat lands, no hilly areas in the midwest I have heard so many mind sets.. Babbit is softer like the crank, babbit will last 50K easy, babbit was what henry used and it workd, inserted will last forever. , inserted is the best and strongest....etc..>Now i a asking for some simple opinions here. What say many of you please

Thanks in advance....

[DBF 30]

Keep in mind that I am still a nubie here but I would not hesitate to go with inserts. Much stronger, durable and much, much easier down the road to do a futrue repair on. I have a 39 chevy that I am restoring and will be going with inserts. Inserts are what henry would have used if they had been available. It was his way, simple, strong and long lasting.
Thats my two cents. Let us know what you decide.

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by msmaron

.. Babbit is softer like the crank, babbit will last 50K easy, babbit was what henry used and it workd, inserted will last forever. , inserted is the best and strongest....etc..>Now i a asking for some simple opinions here. What say many of you please

Thanks in advance....

In a way, you just answered your own question. I see no reason to pay for a babbit motor when in many cases, you can get an inserted engine for cheaper, which will last longer. Sure if babbit is done right, it'll last a long time. But the problem is finding someone who is actually doing it right. I know of a very popular rebuilder that uses babbit, and he is "the best" but pours the babbit wrong resulting in alot of his bearings failing. People are paying 4-7k for a babbit motor when you can get an inserted for anywhere from 2500-7000. Just call Rich in Skokie and tell him what you want. If you're wanting to spend the serious money, call Ron Kelley. His engines are expensive, but are the best you can buy.

[James Rogers]

Inserted wont last forever, it is just like any other bearing, it depends on the care and maintenance it receives.

I don't know where you can get a motor with inserts cheaper than babbitt. Inserts cost more because there is more work and machining involved.

I agree that down the road the inserted motor is less cost since you don't have to find someone to pour babbitt. The inserted motor is just like any modern motor and can be repaired by any competent mechanic or shop.

[2935ford]

If more folks don't pick up the babbit torch....we'll have no choice but insert.

[gweilbaker]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Mark,
You are close to Rich over in Skokie, He is straight up and can answer any questions and concerns.

Here's his stuff from his site;

STORE HOURS
Monday thru Friday 8:00am to 4:30 pm
Saturday 8:00am to12:00pm

ANTIQUE ENGINE REBUILDING

4835 LOUISE

SKOKIE, IL 60077

847 674 6716

INQUIRES INVITED

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by gweilbaker

Mark,
You are close to Rich over in Skokie, He is straight up and can answer any questions and concerns.

Here's his stuff from his site;

STORE HOURS

Monday thru Friday 8:00am to 4:30 pm
Saturday 8:00am to12:00pm

ANTIQUE ENGINE REBUILDING

4835 LOUISE

SKOKIE, IL 60077

847 674 6716

INQUIRES INVITED

With all due respect to Glenn and everyone concerned, Rich does not do babbitt, ....and is the manufacturer of aftermarket inserts and inserted rods, so in my mind his opinion would already be swayed towards inserts only. Maybe his opinion would be satisfactory anyway??


Second, Mark when you say you are looking into a new engine, are we speaking of Terry Burtz's "new" engine, a Donovan Model 'D' engine, or a NOS Model 'A' block?


My personal opinion (and what I tell my customers) is that alot of this depends totally on whether the engine will have a counterweighted crankshaft, ...and whether the engine owner has the ability to do his own mechanic work, --namely adjusting the bearing clearances. If the engine has a new Burlington crankshaft or an adequately counterweighted crankshaft, my experiences are that you cannot remove the rear main cap with the engine still in place. Therefore if the owner must pay for someone to remove the engine to adjust the babbitt clearances, then IMHO it is worth paying the upgrade for inserts simply because of the thinner layer of soft metal (babbitt) on the insert shell.

The second side of this is how the babbitt is poured. Is it burnished during the rebuild? I know there are folks that disagree with this task however it speaks of this operation at the factory and suggests that this was to be done by the rebuilder, thus I feel it is an important step in longetivity. If the crankshaft is undersized, the poured babbitt is thicker. If a large stack of shims is placed under the cap, then the babbitt is thicker by even more so. This is not good because the cap can walk and the soft metal (babbitt) is easily repositioned. If either one of these happens, then the effective life is shortened. Also, much depends on how the crankshaft has been machined. Inserts can mask a poorly machined crankshaft better than thick babbitt can.

I could go on and write a complete dissertation but I guess it all boils down to the initial comment about who is doing the rebuilding and which crankshaft you choose to use.

.

[Kevin in NJ]

Some facts:

Either type of bearing works great lasts a long time- IF they are done right.
A lot of engines are not done right.

If you have a babbitt failure it will fail slow and you might get many miles in a bad state. The crank and block are not likely to get damaged. You just rebabbitt and go.

Inserts tend to fail catastrophically and you will need to be towed home. The block and crank are more likely to be damaged and the block may not be repairable.

Now for some other thoughts.

The engine needs to be balanced. I am sure you have read my other posts by now. One area that is difficult is finding properly babbitted rods that are tightly matched in weight. Getting a set of all new rods set up for inserts would take care of this problem. Then use the babbitt on the block done by a shop that has a clue.

I would point you to talk to Herm and J&M Machine. They know what they are doing and have the tooling to do the job right. Call them and ask them what they think you should do. I think you will learn quite a bit.

[gweilbaker]

FYI, Rich has many years and experience doing babbitt, that's all he use to do. There are many of his babbitted mills running around the Milcago and the Chiwaukee area. I didn't know he went straight insert, I guess I should take my own advice a pay him a visit and find out why.

[Bruce Adams]

I wish I could help on your bearing type comparisons, but I CAN tell you I have about 3000 very satisfactory miles on my Antique Engine Rebuilding's inserted bearings engine with high compression head, balanced crankshaft, oversize valves, and "Touring Cam" permitting me to do 60 mph on the highway whenever I please, and climb hills with a smooth sounding engine and a stock rear end.

[1931 flamingo]

Mark: Whicheverway you go (I'm thinking inserts) I would want to see it and the f/wheel p/plate BALANCED. JMO
Paul in CT

[Dana Barlow]

inserted bearings are the way to go

[roadster31]

I have the KRW setup for Model A's, I have done quite a few engines all are still on the road. I use the KRW line boring bar to within .010 of the crank, take it to the local machine shop to have him set the thrust and finish the line bore. When I get the block back to the shop I clean it tighten the mains and do as Henry said "lube the mains with light machine oil and spin until it smokes freely" I don't spin it until it smokes but it gets prety hot. I use plastigage, then assemble the engine, I garuntee (sp?) the job for one year but only if it was balanced dynamicaly by my machine shop. At 5000 miles I have taken down a couple of mine, checked the clearance, in one engine I took out 1 shim on the rear main. Some day I will try the inserts, but it isn't cost effective for me at this time. I think babbitt is very good done correctly -- I don't think anyone does it like Henry. Regards, E LaBrash

[Tom Wesenberg]

Jeff, it wasn't a true REBUILD, but more of a light overhaul to get by until a late 31 block was found and rebuilt.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by roadster31

I have the KRW setup for Model A's, I have done quite a few engines all are still on the road. I use the KRW line boring bar to within .010 of the crank, take it to the local machine shop to have him set the thrust and finish the line bore. When I get the block back to the shop I clean it tighten the mains and do as Henry said "lube the mains with light machine oil and spin until it smokes freely" I don't spin it until it smokes but it gets prety hot. I use plastigage, then assemble the engine, I garuntee (sp?) the job for one year but only if it was balanced dynamicaly by my machine shop. At 5000 miles I have taken down a couple of mine, checked the clearance, in one engine I took out 1 shim on the rear main. Some day I will try the inserts, but it isn't cost effective for me at this time. I think babbitt is very good done correctly -- I don't think anyone does it like Henry. Regards, E LaBrash

Hey Elmer, why do you say that? Is it because of the speed in which they did it, or by them using a reamer instead? I personally think it can be duplicated if someone (such as yourself) uses the same babbitt composition make-up and takes the proper amount of time to go through all the steps however one cannot ommit steps and expect stellar results IMHO.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

AHH... OK.

