Piston and rod install

[Glenwood]

Guys,
I could some pointers at this stage.
I've filed and assembled the rings which are a moly top ring and cast iron 2nd.

The rod bearings have a hole on one half which I think is for aluminum rods with a dowel. Does this matter on steel rods and should it be top or bottom?

I've read different methods to install the pistons regarding oil soaking vs wd40 and effects on proper ring seating. How does one choose a method here? This part is a bit confusing!

Once two rods are on the crank, how do you determine where the rod should rest? First measure between the throw, then in between the rods and then the 2nd throw? They have floating pins so they have a bit of play. I would expect to try to center them on the pin somehow before snugging them up, but not sure how yhat is done.

Is a stretch gauge really necessary for a mild build or would torqueing be enough?

 

[Challenger340]

Those look to be "HND" designation Rod Bearings, meaning 'H" eccentricity(degree of change in thickness) and "N" for narrowed(common for high radius cranks), and "D" for doweled(meaning suitable for Aluminum Rods with dowels), but YES as compatible with Steel Rods as well.
Anyways,
If you look at the backs of the Bearings they are marked "upper" and "lower", and YES, the dowel holed Bearing go "lower" as you have them.

The Oil versus WD40 depends upon the method of Bore finish applied.... ie; the amount or type of "plateau" present ? it's not just whether or not a 220/280/400 grit and brush wipes were applied, but how each was applied9Diamond or Stones) and under what load that dictates ra, rx, etc.
Maybe ask your Machinist what procedure he uses, and what HE prefers for break in lubrication on HIS plateau finish ?

Push each Rod tight against it's Crank Filet and measure Rod Side clearance between the Rods.

It doesn't matter "mild" or "serious" build, right is right and wrong is wrong.
BEST method with new Rods is to Torque to spec W/Correct Lube, and then measure the Big End for Sizing/Straight/and Out of Round condition on an AG300 gauge..... as a way to determine repeatability to duplicating the fastener load that was applied and "used" during the Rod Resizing.
To explain further....
you are trying to duplicate the Load that was applied when the Rods were sized ? And the best way to check is to apply load until the Rod B.E. exhibits Str/Round on an AG300 (many new Rods never do because either the original sizing was poo ?, or their Torque Wrench in China was off from yours ?
Checking fastener "Stretch" is just a way to catalog what level of elongation the fastener is exhibiting under a specific load, and NOT always within the published spec., but as long as fairly uniform within the set of fasteners is a good thing.
IMO, 8740 materials typically maintain closer to spec than ARP2000, and L19 never seems to make any sense(to me anyways)
Anyways, record the stretch exhibited under load.... then if you ever tear down you can re-check as indicator of any fastener stress if it increases substantially or goes beyond range over time.
That said....
In the DIY world..... most guys just Torque them up and away they go ?
or,
Torque them up with the Bearing installed on the bench, zero a bore gauge off the Crank journal, and check the vertical Bearing Clrc with the bore gauge on the Bearing.

 

[DLevel]

As far as the hole in the bearing, yes thats for an aluminum rod but it will work with your steel rods. If they are narrowed bearings instead of chamfered then there should be a U stamped on the shell for the main rod itself. The shell with Linux stamped on the back goes into the cap. Chamfered bearings are also stamped and the chamfer will be on the big Chamfered side of the rod. The chamfered bearing keeps it from making contact with the large radial that are on the aftermarket performance crankshaft so. When I assemble the rods I get all of them connected to the crankshaft first. Then I stick a feeler gauge that will push between the two rods at their parting line to take the clearance out before torque is applied to the fastener.

 

[Glenwood]

Those look to be "HND" designation Rod Bearings, meaning 'H" eccentricity(degree of change in thickness) and "N" for narrowed(common for high radius cranks), and "D" for doweled(meaning suitable for Aluminum Rods with dowels), but YES as compatible with Steel Rods as well.
Crap, i didn't notice the writing on the back! Sharp eye, they are HND.

Anyways,
If you look at the backs of the Bearings they are marked "upper" and "lower", and YES, the dowel holed Bearing go "lower" as you have them.


The Oil versus WD40 depends upon the method of Bore finish applied.... ie; the amount or type of "plateau" present ? it's not just whether or not a 220/280/400 grit and brush wipes were applied, but how each was applied9Diamond or Stones) and under what load that dictates ra, rx, etc.
Maybe ask your Machinist what procedure he uses, and what HE prefers for break in lubrication on HIS plateau finish ?

Good idea, I sent him an email.

Push each Rod tight against it's Crank Filet and measure Rod Side clearance between the Rods.

It doesn't matter "mild" or "serious" build, right is right and wrong is wrong.
BEST method with new Rods is to Torque to spec W/Correct Lube, and then measure the Big End for Sizing/Straight/and Out of Round condition on an AG300 gauge..... as a way to determine repeatability to duplicating the fastener load that was applied and "used" during the Rod Resizing.
To explain further....
you are trying to duplicate the Load that was applied when the Rods were sized ? And the best way to check is to apply load until the Rod B.E. exhibits Str/Round on an AG300 (many new Rods never do because either the original sizing was poo ?, or their Torque Wrench in China was off from yours ?

