SAAC Forum

Quote from: sg66 on March 28, 2022, 10:31:08 PM
Back in the mid to late 80's, ............more likely Fel-Pro was recommending to increase the head bolt torque by 10 ft/lbs to prevent head gasket failure.

Quote from: gt350hr on March 29, 2022, 11:24:04 AM
Now that you mention it, I think the recommendation was for an additional 10 ft/lbs for the upper row. Whatever the root cause was/is, I'm with you that the additional 10 ft/lbs solves the problem.

      Though there is a wedging effect in the torquing of the intake manifold on the S.B.F. that does attempt to pry the heads off the block (therefore one should be only tightening the intake retention fasteners as required to hold the intake on, not attempting to hold the engine together!  ), the main reasoning for the recommended greater staggered torquing values is due to the greater elasticity presented in the longer fastener on the intake side, this otherwise giving a lesser clamp-load if torquing equally to the shorter.   

      Generally, and particularly as stated by ARP Fastener, the torque value listed is in a range of approximately 80% of the yield value, so it is permissible to increase this torquing sum, 'some', for greater clamping loads.  Just be aware you'll be testing the fastener manufactures consistency of production quality, and of the capability of the structures involved and that they will tolerate such force.   

      Scott.

     The Ford guys have been a little slow on the subject of "Restored" engine executions in the overall restoration of a vehicle; one should reference the Corvette crowd, as they're down to studying the striations in the surfaces left from the O.E.'s original machining of the block's deck surface where the numbers are stamped, this as the 'fakers' (I mean "Restorers"  ) have acquired the ability to create ideal representations of the original O.E.'s stampings but still working on duplicating the factory machining marks! 

     And shazam!............it's "ALL MATCHING"!   

     Scott.

Quote from: gt350hr on March 24, 2022, 11:03:31 AM
   For those of you that contacted me..........
     Randy

      Who in the heck, wants to talk to this guy!   

      Take it easy Randy.   

      Scott.

Quote from: gt350hr on March 24, 2022, 10:32:52 AM
     Reality is that there is a small amount of fore and aft movement which is limited by the clearance between the gear, cam , and plate relationship.

    But, generally this intermittent and mostly self cancelled thrust value as accurately described from the lifters being ramped up the angled camshaft lobes is greatly masked by the more constant rearward (in relation to the engines relevant in this forum) thrust created by the oil pump and its' drive geared to the camshaft.  This is generally witnessed of used components taken out of service with the greater evidence of wear to the thrust-plates' forward face and the timing gear sprocket's rear thrust face. 

    As an additional example, (though to early for relevance to this forum, but still of Ford Motor Co. manufacture anyway), would be the early ('58 - '62) FE's which did not utilize a cam-thrust-plate, rather the camshafts' nose consisted of a flange with a rear facing thrust surface which acted against the blocks' forward face and aided with a spring loaded "button" against the timing cover.  This engineering demonstrates that the major thrust in this application is rearward and only a minor concern exists in the forward direction; the overriding value being supplied by the load incurred in driving the oil pump.   

    Scott.

Quote from: Harris Speedster on March 12, 2022, 08:44:31 PM
Henry Ford actually built what became the first Cadillac, this was after a failed business partnership with who ?

     I think the name your looking for is Henry Leland, who with others, turned the failed Ford Motor Company into Cadillac; then sold out to General Motors; then created Lincoln Motor Company; which then in a twist of fate, in a time of suffering his own failure, was in short taken over by Henry Ford.   

     Oh, and just to confuse things further: The Dodge Bros. as suppliers to Ford, and with his inability to pay the bills would become "investors" in the first (?) Ford Motor Co., along as the same with Leland as he assumed those responsibilities, and were also later mechanical suppliers to the new Ford Motor Co. though perhaps somewhat hesitant at allowing Henry Ford to get out there to far in the monetary relationship again.   

     Scott.