I was going by memory, thought you guys did a complete re-build. Looked pretty good from the posts as I recall.

From reading all of the posts on this subject, it seems like it would be hard to decide exactly which way to go. If you did a lot of long distance touring, inserts? If you are like me and put less than 400-500 miles a year on a Model A, original babbitt? Babbitt (not Costello's friend) worked well all of these years. As someone else commented, the insert technology didn't exist during Model A's reign (at least in the low priced car field?) Our '36 Ford pickup has a 59AB flattie of course with inserts and pressurized, and I think nothing of running IT 55 MPH really buzzes along. With a higher rear-end it would be even better!!!

Hope Mark finds his late '31 block.

Jeff, they are inserts all right, but are babbitt lined inserts, and thick compaired to modern inserts. Some were also copper- lead, in which didn't work out to well the way I understand. As I here from other engine builders, some builders quit doing babbitt, and went to inserts, because they couldn't keep their babbitt jobs in. Anyway, the key to longevity with inserts in any motor is oil pressure, and Filtration. Here is what inserts look like when dirt goes through the bearings, less then a 100 miles, and as Kev says, it was towed home. Herm.

[PC/SR]

Herm: Were those bearings pressurized? Because without pressure they are not going to be adequately lubricated.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

AHH... OK.

I was going by memory, thought you guys did a complete re-build. Looked pretty good from the posts as I recall.

From reading all of the posts on this subject, it seems like it would be hard to decide exactly which way to go. If you did a lot of long distance touring, inserts? If you are like me and put less than 400-500 miles a year on a Model A, original babbitt?
Hope Mark finds his late '31 block.

PART 2 of the Situation
I drive about 5000+ Miles a year as mentioned.
Brent.. I mean i want to make an outright purchase of an engine, NOT rebuild my 29 engine that i presently have.
The reason i am in this position is this is what i have found in the oil return pipe. Pic 1 and 2 from the left.

Now when this was found I first added a bottle of the powdered BARRS to seal the head gasket, that helped,. Then drained the oil, added motor flush 4 quarts of oil, and blew out the pan with air pressure. Drove yesterday for about 40 minutes and came home.. Checked all and THIS IS WHAT I FOUND. Pics 3 and 4,.
Actually a white foamy build up in the oil pipe..
With that said and tested, my opinion is that i might have a cracked block.. this is the reason for the engine and NOT A rebuild...Your opinions please.

[George Miller]

Herm that looks like sloppy job putting in those inserts. The rod bearing does not come close to covering the rod journal. The main inserts are off to one side, on the front and center one. probable would work, but I would not do it that way. It bet he did not clean it well either.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

WOW Herm. Holy cow!!

Those bearings look like they have over 100,000 miles plus of hard use, not 100 miles.

Thanks for the post. It occurs to me with your pics that sometimes there is no 'best way' or 'this way is better than original'.

So does the new Burlington crankshaft like Babbitt OK, or do you have to go inserts with this crank?? Sorry if this sounds dumb I'm not a machinist only got the interest as they say......

Jeff, any crank would be OK, but remember that there was dirt that went through the bearing, and while babbitt, I beleave, would have taken it better, it was just a matter of time. Herm.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by PC/SR

Herm: Were those bearings pressurized? Because without pressure they are not going to be adequately lubricated.

No Mr. P. C., they were not under Pressure. Herm.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by George Miller

Herm that looks like sloppy job putting in those inserts. The rod bearing does not come close to covering the rod journal. The main inserts are off to one side, on the front and center one. probable would work, but I would not do it that way. It bet he did not clean it well either.

Your are right George, very sloppy Job.

I for got to say that the crank had been counter weighted, with a very silly weight system, and the crank was heavily Magnetized, that even by its self, made it doomed!

It also had that time saver slopped in the engine!

[hardtimes]

Herm,
Nice pics, thanks for sharing! Whew...I'm not an engine builder, but know that that ain't right (bearings installed that way). What a waste of time/money,eh.
Q- I've heard/read here where guys say that they install/run inserts WITHOUT full pressure and without negative results.....if the inserts are 'properly' installed and run without pressure and filter...in your professional opinion , can that be true?

[Rowdy]

I have only made a couple of attempts so far. Still needing more practice. No time or room to mess with the stuff right now. Shop is overstocked with NOS parts to the point I can not even work on the delivery. Unfortunately not much for NOS A parts. mostly late 30's through 70's stuff. Working my way back to sanity in the shop as fast as I can. Rod

[Rowdy]

Forgot to mention I have a freshely rebabbited block here in the shop. I bought it at an estate sale last year. It was done locally by a guy with a good reputation. He passed away before he finished the engine. I also got lucky and purchased the rods he had set back for it, but did not find the pistons, cam or valves he supposedly had set back for the engine, so some work still remains to be done. It is bored .060 over and got some flash rust the day of the sale as it was raining lightly and the auctioneer did not have the common sense to put the engine inside. I might consider parting with it. PM me if you are interested. Thanks Rod

[msmaron]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Ok all back to my situation if you please, take a look at the pics....thanks again
mark

[peters180a/170b]

All i am going to say as i read all the post on here is [you can't make this shit up] .I am very great full of all the engine builders here with your input. Tells me i don't know jack shit... I took the easy way out.. Told the engine builder in P.A. i wanted inserts and a complete rebuild engine with all the upgrades and walked away ... Boy thanks to you guys i know somewhat what went on rebuilding my engine. 3 years and not yet 100 miles on the car....l.o.l. trailer Queen for another year.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

((Quote))The second side of this is how the babbitt is poured. Is it burnished during the rebuild? I know there are folks that disagree with this task however it speaks of this operation at the factory and suggests that this was to be done by the rebuilder, thus I feel it is an important step in longetivity. If the crankshaft is undersized, the poured babbitt is thicker. If a large stack of shims is placed under the cap, then the babbitt is thicker by even more so. This is not good because the cap can walk and the soft metal (babbitt) is easily repositioned. If either one of these happens, then the effective life is shortened. Also, much depends on how the crankshaft has been machined. Inserts can mask a poorly machined crankshaft better than thick babbitt can. ((End Quote))

Brent, this whole Paragraph of yours is misinformation, and has nothing to do with Reality, and as long people keep putting it out there, I will keep contradicting with the truth!

