Oh poo!

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:46:21 -0700, Max Welton ran around screaming and yelling:

sorry Max.....i am "overly" careful and obsessive about turning the crank when I assemble the shortblock...i have (knock on wood since i will be doing one in the next couple weeks) never had one "shift" and damage a bearing.... J

Oh well. At least I didn't button the whole thing up and start it!

Max

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:05:28 -0700, Max Welton ran around screaming and yelling:

LOL...yeah that would have been bad.... J

At the ripe old age of 18 or 19, I did the same with the second crank bearing, the one that's most difficult to replace. It froze on the crank and wouldn't turn even when the crank was out. I took a powerdrill and drilled a hole through the crushed area, and it was enough to break the tension, and the bearing would turn freely again. I asembled the engine like that and it worked! LOL

I certainly wouldn't recommend this to anyone, but I just had to share.

I don't remember what happened to that engine later on. I do remember that I lost a few engines before I started to understand how it SHOULD be done. I didnt' even own a torque wrench.

Tip o' the day: When the bearings are still in your hand, and the case is open, and empty: Place each bearing into it's saddle, push it in all the way, making sure the little dowel is in the hole. Then scribe a line on the outside body of the bearing where it disappears into teh bearing saddle. When fitting the crank later, you just line up the markings again with teh saddle edge and you will *know* the dowel meets the hole.

Still, when tightening the case down, keep turning the crank a little every now and then, as you gradually tighten the case nuts. If it binds, it binds with fairly little torque.

Jan

I originally got a click-type (pull till it clicks) craftsman. Then I became concerned about things I've heard about the click-type being inaccurate, so I got a beam-type (also Craftsman).

http://63.230.74.177/ghia/MVC-379F.JPG To calibrate the beam-type wrench, I hung various weights from the handle and gathered readings. 1 lb at 13.5" is 1.125 ft/lbs (weight * moment arm length).

http://63.230.74.177/ghia/MVC-385F.JPGhttp://63.230.74.177/ghia/MVC-386F.JPG The beam turned out to be very accurate, perhaps within the weight of the handle itself. No moving parts, either. It's just a spring, really.

Next test was to compare the clicker against the bar-type. Set the clicker to 30 ft/lbs and tighten one of the main case-nuts. Now, back the same nut off using the bar wrench. It was only 22 ft/lbs! Serveral various on this test confirmed.

Now isn't that special?

http://63.230.74.177/ghia/MVC-363F.JPGhttp://63.230.74.177/ghia/MVC-364F.JPG Yeah, I did this. Just not for #1. $40 mistake.

Max

Absolute torque value is not as important as EVEN torque on ALL nuts and bolts involved. It's the difference that ruins the whole thing if there is any.

Jan

... before someone else says it, the above expression is only an approximation.

To be correct, the angle between the force vector provided by the weight and wrench must be accounted for. At zero weight, this is close to 90º and the torque is multiplied by sin(90º) which is 1.0. And the mass of the handle and ITS force-vector should be determined as well.

Is it possible to be both anal _and_ sloppy?

Max