Cartel
Active Member
I sourced another bearing local. $30 mistake.
I did not check clearance I'm gambling that since the crank is untouched except a polish. It should be good. other than this last rod, they move freely side to side.
I pulled the 383 out of my 66 windsor
- Thread starter Cartel
- Start date
I did not check clearance I'm gambling that since the crank is untouched except a polish. It should be good. other than this last rod, they move freely side to side.
IMHO, that's a bad gamble.
At least get some plasti-gauge and check a few.
Have you checked your ring gap before you started assembling the crank?
Cartel
Active Member
I will try to get plastiguage. the rods move freely side to side.
I went out to continue putting pistons in and noticed this bearing is sitting off-set.
Is this an issue?
thanks
I went out to continue putting pistons in and noticed this bearing is sitting off-set.
Is this an issue?
thanks
It looks to me like the bearing is just sitting on the crank????
Are you placing the bearing on the crank, then putting the rod over it and torqueing it down? The bearings should be installed in the rods first and then the piston and rod slid into place and the rod cap with the bearing in it put on. Loctite on the rod bolts is my preference and the nuts torqued down in steps. The rod locates the bearing (one reason for the notches) and the width of the rod determines side clearance.
You haven't answered the question about checking ring end gap. If there's nothing else checked, that's the one you don't want to skip. Too tight and it destroys the engine in a hurry, too loose and it's excessive blow by.
Cartel
Active Member
yes I checked to gap 23 thou on the top and 26 on 2
I am putting the bearings in place and sliding them down. I losened that rod and I could push the bearing over a bit once I split the cap off a bit but it went right back after snugging up.
Heres the rest. only 1 lines up perfect.
All this fiddling around is annoying me bacause its hard to keep stuff clean
Last edited:
Cartel
Active Member
not finding solid answers
If I'm understanding you, the bearing fell out of the cap? So you pulled the bearing off the crank and put it back into the rod cap and then installed it.. Correct?
They really shouldn't be loose enough to fall out, but that sticky assembly lube might be enough to pull it off (guessing)
The end gap is OK.
mr gtx
Active Member
the old bearings stayed in match them up to the old bearings and see what is different. any numbers on the old bearings ? the crank is in spec ?
Last edited:
You won't find solid answers on forums. It's all opinions and you don't know who's wrong and who's right. Look at bearing manufacturers websites and engine builders.
But to get to your problem... As long as that bearing is put into the rod and rod cap WITH the tang and notch aligned, what you are worrying about is irrelevant.
I'm worried that you aren't aligning that bearing tang into the notch well before it even touches the crank. It should be over on the bench when you are assembling the bearings into the rods. If you are just leaving that bearing in place, then putting the cap on, you are taking a chance of not getting together correctly.
Cartel
Active Member
I'm sliding the bearing in like I have before, opposite tang end first and slide them in and bed the tang. even them out with my fingers pressing down.
The one rod and cap #2 I did put on backwards and scuffed the bearing so I got a new one and was putting that one in when I seen #1 was offset a bit. I only noticed because I was cleaning the journal to make sure no crumbs were left from my scuffing incident. Otherwise I would have not noticed. I messaged Nick to see what he's seen over the years with this
The one rod and cap #2 I did put on backwards and scuffed the bearing so I got a new one and was putting that one in when I seen #1 was offset a bit. I only noticed because I was cleaning the journal to make sure no crumbs were left from my scuffing incident. Otherwise I would have not noticed. I messaged Nick to see what he's seen over the years with this
So, the bearing isn't centered in the rod?
Cartel
Active Member
ok heres the deal. they are supposed to be offset.
look at the step, they beveled that corner the exact same size it sticks out. then look at the corner on the opposite shell. its straight cut.
so that offset is normal or they wouldnt have beveled that corner. I just got off the phone with clevite 77 and theres nothing in the literature he has that says when or why they did that. It just dont make sense like everything else in 2024.
Thats my answer. "its normal" according to how that bearing came from Clevite. They made it that way for a reason.
look at the step, they beveled that corner the exact same size it sticks out. then look at the corner on the opposite shell. its straight cut.
so that offset is normal or they wouldnt have beveled that corner. I just got off the phone with clevite 77 and theres nothing in the literature he has that says when or why they did that. It just dont make sense like everything else in 2024.
Thats my answer. "its normal" according to how that bearing came from Clevite. They made it that way for a reason.
OK, now I'm understanding what you were saying... I kept looking at this pictures and thinking that section I put a star on was the rear of the bearing shell.
That's why I kept asking how you were installing the bearing.
Cartel
Active Member
no its that shoulder poking out.So I'm good?
I'd say so.
That little glob of junk next to the star in the pic though.... Just junk right?
Cartel
Active Member
thats arp lube that fell off when I was panicking. I'll wipe the face clean and just continue....lol
Cartel
Active Member
that was 440 source
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
I think most of us know knurling the valve guides is a short term solution for headwork, though, it was done more back when our FSMs were typed, as there were less ready made after market gew-gaws folks could choose from.
If one strokes a 383, won't the actual new displacement be a bit less than the canonical 451 in^3 from stroking a 400 w a 440 crank, resulting in more like 426 in^3? Mind you, I'm SORELY tempted to stroke one of my 383s just so! Still, IFF I can find a decent RB for the right price, I'll take the added iron weight with the torque!
I like the thicker cylinder walls of the 383. Maybe if I can rob a bank, or sell one of my spawn*, I can afford such experiments.
Back when people were starting to become aware of the stroked B motors, it took quite a bit of time (time = money) to cut down the RB crank mains to B size. So, the typical thoughts of "Why not just start with a RB motor to start with?" Like building a Chevy small block, just head to a 350 to start with.