First of all, trying to Burnish bearings, is about the worst thing you can to to a bearing. The process has nothing to do with your bearing alignment, it is all to do with wearing NEW bearings out through ignorance.

((Quote))this operation at the factory and suggests that this was to be done by the rebuilder (( End Quote))

This Quote of is also Misinformation, K.R. Wilson started making tools Ford in 1916 in the form of a Model T Transmission bushing reaming Jig. Shortly after that, he made all Fords rebuilding tool. I will let you read what he says on Burnishing , or in his words what they used to be called BURNING in, and for GOOD REASON!

The next thing, thickness of babbitt, and thickness of shims have nothing to do with any thing, except for what any given bearing needs, to rebuild it. To say thick babbitt, or thick shims are a weak spot for any bearing longetivity, that Idea, is plain ignorance.


Inserts can mask a poorly machined crankshaft better than thick babbitt can. ((End Quote))

Wow, where do you get these Idea's

Now for the K. R. Wilson coments!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Herm,
Nice pics, thanks for sharing! Whew...I'm not an engine builder, but know that that ain't right (bearings installed that way). What a waste of time/money,eh.
Q- I've heard/read here where guys say that they install/run inserts WITHOUT full pressure and without negative results.....if the inserts are 'properly' installed and run without pressure and filter...in your professional opinion , can that be true?

A lot of engine builders use inserts without pressure. They still use the dipper splash system, and stock oil pump. Im getting a motor rebuilt right now by James Taylor in south texas. He uses A.E.R bearings and rods (still dipper rods) but he does pressurize the center main and use a high pressure oil pump. But the engine in our 4 door was built by rich at AER and it has a stock oil pump, no pressurized center main, and it still runs and sounds fine several thousands of miles later.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by hardtimes

Herm,
Nice pics, thanks for sharing! Whew...I'm not an engine builder, but know that that ain't right (bearings installed that way). What a waste of time/money,eh.
Q- I've heard/read here where guys say that they install/run inserts WITHOUT full pressure and without negative results.....if the inserts are 'properly' installed and run without pressure and filter...in your professional opinion , can that be true?

I would think so, but as we don't do that, I only go by what other builders say. It always comes down to how good your Doctor is! Herm.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Well I am taking another try, to get the wilson reading on!

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

We will try to get on the K.R. Wilson post that didn't work before! Herm.

[MALAK]

Originally Posted by msmaron

Ok all back to my situation if you please, take a look at the pics....thanks again
mark

I wouldn't drive it much like that. That GOO may feel oily but it doesn't have very good lubricating properties. I'd pull the head and see what's going on. You might just have a blown head gasket. I changed a head gasket on a friends T-Bird recently that was running fine but had just enough of a leak to not hydraulic the cylinder but the watery blow-by into the crankcase was enough to cause that frothy goo. It'll wipe the bearings out in a hurry if you drive it like that.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

[QUOTE=msmaron;359131]Ok all back to my situation if you please, take a look at the pics....thanks again
mark[/QUOTE)

Mark is right, water an oil is white. I don't know if you dropped the oil yet, but when you do, let the oil set over night, and screw the drain plug out slow, and keep holding it to the pan, and see how much water seeps out first, as it will all be on the bottom. Like the boys said, pull the head, and watch the gasket for a breach in the gasket seal, and clean it up good, use a shop Vac. to get all the crumbs, and check for cracks. Let us know what you found, and pictures, and we will guess from there. thanks, Herm.

[MikeK]

Mark,
You've managed to mix two questions into one thread. 1) Another engine and 2) Is my block cracked?

I'll start with the second Q. first- I think you are jumping to a panic driven conclusion. By the sight of all the antifreeze slobber by the edge of the headgasket in one of your pix, gasket failure is 90% likely the cause. Bite the bullet and concede you need to give up driving it for a couple weeks. Take it to Ken E.'s where you can pull the head, clean stuff up, and check for flat gasket surfaces and cracks.

Now Q.1- Having a 'spare' running A engine is always nice, even if you do not have immediate need. It gets you back up and running while your 'other' is lounging for weeks (months?) at a rebuilder.

My 2c- I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the misdirected thinking that inserts need a pressurized supply for lube, or the thinking that the oil will only travel half way across the inserts. The primary function of oil pressure is COOLING the inserts. Unless something is seriously wrong, you'll never produce enough oil film loading to generate heat faster than it can conduct through the shells into the block or rods. An A is closer to a lawnmower than a Shelby Cobra.

Aside from Herm's trashed insert photos, how many other insert bearing failures have you seen? Fordbarn is absolutely loaded with babbitt failure stories and pictures. What is to be gleaned from Herm's post is the absolute need for cleanliness in a rebuild, and also the need for an oil filter during the first 1000 break-in miles. Keep in mind Brent's comment that rear main babbitt adjustment ain't easy with a weighted crank. That clearance maintenance is crucial to getting 50K on it. Inserts just need clean oil to go the distance.

If the JS ever evolve to the point somebody is stickin a proctoscope up your engine orifices your rebuild decisions may sway. 'Till then, you'll definitely enjoy having more than 40 horses to comfortably trek Woodstock to Woodfield traffic on a daily basis. Skip the Stipe 330. Try the 340 and 1.720 intakes with a HC head. Bill once stocked a 335 which I ran 'till I siezed up a piston that was fitted too tight (not by me!!) many years ago. That was a nice cam.

[columbiA]

To find the leak,why not plug the overflow tube & pressurize the rad with abt 10 psi & with the pan off,you may see where its leaking.With the plugs out you could look in the cyls to see if any water there too.Could even be a crack in the upper part of the valve chamber. As for inserts vs babbitt,After almost 60 years of driving A,s Ive only had one brg failure.I was 30 miles from home when a rod brg suddenly let go.I was able to drive all the way home by useing light throttle & retarding the spark.There was hardly any babbitt left on the rod but the crank was not harmed.As for longevity of babbitt,I put over 75,000 miles on one A and no idea how many miles were on the engine before I got it. On my coupe Ive put 13,000 on it since I rebored it& replaced the valves lifters & timing gears.It is still running the original babbitt & I change the oil every 1,000 miles& dont add between changes.Still useing the original oil slinger.At 74,I dont think I will live long enough to wear it out.I always like to use old babbitt when ever possible,as I think it can be a crap shoot when you get a babbitt job done these days as there are not to many that can do the job properly.

[Earle]

Are you guys distinguishing between insert jobs on both rods and mains vs. on rods only for needing a pressurized system? When we discussed inserts in an earlier thread a while back, I recall many guys not being pressurized when only the rods are inserted and having excellent performance and bearing life. And the tipping point for needing pressurization was when the mains are inserted along with the rods.

I just spent the big bucks getting AER inserted-rods installed by Schwalms. I pressed Ora hard on the need for pressurization because I was not about to spend that kind of money and have the inserts fail for lack of pressurization - especially when they fail so catastrophically. He maintains his very-experienced position that pressure is not needed when only the rods are inserted and the mains remain babbitted.

