Snyder's: New insert connecting rods

Dave in MN

Dave in MN

Well-known member
I was ordering parts and noticed...

a "NEW" item listed on Snyders website.
PRESS RELEASE​
After two years of engineering, tooling and actual road testing, Performance Engineering proudly
announces that their NEW, FULLY UPGRADED CONNECTING RODS WITH REPLACEABLE
BEARINGS are now available for both Model A and Model T applications. The combination of modern, high quality materials and technological improvements allow these components to be suitable for Stock, Performance and Racing applications.

Snyder's is making and selling new insert bearing connecting rods. The insert bearing shells have the side thrust surfaces as part of the insert component. I ordered a set to study and use. The sizing of the insert bearings are available in standard through .040 undersize. I will follow up with comments when they arrive early next week.
A6201010-10221-xl.jpg



Snyder's Insert



Interesting...note the two relief channels in the side thrust surface to allow oil to flow to and wet the area. I spoke to Snyder's this morning regarding the fit of the piston pin. They stated: Rods have the wrist pin bushing pressed in, oil holes drilled, and rough bored. You MUST hone the wrist pin bushings to match the wrist pins in your pistons. Shoot...I was hoping they would pre-fit them to the pistons they sell.
Cost is $75.00 each with a set of insert bearings at $110.00 on their website. Cost of set of 4 with insert bearings $410.00, no exchange, compared to the cost of their babbitt rods set at $236 plus the cost of shipping your old rods to them for exchange...about $14.00. So $250 for babbitt vs. $410.00.
I will put these rods in a test engine this month and report on the results.
It's good to have options!
Good Day!
Dave in MN
www.durableperformance.net
 
Last edited:
Dave in MN said:
I was ordering parts and noticed...
Snyder's is making and selling new insert bearing connecting rods. The insert bearing shells have the side thrust surfaces as part of the component. I ordered a set to study and use. The sizing of the insert bearings are available in standard through .040 undersize. I will follow up with comments when they arrive early next week.
A6201010-10221-xl.jpg





Interesting...note the two relief channels in the side thrust surface to allow oil to flow to and wet the area. I spoke to Snyder's this morning regarding the fit of the piston pin. They stated: Rods have the wrist pin bushing pressed in, oil holes drilled, and rough bored. You MUST hone the wrist pin bushings to match the wrist pins in your pistons. Shoot...I was hoping they would pre-fit them to the pistons they sell.
Cost is $75.00 each with a set of insert bearings at $110.00 on their website. Cost of set of 4 with insert bearings $410.00 compared to the cost of their babbitt rods set at $236 plus the cost of shipping your old rods to them...about $14.00. So $250 for babbitt vs. $410.00.
I will put these rods in a test engine this month and report on the results.
It's good to have options!
Good Day!
Dave in MN
www.durableperformance.net

Click to expand...

We have at set here for the engine we are using the Burlington crank in.
except they are for the Chev 283 pistons. They look really good. I have not check them yet, and have not looked at the rod bearings yet. But I though they were like rod bearings for other cars with out the thrust. I will check later.
 
George Miller said:
We have at set here for the engine we are using the Burlington crank in.
except they are for the Chev 283 pistons. They look really good. I have not check them yet, and have not looked at the rod bearings yet. But I though they were like rod bearings for other cars with out the thrust. I will check later.
Click to expand...

Hi George,
From what you describe you have a set of the rods made by AER (Antique Engine Rebuilding), Skokie. Snyder's new connecting rod offering do not fit the 283 pistins. When purchased through Snyders the AER rods cost $580.00 for a set of 4 with inserts included for the Model A piston and $570.00 a set for the 283 piston. The Snyder rod set with inserts is about $170.00 less than the cost of the AER rod set. Time will tell
who makes the better rod!

rod-377.jpg

AER Rod and Insert for the Model A Piston


(Antique Engine Rebuilding, Skokie IL)​


Dave in MN
 
Last edited:
I believe these are the same as those by Rich @ Antique Engine rebuilders in Skokie. I have his insert rods and they're great!
 
pick said:
I believe these are the same as those by Rich @ Antique Engine rebuilders in Skokie. I have his insert rods and they're great!
Click to expand...

Hey Pick,
No they actually are not...look closely. I have added photos of the rods the two suppliers make in my earlier posts. Note the inserts from Snyder have the side thrust surfaces as part of the bearing. AER rods, from Skokie, use the actual rod as the thrust surface. I agree with you about the quality of AER's rods. I have about 60 engines out with the AER rods and they have been great.
Dave in MN
www.durableperformance.net
 
Why is the oil groove in the insert going around the insert instead of being made in the axis of the crancshaft or at an angle.

One of my engines had rod bearings with oil grooves like these (not inserts though) The oil grooves had (not) worn the crankshaft leaving a raised ring around the journals ..............
 
