|
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not
better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been ported for some real horsepower. any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack from a line bore Mike Romain wrote: > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > any good. > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > foolish. > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > set need to be checked too. > > Mike > > mic canic wrote: > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > bore > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > journal. > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > flipped. > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > Mike > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > Chuck |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
"mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice bull crap youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it too loose.......... > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work good............. > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
"mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice bull crap youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it too loose.......... > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work good............. > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
"mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice bull crap youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it too loose.......... > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work good............. > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
"mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice bull crap youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it too loose.......... > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work good............. > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Jeez, I'm beginning to have more sympathy for Mike all the time. Tell
me, Mr Numbnuts, how torqing a bearing that is supposed to have a small but finite amout of clearance is affected by re-torqing. I know that some engines required new BOLTS after being torqed once but that's because of bolt stretch and necking. If the bearing doesn't fit right the first time and is damaged then it shouldn't have been in there in the first place but replacing the bearing after torqing? Only if you are on commission - and never check the clearance of the torqed assembly. On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:21:48 UTC mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote: > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > -- Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net> |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Jeez, I'm beginning to have more sympathy for Mike all the time. Tell
me, Mr Numbnuts, how torqing a bearing that is supposed to have a small but finite amout of clearance is affected by re-torqing. I know that some engines required new BOLTS after being torqed once but that's because of bolt stretch and necking. If the bearing doesn't fit right the first time and is damaged then it shouldn't have been in there in the first place but replacing the bearing after torqing? Only if you are on commission - and never check the clearance of the torqed assembly. On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:21:48 UTC mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote: > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > -- Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net> |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Jeez, I'm beginning to have more sympathy for Mike all the time. Tell
me, Mr Numbnuts, how torqing a bearing that is supposed to have a small but finite amout of clearance is affected by re-torqing. I know that some engines required new BOLTS after being torqed once but that's because of bolt stretch and necking. If the bearing doesn't fit right the first time and is damaged then it shouldn't have been in there in the first place but replacing the bearing after torqing? Only if you are on commission - and never check the clearance of the torqed assembly. On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:21:48 UTC mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote: > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > -- Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net> |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Jeez, I'm beginning to have more sympathy for Mike all the time. Tell
me, Mr Numbnuts, how torqing a bearing that is supposed to have a small but finite amout of clearance is affected by re-torqing. I know that some engines required new BOLTS after being torqed once but that's because of bolt stretch and necking. If the bearing doesn't fit right the first time and is damaged then it shouldn't have been in there in the first place but replacing the bearing after torqing? Only if you are on commission - and never check the clearance of the torqed assembly. On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:21:48 UTC mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote: > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference and not > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid motor redo > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after a rebuild > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but maybe a .001 > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's bearing quite a > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the heads been > ported for some real horsepower. > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > from a line bore > Mike Romain wrote: > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > any good. > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > foolish. > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > set need to be checked too. > > > > Mike > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good without a line > > > bore > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been squished and > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the wrong > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check the > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same side of > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on the > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and last weekend > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with new main > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" undersize > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing clearances- > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found to be > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and deck > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the mains. (i may > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of assembly > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to turn. i > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting bolts to > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I wouldn't > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight side, but > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, correct? any > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > Chuck > -- Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net> |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
TranSurgeon wrote:
> > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > and not > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > motor redo > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > a rebuild > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > bull crap Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > too loose.......... > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > maybe a .001 > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > bearing quite a > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > heads been > > ported for some real horsepower. > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > from a line bore > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > good............. And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really good too. I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain wrong. A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! Mike > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > any good. > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > foolish. > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > without a line > > > > bore > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > squished and > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > wrong > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > the > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > side of > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > the > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > last weekend > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > new main > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > undersize > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > clearances- > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > to be > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > deck > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > mains. (i may > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > assembly > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > turn. i > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > bolts to > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > wouldn't > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > side, but > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > correct? any > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > Chuck > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
TranSurgeon wrote:
> > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > and not > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > motor redo > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > a rebuild > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > bull crap Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > too loose.......... > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > maybe a .001 > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > bearing quite a > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > heads been > > ported for some real horsepower. > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > from a line bore > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > good............. And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really good too. I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain wrong. A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! Mike > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > any good. > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > foolish. > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > without a line > > > > bore > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > squished and > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > wrong > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > the > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > side of > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > the > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > last weekend > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > new main > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > undersize > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > clearances- > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > to be > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > deck > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > mains. (i may > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > assembly > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > turn. i > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > bolts to > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > wouldn't > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > side, but > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > correct? any > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > Chuck > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