The hobby as a whole now seems to have accumulated a lot of experience with this configuration and Ora has done many engines this way with zero problems. So I took the leap of well-informed faith. I saw Kohnke's photos showing the results of dirt contamination and am doubly glad I have always run a full-flow oil filter. - Plus a good hi-volume air filter on the carb. (Road dust is NOT our friend.)

Kohnke: Curious: How did that much "dirt" (what kind?) get into that engine in the first place?

'Got about 3000 miles on the rod inserts so far in all kinds of operating conditions (except racing and mountain climbing!) and the old girl is as happy as can be. The car's doing really well too! (that was a joke...). I use Shell Rotella 15W40 motor oil with 500-mile changes for a belt-and-suspenders approach to babying my engine.

And always having gone only to Schwalms for all my engine and drive train work over the years is the rest of my "security blanket."

[sphanna]

I have just tonight installed AER inserted rods in my B engine. I plastigaged them and they all checked out at .0015 clearance. I was very happy to see this. This is so much easier to work with than the babbitt that was failing one at a time. I lost # 4 babbit and had it redone with Ron's Machine shop and he did a very good job. Then Babbitt rod # 3 failed. Had to tear down again. This is when I decided to go to inserts. AER also rebuilt an A engine for me about a year ago with inserts. This is a very smooth running engine and I am very pleased with it.
Now, I have a question> If the clearance is the same .0015 as the babbitt clearance, why would there be a greater need for pressurized oil system? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, much,

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Kohnke: Curious: How did that much "dirt" (what kind?) get into that engine in the first place?

I don't know Earle, I will call the machine shop tomorrow that sent me the pictures, and post a reply. Herm

[sphanna]

I am having a heck of a time posting. Posted and it did not show. Posted again and then both post showed up. I deleted second post because first one showed up. Now lost both posts again Frustration. I would like to know why it is important to pressurize with inserts when .0015 clearance is used for both babbitt and inserts. Appreciate any help on this.

[sphanna]

Re: To Babbit or Not To Babbit vs Inserted??
I have just tonight installed AER inserted rods in my B engine. I plastigaged them and they all checked out at .0015 clearance. I was very happy to see this. This is so much easier to work with than the babbitt that was failing one at a time. I lost # 4 babbit and had it redone with Ron's Machine shop and he did a very good job. Then Babbitt rod # 3 failed. Had to tear down again. This is when I decided to go to inserts. AER also rebuilt an A engine for me about a year ago with inserts. This is a very smooth running engine and I am very pleased with it.
Now, I have a question> If the clearance is the same .0015 as the babbitt clearance, why would there be a greater need for pressurized oil system? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, much,

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

((Quote))Aside from Herm's trashed insert photos, how many other insert bearing failures have you seen? (( End Quote))

Well Mike, I think the reason for that is that most of the babbitted engines that are giving up are 80 plus years old, the the newer rebuilds with bad babbitt done by want-a-bee's can hardly Count.

My sencond thought on that is, out of all the Model A Motors in the U.S., I really doubt if inserted motors are higher than 2 Percent, Total, of babbitt engines!

((Quote)) Fordbarn is absolutely loaded with babbitt failure stories and pictures. (( End Quote))

Yes they Mike, and it was all from S&%$ work, I fail to see the Relevancy!

[PC/SR]

[QUOTE=MikeK;359262]Mark,

My 2c- I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the misdirected thinking that inserts need a pressurized supply for lube, or the thinking that the oil will only travel half way across the inserts. The primary function of oil pressure is COOLING the inserts. Unless something is seriously wrong, you'll never produce enough oil film loading to generate heat faster than it can conduct through the shells into the block or rods. An A is closer to a lawnmower than a Shelby Cobra.

Circulating oil does cool any bearing, insert or not. But oil's primary purpose is to provide a film to separate the metals so as to reduce friction and heat. The logic of the quote would suggest that no oil is needed at all on a lawnmower or Model A engine.
The problem is not inserts as such, but the circumferential groove. Henry's engineers were not dummies and they did not use circumferential grooves in their unpressurized systems for a reason. They only began the circumferential groove when they began pressure oil.
An unpressuized single circumferential groove simply does not as effectively supply oil across the entire bearing, as the X and longitudinal grooves of the original design do. It is not a coincidence that all modern circumferential grooves are pressurized, and so far as I can find, circumferential grooves "back in the day" were also pressurized.
I would have no problem with unpressurized inserts if the grooves followed the original design.I hope the insert makers will check the science and start putting the X grooves (and parting line reliefs) in unpressurized inserts. Herm has said he thinks they do not because they lack the tools to do so. Maybe that's it. However, the babbit guy I now use made his own tools for making X grooves and he works out of his garage. It would seem like manufacturers would have the resources to make the tools necessary to replicate Ford's design. Maybe just copy the KR Wilson tool, which is a simple design.
That's my 2c.
PS: I got interested in this subject after a 200 mile bearing failure and on teardown found circumferential grooves and no parting line relief. The babbit was otherwise fine. No cracks, flaking, etc. Just excessive wear. That should be added to the body of experience being considered here.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Mark,
You've managed to mix two questions into one thread. 1) Another engine and 2) Is my block cracked?

I'll start with the second Q. first- I think you are jumping to a panic driven conclusion. By the sight of all the antifreeze slobber by the edge of the headgasket in one of your pix, gasket failure is 90% likely the cause. Bite the bullet and concede you need to give up driving it for a couple weeks. Take it to Ken E.'s where you can pull the head, clean stuff up, and check for flat gasket surfaces and cracks.

OK Mike, No panic at all, wanted to get an engine that is a late 31 all done, and NOT rebuild the one that is in there now. BUT with what you say I will take it to Kens and pull the head, change the gasket and take that step first, IF it does correct it, it give me the time i need to find another engine.... What is your feeling on the inserted engine
Thanks for your reply and talk real soon..

Now Q.1- Having a 'spare' running A engine is always nice, even if you do not have immediate need. It gets you back up and running while your 'other' is lounging for weeks (months?) at a re-builder.

If the JS ever evolve to the point somebody is stickin a proctoscope up your engine orifices your rebuild decisions may sway. 'Till then, you'll definitely enjoy having more than 40 horses to comfortably trek Woodstock to Woodfield traffic on a daily basis. Skip the Stipe 330. Try the 340 and 1.720 intakes with a HC head. Bill once stocked a 335 which I ran 'till I siezed up a piston that was fitted too tight (not by me!!) many years ago. That was a nice cam.

Are you saying that if Bill does have the355 i should go with that and the HC Head with a counter balanced Crank??

[QUOTE=Kohnke Rebabbitting;359238]

Originally Posted by msmaron

water an oil is white.

I wouldn't drive it much like that. That GOO may feel oily but it doesn't have very good lubricating properties. I'd pull the head and see what's going on. You might just have a blown head gasket.

