Babbitt or inserted engine ? ? ?

[Kurt in NJ]

I have taken apart a lot of "failed" engines of most all makes, both babbitt and insert, and with babbited inserts----with babbitt failure many times it is just failed babbitt, miminal damage to the crankshaft if any, and other than the loss of babbitt no damage to the rod or block, and rarely the rod off the crank and outside the block----with insert bearing failure almost always the crankshaft is damaged, the insert spun in the bore damaging the bore----by the time you hear the knock many times the thin babbitt layer on the insert is gone and there is steel to steel contact that damages the journal-----the pictures of carnage posted on here the ones that the rod has come out of the block were all insert rods, the failed babbitt ones it looks like just the babbitt was "gone", in 100 years will you still be able to get the inserts that your A was converted to??, many were converted using obselete industrial engine or english MG inserts----now we have AER inserts, and the Snyders flanged inserts-----will they be made still in 40 years---or even 20,---and avalible in the size you need, yet there will still be Babbitt, and it can be made to any size to fit the crankshaft---
Babbitt is forever, inserts only when still avalible in the size you need---and have undamaged bores to fit them into---the arguement about babbitt needing adjustment i will add---inserts need replaced before they fail, and many times once the knock is heard it is too late--so they need looked after like babbitt too, and need premptive replacement.

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

There was a thread a while ago where an engine builder spoke of the need (?) to grind the crankshaft 0.010" to go to the next sized insert. Surely, if so many people are now going to inserts, it would be worth someone making them in say, 0.005 increments. 0.010" is more than is needed in an ordinary rebuild. I can only see that much being needed if there has been a catastrophic failure and the journal is scored very badly, otherwise, it is a waste. I see that as a downside to going with inserted bearings. On the other hand, not many people use their cars enough for that to be a consideration. (I do.) Just MHO, FWIW.

I subscribe to the same mindset of the engine builder you are mentioning. Since we grind our own crankshafts in-house, we have the liberty to remove just enough metal to clean-up the journals and make them round. Line-boring babbitt affords that opportunity.


Lots of great viewpoints above, so no need to revisit. One thing that does come to mind as to which is better, -and this is solely my opinion based on my experience however one contributing factor is what crankshaft is going to be used. For those using a counterweighted crankshaft, they will find it is nearly impossible to remove the rear main cap to adjust the bearing clearance while the engine is in the vehicle. Next factor is who would be adjusting the bearing cap clearances? If someone is paying to have this service performed, it is different than someone doing it themselves at a much less cost.

As for shops opening or closing, a bigger question is why does a shop want to do it? Unless their overhead is low, -or their business is/was subsidized by other revenues, doing Model-T/A/B engines is very low on the profit scale. This is not indicative of antique engine rebuilding in general, but surely we all agree that compared to other engines of the same era, Model-A engines are by far cheaper to have done. The brutal truth is I doubt if even a person as qualified & knowledgeable as Herm is ever decided to venture out into this business in today's market where they had to purchase all of the necessary equipment at retail pricing could make it. In other words, I doubt he/someone could generate the profit margin doing Model-As or T engines only to have a ROI. This is definitely not a dig or an insult towards him, but to show that even the best of the best would likely have a struggle making a go of it if they had to purchase all of the stuff and start anew.

On the flip-side, I recently attended a large trade show in Indy where Rottler (a large engine machine manufacturing company) had a large booth set-up. They had a F70 series computer controlled machine there that would do ALL of the machining operations (boring, decking, valves, line-boring babbitt, etc.) on a Model-T/A/B block --and only require installing & removing the block one time. (Click on video link below) Imagine the time savings and the tolerances that could be held with lack of human error. The problem with it was it was $175k. I asked them who affords this? They had already sold 3 units at the show and were still talking with folks. As for who affords it, guys who do modern engines such as performance GM V-8s, Ford Modular engines, and diesel pick-up engines. So if a machinist is reputable, and the profit margin is greater with other type engines, surely we can easily see why that fewer & fewer shops are getting into doing babbitt-equipped engines.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56qS8cnA3mk

 

[Kohnke Rebabbitting]

