boxkita Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Master tech who's also a master machinist? Seems pretty legit to me. Its not the cheapest solution but it works. towards bottom of this article talks about this - http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/1907-ten-important-facts-engine-bearing-clearance/ Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted October 14, 2020 Author Share Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) I know its a thing with normal motors because the bearings and gravity work in your favor, the crank sits inside the journal like a cup so they can be different top and bottom because the seams are on the side. They also have caps vs two case calves. It applies for a normal motor, but how would you apply the same concept by resting the crank directly on the seam on the bottom. Uneven seams on the sides, sure, on the bottom, hell no. Edited October 17, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted October 17, 2020 Author Share Posted October 17, 2020 Only way I can see it working properly is if the crank rotates into a smaller bearing but even still it will rotate into an edge on the other side. I can visualize it working but it doesn't seem ideal basically only parts of the bearing surface would have any contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxkita Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 How it works on the flat4, idk. Still trying to get the right bearings spec'd. tempted to buy oem spec bearings and call it good Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Capacity Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Yeah, I'm still not sure I'd do this on a street engine. But the difference is only .001 Remember the steel crank will knock that lip off the soft bearing quickly. Start with the standard bearings and if you find a clearance adjustment is required, move up or down, as necessary. And because 0.001-inch in difference can be more than desired, you can mix bearing sets to achieve the 0.0005-inch desired adjustment. Simply mix one of the shell halves of a standard bearing with a shell half from an over- or undersized bearing. Yes, it requires the purchase of two sets of bearing sets, but that's the price to pay for clearance optimization. One more thing: When mixing the bearings, make sure all shell halves are aligned. That means install all the standard halves on the block side and all the undersized halves on the cap side or vice versa. It doesn't matter which side they go on, only that the same sizes are on the same sides of the components. 305,600miles 5/2012 ej257 short block, 8/2011 installed VF52 turbo, @20.8psi, 280whp, 300ftlbs. (SOLD). CHECK your oil, these cars use it. Engine Build - Click Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted October 19, 2020 Author Share Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) ok, so I got a refund of 145 dollars. I paid 240, 260 with tax originally, plus another 20 for a new ac plug panel and some terminals, so 280, got back 145, so I only spent 135 bucks for this thing so I'm happy, and I got it working again, after pulling it apart and fixing the issues. It was either do a full refund and get a new one, or fix this one and get an awesome discount. Here are some pics of it after I tried the 1st time, which was done incorrectly. Looks like the heat was the biggest factor, and the big ass piece of metal sitting in the tray burnt out the system by acting like a massive heatsink via direct contact, so yea, everything was totally my fault lol. But the kicker is the thing has a fuse which never went off so its their fault as well. I used a better quality piece https://www.amazon.com/button-Adapter-Connector-Socket-MXRS/dp/B082ZFRV1B https://www.amazon.com/Glarks-Connector-Terminal-Insulating-Assortment/dp/B07FCFH84Q Edited October 19, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted October 19, 2020 Author Share Posted October 19, 2020 Going for round 2 next weekend, I will suspend the block this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted October 19, 2020 Author Share Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) Got it setup pretty easily so just went with it. Using the ultrasonic while it heats up, looks like it may be more effective, but who knows, we will see. Just used a ratchet strap and some jute twine I had laying around, its soft, cheap and shouldn't affect the metal. I'm going to try and hit it on all four sides rotated along the width axis, if that makes sense... Edited October 19, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) So I was getting back to my engine build, and after reading up on the arp bolt stretch numbers, a little piece of info I read sorta stuck in the back of my mind. http://www.manleyperformance.com/dl/tech/rod-hbeam.pdf This is the install for manley H rods with arp2000 bolts, mainly this: " The following clearances MUST be maintained to insure proper connecting rod performance. The big end housing bore is sized to provide proper “crush”; connecting rod bearing to crankshaft clearance should be set at .002” minimum to .003” maximum during assembly" So if anyone runs the manley rods, basically they have to be .002-.003, compared to stock .0007-.00018, or something like that. I'm going to contact manley tomorrow to see if that .002 is possible with a new crank with std size bearings. The .001 undersize might be necessary. Might be another reason for my premature failure. I will