VCCA Home Forums TECHNICAL - 1945 AND EARLIER 1929-1932 ENGINE BOTTOM NOISE

Don,
You began this thread with "NOT BEING A MECHANIC, THESE ARE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FEEDBACK ON".

In my opinion, the depths you have gone in trying to solve your problem totally qualify you as, at least, an "Apprentice Mechanic". Crankshafts and bearing work are the heart of an engine and Wrench Apes who work on those parts are elevated to the level of "engine heart surgeon"!

Shims have been made of bacon rind, shoe leather, and beer can metal. My neighbor is a Korean War truck driver and has used them all. But the 'prefered' shim stock is a special laminated brass mostly offered by Federal-Mogul.

Federal-Mogul is the all-time guru for bearing inserts and their tech infomation of the 1940'-50's is super; if you can find it!

The 'prefered' method for solving a clearance problem with inserts is to buy new inserts to match the crankshaft rod bearing journals. The shimming of inserts is a "field mechanics" way of making up for problems with the crank. (AutoCar Trucks and Hercules Engines used shims with inserts on the new rod caps in the 1940's.) It works, and in your case you may be stuck with the method ,unless your crank measurements allow new inserts. Shims under an insert may move and block an oil passage and they do slightly effect a bearing "crush" and things like the "radial shape" of the oil clearance.

But if that's what your rebuilder did then you may have to repeat his process, or pull the crank. I would at least test the final clearance with the old "feel the drag" on the rod method that taps the bearing sideways with an 8oz hammer.

Shims to " test " a rod bearing clearance by hand feel can be made from an old feeler gauge or even a piece of paper. (paper usually mices-out at .002).

Don; you have really gotten to the heart of the age old question "Should I use babbitt or inserts on my old engine?". Maybe this will become a seperate thread because the trouble you have had diagnosing "insert" noise is classic.

Best of luck in solving your problem!

THANKS JOHNNY FOR ALL YOUR INPUT ON THESE PROBLEMS.THE FEDERAL MOGUL INSERTS ARE WHAT I HAVE AND I WILL TRY AND FIND OUT IF I CAN GET THE FEDERAL MOGUL LAMINATED SHIM MATERIAL. MY PROBLEM IS TO FIND A PLACE THAT WILL OIL GROVE THE INSERTS, ANY IDEAS? THANKS :) :) :) :)

Now there is a good Question.The original rod cap and main bearing cap shims were silver for the .001' and brass for the .002"I would assume that the silver were aluminum .Now as to shims placed under the inserts the laminated shim packages I have ,made by Perfect Circle, are silver so are they aluminum?????I have used aluminum foil off the roll as shim material with no problem.I'll have t go out and check it with a magnet.

Chevgene may have the latest version of shim alloy. My old ones are brass, but the folks who make them (Federal-Mogul, Perfect Circle,etc) all have their own proprietary "expensive' versions of alloys and all should be pretty much Ok for your application. I would avoid the homemade versions, even the ones that local machine shops are "rolling" themselves. The factory versions are compatable for heat transfer, ect and are worth the whopping $12-$16 they charge for the shim stock.

If you need a "shim" the real question is why?
Are your "inserts" already .040 and you need more metal to get closer to your crank?

Honestly, I feel your inserts should have come with a "groove" already cut into them along with the proper oil hole location. The "no-groove" inserts that I have seen are used on my later full-pressure 1954 truck 235.
The factory "grooved" inserts I last used were on a dipper/splash 1952 235 converted from babbitt. Grooved inserts usually come with the insert to babbitt conversion.

The other grooves I have seen were very deep-cut by the machinist who placed the insert, or did the babbitting, and I believe were done with the insert fitted into the rod?

Have you thought of getting "new" inserts from a reputable source that already have the proper groove cut into them? New rod bearings for a 235 (.030)start at around 47$ a set. Your 1932 206 may be harder-to-find and if .040 maybe OBS?

Some folks use:
Patricks 6 cylinder machine shop
http://www.patricksantiquecars.com
(Whenever I speak to Patrick he has been super helpful, he does a lot of hot-rods and 1937-62 stock Chevies, but he may be of help for your 32' because of his reputation for the stovebolt engines?)

Some folks use:
Egge
http://www.egge.com

Don, I would call a good babbitt/insert rebuilder/supplier like the ones above, OR call one of the VCCA vendors in G&D and direct your shim and groove problem to their expertise. {I have really high praise for Russ at Paul's Rod & Bearing (babbitt and inserts) Parkville Missouri, 816-587-4747}. It's really sounding like you need to protect your crankshaft from any further, or future damage, and you need a pro to do the work...and a pro to supply you with the parts.