I have taken apart a lot of "failed" engines of most all makes, both babbitt and insert, and with babbited inserts----with babbitt failure many times it is just failed babbitt, miminal damage to the crankshaft if any, and other than the loss of babbitt no damage to the rod or block, and rarely the rod off the crank and outside the block----with insert bearing failure almost always the crankshaft is damaged, the insert spun in the bore damaging the bore----by the time you hear the knock many times the thin babbitt layer on the insert is gone and there is steel to steel contact that damages the journal-----the pictures of carnage posted on here the ones that the rod has come out of the block were all insert rods, the failed babbitt ones it looks like just the babbitt was "gone", in 100 years will you still be able to get the inserts that your A was converted to??, many were converted using obselete industrial engine or english MG inserts----now we have AER inserts, and the Snyders flanged inserts-----will they be made still in 40 years---or even 20,---and avalible in the size you need, yet there will still be Babbitt, and it can be made to any size to fit the crankshaft---
Babbitt is forever, inserts only when still avalible in the size you need---and have undamaged bores to fit them into---the arguement about babbitt needing adjustment i will add---inserts need replaced before they fail, and many times once the knock is heard it is too late--so they need looked after like babbitt too, and need premptive replacement.

Agree !

 

[hardtimes]

I have taken apart a lot of "failed" engines of most all makes, both babbitt and insert, and with babbited inserts----with babbitt failure many times it is just failed babbitt, miminal damage to the crankshaft if any, and other than the loss of babbitt no damage to the rod or block, and rarely the rod off the crank and outside the block----with insert bearing failure almost always the crankshaft is damaged, the insert spun in the bore damaging the bore----by the time you hear the knock many times the thin babbitt layer on the insert is gone and there is steel to steel contact that damages the journal-----the pictures of carnage posted on here the ones that the rod has come out of the block were all insert rods, the failed babbitt ones it looks like just the babbitt was "gone", in 100 years will you still be able to get the inserts that your A was converted to??, many were converted using obselete industrial engine or english MG inserts----now we have AER inserts, and the Snyders flanged inserts-----will they be made still in 40 years---or even 20,---and avalible in the size you need, yet there will still be Babbitt, and it can be made to any size to fit the crankshaft---
Babbitt is forever, inserts only when still avalible in the size you need---and have undamaged bores to fit them into---the arguement about babbitt needing adjustment i will add---inserts need replaced before they fail, and many times once the knock is heard it is too late--so they need looked after like babbitt too, and need premptive replacement.

What with the limited number of expert 'old time' Babbitt guys available nowadays, do you really think that in 20 years/40years there will be any left to do the work that you describe ? Not tinkerers not wantabes..but guys like Herm.. ?
Whereas , Babbitt inserts will be made as long as engines are made, IMO.

 

[hardtimes]

Hey Herm,
May you and your company stay in business(our hobby) and prosper for many more decades ! Just wish you were closer and/or had opened a shop out here in lalaland.

 

[hardtimes]

I, too, would like to know of any "cons" to an insert bearing engine.

I have one of each , both Bs.
Both pretty warmed up.
My take is to ensure good plentiful supply of pressured/FILTERED oil of inserted engines
.
My full babbitted (rods/mains) B is also full filtered oil equipped ! Dirt is and has always been the bane of internal combustion engines...so the cleaner either engine is built and maintained, is directly related to longevity, IMO.

BTW..regarding poured babbitted rods/mains in B engine. I have talked to racers , who have run and run and run (successfully) babbitted engines on the salt. Of course they are pressured oil...but that...gets your mind right... as to how well poured Babbitt can stand up to use/abuse. Ergo. ,my second poured Babbitt build.

 

[George Miller]

I think it comes down to who built the engine and if they built it the way it should be built. I have had both, raced both. They are both good. I use inserts and have since the late 80 ts. My main reason is can do all the work myself. I do not have the equipment to do babbitt.

 

[jfreddie]

Wow, amazing work.

Bill Barlow in Bend, OR (541-389-2694) also does beautiful babbitt, but I think he just does mains. Very good price at $350.

 

[bnchief]

Herm you did two model t fords for me well over 30 years ago and they are still ticking.

 

[mshmodela]

Clearly babbits require higher skills and quality metals... Which all depend upon the Babbit Installer, their process, and tools... The quality of incerts should be more consistent, the machining for them would likely be perform via the aid of CNC which too would add to consistency.