lookup and compare the bore size of oem rod and manley rods to see if there is any difference, if they are the same bore size, then std size bearings are probably an issue. Edited November 12, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) Anyone know what oem rod bore size is? manley is 2.165", or 54.991mm Edited November 12, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxkita Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) Anyone know what oem rod bore size is? manley is 2.165", or 54.991mm [ATTACH]288079[/ATTACH] 2005 fsm page: ME(DOHC-TC)-4 main bearing thickness measured in middle #1,#3: 1.998-2.011mm/.0787-.0792in #2,#4: 2.000-2.013mm/.0787-.0793in crank pin outer diameter (where con rod attaches): 51.984-52.000mm/2.0466-2.0472in crank journal outer diameter (where sits in case): 59.992-60.008mm/2.3619-2.3625in connecting rod large end bearing oil clearance: .017-.045mm/.0007-.0018in bearing size in middle: 1.490-1.502mm/.0587-.0591in small end bushing clearance between piston pin & bushing: 0-.022mm/0-.0009in Edited November 12, 2020 by boxkita Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxkita Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Anyone know what oem rod bore size is? manley is 2.165", or 54.991mm [ATTACH]288079[/ATTACH] i could find no combinations that gave this number. Perhaps their spec is wrong? Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 13, 2020 Author Share Posted November 13, 2020 Maybe I got wrong part number, i was pretty sure its 15024-4 http://www.manleyperformance.com/sc/Manley_SportCompact.pdf Just looked at the box, its 15024-4, and I put my shitty caliper to it and its roughly around 55mm, so those specs are accurate, says 5.137" length on the box. And you said you couldn't get the right clearance? oh boy... now I really gotta look into this. Everyone uses this model rod, I think I am missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 13, 2020 Author Share Posted November 13, 2020 nm, the oem rod big end bore is the same size, either 2.165 or 2.166. If it's the same size as the oem, then I need the .001 bearings I think. I think there is a little confusion, I was trying to see if the big end rod bore on the manleys were the same size as oem, if std size gets you with oem specs, the .001 should get me to .002-.003 hopefully. So it looks like I will be running std size bearings on the crank bearings, and .001 undersize on the rod bearings. Ordering .001's now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxkita Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 math from fsm says 55mm big end bore is too big. There's also a caveat on the manley site that says engine builder should verify. I cant check tonight, but tomorrow I can measure the oem rods. The fsm could have an error. The manley rods could grow alot. idk. Something is not right Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxkita Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 i copied over the std sizes only Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 13, 2020 Author Share Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) hmm. the bores are the same size on both oem and manley, 2.165". Its more like 54.99mm, but that was me just converting inches to mm. Oem connecting rod is 2.165" , so not sure where the discrepancy is. They need the bigger clearance because they do grow more than the oem rods. Actually it makes sense, the size of the crank is around 52mm where rods connect, plus a bearing, and a rod with a size of 55. makes sense to me!? You said the bearing is around 2mm thick, so 54.99-2, 52.99. Seems about right, not sure on the exact numbers for the crankshaft. Not sure if my math makes sense, i need to put it on paper, but in my head it makes sense. A 52mm diameter, and a 55mm diameter, the 2mm bearing needs to be counted twice, so its more like 4mm of bearing. The gaps at the side and pressure will eat some of that extra 1mm. Edited November 13, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxkita Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) i'm still on 4th grade math on khan academy. crank pin diameter = 52mm at largest size bearing thickness = 1.5mm bearing thickness on other side = 1.5mm oil clearance = .04mm oil clearance on other side = .04mm total = 55.08mm / 2.168in allowing for optimal values would be closer to the 2.165" Geez, going to stop posting here. I'm an idiot Edited November 13, 2020 by boxkita Build my car Boxkita Track days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 13, 2020 Author Share Posted November 13, 2020 ur still doing better than me! I'm the guy with the toasted motor because I thought I knew how to read lol..... that .002-.003 is a huge oversight on my part.... I had std size bearings so no way I was in that range.