too little crankshaft endplay?
10-21-2010, 08:52 PM
#21
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Clayton, North Carolina
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Thats interesting stuff, I just checked my truck engine when I pulled it out and it had .006, can't remember what it was new but that was 7 years and 107,000 miles ago when it went together. I would not let one go below .004, so it was probably in that area.......
Might be something to do with basic assembly practices.
Kurt
Might be something to do with basic assembly practices.
Kurt
10-21-2010, 09:00 PM
#22
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Clayton, North Carolina
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
I have done it the same as you for years, but started running into some blocks where the cap was leaning forward or back, thats what drove making the tool. The original piece I made just swung an indicator so I could see how flat the face was, then I would sand the bearing face to "true" it up based on the info. Just started taking to much time using that method for me so I made this tool. I run it with WD40 on the face and it gets me close, then I still finish with a little hand work in the solvent tank. I will try and do 3 or 4 blocks at a time and make a day of it! The last 3 days have been cutting o-ring grooves in heads and blocks, hope not to do that again for a few weeks!
Kurt
Kurt
Hey Kurt,
That's a pretty trick deal you have fabbed there but its hard to shake a stick at a simple and effective solution that anyone can handle in their garage or shop (with the obvious implications it makes more sense for most people reading this....LOL).
I have used the "wetsanding and mic" method for twenty five years without issue....you just need to take your time.
See you at PRI hopefully!
Cheers,
Tony
That's a pretty trick deal you have fabbed there but its hard to shake a stick at a simple and effective solution that anyone can handle in their garage or shop (with the obvious implications it makes more sense for most people reading this....LOL).
I have used the "wetsanding and mic" method for twenty five years without issue....you just need to take your time.
See you at PRI hopefully!
Cheers,
Tony
10-21-2010, 10:39 PM
#24
Tony,
Attached is how lazy people do it!!! I cut them in place with a mandrel I made that bolts into the mains on bearings. The other picture shows the force fed oiling I use on the turbo stuff, 8 holes feeding the thrust surface. This is used with .006-.008 endplay and has been working well!
Kurt
Attached is how lazy people do it!!! I cut them in place with a mandrel I made that bolts into the mains on bearings. The other picture shows the force fed oiling I use on the turbo stuff, 8 holes feeding the thrust surface. This is used with .006-.008 endplay and has been working well!
Kurt
10-22-2010, 10:51 AM
#26
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Readsboro, VT
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update:
I pulled the #3 cap off and re-checked the endplay and it was right at .006" where I want it. In fact, with the cap off, it's easy to see the crank moving back and forth.
I pulled the crank out and measured the thrust bearing. The lower half that sits in the cap measured at 1.030". The upper half only measured at 1.026". Imagine that... the two halves were off by .004". While stuff was out, I measured the corresponding width of the crank surface, and measured 1.032". My measurements were a direct correlation to the measurements I got with the endplay... .002" with the cap on, .006" with it off.
I called Texas Speed (that's who I bought the rotating assembly from) and discussed it with them. As usual, they were able to quickly fix my problem... they mic'd a set of upper & lower at 1.026" and they're on their way to me.
I pulled the #3 cap off and re-checked the endplay and it was right at .006" where I want it. In fact, with the cap off, it's easy to see the crank moving back and forth.
I pulled the crank out and measured the thrust bearing. The lower half that sits in the cap measured at 1.030". The upper half only measured at 1.026". Imagine that... the two halves were off by .004". While stuff was out, I measured the corresponding width of the crank surface, and measured 1.032". My measurements were a direct correlation to the measurements I got with the endplay... .002" with the cap on, .006" with it off.
I called Texas Speed (that's who I bought the rotating assembly from) and discussed it with them. As usual, they were able to quickly fix my problem... they mic'd a set of upper & lower at 1.026" and they're on their way to me.
10-22-2010, 11:11 AM
#27
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Clayton, North Carolina
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Not sure what block you are using, but watch the chamfer on the edge of the 3 cap and block. It will sometimes force the bearing to spread when installed. Put your bearing that measures smaller in the cap and see if it spreads when you torque it. If it does increase the chamfer on the cap to provide clearance on the back radius of the bearing.
Kurt
Kurt
Update:
I pulled the #3 cap off and re-checked the endplay and it was right at .006" where I want it. In fact, with the cap off, it's easy to see the crank moving back and forth.
I pulled the crank out and measured the thrust bearing. The lower half that sits in the cap measured at 1.030". The upper half only measured at 1.026". Imagine that... the two halves were off by .004". While stuff was out, I measured the corresponding width of the crank surface, and measured 1.032". My measurements were a direct correlation to the measurements I got with the endplay... .002" with the cap on, .006" with it off.
I called Texas Speed (that's who I bought the rotating assembly from) and discussed it with them. As usual, they were able to quickly fix my problem... they mic'd a set of upper & lower at 1.026" and they're on their way to me.
I pulled the #3 cap off and re-checked the endplay and it was right at .006" where I want it. In fact, with the cap off, it's easy to see the crank moving back and forth.
I pulled the crank out and measured the thrust bearing. The lower half that sits in the cap measured at 1.030". The upper half only measured at 1.026". Imagine that... the two halves were off by .004". While stuff was out, I measured the corresponding width of the crank surface, and measured 1.032". My measurements were a direct correlation to the measurements I got with the endplay... .002" with the cap on, .006" with it off.
I called Texas Speed (that's who I bought the rotating assembly from) and discussed it with them. As usual, they were able to quickly fix my problem... they mic'd a set of upper & lower at 1.026" and they're on their way to me.
10-22-2010, 03:28 PM
#28
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Readsboro, VT
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll check that, but since my endplay measurement was exactly the same as the measured difference from the crank thrust surface minus the bearing width, I think I'm in good shape there.
10-22-2010, 03:47 PM
#29
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Clayton, North Carolina
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Since you had one that measures big it made me think of this problem. Load the half that does not measure big in the cap and torque it. After you remove it remeasure it, if it is big the cap has a chamfer problem and it will open every Clevite bearing you instal.
Kurt
Kurt