{PS..perhaps I shouldn't even mention this, but there is an old 'art' of re-babbitting a shell insert and then precision reaming/boring it to perfectly fit a crank. Its used mostly for very expensive autos, with very rare parts. Cost can be about $60-80 on-up for each pair of bearing shells!}

LilJohnny,You are correct the inserts shoud have come with the oil groves.The problem is the 1932 has a rod journal size all to its self and who knows what the inserts were concocked from.The way I see the picture the crank was already turned to .040" and they tried to make do with what they had seeing they were down to the max.undersize.Even if a straight grove thru the center could be cut in it would be OK.That was the nice about old babbited rods, they could always be fit right down to the end by removing shims and when the shims were gone file the rod caps.I do believe Don's will work out OK with the shim behind the insert as these cars are driven a limited amoumt and don't really get the pounding a newer car would.(in other words lets hope he's a slow driver) Also hate to bring this up again but also hope it was the noise.But either way the rods would never have lasted with out an oil grove.

Should I babbitt...or should I insert? Well this thread points out a classic dilema when choosing one over the other.
Chevgene makes a good point as to why the rebuilder had to "shim" after the crank had reached its max grind of .040. And the point that the 1932 rod journals are non-standard anyway left the rebuilder with little choice but to use an aftermarket insert shell and shim it to get a closer oil clearance.
Once the choice of using an insert, with an old worn crank in a rare 32' engine was made, then it falls to special 'techniques' to compensate for clearances.
Things like under insert shimming, or re-babbittng insert shells, and even the dreaded fileing of rod caps become the only way to make the old engine run Ok.

Chevgene made an earlier point about why the rebuilder may have chose insert-versus-the-babbitt; and he made mention of the fact that sometimes the babbitt "thickness" was way too much and thus caused rapid wallowing and rod bearing wear. That was once very true BUT in the 1970's Federal-Mogul produced a super babbit alloy that no longer needs to be centrifugally "spun" to prevent "blow holes" on the bearing. It is very temperature sensitive during the pour, but can be poured very very thick. So thick that it does not need to even have the traditional shims on the rod caps! This "new babbitt alloy" is a formula of roughly 10% Antimony, 6% tin, and the remainder Lead with special traces of arsenic,zinc,iron etc.

The moral of this story is that when you use "inserts" the crankshaft must be ground to match the size of the insert. This takes the life away from the crankshaft. BUT makes it easy to replace the inserts as they wear. If you've got a good, little-worn or common crank, that's A-OK. When an insert fails it is usually fast and catastrophic! Once it fails the knock is almost instant and can be a severe blow to the crank.

If you have an old engine with a heavily worn crank then Babbit is the way to go! The crank often only needs a 'polishing' or very light grinding and the rod babbitt bearing is made to 'match' the crankshaft. This adds life to the crank, but the rods must be re-babbitted at around 30,000 miles. When a babbit bearing fails you have time to drive the car home. The damage to the crankshaft is very minimal. The babbit "pounds" but doesn't destroy your engine.

I hope Don solves his "knocking" by grooving the inserts and setting the proper oil clearance. Like Chevgene said , the old 1932 will have to be taken easy! If Don doesn't "lug" the motor, never lets the oil get dirty, or run the engine at high rpms it should hopefully last a reasonably long time.

oh...sorry about the length of my post, and my strong opinions, but this topic is one of the top- ten-all- time issues of preservation/restoration. So many old Chevies have been junked or hot rodded over the babbit bearing issue...

HI JOHNNY F AND CHEVGENE, THE INSERTS THAT I HAVE ARE FEDERAL MOGUL-NUMBER-

4517334
1615-AP
.040US
VF

THESE INSERTS DO NOT HAVE A OIL GROOVE IN THEM. IS THERE A WAY TO CROSS REFERENCE THIS NUMBER TO MAYBE ANOTHER BRAND THAT IS THE SAME SIZE AND HAS THE OIL GROVES IN THEM. THANKS DON :) :) I

My second AWARD to a threaded discussion!!!! This was truly outstanding... I hope someone here summarizes this and saves it for a future posting to our site.

In recognition, I have created a unique, one-of-a-kind picture which symbolizes Don's "Blindman's walk through the flowers while assessing an incredible number of directions on how to fix his in-jine! !!! :love: :cool2:

Signed copies will be available for a small handling fee. - not!

Again, an outstanding discussion which stayed true to the original query and engaged a lot of people and.... actually dug out a whole ton of good information on how to sluth your way to a better rebuilt engine!! Congrats to all who participated!!!!