YES lets hope that is all it is, still want a new engine in their that is for my car...But i will keep you posted on it all!
Thanks again

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by PC/SR
Circulating oil does cool any bearing, insert or not. But oil's primary purpose is to provide a film to separate the metals so as to reduce friction and heat. The logic of the quote would suggest that no oil is needed at all on a lawnmower or Model A engine.
The problem is not inserts as such, but the circumferential groove. Henry's engineers were not dummies and they did not use circumferential grooves in their unpressurized systems for a reason. They only began the circumferential groove when they began pressure oil.
An unpressuized single circumferential groove simply does not as effectively supply oil across the entire bearing, as the X and longitudinal grooves of the original design do. It is not a coincidence that all modern circumferential grooves are pressurized, and so far as I can find, circumferential grooves "back in the day" were also pressurized.
I would have no problem with unpressurized inserts if the grooves followed the original design.I hope the insert makers will check the science and start putting the X grooves (and parting line reliefs) in unpressurized inserts. Herm has said he thinks they do not because they lack the tools to do so. Maybe that's it. However, the babbit guy I now use made his own tools for making X grooves and he works out of his garage. It would seem like manufacturers would have the resources to make the tools necessary to replicate Ford's design. Maybe just copy the KR Wilson tool, which is a simple design.
That's my 2c.
PS: I got interested in this subject after a 200 mile bearing failure and on teardown found circumferential grooves and no parting line relief. The babbit was otherwise fine. No cracks, flaking, etc. Just excessive wear. That should be added to the body of experience being considered here.

PC/SR-
X patterns on lower (caps) bearings have a negative effect!
Here is Mahle Clevite engineering data to back it up: LINK
If you look at the graphs on the second page, please be aware that the "oil pressure" the 1st graph refers to is developed pressure within the surface film. It has nothing to do with any pump. Nowhere in the entire tech bulletin does it mention anything about pressurized feed!

Oil is not effectively delivered as a film across a bearing by any sharp edged groove, be it circumferential or X pattern. The oil actually pressurizes itself and rolls into a film at a wedge shaped squish area either at the parting line of inserts or from an area of open clearance at the top of a main bearing. That wedge shape is NOT the sharply defined 1/8" relief you see cut into babbitt or made along the edge of inserts. The wedge that delivers oil to an insert is gently tapered clearance not visible to the eye. It is beyond that machined sharp tapered reservoir most people confuse as the actual oil film delivery 'wedge'. It is NOT present on line-bored babbitt, only on properly shaped and engineered shells that have the correct "crush" to achieve this upon assembly. Engineered insert wedge areas actually self-pressurize the oil into the surface film.

Mark:
I'm pretty sure Bill Stipe can make you a 335. He may just not have one on the shelf. The 335 cam + 1.72" intakes + HC head = very peppy highway motor that will still have idle sound like an "A" (use an Aries muffler) and will still idle/parade nicely.

The downside to your madness: You'll have to give up that Nu-Rex centrifugal advance or re-engineer it. Too much total. DO NOT call me on that issue!!! Does Ken have a distributor machine? I gave mine away when I quit racing/building SBC's. The FS ignitions "Zipper" looks like an A dizzy but you can easily tweak the weights/springs/ initial & total adv. to get the curve you need.

[George Miller]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

[QUOTE=PC/SR;359457]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Mark,

My 2c- I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the misdirected thinking that inserts need a pressurized supply for lube, or the thinking that the oil will only travel half way across the inserts. The primary function of oil pressure is COOLING the inserts. Unless something is seriously wrong, you'll never produce enough oil film loading to generate heat faster than it can conduct through the shells into the block or rods. An A is closer to a lawnmower than a Shelby Cobra.

Circulating oil does cool any bearing, insert or not. But oil's primary purpose is to provide a film to separate the metals so as to reduce friction and heat. The logic of the quote would suggest that no oil is needed at all on a lawnmower or Model A engine.
The problem is not inserts as such, but the circumferential groove. Henry's engineers were not dummies and they did not use circumferential grooves in their unpressurized systems for a reason. They only began the circumferential groove when they began pressure oil.
An unpressuized single circumferential groove simply does not as effectively supply oil across the entire bearing, as the X and longitudinal grooves of the original design do. It is not a coincidence that all modern circumferential grooves are pressurized, and so far as I can find, circumferential grooves "back in the day" were also pressurized.
I would have no problem with unpressurized inserts if the grooves followed the original design.I hope the insert makers will check the science and start putting the X grooves (and parting line reliefs) in unpressurized inserts. Herm has said he thinks they do not because they lack the tools to do so. Maybe that's it. However, the babbit guy I now use made his own tools for making X grooves and he works out of his garage. It would seem like manufacturers would have the resources to make the tools necessary to replicate Ford's design. Maybe just copy the KR Wilson tool, which is a simple design.
That's my 2c.
PS: I got interested in this subject after a 200 mile bearing failure and on teardown found circumferential grooves and no parting line relief. The babbit was otherwise fine. No cracks, flaking, etc. Just excessive wear. That should be added to the body of experience being considered here.

If I remember correctly chev 6 used a circumferential groove with dippers. They did real well.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Mark:
I'm pretty sure Bill Stipe can make you a 335. He may just not have one on the shelf. The 335 cam + 1.72" intakes + HC head = very peppy highway motor that will still have idle sound like an "A" (use an Aries muffler) and will still idle/parade nicely.

The downside to your madness: You'll have to give up that Nu-Rex centrifugal advance or re-engineer it.

Mike Got rid of that over a year ago.. Was tired of it and i set my own timing now and like it much better.. Ok will change the head gasket and give Bill a call..Want to ask you about the intakes though.. can you call me or email me direct at [email protected] PLEASE

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Kohnke: Curious: How did that much "dirt" (what kind?) get into that engine in the first place?

I don't know Earle, I will call the machine shop tomorrow that sent me the pictures, and post a reply. Herm

Earle, I called the Machine today, and they said the motor still had glass beads, and J.B. Weld in it.

George, the rods were bored for inserts, and then the rods were welded on the sides, and that distorted the rods for the inserts!

Also the align bore for the main inserts was off.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

PC/SR-
X patterns on lower (caps) bearings have a negative effect!
Here is Mahle Clevite engineering data to back it up: LINK
If you look at the graphs on the second page, please be aware that the "oil pressure" the 1st graph refers to is developed pressure within the surface film. It has nothing to do with any pump. Nowhere in the entire tech bulletin does it mention anything about pressurized feed!


Mike, you are smoking your socks on this one!

If you can't tell Clevite is talking about a Pressure bearing, write Pressure system on the article so you will know the next time. The Article assumes the person reading it would know that thin wall inserts have been made now for at least 60 Plus Years, why would they talk about something irrelevant?




P.C.'s Quote you used, Listen to him, and learn! Babbitt splash bearings, and Babbitt Pressure Bearings, compared to modern inserts with pressure, have nothing to do with each other.


Circulating oil does cool any bearing, insert or not. But oil's primary purpose is to provide a film to separate the metals so as to reduce friction and heat. The logic of the quote would suggest that no oil is needed at all on a lawnmower or Model A engine.
The problem is not inserts as such, but the circumferential groove. Henry's engineers were not dummies and they did not use circumferential grooves in their unpressurized systems for a reason. They only began the circumferential groove when they began pressure oil.
An unpressuized single circumferential groove simply does not as effectively supply oil across the entire bearing, as the X and longitudinal grooves of the original design do. It is not a coincidence that all modern circumferential grooves are pressurized, and so far as I can find, circumferential grooves "back in the day" were also pressurized.