I measured each with a dial bore, torqued but without bearings and all were perfectly round. These eagle rods were prepped by the shop.

Checking fastener "Stretch" is just a way to catalog what level of elongation the fastener is exhibiting under a specific load, and NOT always within the published spec., but as long as fairly uniform within the set of fasteners is a good thing.
IMO, 8740 materials typically maintain closer to spec than ARP2000, and L19 never seems to make any sense(to me anyways)
Anyways, record the stretch exhibited under load.... then if you ever tear down you can re-check as indicator of any fastener stress if it increases substantially or goes beyond range over time.
That said....
In the DIY world..... most guys just Torque them up and away they go ?
or,
Torque them up with the Bearing installed on the bench, zero a bore gauge off the Crank journal, and check the vertical Bearing Clrc with the bore gauge on the Bearing.

Thanks a bunch for this!

 

[Glenwood]

As far as the hole in the bearing, yes thats for an aluminum rod but it will work with your steel rods. If they are narrowed bearings instead of chamfered then there should be a U stamped on the shell for the main rod itself. The shell with Linux stamped on the back goes into the cap. Chamfered bearings are also stamped and the chamfer will be on the big Chamfered side of the rod. The chamfered bearing keeps it from making contact with the large radial that are on the aftermarket performance crankshaft so. When I assemble the rods I get all of them connected to the crankshaft first. Then I stick a feeler gauge that will push between the two rods at their parting line to take the clearance out before torque is applied to the fastener.

I measured the rod thickness and crank journal width. There appears to be about .033 clearance. Does that seem right?
I read that stock rods are usually around .017?

 

[DLevel]

I wouldn't get too concerned about that side clearance you have. Have worked on various race engines with considerably more side clearance than that and didn't see any issues. More than a few people including myself have run a Chevy rod on a ground down stock steel 440 crank which has a ton of clearance on that combo. I just didn't feel comfortable on a combo like that in street form running a low tension oil ring package. I'm not a big fan of low tension rings on a street car application if that's what you're building. I'm sure someone else could tell u differently but you should be fine. Good luck with your build.

 

[dieseldazzle]

8740 materials typically maintain closer to spec than ARP2000, and L19 never seems to make any sense(to me anyways)
Anyways, record the stretch exhibited under load.... then if you ever tear down you can re-check as indicator of any fastener stress if it increases substantially or goes beyond range over time.

Torque them up with the Bearing installed on the bench, zero a bore gauge off the Crank journal, and check the vertical Bearing Clrc with the bore gauge on the Bearing.

I load my rods and check as mentioned in the quote.

Not to thread jack and you obviously have forgotten more than I know but the 8740 statement versus arp2000 and especially L19 really has me scratching my head here... I don't understand why the "higher tensile" fasteners would exhibit more stretch after use and or abuse. I've found the same to be true in steel rod small block fords I have assembled and refreshed for ultra4 rig I worked on

 

[Glenwood]

I inserted the bearings and torqued them to spec to bench check, but I don't have a micrometer small enough to check the crank journal properly, so I slipped one piston in to plastigauge it. The clearance looks to be between .0015-.002. I also wanted to check clearance with #1 rod to the oil pick up boss as I've read about some issues here with some rods. It gave me a chance to check piston to deck space (between .019-.020).
I've ordered a stretch gauge anyway.
Here's a few pics.

 

[khryslerkid]

Did you do a piston ring end gap? Just curious.

 

[Glenwood]

Did you do a piston ring end gap? Just curious.

Filed the rings to Carrillo's spec: took me a few hours never having done this before. Constantly checking gap and straightness and deburing...
top ring bore 4.25x.0045 (.019 to .020)
2nd ring .004 to .008 above top ring (ended up about .025)

 

[khryslerkid]

Nice! Great pictures too. It's always a good thing to take pics as you go.

 

[Glenwood]

Nice! Great pictures too. It's always a good thing to take pics as you go.

It sure helps me to remember and I like to share in hopes my mistakes will be pointed out before it's too late! This stuff is so expensive.

 

[khryslerkid]

It sure helps me to remember and I like to share in hopes my mistakes will be pointed out before it's too late! This stuff is so expensive.

Expensive and so time consuming. I definitely have all the respect in the world for the guys that do it for a living.

When you get it all done, it will be self gratification hearing it fire up for the first time!

 

[bm02tj]

Note plastigauge is a guide and can not be taken as exact if fresh it is close

 

[Challenger340]

Just my opinion,
But I would NOT be very happy with .0015" Vertical Rod Bearing Clearance.
WHY ?
Show me in the "specifications" where .0015" is acceptable ?