TranSurgeon wrote:
> > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > and not > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > motor redo > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > a rebuild > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > bull crap Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > too loose.......... > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > maybe a .001 > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > bearing quite a > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > heads been > > ported for some real horsepower. > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > from a line bore > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > good............. And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really good too. I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain wrong. A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! Mike > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > any good. > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > foolish. > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > without a line > > > > bore > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > squished and > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > wrong > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > the > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > side of > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > the > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > last weekend > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > new main > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > undersize > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > clearances- > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > to be > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > deck > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > mains. (i may > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > assembly > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > turn. i > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > bolts to > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > wouldn't > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > side, but > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > correct? any > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > Chuck > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
TranSurgeon wrote:
> > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > and not > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > motor redo > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > a rebuild > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > bull crap Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > too loose.......... > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > maybe a .001 > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > bearing quite a > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > heads been > > ported for some real horsepower. > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > from a line bore > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > good............. And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really good too. I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain wrong. A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! Mike > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > any good. > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > foolish. > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > without a line > > > > bore > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > squished and > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > wrong > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > the > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > side of > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > the > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > last weekend > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > new main > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > undersize > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > clearances- > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > to be > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > deck > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > mains. (i may > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > assembly > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > turn. i > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > bolts to > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > wouldn't > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > side, but > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > correct? any > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > Chuck > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0
33003440 Mike Romain wrote: > TranSurgeon wrote: > > > > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > > and not > > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > > motor redo > > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > > a rebuild > > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > > > bull crap > > Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > > > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > > too loose.......... > > > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > > maybe a .001 > > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > > bearing quite a > > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > > heads been > > > ported for some real horsepower. > > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > > from a line bore > > > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > > good............. > > And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really > good too. > > I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know > something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling > people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain > wrong. > > A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! > > Mike > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > > any good. > > > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > > foolish. > > > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > > without a line > > > > > bore > > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > > squished and > > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > > wrong > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > > the > > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > > side of > > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > > the > > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > > last weekend > > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > > new main > > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > > undersize > > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > > clearances- > > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > > to be > > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > > deck > > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > > mains. (i may > > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > > assembly > > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > > turn. i > > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > > bolts to > > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > > wouldn't > > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > > side, but > > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > > correct? any > > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > > Chuck > > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0
33003440 Mike Romain wrote: > TranSurgeon wrote: > > > > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > > and not > > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > > motor redo > > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > > a rebuild > > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > > > bull crap > > Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > > > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > > too loose.......... > > > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > > maybe a .001 > > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > > bearing quite a > > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > > heads been > > > ported for some real horsepower. > > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > > from a line bore > > > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > > good............. > > And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really > good too. > > I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know > something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling > people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain > wrong. > > A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! > > Mike > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > > any good. > > > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > > foolish. > > > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > > without a line > > > > > bore > > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > > squished and > > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > > wrong > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > > the > > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > > side of > > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > > the > > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > > last weekend > > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > > new main > > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > > undersize > > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > > clearances- > > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > > to be > > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > > deck > > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > > mains. (i may > > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > > assembly > > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > > turn. i > > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > > bolts to > > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > > wouldn't > > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > > side, but > > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > > correct? any > > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > > Chuck > > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0
