I Don't Like Palnuts

cadillac512 said:
The small journal Chevys...265,283,early 327...used the 11/32" bolts and nuts. When Chevy went to the larger journal cranks (starting with the later 327 and continuing through the 400) all the bolts/nuts are 3/8" regardless of rod length.

Terry
Click to expand...
I guess that tells 2 things about me.

1. I'm NOT a Chev guy

2. My last year as a auto mechanic was 1970 and in 1969, I replaced the block of my best friends 67 Camaro, 350 (split cyl wall) and that was probably, the last Chev engine that I tore down, although I do use rods from the SBC 400, to narrow and put in 302 Fords.
 
JSeery said:
Sorry Frank, guess that is somewhat like calling a Ford guy a dirty name. :)
Click to expand...


Sorry y'all, but I've never had a problem with calling myself a Chevy guy. You mean to tell me that Ford continued making motor vehicles after 1948? DD
 
GOSFAST said:
Hi Terry, with one exception.

The '67 model year Camaro's with the SS/350" option got a large journal unit but still with the 11/32" rod bolts. This was the only time and I believe it was offered only in the Camaro's, it was also the earliest year for the 350"?

(Add) To answer the O.P's question, we use ARP 3/8" rod nuts with a 7/16" socket size, either 6-pt or 12-pt, these are the "AN" series nuts and are far superior to any others. We also have the conventional 3/8" ARP's, 9/16" 6-pt socket with a built-in washer for better seating.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. This little known fact caused much confusion in the aftermarket back then, everyone assumed when they saw the smaller rod bolts it was automatically a small journal unit, caught a bunch of us off-guard! These "only-year" rods were easily identified by a "dimple" under the rod eyes. Here's a shot of the rod, it's the one in the middle!
Click to expand...


See, Frank...I'm not a Chevy guy either! LOL :D Thanks, Gary, for the education. I didn't realize they did that-never ran into it in many years of running my own shop in the '70s through the '90's.

Just got back from a hundred mile drive in the '41 Merc and happy to say the rod nuts are still in place even without the pal nuts! :D:p:D


Terry
 
No offense, Jerry :) But, I am a fan of them in the rear view mirror ;)

Flathead, don't forget this years EMC, a 390 FE was first and a 289 second. I'm sure a flathead could win it some day, too but, I think it would have to have Ardun heads on it.
 
I was never a fan of the 239/312 Y block. My dad bought a '54 Ranchwagon, in '57 and had to replace the engine within a year. He put a '55, 272 in it and we never had any trouble after that. But, when I was a mechanic, the ONLY cracked Ford block, I ever saw, was a 312, cracked from the main, to the cam bearing. They also had rocker arm oiling issues. I had to put external oiler's on several 292's in my 8 years as a mechanic.

As Ford's premier V8, they only lasted from '54 to '57, I'm not sure why Ford had such a short term engine. I think a short deck 317, would have been a better short run engine.
 
The cam oiling issues started with the 215/223 and continued into the y-block era...when you rebuild them a tiny groove cut into the cam solves that issue...
312 with the larger main bore and same size maincaps wasn´t one of fords brightest idees...312 crank turned down to the smaller mainbearing size and put into a 292 block works better. Or new steel maincaps.
 
Yes, i did one or two, 223's also.

On the 292's, the issue was that the oil passage would plug up, that went to the rocker arms (maybe the 223's too?). I think the main cause of that was detergent oil in engines that had run on non-detergent and the slug that the detergent oils freed up, clogged up that passage. Detergent oil, ruined many '50's engines, mostly by clogging the oil pump intake screen.
 
As this has turned into a Y block discussion. Shortly after getting the motor running in my T-Bird (57 312) I had the rocker oiling issue on one side. All the passages were clear. The problem was the cam bearings. The oil passes around a groove in the cam. My bearings were worn to the depth of the groove, effectively stopping the oil from passing around the cam to the one side. I tore it down and replaced the cam bearings. All good ever since.
Mart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top