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 16, 2020 Author Share Posted November 16, 2020 Ok so to stretch my bolts I ordered this: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-900015 https://www.summitracing.com/parts/pro-66769 You will need a standard vise like this guy https://www.harborfreight.com/6-in-swivel-vise-with-anvil-63189.html 1st i'm going to stretch the bolts 2nd i'm going to size up, organize and plastigauge all the rod and crank bearings 3rd send rotating assembly off to get balanced I would have had to pay 40 per rod to have the bolts stretched, I'm trying to wean myself of the machine shop for this motor, like I said before it makes more sense to pay to learn than to pay someone else in the long run. I spent 90 on the rod vise and another 55 on the rod bolt stretch gauge, already had the HF vise. So for the same price I do it myself, and when I blow this motor up, I can try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted November 16, 2020 Author Share Posted November 16, 2020 Apparently manley rods can run std size bearings or undersized. They sell the std size and the .001 for their own cranks, so the .002-.003 isn't actually a MUST, the rods don't expand so there is no need to account for it. So bearing size was probably not my issue because the rods can actually run the std size so it shouldn't have been an issue. But I'm going with the .002-.003 regardless this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birkhoff Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 i'm still on 4th grade math on khan academy. crank pin diameter = 52mm at largest size bearing thickness = 1.5mm bearing thickness on other side = 1.5mm oil clearance = .04mm oil clearance on other side = .04mm total = 55.08mm / 2.168in allowing for optimal values would be closer to the 2.165" Geez, going to stop posting here. I'm an idiot boxkita, I think you are almost correct on this, but maybe don't double up the oil clearance. That drops you 0.040mm on the total stack. Think about when you check oil clearance with plastigage. You don't put it on both sides of the journal, right? Since I'm in the middle of this with my own current build and the FSM doesn't have any of these (important) specs, here is a sample reverse calculation for stock, followed by numbers that come up on an actual engine at teardown. Also, aftermarket parts can have totally different specs, especially for oil clearance so modify accordingly. First we follow boxkita's lead: Crank journals 52.000 (diameter) Bearing shells at crown: 1.500 (radius, times 2) Oil clearance: 0.030 (diameter, shooting for mid range of FSM) Total stack height (theoretical) is therefore 55.030 mm. The FSM oil clearance target is 0.017 - 0.043, a big range, and we shoot for the middle in this example. Now, if your rod bore was equal to 55.030 there would be no bearing crush to lock the shell into the bore, inviting a spun rod bearing. So how much smaller should the bore be? Here are some actual numbers from the teardown inspection of a block with healthy but well-worn bearings at 180K miles on the clock. The base bores in the rods (with torqued caps) measure 55.022mm. This is *way* below 55.080 mentioned above. The catalogue from a well-known bearing supplier says the bore should be 55.000 to 55.020, so this real-life measurement is consistent. In the same engine at teardown, bearing thicknesses (used shells, decent shape) were 1.504 and 1.499; no surprise that one shell takes more wear than the other. That's 3.003mm in stack height so we are down to 52.019 for the bore with inserts installed. Interestingly, the *actual* measured bore with inserts installed and torqued was 52.024 so the difference (+0.005 mm = +0.0002 inch) is the effect of `crush' on the rod and accumulated measurement error. Crank pin dimensions show this engine was evidently running with about 0.038 - 0.048 mm of oil clearance, which is on the high side of spec in the FSM mentioned above. Again, no big surprise there for such a high mileage block. It wasn't the bottom end that died, however. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted December 27, 2020 Author Share Posted December 27, 2020 (edited) So I just plastigauged one of the rod bearings and got about .001-.0012 clearance.... thats with the king stdx .001 undersize bearing.... do they make smaller bearings? I thought .001 was the only undersized? How the hell are people getting .002-.003, are they grinding the crank or rod, custom sizes? hmm...will have to try again, and focus on making sure the rod doesn't move. Edited December 28, 2020 by Tehnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehnation Posted July 6, 2021 Author Share Posted July 6, 2021 Finally got around to sending stuff off to the machine shop. Might need to get bigger pistons if I hone this block again... We will see what the shop says, I want tight clearance to avoid piston slap, so it looks likely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awfulwaffle Posted July 7, 2021 Share Posted July 7, 2021 (edited) So I just plastigauged one of the rod bearings and got about .001-.0012 clearance.... thats with the king stdx .001 undersize bearing.... do they make smaller bearings? I thought .001 was the only undersized? How the hell are people getting .002-.003, are they grinding the crank or rod, custom sizes? hmm...will have to try again, and focus on making sure the rod doesn't move. I had the shop polish crank journals and also mill down rod end caps to set clearances even. Hit .0025-.0028 clearance on diameter, Manley H-Tuff rods and King standard size bearings. Also learned a valuable lesson, though it probably doesn't apply to you. The bearing clearances are very sensitive to load on the bearing (seated and torqued versus free). ie - measuring the rod bore w/ bolts torqued plus max bearing thickness to calculate clearance gave a dramatically different result versus measuring diameter directly with the bearing installed in the rod. Back to back measurements, calibrated mic and bore gage, difference was around .001-.0015 IIRC Edited July 7, 2021 by awfulwaffle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now