       Ya'  know, they say as time passes ones' memory mostly retains the "good times" and "high lights", but there are also the instances of the heights of distress and trauma; and I'm still trying to forget the time I was considering (for a very short period!  ) the purchase of a brand new '77 MACH I to replace my '72 MACH I, fortunately I woke-up and realized it was only a passing nightmare, even if I was actually physically sitting in the drivers' seat of that yellow '77 in contemplation, I could still run!   

       O.K., on the topic blue car, it does look better, to bad it wasn't production then, but I also seem to get Vega influence vibes in there, which although 'period', really doesn't help either.   

       Remember, you asked!   

       Scott.

Quote from: gt350hr on March 01, 2022, 10:45:50 AM
   NOT Ford ,...........

    +1

    Scott.

     I'm going to keep it short: 
                                 
                                                THANKS JOE!   

     Scott.

Quote from: shelbydoug on February 25, 2022, 09:05:03 AM
It's a big deal to do this with virtually nothing to gain.

I and many others would have to disagree.   

Quote
A failed input shaft bearing would likely be the most significant indication that there was an alignment problem.

Generally the damage incurred is witnessed at the juncture of the input and mainshafts involving the intermediate bearing and to related improperly loaded surfaces.   

Quote
Without a dedicated fixture to plug everything into, this is going to take you days if not weeks to determine accurately.

Please read the post from OldGuy!   

Sorry, I just had to say it!   

Scott.

Quote from: gt350hr on February 24, 2022, 05:43:04 PM
   It was also used on other "non production" engines like the Tunnel Port 302 and Boss 302 T/A engines.

     Randy, did these engines with the crankshaft (C7FE ?) bearing the heaver counter-weights and the addition of the center weight also still require the hatchet?   

     Scott.

     I think the additional "hatchet" was necessary as simply a counter-weight sum to offset particularly the heavier connecting rods; this being the expedient process as otherwise a different crankshaft casting would have been required to provide this.

     The vibratory "critical" frequency is the point at which things when agitated reach a harmonic sync, and if components remain in operation at this frequency of motion, parts begin to suffer fatigue failures at alarmingly short operating durations, so best avoided.  The sum of the hatchet's effect on the entirety of the mass in motion it's attached to, doesn't seem to be great enough to really effect that which we are referencing as the 'critical' here.   

     An example of what this 'critical' is that we are referring too is: a simple bell that rings, the ringing is the bell vibrating do to the agitation created as it is struck by the clapper, and changing the size (mass) of the bell changes the vibratory effect (sound as heard).   

     And, it is probably the incurred fatigue in this vibratory action (ringing) that led to the cracks the Liberty Bell 

     Scott.

Quote from: gt350hr on February 24, 2022, 01:32:40 PM
"what goes up and down isn't as important as what goes 'round" .

     I don't disagree, just that in order to 'balance' the stuff that goes round & round accurately, one needs to have reasonably accurate bob-weight values, and in the case of the American V8 with four crank trows it is generally practiced to have these bob-weight sums consistent, this if only for the self cancelling attributes of these items in motion making for simpler offsets somewhere else; though if one weighs each component and accounts for variances in the bob-weights then what the heck!  Though I would yield to the expediency factor, still I would consider it poor practice, as remember, nothing is perfectly "balanced", we are balancing these assemblies from only a singular perspective and allowing the remainder to be accepted or ignored, and reducing as many of the known variables aids in exposing the otherwise unknown.   

     As an example, I have been involved with the light aircraft racing guys (don't tell the FAA  ), these mostly being the 180° flat-six air-cooled units of Lycoming manufacture, and often one finds that although connecting rods attached to opposing cylinders and crank journals will prove relatively consistent in weights, the next opposed set many be significantly different, and so on!  Here we see the self cancelling of the opposed banks (remember 'flat' engine configuration  ) consideration, but not that they all need to be equal.  I have thought that the reason for this practice is as the mass of a thing changes so does the frequency of the point (R.P.M.) of 'critical' vibration, therefore if the components of the unit are of a different mass, then they won't pass thru this critical at the same R.P.M., and this reduces the cumulative effect on the hole.  But in these racers' it is practiced to match rods into sets of equal weights.