 

[Dick Steinkamp]

Most cars only had an optional partial flow oil filtering system through the 1950s (Studebaker and others until the 1960s). I'm not sure why it would be mandatory to run an oil filter with inserted bearings. A good idea for any engine for sure, but with our short interval oil changes and relatively low miles for most of us compared to our daily drivers in the 40s, 50s and 60s, it seems a little like over kill.

 

[J and M Machine]

We often get inquiries phone,email and so on of do we do inserted engines?

Well As you can see from the pictures, this is the reason we don't do inserted engines. This crank and engine was brought to us to diagnose.

Since we know how to do babbitt and are successful at it there's no reason for us to change.
Whereas the Model A isn't a pressurized system and in stock form doesn't have capability to generate pressure for an oil filter. Furthermore Babbitted engines are in nature forgiving to debris and easier on an engine rather than the hammer effect you see in the photos, "rod Journal" along with the dirt tearing main journals the crankshaft apart.

I have also included a picture of our babbitted main bearing that one can see what a good job looks like.

 

[DJ S]

We often get inquiries phone,email and so on of do we do inserted engines?

Well As you can see from the pictures this is the reason we don't do inserted engines. This crank and engine was brought to us to diagnose.

Since we know how to do babbitt and are successful at it there's no reason for us to change.
Whereas the Model A isn't a pressurized system and in stock form don't have capability to generate pressure for an oil filter. Furthermore Babbitted engines are in nature forgiving to debris and easier on an engine rather than the hammer effect you see in the photos along with the dirt tearing the crankshaft apart.

I have also included a picture of our babbitted main bearing that one can see what a good job looks like.
View attachment 310550

View attachment 310551

View attachment 310552

I would love to do babbit in my motor but when I inquired to have your shop pour my mains, you said that you won't do just that but instead would only do a full motor for quite a high price. I can have reputable shop nearby do my motor entirely, with inserts, for half the cost. Then your shop and many others like yours wonder why no one wants to do babbitt anymore.

 

[J and M Machine]

I would love to do babbit in my motor but when I inquired to have your shop pour my mains, you said that you won't do just that but instead would only do a full motor for quite a high price. I can have reputable shop nearby do my motor entirely, with inserts, for half the cost. Then your shop and many others like yours wonder why no one wants to do babbitt anymore.

The reason being is : We don't do partials because: The only time we did a babbitt job on mains, the customer ground the valves on a freshly line bored engine with crank installed and then blamed and bad mouthed us because his babbitt was scored due to the fact of the grinding debris sticking/damaging newly ground crank/babbitt. No Thanks.!
We aren't wondering why no one wants babbitt, all you have to do is step into our shop and see our work load.

 

[msmaron]

This is an incredible informative feed. I have a question.. If going the babbitt route how often should the mains be checked for tightness. I have heard every 10K miles???

 

[Dave in MN]

There was a thread a while ago where an engine builder spoke of the need (?) to grind the crankshaft 0.010" to go to the next sized insert. Surely, if so many people are now going to inserts, it would be worth someone making them in say, 0.005 increments. 0.010" is more than is needed in an ordinary rebuild. I can only see that much being needed if there has been a catastrophic failure and the journal is scored very badly, otherwise, it is a waste. I see that as a downside to going with inserted bearings. On the other hand, not many people use their cars enough for that to be a consideration. (I do.) Just MHO, FWIW.

I agree with an earlier poster: Here we go again!
Synchro, We discussed your comment privately about having bearings at .005" increments some time ago. I understand your concern but I see it differently.

My opinion is that the .010" increments is okay as an inserted engine will run for many thousands of miles before needing bearing shell replacement if the oil clearances are correct. The touring engine in my Phaeton has over 90,000 miles on the inserted mains and rods. It has never had the pan taken off the engine during these miles. That's a testament to insert durability.

We just finished an East Coast road trip in late October where we put on 5,800 miles. I have no concerns about taking another long trip with the engine and all those miles.

Every Fall, I plan to pull the Phaeton's engine and check the clearances on the inserts but other people's engines come first so it doesn't happen. Maybe it's a little reluctance to doing so because if I do take the pan off, I cannot make the claim it is untouched in 90K.