I also have a picture to prove P.C.'s Point.

No. 1 Picture, proves P. C.'s point, and this is not the only one you will see! You can see where the oil, ( Pressure Fed) in the first part of the bearing, and did not reach the other side of the bearing very good, just as P. C. pointed out.

No. 2 Picture shows the only rod I have seen like this, out of A 1911 Aplex two cycle car. It is oil fed from thr crank, smooth bearing in the Rod, and X groove in the cap which is also a dipper cap, and it is very effective for this engine.

No. 3 & 4 Picture's show no oil grooves in a 1927 Studabaker, pressure fed, not needing any grooves, as it is a narrow bearing. Right P.C.

No. 5 & 6 Pictures show again narrow 1936 Buick rods, no grooves, and wide mains, where groove are needed. Again, pressure fed bearings, Mains Have full circle in some halfs, and blind end groves in some of ther mates.

No. 7 & 8 Pictures, show The 1937 to 1953 Chevy Rod that George talked about. The Rod has a full circle oil Groove, and 2 oil wells, and 1 oil Pocket. Those 216's Motors, were very good engins.

Thanks Herm.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Earle, I called the Machine today, and they said the motor still had class beads, and J.B. Weld in it.

George, the rods were bored for inserts, and then the rods were welded on the sides, and that distorted the rods for the inserts!

Also the align bore for the main inserts was off.

It looked like a very poor job
Thanks Herm

[jrelliott]

I have one of roadster31's rebabbited engines. Know from the class he gave to Lady Slipper A's on how to do babbiting, it was done correctly. If you get someone who knows what they are doing babbit will last. My engine is one of the sweetest running with no vibrations. JMHO.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by jrelliott

I have one of roadster31's rebabbited engines. Know from the class he gave to Lady Slipper A's on how to do babbiting, it was done correctly. If you get someone who knows what they are doing babbit will last. My engine is one of the sweetest running with no vibrations. JMHO.

Yes it will I had a 30 town sedan with 85,000 miles on the original Babbitt.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Mike, you are smoking your socks on this one!

If you can't tell Clevite is talking about a Pressure bearing, write Pressure system on the article so you will know the next time. The Article assumes the person reading it would know that thin wall inserts have been made now for at least 60 Plus Years, why would they talk about something irrelevant?

P.C.'s Quote you used, Listen to him, and learn! Babbitt splash bearings, and Babbitt Pressure Bearings, compared to modern inserts with pressure, have nothing to do with each other.
. . .
I also have a picture to prove P.C.'s Point.

No. 1 Picture, proves P. C.'s point, and this is not the only one you will see! You can see where the oil, ( Pressure Fed) in the first part of the bearing, and did not reach the other side of the bearing very good, just as P. C. pointed out.

Thanks Herm.

Nothing smoking other than closed minds. YOU need to re-read it. Plain and simple, sharp edged grooves do not help in a bearing cap. Pressure feed or not, they only serve to reduce the effective available oil film.

Picture 1 does NOT prove P.C.'s point, it only shows a galled area where the oil did not get. That type of bearing failure is commonly called a "hot short" and obviously caused by lack of oil. Pressure feed has nothing to do with and should not be expected to magically push oil sideways across a tiny clearance gap. A traditional X would have made some oil film, saving this low performance rod bearing, but much less film than if the bearing surface was fed (independent of pressure) from a ramp area across both parting lines connected directly to the oil supply. That bearing shell/lining has NO ramp area, only a narrow sharp edged angle cut by the parting that scrapes oil off.

Even poured babbitt splash & gravity bearings could be made to work without X grooves if a tapered transition from the parting was polished into the surface, transforming it from round to elliptical like a modern insert with proper 'crush'.

Van-der-Waals-London forces serve to pull in and pressurize the oil film beyond the level of the strongest hydraulic pump with a ramp area that properly matches the bearing diameter, clearances, and oil characteristics. All this with no 'pressure' feed. But you DO need feed. Gravity or splash will do, to keep the angle cut reservoir that feeds the ramp area full. The pressure developed by a ramp profile at 1000 rpm can exceed one hundred million pascals. In English, that's like having a 15,000 psi pump feed the oil.

I have nothing against poured babbitt, it works fine IF done properly, and right now you're the guy to do it right, albiet 'old-skool'. It's just that X grooves in a circular bearing, poured or insert, are less effective than an eliptical ramp profile, whether it be polished into a poured bearing or formed by shell 'crush'.

[PC/SR]

Mike: Like Herm, I read your reference as referring to modern, pressurized bearings. Those babbitt Chevys had 1.033" wide rods, compared to the 1.625" wide MOdel A rod bearings and even wider mains. It is the extraordinary width of the A bearings compared to modern bearing that make the unpressurized circumferential groove unsuitable for the A.

As an aside on those great old babbitt Chevys, my Dad gave me his '53 Chev when I was about 17. It had a persistent knock in #2 rod that I never could get rid of for long. Eventually the shims were all gone but I kept driving it. One day at about 60 mph the crankshaft on that sucker broke in two just behind #2. Pop said there was no warranty. However, I had a service station job at the time and he did co-sign for a really cool '55 Merc Montclair hardtop. Dual Smitty's, best sounding pipes in town. I concede, it had pressure, circumferential, inserts. :-)

[Greg Jones]

Glass beads and JB Weld still inside the engine? Wow I would think under those conditions any type of bearing would be damaged insert or babbitt. Maybe one quicker than the other, but still....whatever happened to "cleanliness is next to Godliness" during engine assembly?

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Nothing smoking other than closed minds. YOU need to re-read it. Plain and simple, sharp edged grooves do not help in a bearing cap. Pressure feed or not, they only serve to reduce the effective available oil film.

Your right, on a modern engine.



Picture 1 does NOT prove P.C.'s point, it only shows a galled area where the oil did not get. That type of bearing failure is commonly called a "hot short" and obviously caused by lack of oil. Pressure feed has nothing to do with and should not be expected to magically push oil sideways across a tiny clearance gap.


Darn, Mike, Is that not what P. C. said, and I put by the Picture No. 1, and it is a Main bearing by the way, and Pressure fed must of had something to do with it, because that is how it gets Oiled


A traditional X would have made some oil film, saving this low performance rod bearing, but much less film than if the bearing surface was fed (independent of pressure) from a ramp area across both parting lines connected directly to the oil supply. That bearing shell/lining has NO ramp area, only a narrow sharp edged angle cut by the parting that scrapes oil off


No bearing like that have I ever seen with oil Pressure ever used an X groove for oil, again I would say Irrelevant! The Parting lines are smooth when you align bore, there is no edge to stick out, and this is one of many alike bearings.


one hundred million pascals!

Ge's Mike, that brings back a lot of memories, and I don't know if it was really a (Hundred Million Pascals or Not) ( you Really couldn't get a good count, as they seemed to move faster then the eye, and maybe like you said, can't be seen with the Eye, it sure did seem like it!. Any way, Dad got a 1/2 Pint of Kerosene, in which I told him, that if he wanted to cover the whole area, that he would need a Gallon, but he didn't buy it! Any way, I thought this is working good, as you could see, what I thought was those Pesky little Pascals, screaming the tops of there little heads off, until I realized the screaming was coming from me. It did do its job, but the folks couldn't get me out of the cow tank, for 2 days! Cows didn't like it either, as it left an Oil Slick!



