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