Good Day!

www.durableperformance.net

 

[Dave in MN]

This is an incredible informative feed. I have a question.. If going the babbitt route how often should the mains be checked for tightness. I have heard every 10K miles???

Mark,

JMO: If I had Babbitt rods and mains starting out as new, I would record the clearances before it was run and file this info in my vehicle log. After 5k miles, I would open the engine and check the clearances. Likely, it will not need any adjustment but there may be a slight change in the clearances. Again, I would record the clearances in the log. From this incremental change, you should be able to predict when it will next need checking or adjustment. Remember, when the clearances start to open up, the increase in clearance will happen quicker as the oil film is more easily displaced by the loads. Record all clearance changes and adjustments in your log for the engine. Records are the only way you are going to remember what you have done in the past and to predict the future.

I did this on my '28 CCPU engine that Herm built for me before I started installing inserts in my engines. I saw about .0002" increase in clearance after the first 5500 miles. I checked the engine at 14,000 miles and took one shim out at the center main. The front and rear were still very close to where they were at 5500 miles. The Babbitt rods have no discernible wear yet. I do drive this vehicle very conservatively so I would not expect much wear. So my next check of this engine will likely be at about 21,000 miles.
Good Day!

 

[Ernie Vitucci]

Good Evening all...Can those of you that have had good luck with Babbitt or Inserts tell us what type of oil you are using and how often you change it and if you also have an air filter and or an oil filter...Thanks, Ernie

 

[Jim Huseby]

My comment here is not to recommend one or the other or to hijack, but I am somewhat excited to report on my experiment. I am familiar with this discussion which has been going on for decades and fall asleep and wake up continually struggling with what to put inside my next engine. Until this year, I have always had a good machinist bore my cylinders and Had Paul's Rod and Bearing (excellent with babbit) north of K.C.,do my babbit work. This year, I bought a couple line boring machines and after having the pan rail surface trued up, I compensated for the .004" shaved off and line bored the matching #'s block for my '30 personal CCPU. I used King brand MG Midget rod inserts for the mains (two sets), made oil passageways to the groove left between sets and modified it for 4 psi hot to the mains via a full flow low restriction racing filter and used full bronze thrust washers at the REAR. I used a welded weight ten under crank I already had and had it re-balanced and turned for .0017" on the rods and.0019" on the mains then polished them in my lathe. I used new rods with the full saddle inserts. They were actually clunky looking to me though they were balanced within 1/2 gram of each other, so I lightened and polished them to (now I can't remember, either 750 or 700 gr., maybe I've got it written down). I used insignificantly larger valves, 1.56", but ported it and used a 260/.327" cam that I think Brierly ground 30 years ago. 'Used a 37# FW and V8 clutch. Using a Lyon 3, I smoothed it somewhat inside then milled it til I had 6.7 CR calculating in pop-up and compressed gasket. (calculate correctly BTW, as a ratio of swept volume to chamber vol.) Well, here's the report: I took it Hot Rod Hill Climb and ran the hill (1.6 mi.) four times by winding it out to 3500 in first, snapping it into second and holding my foot on the floor all the way to the top, though it slid a little on the two sharp turns. Then drove it up the mountains flat out for probably a total of an hour or more in addition to several hours of pleasure cruising in the mountains. (I've tried to keep this report short) I removed the pan last Monday and inspected the rods and center main, and they are PERFECT, like it may have only 5 minutes of run-in time on it! I took pics of the bearings while I had the pan off, if anyone wants me to post them. I did this engine on my personal car and don't intend to sell this work, though there is a very good racing mechanic/ engineer nearby I would be glad to recommend.
www.olympic-speedsters.com

 

[Jim Huseby]

Hi Ernie- Regarding oil, there have been some long threads here on that subject with some very interesting reading. I think you should read them all and do some additional research. I will tell you what I used this time at the risk of for sure catching flak for it. I broke it in with Brad Penn 30 break-in oil, then used O'Rielly's 10-30 with ZDDP, having intended to drive just a few gentle miles before changing to synthetic 5-30 or 10-30 with ZDDP, but didn't get around to it. It had 1306 miles on it when I took the pan off. My thinking is that heat generated at the bearing surface is reduced somewhat by using synthetic, at least if there is any truth to the manufacturers' claims.