Sorry Jack ..... or is it Gomer? .... I mean Herm.... I disagree with your view on thick babbitt.
Also, that 42 year comment doesn't necessarily impress anybody. On the other hand, if your knowledge of babbitt bearings has been increasing DAILY for 42 years then you must be a smart s.o.b........ More than likely though you learned most of what you know in about 5 years or so ... so that means you have only 5 years experience 8.4 TIMES OVER!
In my opinion, the thinner the babbitt the stronger. Now depending on the differences it may not be greatly significant in all cases or even be a problem but it's still there. If an undersized crank is off center a bit too much or slightly distorted in its operation for one reason or another; like so many of them are; the crank will tend to beat and compress the thicker soft babbitt more than the thinner by comparison and create excessive clearance possibly leading to bearing failure.
Of course if a bearing fails you can bet that it won't be the fault of the engine rebuilder!
Just my experience ..... stated in the same manner as you.
Larry B.
Yo, Larry, I am sorry the 42 year comment didn't do anything for you, you'll be glad to know I tried it on my girl friend this afternoon, and it didn't do anything for her either, so I went down my list of known workable things, and found one she did like. I was going to thank you for the smart S.O.B. comment, but after I reread it a couple of times, I realized that you probably forgot a word in that sentence. You are wrong about learning what I know in 5 years, it was more like two years, I was lucky to have a Clawson & Bals babbitt trouble shooter teach me, and he sold me all Clawson & Bals machines, that he was going to use, but didn't get to after his retirement, from then on the learning part is mostly being able to tell when a pour is good, as every bearing pours different, temperature, to fast, to slow, cool to fast, not fast enough ect. In your opinion Larry the thinner the babbitt the better, and that is just what it is, Your Opinion, has nothing to do with Reality. If we were not to rebuild thick babbitt bearings, 60% of the bearings we do would never let there engine run again. Most of the cars, tractors, and machinery from 1900 to into the 1920's were real thick babbitt, and or thick babbitted shells. the big old tractors, some of them 3/8, to 1/2 inch babbitt thickness in rods and mains, and they are no better or worse than the model A. When babbitt thickness is cut, in factory engine building, it was mostly done to save money. 216's Chevy rods, from 1937 to 1953, have about .010 wall thickness of babbitt, and that works just fine, as they were all done at the Chevy factory, or a place they farmed them out to. The problem with rebuilding them the first time, is that you can't hit the same hole, as it were. So the 216's are bored to 100 thousands over standard bore with out babbitt. so there goes your thick babbitt that won't work again, BUT IT DOES. The babbitt wall now is .060 thousands thick instead of .010 thousands in a factory untouched rod. So Larry, in 42 years, and NO bad bearings EVER, in your experience what am I doing wrong. As far as an engine rebuilder ever being at fault, we stand behind every bearing we do. Babbitt bearing are just like insert bearings, in that if you have a bearing blow, weather babbitt, or insert you normally can tell why, just like an insert book, that has many pictures showing inserts, and there cause of failure. As far as an engine rebuilder never being at fault, the owner has to take some of the fault, as if his wife is a real you now what, just remember he picked her. Thanks Larry Jack, Gomer.