A Pascal Survivor. Herm.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by Greg Jones

Glass beads and JB Weld still inside the engine? Wow I would think under those conditions any type of bearing would be damaged insert or babbitt. Maybe one quicker than the other, but still....whatever happened to "cleanliness is next to Godliness" during engine assembly?

Right on, Greg

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Ge's Mike, that brings back a lot of memories, and I don't know if it was really a (Hundred Million Pascals or Not) ( you Really couldn't get a good count, as they seemed to move faster then the eye, and maybe like you said, can't be seen with the Eye, it sure did seem like it!. Any way, Dad got a 1/2 Pint of Kerosene, in which I told him, that if he wanted to cover the whole area, that he would need a Gallon, but he didn't buy it! Any way, I thought this is working good, as you could see, what I thought was those Pesky little Pascals, screaming the tops of there little heads off, until I realized the screaming was coming from me. It did do its job, but the folks couldn't get me out of the cow tank, for 2 days! Cows didn't like it either, as it left an Oil Slick!



A Pascal Survivor. Herm.

I guess I got a bad case of the pascals from hangin' with the fluid dynamics guys at IIT. They had a nasty habit of trying new things and arithmeticking it all to death. Cogitators, the whole lot of them. Disgusting, yet contagious..

[Rex_A_Lott]

I dont really have anything constructive to add here, just wanted to bump it back to the top, because I've been reading here and asking myself this same question for a few months now.

[msmaron]

It has been very informative, but typical of these posts it went WAY WAY off my topic, Thanks to all that chimed in, Mike and Herm, loved your posts the way you went at each other and thanks to all. i will be changing the head gasket this weekend and will post follow up photos...
Mark

[1931 flamingo]

To "stir" it up some more. Which head gasket are you using??
Paul in CT

[Tom Wesenberg]

It was the copper gasket.

[sphanna]

Originally Posted by PC/SR

Herm: Were those bearings pressurized? Because without pressure they are not going to be adequately lubricated.

Why would inserts require pressure oil system any more than Babbitt if the clearancees are the same .0015? I would appreciate learning the answer. THX

[PC/SR]

sphanna: The circumferential groove channels the oil around the center or the bearing, not across. Without pressure, the oil is not going to spread far across the bearing. I even have some doubt as to how effective pressure on a Model A rod would be because the oil spurt hole in the top of the big end would not allow much pressure build up.
The A rod had X grooves across the rod cap and across the big end, with the X intersecting at the dipper hole. There is also a short "scooped out" groove at the dipper hole. Thus the oil would be direct to the center of the rod, as well as across it. There was also a V shaped relief at the parting line.
The A mains originally had a spiral groove across the caps and the block side that crossed through the oil hole from the valve chamber. These grooves carried the oil across the main bearings, not around them.
Looks like I got the pics up, thanks Tom. 1. Rod cap. you can see a part of the X in the rod big end. 2 rear main cap. 3 center and front main cap 4. center main block. The rear main block also has a groove through the gravity feed hole that goes across the bearing. Sorry no good pic. Pat

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by sphanna

Why would inserts require pressure oil system any more than Babbitt if the clearancees are the same .0015? I would appreciate learning the answer. THX

They absolutely DO NOT. Anyone who thinks so does not understand the difference between circular machined cast babbitt and the elliptical ramp profile of insert technology. Unlike poured and line bored babbitt, inserts DO NOT present a round hole for the journal to ride in.

The circumferential groove on an insert has NOTHING to do with distributing oil across the width of the bearing. It's function is to channel oil to the parting line.

At the parting line an insert has several thousanths more clearance between the journal and the bearing surface than a circular machined bearing. Still the same 0.0015 in the middle as cast babbitt, but much more at the parting. That's part of the elliptical ramp profile created as the two shells properly 'crush' into position. The oil flows, with no need for pressure other than gravity (mains) or impulse (splash, a few psi at idle with rod dippers) to a wedge shaped trough across 2/3 or more of the width at the parting. Cast babbitt generally has this trough cut in too. This is a reservoir.

In an insert the reservoir across the parting is adjacent to what is called the 'ramp area'. The open ramp area (several thousanths), not present on cast & bored babbitt, traverses the entire width, beyond the ends of that reservoir. That is where the oil is evenly distributed, with no need for a pump, across the entire width of the bearing. The circumferential groove has nothing to do with spreading oil across the width!

Rotational force from the journal strongly compresses the oil molecules toward the apogee of the bearing because of the exaggerated elliptical 'ramp'. If you want to understand those forces, look up and study: London dispersion force, quantum theory of dispersion, and Van-der-waals forces. A running elliptical insert rides up and runs on a much thicker oil film than a circular cast bearing. That is one of several reasons you get 50,000+ miles on inserts with only 0.001 babbitt and have virtually no wear, eliminating the need for shim adjustment. As I stated in a post above, if you do the math those forces provide an extreme self-pressurization of the oil at running speed, creating the much thicker film than you get from the old scrape and smear oil distribution of circular machined and spiral grooved cast babbitt.

So why are modern engines pressurized? The internal friction of dragging oil molecules across each other creates heat. As you increase linear speed (a function of RPM and journal diameter, BOTH larger in modern engines) the rate of heat production increases. At some point the base metal cannot conduct that heat away fast enough to keep the bearing surface temperature lower than the vaporization temperature of the oil. To exacerbate the problem, the shorter the oil HC chains (lighter weight oil) the lower the vapor point.

Modern engines use light weight oils because it takes less horsepower to bulk move them. One trip down the interstate on-ramp with bearings having several times the linear surface velocity of an "A" would bring the light oil in the bearings to vapor, which has near zero lube properties and will not support the journal up off the bearing material.

Theoretically, you only need one drop of oil in a bearing, it will recirculate forever. But it will also get hot. In an "A" the oil leakage out the sides (cast or inserts) under gravity or splash feed is more than adequate to keep the oil below vaporization. In a modern engine you also need to physically force it through at a faster rate to effect sufficient cooling. THIS is where the circumferential groove, necessary only in the feed half of the bearing, comes into play. In a pressure app, it permits much of the feed oil to push sideways and out, cooling the bearing surface. That heat problem is also why you find oil coolers on trucks and race cars.

ANY application that will run cast babbitt without pressure oil feed will also run inserts without pressure feed. Of course, ANY bearing job that is improperly done, cast or insert, will fail.

With inserts, it is CRITICAL to line bore the shell holes the proper size to effect shell crush. 0.002 too large will RUIN the block for inserts. The shells will not crush into the proper elliptical ramp profile and will be round like cast babbitt. As shade tree rebuilders quit babbitt and start using inserts, failures will begin to appear with increasing frequency. Why? Those sloppy, flexy, flimsy boring bar jigs that were fine for soft babbitt will be adapted to cut the insert bores, INACCURATELY. Very close is good enough for cast babbitt, you play with the shims. "Close" will ruin a block bored for inserts. If a rebuilder's line boring setup and technique/skill can't hold a couple tenths tolerance, walk away.