I'll take a pass and stick with AER rods for several reasons:

1. This is a step BACKWARDS in design. Modern engines do not use bearing material as a side thrust on rod inserts. Unless you have a bent rod, there is no side thrust. If such a rod bearing flange were beneficial you would find then on every modern high perf engine. None.

2. STD size is different on a Burlington crank than a stock A crank. The Burlington is 0.001 smaller. AER has special -0.001 inserts for that app. Using the STD Snyder inserts with that crank would give you an unacceptable 0.0025 clearance to start.

3. There is no mention of what the bearing construction is- is there a base steel shell with copper first then laminated Babbitt or is it a solid? How thick is the Babbitt layer? More is NOT better.

4. They only fit "A" style pistons. I'm sold on lighter weight 283 style pistons with modern rings. This requires a slightly longer rod with a different pin hole, available from AER.

5. I don't want to be the guinea pig.
 
Mike, I am not so sure the Chevy pistons are lighter than Snyder's pistons. I think it is just that they are cheaper than Snyders, ...and there is a little less drag with the thinner rings. Probably for what you gain in piston dwell (longer rod) you give up in the Chev piston having the eyebrow reliefs in the face.
 
BRENT in 10-uh-C said:
Mike, I am not so sure the Chevy pistons are lighter than Snyder's pistons. I think it is just that they are cheaper than Snyders, ...and there is a little less drag with the thinner rings. Probably for what you gain in piston dwell (longer rod) you give up in the Chev piston having the eyebrow reliefs in the face.
Click to expand...

Brent I just weighted Synder's piston and a set of 283 piston, the chev pistons were a few grams lighter. These were not the chev pistons made for the A, they are ture 283 pistons.
 
How about Pete's 283 style pistons? They fit standard length Model A rods, use modern thin rings and don't have the eyebrow on the face.
 
AL in NY said:
How about Pete's 283 style pistons? They fit standard length Model A rods, use modern thin rings and don't have the eyebrow on the face.
Click to expand...

I have used a few sets. There was at least 3 different ones. The first set I got had fly cuts for the valves. I think they were his, could be wrong. Second set used the .927 wrist pin, you had to put a smaller bushing in the rod. He sent them with the pistons. Last set I got had the 1.000 wrist pin like the A
 
From my build records last year, before weight match balancing... WITH FITTED PINS:

Egge 1104 (A style full skirt, modern narrow rings), +0.060: 747g, 745g, 748g, 746g
(Hypereutectic 390 alloy, superior machine finish and cam shaped skirt!!!)

Silvolite #1412 +0.060 (std. 283 chev) 783g, 781g, 784g, 783g
(Std Al/Si alloy)

THE LIGHTWEIGHT WINNER:
KB Performance #165 +0.060 (283 racing piston) 503g, 504g, 501g, 503g
(Hypereutectic 390 alloy, this set also had lightweight 108g pins)

...I do not have any std A +0.060 pistons to weigh or build weight records...

Some errata for those interested:
Piston compression height:
Stock A- 1.875, 283 Chev- 1.805
Rod length:
Stock A- 7.500, Special AER rods for 283 pistons- 7.570
Weight of AER/283 rods: 707g plus 52g for bearing shells.

I wonder what the Snyder rods and inserts weigh?
 
MikeK said:

2. STD size is different on a Burlington crank than a stock A crank. The Burlington is 0.001 smaller. AER has special -0.001 inserts for that app. Using the STD Snyder inserts with that crank would give you an unacceptable 0.0025 clearance to start.
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect based on the three cranks my buddy Doug and I spent an entire day measuring out (@70 degrees) and logging all the specs a couple years ago. With that said, I won't/don't rely on ANYONE'S claims.

crankshaft-10.jpg


Inspection-1.jpg
 
Pardon my ignorance but it looks like the rods have a dipper on the bottom. Would this mean you don't need a pressurized system? I was under the impression you needed pressure for a full inserted engine.
 
Marco Tahtaras said:
That would be incorrect based on the three cranks my buddy Doug and I spent an entire day measuring out (@70 degrees) and logging all the specs a couple years ago. With that said, I won't/don't rely on ANYONE'S claims.
Click to expand...

Wow! that's one nice slab of granite you're friend Doug has. Do you have the rod journal measurement data from those three Burlington cranks? I absolutely agree about not relying on anyone's claims. Borrowing an old carpenters adage (measure twice, cut once) in engine building it's "measure twice assemble once". I have a Burlington on the shelf, time to measure, albeit not with "Doug" precision!
 