Chevy - probably a stupid question - but why don't you just take your shells into a good machine shop and have them cut the grooves in them for you - with the new lazer guided computer controlled CNC machines - they can work wonders. Just a thought.

Sorry,I don't have a Federal Mogol catalog so can't help here.>>>>>>>>Just about to leave for a long week end.We (the Wisconsin Region) have an annual get-to -gether with the Viking Region and Packerland Region .Will be anxious to check back on Sunday to see the latest developments.

moedip...I agree 100% it can't be that difficult

The aluminum valve cover on my Mercedes was dripping oil in the back - changed gaskets 3 times - no difference. Was told by Mercedes my valve cover was warped - new one $200. I sent the cover to a machine shop and they took off 7 thou and levelled it. - $40 and no leak. If they can do that with a convoluted cast alumium valve cover - I am sure they can do the shells.

woops...post flooded and double posted

Don,
I dont have a cross-reference book either. One of the above mentioned rod repair shops may have the cross-reference or may be able to provide grooved inserts if you give them your rod dimensions.

A local machine shop may be able to do the 'grooving'. I dont know if its very costly and if the shells must be placed in a jig, or if they need to be matched while in the rod?

Here is a picture of a 235 1950's series of rod caps.
The 1952 cap on the left is a babbit rod converted many years ago to an insert. The rod cap on the right is a 1954 stock high pressure insert.

Note the (left) 1952 has the oil groove. The bottom oil hole is also offset for the dipper angle. My rough dimesions on this old insert are apx 1/16 total insert thickness, the groove is cut apx 1/32 deep, and 1/8 wide.

The cap on the (right) 1954 has no groove, is 3/16 thinner in overall width, and the oil hole is located near botton dead center.

hope this helps...
Picture of Bearing Inserts

ps.. use the "view" box on the pic to make it bigger .

Pss..Chevgene mentioned earlier that your 1932 had different oil holes in the rods. The purpose of the "groove" is to channel the oil to these holes. The holes then sling oil to the cylinder walls and somewhat to the wrist pin. So the shape of the groove MAY be different for your 1932 rod holes. The 1950's pics are just an example!

THANKS, YOU GUYS FOR ALL THE GOOD INFORMATION, I FIND IT AMAZING OUT HERE IN MY AREA, I HAVE CALLED SEVERAL MACHINE SHOPS AND NONE OF THEM HAVE A SET UP TO PUT OIL GROVES IN THE INSERTS? OR MAYBE THEY JUST DONT WANT TO BE BOTHERED?I THINK MY NEXT STEP IS TO GO TO DIFFERENT BEARING HOUSES AND SEE IF MAYBE THEY CAN COME UP WITH A OIL GROOVED BEARING????? THANKS DON :) :) :)

why not just take a dremel and cut them yourself, its not rocket science. just a thought.
chuck

THANKS CHUCK, THAT IS WHAT I WILL PROBABLY DO AS LAST RESORT IF I CANNOT FIND SOMEONE TO MACHINE THEM OUT. I KNOW THERE IS A SMALL MACHINE MADE THAT CUTS THE GROVES IN, BUT FINDING SOMEBODY WITH ONE IS,????????????? THE PROBLEM. THANKS :) :) :) :)

This topic DOES deserve something special. WOW

YEAH! Pore old Donald, he has a noise, asks a question or two, and L@@K at everything he got!!!!!
Hope we have helped Donald, You sure have a purty car

Even by Texas standards!!

WeLL, HERE IS THE LATEST THING ON THAT DARN ENGINE?? THE KNOCK WE GOT WAS QUITE LOUD IN NUMBER SIX CYLINDER, QUITE LOUD AND ALSO A SLIGHT KNOCK OUT OF NUMBER TWO CYLINDER.NUMBER SIX CYLINDER WAS QUITE LOUD WHEN WE TOOK A SCREWDRIVER AND SHORTED THE SPARKPLUG, AND WHEN WE TOOK THE SCREWDRIVER AWAY, THE NOISE WAS STILL THERE, BUT NOT AS LOUD. AS I SAID BEFORE WE DID THE SCREWDRIVER TEST ABOUT TEN TIMES AND THEN THE KNOCKING WENT COMPLETELY AWAY IN NUMBER SIX AND IN NUMBER TWO CYLINDER.???????THE ENGINE HAD RUN A GOOD TEN MINUTES AND HAD GOT HOT UP TO OPERATING TEMPERATURE, AND THATS WHEN THE KNOCKING WENT AWAY???? WELL TODAY AS I WAS UNDER THE CAR LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM SIDE OF THE ENGINE, I NOTICED THAT THE NUMBER SIX PISTON, TOUCHED THE CYLINDER WALL TIGHT ON ONE HALF OF THE PISTON AND ON THE OTHER HALF THERE IS A GAP ABOUT AS WIDE AS A PAPER MATCH, AND THE NUMBER TWO PISTON ALSO HAS A GAP ON ONE HALF, BUT NOT AS WIDE A GAP AS NUMBER SIX CYLINDER??? ALL THE OTHER PISTONS FIT GOOD ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CYLINDERS. NOW HERE IS THE THING, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THIS??AS I SAY, IM ALL THUMBS WHEN IT COMES TO ENGINES, BUT ITS GETTING MORE INTERESTING BY THE MINUTE, IF THIS KEEPS UP, ILL BE ABLE TO TIE BOTH SHOES. THANKS DON :)