NOW we have made-to-size cranks/rotating assys that make everything a bolt-in situation. The somewhat unfortunate result is that now we have (as chronicled by an episode of "Nick's Garage" graphically pointed out), a LA408 can make 425 well-mannered horsepower, so that suddenly gives those discarded motors a reason to live, if that's what the car came with. As stroker 440s go well past 530cid in the process.
With the advent of 6-8 speed automatic transmissions with low gears in the 4.6:1 area, low end torque seems to be less important as the engine gets through those lower rpm ranges quicker as a result. The magic of EFI then allows them to use 3.23 rear axle ratios and cruise in OD with a .70 ratio, too.
The magic of the LA340/360/408, like its similar Chevy 383 SBC/302/350/327 competition seems to be related to their approx 4.0" bore diameter. Reason? It's been there for years, just that in more recent times, due to emissions research. It's the time it takes for the flame front to travel from the spark plug to the opposite side of the combustion chamber. And to it efficiently and expeditiously in the allotted time it has to do it in. Of which the "fine wire" electrode spark plugs play a vital role. Which also means a closed chamber cyl head can be better than an open chamber, with respect to "active air flow" due to "quench" turbulence. LOTS of side issues!
Back in about 1969, Chevy built a CanAm430 big block motor. It ran better than their existing 427 (truck-based, factory race motor). The reputed reason was its "optimal" bore/stroke and rod length/stroke ratio . . . which were the same as their SBC302 motor. AND . . . the same as the Chrysler 383! Bore/stroke was (IIRC) 1.27 and RL/S was 1.9, with lower RL/S being more "torque oriented" and higher meant better high rpm performance. The Olds 350 was just a hair over 2.0. Lower "rod ratios" also influence how much side-loading the piston skirt sees against the cyl wall.
In the middle 1950s, as mentioned in an article on Chrysler engine design in an issue of the old "MoPerformance" magazine, Chrysler's "take" on rod ratios related to the skirt/cyl wall loadings. Chrysler determined that a 15 degree swing of the connecting rod on the piston pin was "the limit" for best power and reduced friction. In THAT criteria, the 3.75" RB stroke was the max stroke length. So with the existing connecting rod length, it all worked well.
One of the other reasons I liked 383s from my earlier times was a comment allegedly made by a Chrysler operative at a press showing of the new 1965 cars. That the 383 2bbl was a favorite among Chrysler engineers (for their personal/company cars) for its balance of power and fuel economy. Then, as now, I prefer relaxed cruising at 90mph with the engine at the peak of its rated torque curve over how fast it might get there in normal driving. Usually getting 15mpg doing it. Yep, it'd still cause some tire slippage from a dead stop on pavement, too. All good!
I know people like their RB stroker motors, but a ZF 8-speed behind a nice 383 might surprise people. Add some modern combustion chamber alloy cyl heads and such, even more so.
Happy Holidays!
CBODY67
NOW we have made-to-size cranks/rotating assys that make everything a bolt-in situation. The somewhat unfortunate result is that now we have (as chronicled by an episode of "Nick's Garage" graphically pointed out), a LA408 can make 425 well-mannered horsepower, so that suddenly gives those discarded motors a reason to live, if that's what the car came with. As stroker 440s go well past 530cid in the process.
With the advent of 6-8 speed automatic transmissions with low gears in the 4.6:1 area, low end torque seems to be less important as the engine gets through those lower rpm ranges quicker as a result. The magic of EFI then allows them to use 3.23 rear axle ratios and cruise in OD with a .70 ratio, too.
The magic of the LA340/360/408, like its similar Chevy 383 SBC/302/350/327 competition seems to be related to their approx 4.0" bore diameter. Reason? It's been there for years, just that in more recent times, due to emissions research. It's the time it takes for the flame front to travel from the spark plug to the opposite side of the combustion chamber. And to it efficiently and expeditiously in the allotted time it has to do it in. Of which the "fine wire" electrode spark plugs play a vital role. Which also means a closed chamber cyl head can be better than an open chamber, with respect to "active air flow" due to "quench" turbulence. LOTS of side issues!
Back in about 1969, Chevy built a CanAm430 big block motor. It ran better than their existing 427 (truck-based, factory race motor). The reputed reason was its "optimal" bore/stroke and rod length/stroke ratio . . . which were the same as their SBC302 motor. AND . . . the same as the Chrysler 383! Bore/stroke was (IIRC) 1.27 and RL/S was 1.9, with lower RL/S being more "torque oriented" and higher meant better high rpm performance. The Olds 350 was just a hair over 2.0. Lower "rod ratios" also influence how much side-loading the piston skirt sees against the cyl wall.
In the middle 1950s, as mentioned in an article on Chrysler engine design in an issue of the old "MoPerformance" magazine, Chrysler's "take" on rod ratios related to the skirt/cyl wall loadings. Chrysler determined that a 15 degree swing of the connecting rod on the piston pin was "the limit" for best power and reduced friction. In THAT criteria, the 3.75" RB stroke was the max stroke length. So with the existing connecting rod length, it all worked well.
One of the other reasons I liked 383s from my earlier times was a comment allegedly made by a Chrysler operative at a press showing of the new 1965 cars. That the 383 2bbl was a favorite among Chrysler engineers (for their personal/company cars) for its balance of power and fuel economy. Then, as now, I prefer relaxed cruising at 90mph with the engine at the peak of its rated torque curve over how fast it might get there in normal driving. Usually getting 15mpg doing it. Yep, it'd still cause some tire slippage from a dead stop on pavement, too. All good!
I know people like their RB stroker motors, but a ZF 8-speed behind a nice 383 might surprise people. Add some modern combustion chamber alloy cyl heads and such, even more so.
Happy Holidays!
CBODY67
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
