My counterbalanced stock crank came back from a Magnaflux test with two cracks, so I got the "new" Burlington crank now provided under new management. It was a good looking piece out of the box, but of course the test was measurements.
The journals, main and rod, were consistent all round with measurements at 4-5 places. The journals were consistently even, within a couple of tenths which is within the margin of error in reading and measuring. (Used 2 Starret mics for comparison.) I honestly expected the journals to have some out or round, but not so. Whoever did the final machining did a really good job.
However, what I found is that the journals are at the top end of specs. For example, Ford drawings show the main journals should be from 1.622-1.624, and the rod journals from 1.497-1.499. The Burlington was 1.624 on the mains and 1.499 on the rods, plus a couple of tenths. Top of specs.
The dimensions for the end play on the rods and crank were also within specs with no excessive end play. Therefore, no complaint with the Burlington. It was within specs. What other cranks may be I do not know. They advertise it to be within specs and it is.
The reason I mention the top side of specs is that my old stock crank, and babbitt, was at the low end of the above specs, so the Burlington journals were .002 larger than the old crank journals and would not seat fully in the babbitt bores. A couple of things could be done at that point. One is get a new babbitt job to the new dimensions, another was to grind the journals .002. However both options were time consuming and expensive so with nothing to lose, I thought I would see if I could lap them in with Timesaver, which I had never used before. The thought was that if things got screwed up I could always fall back to new babbitt or grinding the crank.
The Timesaver did the job. Why they call it Timesaver I don't know because it took 4 days (well, I don't work after lunch anymore)to get it done, but I really like the result and will use Timesaver on any crank or rod installation job in the future. I don't think I have ever had a crank or rods fit better. The surfaces are even all across and contact the full length of the bearings on the journals.
What I learned about Timesaver is that you need a lot of Prussian Blue for starters to see where the journals ride on the bores and the caps. Lap out the gaps and high spots and then start measuring with Plastigage for final clearance. With some experience you get some idea of which grit to use and how long to turn the crank with the Timesaver. Your inclination is to not turn too much so you are turning and checking the Prussian Blue and measuring with Plastigage quite a bit initially. Of the four days, the first day was on one journal. I used a half inch drill with an adapter fit to a socket to the front crank nut to turn the crank as someone on this forum suggested.
I now have about 100 miles on the engine and it has never run this smooth. (I also did some work to the flywheel and pressure plate.) But right now I have no problem recommending the Burlington crank. FWIW I have no relationship with those people except that Al, the guy I talked to there is a very nice and helpful guy.
Would like to hear from others what their experience with the "new" Burlington is so we all may benefit.
The journals, main and rod, were consistent all round with measurements at 4-5 places. The journals were consistently even, within a couple of tenths which is within the margin of error in reading and measuring. (Used 2 Starret mics for comparison.) I honestly expected the journals to have some out or round, but not so. Whoever did the final machining did a really good job.
However, what I found is that the journals are at the top end of specs. For example, Ford drawings show the main journals should be from 1.622-1.624, and the rod journals from 1.497-1.499. The Burlington was 1.624 on the mains and 1.499 on the rods, plus a couple of tenths. Top of specs.
The dimensions for the end play on the rods and crank were also within specs with no excessive end play. Therefore, no complaint with the Burlington. It was within specs. What other cranks may be I do not know. They advertise it to be within specs and it is.
The reason I mention the top side of specs is that my old stock crank, and babbitt, was at the low end of the above specs, so the Burlington journals were .002 larger than the old crank journals and would not seat fully in the babbitt bores. A couple of things could be done at that point. One is get a new babbitt job to the new dimensions, another was to grind the journals .002. However both options were time consuming and expensive so with nothing to lose, I thought I would see if I could lap them in with Timesaver, which I had never used before. The thought was that if things got screwed up I could always fall back to new babbitt or grinding the crank.
The Timesaver did the job. Why they call it Timesaver I don't know because it took 4 days (well, I don't work after lunch anymore)to get it done, but I really like the result and will use Timesaver on any crank or rod installation job in the future. I don't think I have ever had a crank or rods fit better. The surfaces are even all across and contact the full length of the bearings on the journals.
What I learned about Timesaver is that you need a lot of Prussian Blue for starters to see where the journals ride on the bores and the caps. Lap out the gaps and high spots and then start measuring with Plastigage for final clearance. With some experience you get some idea of which grit to use and how long to turn the crank with the Timesaver. Your inclination is to not turn too much so you are turning and checking the Prussian Blue and measuring with Plastigage quite a bit initially. Of the four days, the first day was on one journal. I used a half inch drill with an adapter fit to a socket to the front crank nut to turn the crank as someone on this forum suggested.
I now have about 100 miles on the engine and it has never run this smooth. (I also did some work to the flywheel and pressure plate.) But right now I have no problem recommending the Burlington crank. FWIW I have no relationship with those people except that Al, the guy I talked to there is a very nice and helpful guy.
Would like to hear from others what their experience with the "new" Burlington is so we all may benefit.
Last edited:
!