Donald ,
You may want to go back and read some of the comments about Alumimun pistons from Chip and Chevy Nut.
Did you have all six cylinders sleeved to the same bore? If so then you got two bummer pistons, Eh?, Did the compression checks all show about the same values?.
I suppose since you know there is a problem you won't sleep too well till it is corrected or are you the type that knows what it is and won't have to worry about it, just take it easy, let her warm up before doing any drag raceing? :confused: :p :eek:

HEY MR MACK, THE ENGINE WAS SIXTY OVER WHEN I GOT IT, I HAD ALL SIX CYLINDERS RESLEEVED BACK TO STANDARD. BOUGHT ALUMINUM PISTONS FROM EGGE AND USED CAST IRON RINGS. A QUESTION I DO HAVE IS IF I SHIM THE ROD INSERTS TO .001, IS THAT TO TIGHT OF A CLEARANCE. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE AT .002 CLEARANCE. THANKS :) :)

You purchased your pistons from Egge? Well.....I think that you might have answered your own question. The input that I have received from many over the past 20 years or so, was that they would never purchase aluminum pistons from Egge again due to the problems that they have had with them. Some pistons were found to be cam ground and some were not, and many have complained about piston slap until the engine warms up....at which time the piston slap is gone. I have even talked to several machinists that refuse to use Egge pistons in anyone's engine. I have a feeling that possibly your knocking noise could be piston slap instead of your rods, and the noise going away when the engine reaches operating temperature is a classic example of some of Egge's aluminum pistons.

On the rod clearance, I think that .001" to .0015" should be fine. :( :( :( :( :( :(

Well, Donald, that is one thing I like about your Buddy JYD, he don't beat around the bush like some folks do, Eh?

I would believe .001 clearance would be plenty, But, beating around the bush, I never had a crank shaft left undersized, nor a block sleeved, and was able to get rods factory rebabbited. or inserts that were for the crank, your case of having a crank .040 under is a horse of a different size.!

Don; You have several suspicious characters.
1) No grooves where there should be grooves in your insert. I believe your 1932 oil path is from your vaned pump and thus to the rockers and also low psi to replenish the troughs, the dipper picks up from the trough and the oil that spins around your bearing slings thru 2 rod holes to the cylinder wall and also lubes the wrist pin. {1932 folks Please correct this as I'm really only sure of 1935 on up!}. No groove on the insert means very little oil on the cylinder walls and wrist pin when you ran the engine. Wrist pin sticking....or Piston slap...ring wear, cylinder wear? (maybe dipper splash vapor spray and assembly lube protected a little?)
2)The shim under the insert means an imperfect fit of the rod to crank. The fit may be non-concentric and thus it may be tighter on some crank spots than others. "Tradition" says .002 rod insert oil clearance in this type situation, BUT others who have done the job on your 32' probably know the real clearance that works.
3)Cam ground pistons from a dubious source, (and yes I have heard of Egge problems). Pistons may be thermally expanding wrong for your sleeve fit, or maybe just defective.
4)Your stuck with diagnosing these problems when it should really be the job of you rebuilder to service his work.

Your getting very close to pulling the head and micrometer-ing pistons, feeler gaging side wall fits, and dial testing bore tapers. When you have doubts of your rebuilders 'numbers' and your suppliers parts quality; then you GOT to get your own set of 'numbers' from good testing gages and a good mechanic (micrometer, feelers, compression etc.) to tell what's wrong.

If you run the motor hoping that the problem will go away with time.....who will pay the bill if the engine gets worse? Will your rebuilder be taking the chance, or will you? If you paid good money for the rebuilder to do a good job...then the tail-is-on-that-donkey.

Your reaching the limit of an "internet diagnosis" and maybe you need a second opinion from a person who is eyeballlin' and measuring your actual engine?