    Just food for thought, .......... or perhaps just fertilizer for the flowers!

     Scott.

     

     O.E.M. bellhousings are generally pretty close (if not damaged  ), aftermarket you sure better check!   

     Scott.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 21, 2022, 05:58:49 PM
They engineered it so all of the components put together would have a acceptable balance variation range . They knew what the rods weight range ,pistons etc. etc. and it would balance within a certain range using components made to work together.

     This probably what one should concentrate on in understanding the balancing procedure utilized by Ford (and others) in this period.  In other words for example the O.E.M. would engineer, say for a connecting rod, establish what was required dimensionally for function, this would lead to the resultant mass and typical weights in manufacturing, and then with the variables exhibited in the manufacture of one component versus another it is necessary to balance or one might prefer the term to 'equal-weight' them in the appropriate fashion, this generally via the removal of the parent material through a grinding or milling operation in the deemed appropriate and provided for locations.  Then even though the weight differentials have been narrowed their still exists a resultant tolerance value remaining necessary for mass production efficiency so then units are often batched by simular observations to further reduce the differential; all of this in each step with "acceptable" tolerance specifications, with individual units often being tossed (or redirected from Production to Parts & Service  ) when failing to equal such along the way.  This process most represents the "reciprocating" (stuff that moves up & down  ) balancing effort of the connecting rods (big-ends & small-ends) pistons, gudgeon pin, and known sums for the rod bearings, piston ring set and piston pin retaining rings/locks if applicable.  This providing a "bob-weight" value, typically in the American V8 (but not so in other engine layouts  ) a sum of 50% of the reciprocating (rod small-ends, pins, locks, ring set, etc.) and 100% of the revolving (rod big-ends & bearings), in the balancing effort.

     The "revolving" (stuff that goes round & round  ,  crankshaft, damper, flywheel or flex-plate, etc.) balance process requires a 'spinning' operation with establishments of the effects of the reciprocating values in place and then corrections  to create the desired effect, this via removal of excess material provide for as before. Unlike the local machine shops where it is required to establish "bob-weight" fixtures to simulate the effects of the rods & pistons etc., here the O.E.'s for efficient manufacturing have tooling set-ups that create the imbalance effect and the revolving units (crankshaft or crankshaft dampers or flywheels and flex-plates) are balanced, or perhaps actually imbalanced to counter this establishment, or what we in the balancing business say: to "neutral" the assembly, and whether the net result on the component is neutral balanced or providing a counter-weighted imbalance value is dependent on the set-up. But again, this to a tolerance outlined by the O.E.; one which at the local machine shop is suppose to be bettering.

     And then yes, as stated above, all of the appropriate components are then assembled, having never seen one another previously, this unlike the procedure required for the local machine shop balancing effort, and it all 'should' fall within the manufacturers' acceptable tolerance; but it is the potential 'stacking' of tolerances exhibited in each individual component that really causes the problem, and here is where the factory wasn't able to compete, and even though the local balancing effort 'should' provide a narrower deviation in weights and balance, as we have all of a singular assembly in front of us and invest a greater time element. 

    "Balancing" is a rather complex subject, and there are differences of opinion on what a "balanced" unit might really be, so read up on it if interested, cause I type way-to-slow to be able to present all of the nuances here.

     Scott.

Quote from: gt350hr on February 14, 2022, 10:34:44 AM
The cost proved to be too high and the project was scrapped.

     Randy, I don't disagree at all; but I wonder if durability wasn't perhaps also a factor in its' demise?  I'm familiar with double reduction (even triple!  ) differentials in larger trucks, and in some instances when the drivetrain is abused these tend often to be the unhappy fuse, as there just become to many small parts in a cramped assembly. And considering the dimensional area available for this engineering within the Dana 44, not to mention at this point in time it already wasn't considered the strongest unit available and had been sidestepped by most manufactures installations of their greater loading capacities, plus the fact that in the late '60's torque loads and horse power along with the weight (here, mostly presenting resistance in acceleration) was only increasing, ............. I wonder?     

     Scott.