MikeK said:
Wow! that's one nice slab of granite you're friend Doug has.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, the surface plate has to be "re-calibrated" every few years. Even with careful use it gets some surface wear. When it's used as your zero point or point of reference a spot that is a few tenths low can be a problem. They true it up by hand lapping! Actually a slab this size is specified to be within .000175" over it's entire surface at the highest grade.
Do you have the rod journal measurement data from those three Burlington cranks? I absolutely agree about not relying on anyone's claims. Borrowing an old carpenters adage (measure twice, cut once) in engine building it's "measure twice assemble once". I have a Burlington on the shelf, time to measure, albeit not with "Doug" precision!
Click to expand...
I looked for my log sheets before posting earlier but no luck. They were in one of many "stray files" before we packed up and moved last year and I couldn't spot it. I have to double check at the other house when I get back there in a few days.

The raw measurements of the journals were the simplest of the specs to log. I measured front, center and rear of each journal in three positions around and logged the numbers in tenths (.0001") so I had minimum, maximum, taper, and out of round. Any number that was as little as .0001" beyond Ford specs was written in red to easily spot.

Below is my "old" Fordbarn post from a couple years ago (minus the pics)

Re: new counterbalanced crankshaft
​

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Fordbarn Model A Discussion Forum] Posted by Marco Tahtaras from c-24-5-205-61.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (24.5.205.61) on Monday, October 05, 2009 at 0:23AM :
In Reply to: new counterbalanced crankshaft posted by HARRY from adsl-66-142-59-104.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net (66.142.59.104) on Saturday, October 03, 2009 at 4:51PM :

Now that hopefully we are past all the blind prejudices and other BS, I'll offer what I can. First of all this is the ONLY game in town regardless or what was mentioned. Personally, I prefer a forged crankshaft over a cast ductile iron crankshaft for the three bearing Model A size crankshaft even if a cast crankshaft was available. That is MY preference.

I'm not too fond of "Oh, it works great", or "it really runs smooth" type of references as such comments are relative but we never really know just what they are relating to. My experiences/ expectations are undoubtedly different. I think I put that nicely :-)
Now to the "nuts and bolts":

I wish I would have taken more pics of the various setups but it was a very long day. Above is my buddy Doug. We spent a day measuring four crankshafts. ALL measurements were taken in .0001" increments as that was close enough. The cranks were placed in the room at 70° for 12-14 hours for the temp to stabilize as they had been at about 90°.

Doug made up log sheets including EVERY dimension with the factory limit ranges (from my Ford print shown at the top) so we just had to fill in the blanks. Anything beyond specs was written in red for easy reference.
Doug started by measuring the journal placements which included widths. The factory reference point was the rear flange so that it what you see in the second pic. While Doug was doing that I was measuring all the journals for size, roundness, and taper. Keep in mind we were measuring all four cranks as opposed to to single sampling.

Finally we used a couple different setups to measure the location of the rod throws, timing gear keyway (Ford's point of reference) and dowel pin hole locations.

Now the good and the not so good. Nearly everything was within spec. I don't have my notes handy (in one of multiple stacks of papers not yet filed) so I'm working from memory.

The length of the cranks as measured from the rear flange grew very slightly short reaching the last 2-3 journals. We believe it to be truly insignificant. It appears they were machined at a temperature somewhere around 80°-85° creating slight thermal expansion when machined which then contracted when measured at the appropriate temperature.
The dowel pin holes in the rear flange were not properly reamed and had a rough and irregular bore. Checked with gauge pins they not only varied from crank to crank but had loose and tight spots within a single hole. Catching the edge of the holes with the depth gauge they appeared within spec as far as location (two directions) but it would have been better to have some throw away dowel pins to press in and measure from.
As I recall the center slinger flange varied from crank to crank .003"-.008" undersize which is less than ideal.

Now what we DIDN'T have time to do. I would have liked to spend more time with redundant checks of the center lines. I would also have liked to put at least one of the cranks in one of Dougs two balancers and checked that for spec. The latter will have to wait until one of us is assembling an engine.

Ok, now to the bottom line. Although the jury is still out on the dowel pin holes, I will be amazed if you can get a more accurately machined (or even close) original crankshaft unless it is NOS. In this case you have FULL size journals and not poorly reground .030" undersize. I hope Chris can correct the dowel pin holes and slinger flange issues.

Finally back to my second comment near the top. As you can see I'm not very interested in "feel good" opinions. Specifications and facts save a lot of time and money (well, maybe money :-) but anyting quantifiable is MUCH more useful to me.

Okay, a final, final note. I suggest anyone waiting for a cast crank from Dan Eubanks call him direct and try to get the true story of where he is going and what issues have hampered production of his "B" cranks as well as any possible alternatives.



Follow Ups:



  • [*]Re: new counterbalanced crankshaft - forever4 12:43PM 10/05/2009 (0)
    [*]Re: new counterbalanced crankshaft - Chris in CT 7:44AM 10/05/2009 (0)

Post a Followup

Name: E-Mail: Subject: Message:
Optional Link URL: Title: Optional Image Link URL:


Fordbarn.com

 
What a set up! As one poster said, "What a slab of granite!" What equiptment! Etalon mike, and that's some height gauge! It would seem that no one can fault your numbers with stuff like that!
Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top