Turlock machine

I remember a certain "Miracle engine" guy, (Flanagan?) that used to butcher, er, I mean 'improve' blocks like this. You get the best of all worlds:

1) The cam/crank gear spacing gets pinched too tight.
2) The pistons, already higher after decking, will now be alarmingly high.
3) Your transmission will now work automatically. With the lost alignment of the crank center to the ******, the thing will pop out of gear all by itself!

About the oil grooves- those appear to be Rich's A.E.R. inserts, not poured babbitt.
 
Okay........I thought about this since it was first posted, the first thing out
of my mouth is not printable. I have modified everything on engines, and I
mean everything! On any engine, were that crank lays is ground zero,...you
can change everything else you can think of, except the "crankshaft center line",
period.
The only thing I could think of, and I can't see the front and center main good
enough,...if he milled a "register" for some kind of different rear main cap. So
I looked at the photo again,...the bearing shell for the rear main "looks" positive
too the milled surface.

Oil grooves,......not so good for "gravity feed",...okay for pressure...
 
This is Joe from turlock machine. The picture you see here is of an engine that I machined. This is shown with AER insert bearings installed, not Babbitt. The crank centerline is in original ford specs using kr Wilson alignment tools. The rear main has been machined to allow the rear main cap to fit flat the block not to change the "up and down position of the crank. Making the cap fit flat to the block fixes the rear main oil leak issue. The only thing changing is the position of the cap on the block which gets line bored anyhow and allows for part of the bearing that sits in the block to be aligned to the rear main cap . I have built more than 600 engines since 1999 without one single insert bearing failure or timing gear clearance issue . I'm pretty confident in my engines as I am pretty sure that no one else offers a 2 year warranty on a model a engine.
 
What are you doing about the rear main pan gasket...thicker gasket?

* Also, how deep is the register? Kinda looks about 25.*
 
Last edited:
The pan gasket is cork on the cap and is designed for shim adjustment so it is a non issue. The register generally is between .002" and .005" but has never been more than .010"
 
turlockmachine said:
This is Joe from turlock machine. The picture you see here is of an engine that I machined. This is shown with AER insert bearings installed, not Babbitt. The crank centerline is in original ford specs using kr Wilson alignment tools. The rear main has been machined to allow the rear main cap to fit flat the block not to change the "up and down position of the crank. Making the cap fit flat to the block fixes the rear main oil leak issue. The only thing changing is the position of the cap on the block which gets line bored anyhow and allows for part of the bearing that sits in the block to be aligned to the rear main cap . I have built more than 600 engines since 1999 without one single insert bearing failure or timing gear clearance issue . I'm pretty confident in my engines as I am pretty sure that no one else offers a 2 year warranty on a model a engine.
Click to expand...

Hey Joe,
Thanks for splaining youse self:D ! I hope that all is going well with you and your A/B engine building business. Hope to do (B) business with you in future. Please PM me , if you can use good A blocks...no cracks:)
 
My engine is an example that oil grooves are necessary (at least in a Model A engine). My engine was rebuilt without oil grooves on the rods or crankshaft, and long story short; they went bad in hurry.

Also, I have seen original from the factory engines with oil grooves; those that I have seen were always in an "X" pattern.

My experience would never convince me that oil grooves are not necessary. Others experience of course may be different.
 
Oil grooves are absolutely necessary for gravity Fed oiling. The inserts shown in my engine at the top of this page have 2 oil grooves in them: the radial groove that you can see in the pic and an axial groove that runs along the part line of the insert. It stops before the rear of the bearing as to not let too much oil out the rear and onto the garage floor.
 
Turlockmachine, you have more than vindicated yourself! Beautiful work, and sound engineering.
 
Having the parting plane of the cap/block no longer at the centerline of the crank makes for an interesting 'fit' of the inserts shown. The shells are designed to achieve proper 'crush' with their parting at the crank centerline. Each shell half has a tab that butts against a flat surface of the other block or cap half. Those tabs prevent rotation, or spun bearings. The block tab is visible in the photo posted. Since the intended shell parting plane is no longer aligned with the block/cap plane, some interference or geometric mismatch will occur as those two tabs are forced to mate with unequal sectors of the bore. I see this as a very bad way to address rear oil seepage.
 