If all this scares you and you want cast babbitt, I have a whole string of Q's for the babbitteer (is that a word??) If you want to read some of what I know about babbitt, read my posts #2 & #12 in this thread: LINK The Q's are in #12. Done properly, cast babbitt is just fine in an "A".

[Rex_A_Lott]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Thanks MikeK. That was a lot to digest at 5am, before I'd had my first pot of coffee...I had to go back and re-read it, and its still mostly over my head, but it gives some things to think about.

[James Rogers]

Excellent dissertation and, all correct.

[Gord. B by the bay]

Very helpfull Mike many thanks for sharing Gord. B by the bay

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Well Mike, I have 3500.00 dollars of babbitt in the tinning pot, and 6000.00 dollars in the Pouring pot, and the only Gas around the the pots for 44 years, has come from the L.P. tank, and Me!

So with out a bad bearing in 44 years, with at least 30,000 spun poured, just in Model A Ford rods, not counting all other cars, tractors Ect., I just for the life of me, can't figure out what I am doing wrong?

Of the bearings that have been changed over to inserts in the last 10 years, have now had there bearing inserts that they used Obsoleted completely, or in certain sizes. Say the insert you used is no longer available, then what, happens every day, companies go broke, People Die, Not enough call for an insert Ect. May be the cranks wore .002, and still round, and no bigger sizes, then what? Nothing is made for ever!

Race cars never had trouble with babbitt bearings, or any of the other cars. The only time for bearing trouble, is when the engines got wore out or mistreated, and I don't think your inserts would act any different, may be not even as good!

My first questions to anyone with a babbitt pot are what alloy, how do you degas it, and what do you use as a grain refiner prior to pour, and how long do you hold it after the final degas and grain refinement? The answer to the last few Q's is inevitably "Huh?". That's why I will always use inserts and NEVER have anyone who does model A work do a babbitt job for anything I own. If you want to hear "Huh?" again, ask what their protocol is to degas, pig, and de-skull the melting pot between runs, and at what time interval?

As far as I am concerned, "Huh" is an Appropriate answer! You may have to do what you are suggesting in a foundry setting, with Aluminum Ect. But the way I look at is, in something doesn't work, then you have to Question WHY?
But How Do you fix something that works?



My first questions to anyone with a babbitt pot are what alloy, how do you degas it, and what do you use as a grain refiner prior to pour, and how long do you hold it after the final degas and grain refinement? The answer to the last few Q's is inevitably "Huh?". That's why I will always use inserts and NEVER have anyone who does model A work do a babbitt job for anything I own. If you want to hear "Huh?" again, ask what their protocol is to degas, pig, and de-skull the melting pot between runs, and at what time interval?


No Where, In any book, or artical on rebabbitting, have I every read anything to do with what you are talking about in the level of babbitt, past the ore stage. SO, I said to my self, "Hay Self" Why don't you call the the foundrys that put the mix togather, so I did, I read them your paragraph, and asked them if it is something to look into, you will never guess what the first guy said, well maybe you did, he said "Huh? So according to the first guy, and they are mixing it, it is nothing I would have to be concerned about, as what I work with, is way after the stage you are talking about, as the babbitt is already refined. And as far as holes in the babbitt, and wrinkles, Ect. That is corected by the Babbitter. With all this said, there is no two bearings, and or Jigs the will pour alike, Heavy bearings, Thin bearings, Leakey bearings Ect. The only secret that I know of Hidden in a good bearing, is all Temps, Time, and Heat retention. And you have to know what to do to correct it.

I do feel sorry for James, agreeing with Mike, as he now knows you can't pour a Model A Block like he has been doing, and coming to terms with all the machinery, and testing equipment he will have to put in to do a Model A block right, unless he has it?



That's why I will always use inserts and NEVER have anyone who does model A work do a babbitt job for anything I own.



Thats about what I thought Mike, You know all about pouring babbitt, but can't do it your self, thats all right, you arn't the only one on here like that.



But, I still feel sorry for James.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

But, I still feel sorry for James.

Herm, what you trying to imply?

.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,834

The answer to the last few Q's is inevitably "Huh?". That's why I will always use inserts and NEVER have anyone who does model A work do a babbitt job for anything I own. If you want to hear "Huh?" again, ask what their protocol is to degas, pig, and de-skull the melting pot between runs, and at what time interval?



Re: Engine rebuild cost
$2000- $5000 Check with www.schwalms.com Schwalm's/Ora Landis (Babbitted Bearings)(Pennsylvania)


Sounds like a contradiction in terms, or ideas to me Mike! Or Schwalms meets all your babbitt processing ideas. Maybe you could ask them to show us all the steps you have to take, to show how we should be doing it, or unless it a secret. I know I am an Inquiring Mind!

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

Herm, what you trying to imply?

.

I am not implying any thing, did you for get how to comprehend? Read the Post!

[hardtimes]

Wow, you guys are thought provoking, informative and entertaining! Made me run (well hobble) right out to examine block/rods/stuff in the shed to check on your info and learn further!
Herm, Mike, PC and others...thanks for the instruction and entertainment (hmm, pascal ? must be insider stuff.

[James Rogers]

I don't see any implication, Herm thinks me an IDIOT. This has become very obvious in the last months so I just don't reply to any of his posts no matter what. I guess I just don't know what I am doing according to the GOD OF BABBITT.

Last I have to say!

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

I do feel sorry for James, agreeing with Mike, as he now knows you can't pour a Model A Block like he has been doing, and coming to terms with all the machinery, and testing equipment he will have to put in to do a Model A block right, unless he has it?

Well, this is for your acting Mommy "Brent", read this one over, and over, or just wait until morning, when the "Bud" is worn off!

Originally Posted by James Rogers

I don't see any implication, Herm thinks me an IDIOT. This has become very obvious in the last months so I just don't reply to any of his posts no matter what. I guess I just don't know what I am doing according to the GOD OF BABBITT.

Last I have to say!

No place that I know of that I have called you an "Idiot" but when I, don't agree with any statement, idea, supposed fact from anybody, you will here a different opinion, and as many times as I have to say it. If I am wrong, SHOW ME. If you want me to agree with you, start saying things I agree with!

Oh, and James, my title in not "God of Babbitt" it is Babbitt God. You only use God of Babbitt when you are an Apprentice!

It is just like the Guy who had a job baiting hooks with fish parts, for rich people, down at the Wharf. He worked 2 years for his boss as an Apprentice Baiter, then one day after 2 years, his Boss gave him his Diploma, showing that he had graduated to being a Master.......

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Kohnke Rebabbitting

Well Mike, . . . and the only Gas around the the pots for 44 years, has come from the L.P. tank, and Me!

You sure let a lot of it go in this thread!
I'm done here in this thread too. Moving on.

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

Originally Posted by MikeK

You sure let a lot of it go in this thread!
I'm done here in this thread too. Moving on.

Mike, It sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, You being from the Windy City, and all!

[1931 flamingo]

FEEL THE LOVE...................

Paul in CT