Just make sure that "column" in those specifications, is clearly marked for a 550-600 HP @ 6,000 rpm, Aluminum Headed 440 Stroker Engine OK ?

I don't know much about the Engine Combination / Horsepower aspiration you are targeting ? and granted, I haven't read back to find out what you are building here ?
I've only seen a few pics in this thread.....
but from those I see a "stroker" build of some type ?
and from the Flat Top Pistons ? I am assuming also some kind of Aluminum Head ?
Camshaft for rpm ?
Extra RPM = HEAT in the Oil
Extra Load = HEAT in the Oil
Remember here,
The ONLY way Engine Bearings COOL is by the free flow of new and COOLER Oil "IN" .... predicated on the ability of the HOT oil to get "OUT"

Ditto on DITCH the Plasti-gauge.
Get a Bore Gauge and physically measure the Vertical Bearing Clearance, if it is .0015" ? You have some options to decide upon.

 

[Glenwood]

Just my opinion,
But I would NOT be very happy with .0015" Vertical Rod Bearing Clearance.
WHY ?
Show me in the "specifications" where .0015" is acceptable ?

Just make sure that "column" in those specifications, is clearly marked for a 550-600 HP @ 6,000 rpm, Aluminum Headed 440 Stroker Engine OK ?

I don't know much about the Engine Combination / Horsepower aspiration you are targeting ? and granted, I haven't read back to find out what you are building here ?
I've only seen a few pics in this thread.....
but from those I see a "stroker" build of some type ?
and from the Flat Top Pistons ? I am assuming also some kind of Aluminum Head ?
Camshaft for rpm ?
Extra RPM = HEAT in the Oil
Extra Load = HEAT in the Oil
Remember here,
The ONLY way Engine Bearings COOL is by the free flow of new and COOLER Oil "IN" .... predicated on the ability of the HOT oil to get "OUT"

Ditto on DITCH the Plasti-gauge.
Get a Bore Gauge and physically measure the Vertical Bearing Clearance, if it is .0015" ? You have some options to decide upon.

This is a mild build for my 64 convertible cruiser. I haven't mentioned the rest of the engine details as I started another thread with these details. It doesn't get much attention as there isn't anything sexy about a 413 build. This thread was meant to hopefully gain some specific general knowledge.

Basically: target about 400-450hp
413 bored to 4.25., decked about .003
Align honed with a stock forged crank ground to .010
Eagle rods stock length
Forged pistons which have a 2.06 comp height. Compression with a .020 steel gasket will likely be shy of 9.5.

Cam and heads are what I'm struggling with. I have a good set of 906 heads with a recent valve job that I'm considering to use but unless these have some porting work done and depending on the cam selection, I don't believe I will hit my target hp. That leaves me to consider alum closed chambers or a set of 915s.
The one issue with aluminum I'm concerned about is valve to block clearance due to the bore size. Many alum heads i see have 1.81 ex valves and they may not clear without notching the block.
A 4.15 stroker crank crossed my mind but I'm not sure these pistons would work with it as they would then be approx .018 above deck. Lots to consider.

I have a dial bore but need to pick up a mic. Based on my measuremnts with a dig caliper and dial bore, i still get about .0015 clearance. How tight should it be and what has to be done? Thicker bearings?

 

[miller]

i still get about .0015 clearance. How tight should it be and what has to be done? Thicker bearings?

Do you have a service manual? If so, it can be checked. But, off the top, think it's either .001, or .0015 minimum on both mains and rod bearings. Note, that's considered a tight clearance. Also for stock, or factory builds. Prefer .002-.0025.
Thicker bearings? No, that would make the clearance tighter.
Crank at .010 undersize, were the bearings you got at -.010? If so, you get what you get.

 

[miller]

In the book, clearances are .0005-.0015, max .0025. But, like I said, those are for a stock build. HP motors, desire the higher clearance...too much, and your bearings will get less life in them.

 

[Glenwood]

Ah ok, i thought 340s comments meant that .0015 wasn't tight enough.

I rechecked my notes and here's what I have measured.

rod with bearing bore: 2.4320
crank (with caliper): 2.3630
that leaves 0.069 div/2= 0.0345" clearance

Does that make more sense?
Could the plastigage got swiped when removing the rod cap? I had trouble getting it back off.

 

[miller]

The clearance looks to be between .0015-.002.

Looking at your photo, again, agree with you...maybe .00175? Comment? Think I know his line of thought, but, I'll leave it there.
No, even .0015 isn't too tight, for a stock build like your doing. If it was a drag motor, different story. Loose turns easier, to a point, but don't want hammered bearings. That's where the oil weight comes into play.
You should be fine with that clearance. Both mains, and rods? The one thing that bothers me, if I read it right, is total rod side play. But, I've only fooled with stock rods, so the guys could easily know something I don't. Those things get slapped around enough as it is, and of course, need room for oil...but, that much? Ask your friendly machinist?