I will have one of Joe's touring motors in my Tudor pretty soon. If you have interest in how Joe's motor performs, there will be ample opportunity to see it for yourself at the NCRG roundup in May or the MAFCA event in July. I'm not stuck up- you can check it out if you want. Listen to it, ride in it, whatever.
 
P.S. said:
I will have one of Joe's touring motors in my Tudor pretty soon. If you have interest in how Joe's motor performs, there will be ample opportunity to see it for yourself at the NCRG roundup in May or the MAFCA event in July. I'm not stuck up- you can check it out if you want. Listen to it, ride in it, whatever.
Click to expand...

can we drop the pan and look
 
MikeK,

Your analysis is correct, in theory.
In practice it holds no water. I have done a few girdle assemblies over the last few years. Since I need the bottom surface to be as uniform as possible, I Blanchard grind the bottom of the block to ensure the surface is true and flat. The shells are actually made to crush on the parting line surfaces. The tabs typically are displaced metal that is actually below the surface and not impacted by the parting line.

The practice of pouring is much different than inserted motors, as well the full pressure setups.

FWIW, I just fired up a race motor yesterday.
With 95 psi on the gauge it leaked nothing. And this from a motor that last year marked it spot in the shop, trailer, tarps etc.

I see nothing wrong with Turlocks approach, very good!!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0118 reduced.jpg
    IMG_0118 reduced.jpg
    66.3 KB · Views: 241
  • IMG_1959 reduced.jpg
    IMG_1959 reduced.jpg
    59.3 KB · Views: 257
johnneilson said:
MikeK,

Your analysis is correct, in theory.
In practice it holds no water. I have done a few girdle assemblies over the last few years. Since I need the bottom surface to be as uniform as possible, I Blanchard grind the bottom of the block to ensure the surface is true and flat. . .
Click to expand...

john, Yes, I agree with your blanchard cleanup for the girdle, but you then reset the crank centerline to the new parting plane, as you bore for bearings referenced to that plane, correct? You do not have greater than a half circle machined into the girdle and less than a half circle in the block, like the rear cap mating surface shown above, or do you?
 
MikeK said:
Having the parting plane of the cap/block no longer at the centerline of the crank makes for an interesting 'fit' of the inserts shown. The shells are designed to achieve proper 'crush' with their parting at the crank centerline. Each shell half has a tab that butts against a flat surface of the other block or cap half. Those tabs prevent rotation, or spun bearings. The block tab is visible in the photo posted. Since the intended shell parting plane is no longer aligned with the block/cap plane, some interference or geometric mismatch will occur as those two tabs are forced to mate with unequal sectors of the bore. I see this as a very bad way to address rear oil seepage.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked about the register,....but .002" to .005" I have
no problem, .010" is a push. I'd bet those bearings have a "high
to medium eccentricity", which gives it some wiggle room. The amount
of clearance behind the "tang" should allow for the shell not to
distort.
 
MikeK said:
john, Yes, I agree with your blanchard cleanup for the girdle, but you then reset the crank centerline to the new parting plane, as you bore for bearings referenced to that plane, correct? You do not have greater than a half circle machined into the girdle and less than a half circle in the block, like the rear cap mating surface shown above, or do you?
Click to expand...

NO, I do not reset the CL.
I place the crank in the proper location, the furthest I have had to move one was .014, this to retain proper cam gear relation and offset to bores.
You have to be careful when assembling because the insert is proud from the block and recessed into the girdle.

I have seen where someone tried to use bearing too small on the OD and moved the crank deeper into block and away from cam to keep gear mesh. IMHO, this works, but I don't subscribe to this practice.

If you do the math, moving the CL .015 makes the parting line distance less than .0003 less than Ø. The inserts have a pretty good chamfer/lead-
in so it does not create issue.

BTW, removing the tangs completely is no issue if the bore is done correctly. The crush to hold inserts in place is the circumference not diameter (~.0031 per .001Ø)

J
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top