33003440 Mike Romain wrote: > TranSurgeon wrote: > > > > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > > and not > > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > > motor redo > > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > > a rebuild > > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > > > bull crap > > Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > > > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > > too loose.......... > > > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > > maybe a .001 > > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > > bearing quite a > > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > > heads been > > > ported for some real horsepower. > > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > > from a line bore > > > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > > good............. > > And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really > good too. > > I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know > something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling > people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain > wrong. > > A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! > > Mike > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > > any good. > > > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > > foolish. > > > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > > without a line > > > > > bore > > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > > squished and > > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > > wrong > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > > the > > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > > side of > > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > > the > > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > > last weekend > > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > > new main > > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > > undersize > > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > > clearances- > > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > > to be > > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > > deck > > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > > mains. (i may > > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > > assembly > > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > > turn. i > > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > > bolts to > > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > > wouldn't > > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > > side, but > > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > > correct? any > > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > > Chuck > > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0
33003440 Mike Romain wrote: > TranSurgeon wrote: > > > > "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message > > news:406F552A.9574AF4F@cac.net... > > > any good engine builder knows that plastic gauge is just a quick reference > > and not > > > better than measuring with the correct tools.if you want a good solid > > motor redo > > > how many times have you heard of someone complaining of a rod knock after > > a rebuild > > > you can bet it's from retorqing a rod bearing twice > > > > bull crap > > Ditto! It's from 'not' using plastigauge to double check things. > > > > > youo can torque 'em as many times as you want, and it still won't make it > > too loose.......... > > > > > and line boring a block doesn't necessarily mean machining the block but > > maybe a .001 > > > or so to make sure that new crank runs true as posssible because it's > > bearing quite a > > > load esp. if the engine has been bored and the cam is stiffer and the > > heads been > > > ported for some real horsepower. > > > any new timing chain tensoner can take care of any slack > > > from a line bore > > > > yeah, those chain tensioners on small-block Chevies sure work > > good............. > > And the one that the Jeep engine in question 'doesn't' have works really > good too. > > I wish this fool would go away with all his BS. He 'might' know > something, but it certainly isn't Jeep engines and he keeps telling > people to do things that will cost them big bucks or are just plain > wrong. > > A timing chain tensioner on a Jeep 4.0. LOL! > > Mike > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > Then it is time to change suppliers if only one out of three cranks are > > > > any good. > > > > > > > > Grinding a block to try and make up for a shitty crank job is just plain > > > > foolish. > > > > > > > > Man no wonder the places you work for go under. > > > > > > > > Throw away the bearings after plastigauging them. LOL! Fool, the next > > > > set need to be checked too. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if all the assemble procedures were good > > > > > the rule of thumb is replace a crank, line bore the block > > > > > i have seen guys go through 3 cranks to get one that spins good > > without a line > > > > > bore > > > > > check the bearing clearance using plastigage with new bearing's > > > > > throw away the ones used and use new since the bearing have been > > squished and > > > > > retorqing distorts them even more > > > > > > > > > > Mike Romain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like you have one of the caps in upside down or on the > > wrong > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > > > > > > The caps and connecting rods are all numbered. I would double check > > the > > > > > > numbers to make sure they are right and are both/all on the same > > side of > > > > > > the crank. When they numbered them, they stamped the numbers on the > > > > > > halfs on the same side close to each other so you can tell if one is > > > > > > flipped. > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I should see a couple ft lb of torque extra on > > the > > > > > > crank bolt for each bearing tightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > The finished engine will turn freely though and you don't need a 2' > > > > > > power bar to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Bremer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm in the process of rebuilding an engine (Jeep 4.0L I-6), and > > last weekend > > > > > > > went through the process of installing a reconditioned crank with > > new main > > > > > > > bearings (crank journals were turned down .010", and .010" > > undersize > > > > > > > bearings were used). I followed the FSM recommended bearing > > clearances- > > > > > > > .001"-.0025". all bearings Plastigaged out to anywhere between > > > > > > > .001"-.0015". The block was checked by a machine shop and found > > to be > > > > > > > within spec as far as the mains are concerned. the cylinders and > > deck > > > > > > > needed machining, but i wouldn't imagine that would impact the > > mains. (i may > > > > > > > be wrong!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after cleaning the mains and bearings, applying copious amounts of > > assembly > > > > > > > lube and tightening the main caps, the crank was impossible to > > turn. i > > > > > > > tried so much as using a 2' breaker bar on the flexplate mounting > > bolts to > > > > > > > try to move it and it would hardly budge. is this normal? I > > wouldn't > > > > > > > imagine it is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what am i doing wrong? the clearances are a little on the tight > > side, but > > > > > > > if i use stock size bearings, clearance will be waaay big, > > correct? any > > > > > > > suggestons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance- > > > > > > > Chuck > > > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
We've figured out that's for the four cylinder:
http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- mic canic wrote: > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
We've figured out that's for the four cylinder:
http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- mic canic wrote: > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
We've figured out that's for the four cylinder:
http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- mic canic wrote: > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
We've figured out that's for the four cylinder:
http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- mic canic wrote: > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Yup, here's a picture of the front of a 4.0 showing the timing gears:
<http://www.autoparts4jeep.com/car_en...es---AMC-242LB -1.html> That tensioner stands right out, doesn't it? And this guy works for a Jeep stealership??? Chris "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:40720A83.4AD4D83E@cox.net... > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Yup, here's a picture of the front of a 4.0 showing the timing gears:
<http://www.autoparts4jeep.com/car_en...es---AMC-242LB -1.html> That tensioner stands right out, doesn't it? And this guy works for a Jeep stealership??? Chris "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:40720A83.4AD4D83E@cox.net... > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Yup, here's a picture of the front of a 4.0 showing the timing gears:
<http://www.autoparts4jeep.com/car_en...es---AMC-242LB -1.html> That tensioner stands right out, doesn't it? And this guy works for a Jeep stealership??? Chris "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:40720A83.4AD4D83E@cox.net... > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Yup, here's a picture of the front of a 4.0 showing the timing gears:
<http://www.autoparts4jeep.com/car_en...es---AMC-242LB -1.html> That tensioner stands right out, doesn't it? And this guy works for a Jeep stealership??? Chris "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:40720A83.4AD4D83E@cox.net... > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows
"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- > > mic canic wrote: > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Are you claiming the 4.0 does use a tensioner ?
Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:407346FE.7812DCBB@cac.net... > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Are you claiming the 4.0 does use a tensioner ?
Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:407346FE.7812DCBB@cac.net... > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Are you claiming the 4.0 does use a tensioner ?
Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:407346FE.7812DCBB@cac.net... > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Are you claiming the 4.0 does use a tensioner ?
Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ "mic canic" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message news:407346FE.7812DCBB@cac.net... > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 > |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Ok, let me put you out of your obvious misery.....
There is a bumper for the chain in the 4.0 and in the 4.2, but it is just the rattle noise when things finally stretch. Even new, the 4.2 has over 10 deg of back slop, no tensioner, haven't checked the 4.0, but bet it's close, same block. I even phoned my local Jeep dealer to make sure I wasn't mistaken. I was also making a fool out of you, my apologies. You do have some decent knowledge on some things but on others you are 'way' off base. When you send a block in for refinishing and get a main crank and cam turn/grind, they turn the block 10 thousands over to make it perfectly straight. At the same time you are likely getting the crank turned 10 under to make it like new. The machine shop then gives you a bearing 'with plastigauge' that is ten over 'and' ten under. This keeps the crankshaft 'exactly' centered where it was new. You come home and plastigauge it to verify their work, then you assemble it. 'With the 'same' bearings Eh!' On the Jeep 4.0 and 4.2 block, the oil boss has codes stamped. You can have a block already turned 10 over from the factory. Still no chain tensioner.... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's mic canic wrote: > > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Ok, let me put you out of your obvious misery.....
There is a bumper for the chain in the 4.0 and in the 4.2, but it is just the rattle noise when things finally stretch. Even new, the 4.2 has over 10 deg of back slop, no tensioner, haven't checked the 4.0, but bet it's close, same block. I even phoned my local Jeep dealer to make sure I wasn't mistaken. I was also making a fool out of you, my apologies. You do have some decent knowledge on some things but on others you are 'way' off base. When you send a block in for refinishing and get a main crank and cam turn/grind, they turn the block 10 thousands over to make it perfectly straight. At the same time you are likely getting the crank turned 10 under to make it like new. The machine shop then gives you a bearing 'with plastigauge' that is ten over 'and' ten under. This keeps the crankshaft 'exactly' centered where it was new. You come home and plastigauge it to verify their work, then you assemble it. 'With the 'same' bearings Eh!' On the Jeep 4.0 and 4.2 block, the oil boss has codes stamped. You can have a block already turned 10 over from the factory. Still no chain tensioner.... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's mic canic wrote: > > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Ok, let me put you out of your obvious misery.....
There is a bumper for the chain in the 4.0 and in the 4.2, but it is just the rattle noise when things finally stretch. Even new, the 4.2 has over 10 deg of back slop, no tensioner, haven't checked the 4.0, but bet it's close, same block. I even phoned my local Jeep dealer to make sure I wasn't mistaken. I was also making a fool out of you, my apologies. You do have some decent knowledge on some things but on others you are 'way' off base. When you send a block in for refinishing and get a main crank and cam turn/grind, they turn the block 10 thousands over to make it perfectly straight. At the same time you are likely getting the crank turned 10 under to make it like new. The machine shop then gives you a bearing 'with plastigauge' that is ten over 'and' ten under. This keeps the crankshaft 'exactly' centered where it was new. You come home and plastigauge it to verify their work, then you assemble it. 'With the 'same' bearings Eh!' On the Jeep 4.0 and 4.2 block, the oil boss has codes stamped. You can have a block already turned 10 over from the factory. Still no chain tensioner.... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's mic canic wrote: > > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 |
Re: how "tight" should the crankshaft be with new bearings?
Ok, let me put you out of your obvious misery.....
There is a bumper for the chain in the 4.0 and in the 4.2, but it is just the rattle noise when things finally stretch. Even new, the 4.2 has over 10 deg of back slop, no tensioner, haven't checked the 4.0, but bet it's close, same block. I even phoned my local Jeep dealer to make sure I wasn't mistaken. I was also making a fool out of you, my apologies. You do have some decent knowledge on some things but on others you are 'way' off base. When you send a block in for refinishing and get a main crank and cam turn/grind, they turn the block 10 thousands over to make it perfectly straight. At the same time you are likely getting the crank turned 10 under to make it like new. The machine shop then gives you a bearing 'with plastigauge' that is ten over 'and' ten under. This keeps the crankshaft 'exactly' centered where it was new. You come home and plastigauge it to verify their work, then you assemble it. 'With the 'same' bearings Eh!' On the Jeep 4.0 and 4.2 block, the oil boss has codes stamped. You can have a block already turned 10 over from the factory. Still no chain tensioner.... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's mic canic wrote: > > you right it's work in both ero-2.5 all. ero 4.0 all. as the part listing shows > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote: > > > We've figured out that's for the four cylinder: > > http://www.----------.com/TChain.jpg > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- > > > > mic canic wrote: > > > > > > mr roman heres the parts number the tensoner you say doesn't EXIST!!! for the 4.0 > > > 33003440 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands