390-445 build up.
Cargo Master
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 8
From: York, Pa
I dug my paper out of the trash that came with the rings today and I see what your saying. I'm kinda afraid of mine the way it is now and might end up buying another set of rings and just grind a new 2nd ring for each. It sucks because normally I woulda just followed the directions but instead I called and asked for advice. I have a feeling I got a recipe for a race motor. I really don't want this thing sucking oil.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Four hands, three hours, every word in the book and a couple homemade bandaids later...those snappy screwdrivers sure like to go through fingertips when your patience loses to common sense.
Cargo Master
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 8
From: York, Pa
Yea that sounds about right. I cut myself bad twice trying to do it myself.
On another note I talked to Barry today to verify my ring gaps. He insists that I did do it correctly. He said that normally all mfg do like the 2nd gap tighter. His theory is that there is slight pressure between the top and 2nd ring. With the increased gap it helps get rid of that. He told me even if I ground the 2nd ring to .040 it still wouldn't suck oil. So I guess I'll leave it right where it is.
On another note I talked to Barry today to verify my ring gaps. He insists that I did do it correctly. He said that normally all mfg do like the 2nd gap tighter. His theory is that there is slight pressure between the top and 2nd ring. With the increased gap it helps get rid of that. He told me even if I ground the 2nd ring to .040 it still wouldn't suck oil. So I guess I'll leave it right where it is.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Yea that sounds about right. I cut myself bad twice trying to do it myself.
On another note I talked to Barry today to verify my ring gaps. He insists that I did do it correctly. He said that normally all mfg do like the 2nd gap tighter. His theory is that there is slight pressure between the top and 2nd ring. With the increased gap it helps get rid of that. He told me even if I ground the 2nd ring to .040 it still wouldn't suck oil. So I guess I'll leave it right where it is.
On another note I talked to Barry today to verify my ring gaps. He insists that I did do it correctly. He said that normally all mfg do like the 2nd gap tighter. His theory is that there is slight pressure between the top and 2nd ring. With the increased gap it helps get rid of that. He told me even if I ground the 2nd ring to .040 it still wouldn't suck oil. So I guess I'll leave it right where it is.
Like he said, a couple thousanths isn't going to suck oil at all. Can't say I follow his logic though, what the hell..he knows more than I do; trust the guy.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
From: Florida
What the theory behind that is that what pressure bleeds past the top ring can cause the top and/or second ring to flutter because it cant get past the second ring fast enough with a smaller gap than the top ring gap. Some piston manufacturers are putting multi grooves on the piston between the top and second ring lands on that same idea of relieving pressure between the rings
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
What the theory behind that is that what pressure bleeds past the top ring can cause the top and/or second ring to flutter because it cant get past the second ring fast enough with a smaller gap than the top ring gap. Some piston manufacturers are putting multi grooves on the piston between the top and second ring lands on that same idea of relieving pressure between the rings
Interesting logic!
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Short block assembled!
Have an issue though..
Crank is in and turns nice torqued down. Pistons in and had the friction that I would expect from new rings, however when I torque the rod caps down, it effectively siezes the assembly. The journals look as they should when I pulled caps back off to inspect. The caps had to be massaged on though with a rubber mallet, after both rods were in place but nothing that raised a flag for me.
I did use a liberal amount of assembly lube though, and I'm wondering if too much could cause this situation.
Again it turns fine with the caps finger tight, and it doesn't feel grindy at all, just progressively gets tighter as I squeeze down the caps.
Could I be on to something here? Is too much, or too heavy a lube a possible cause?
Have an issue though..
Crank is in and turns nice torqued down. Pistons in and had the friction that I would expect from new rings, however when I torque the rod caps down, it effectively siezes the assembly. The journals look as they should when I pulled caps back off to inspect. The caps had to be massaged on though with a rubber mallet, after both rods were in place but nothing that raised a flag for me.
I did use a liberal amount of assembly lube though, and I'm wondering if too much could cause this situation.
Again it turns fine with the caps finger tight, and it doesn't feel grindy at all, just progressively gets tighter as I squeeze down the caps.
Could I be on to something here? Is too much, or too heavy a lube a possible cause?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
I will be doing that also, just ran out of time and didn't have the proper measuring tools on hand at the time. Fingers crossed on the lube.
Cargo Master
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 8
From: York, Pa
I don't believe lube is your problem it's just not normal. What were your bearing clearances on the rods? Plastigauge will get you close but really should have been checked with a dial bore gauge. Are you positive you don't have a rod or rods on upside down with the wrong side facing the crank chamfer?
If all is correct it could be something as simple as a piece of lint between the bearing and the rod. The smallest piece of junk could make all the difference.
If all is correct it could be something as simple as a piece of lint between the bearing and the rod. The smallest piece of junk could make all the difference.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
I don't believe lube is your problem it's just not normal. What were your bearing clearances on the rods? Plastigauge will get you close but really should have been checked with a dial bore gauge. Are you positive you don't have a rod or rods on upside down with the wrong side facing the crank chamfer?
If all is correct it could be something as simple as a piece of lint between the bearing and the rod. The smallest piece of junk could make all the difference.
If all is correct it could be something as simple as a piece of lint between the bearing and the rod. The smallest piece of junk could make all the difference.
All rods should have bearing keys facing outward correct? If I have a backwards rod I'm going to throw a fit getting those clips out.
Cargo Master
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 8
From: York, Pa
The bolts are snug becaue they are torqued to spec in the rod. That doesn't mean it's ok just to put it together. For instance my rods has too much clearance I had to get other bearings for 6 of them.
I'm not sure what you mean by keys. The big chamfer on the big end of the rod must go outward on each journal. Otherwise you have a square side of the rod running on the radius cut into the crank. Also look at your rods they have numbers etched into them at the big end on the rod and cap. They will face up towards the cam when installed right.
Post some pictures of your are confused. I did my very first rod backwards but caught it as I was sliding the rod down to the crank.
I'm not sure what you mean by keys. The big chamfer on the big end of the rod must go outward on each journal. Otherwise you have a square side of the rod running on the radius cut into the crank. Also look at your rods they have numbers etched into them at the big end on the rod and cap. They will face up towards the cam when installed right.
Post some pictures of your are confused. I did my very first rod backwards but caught it as I was sliding the rod down to the crank.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
The bolts are snug becaue they are torqued to spec in the rod. That doesn't mean it's ok just to put it together. For instance my rods has too much clearance I had to get other bearings for 6 of them.
I'm not sure what you mean by keys. The big chamfer on the big end of the rod must go outward on each journal. Otherwise you have a square side of the rod running on the radius cut into the crank. Also look at your rods they have numbers etched into them at the big end on the rod and cap. They will face up towards the cam when installed right.
Post some pictures of your are confused. I did my very first rod backwards but caught it as I was sliding the rod down to the crank.
I'm not sure what you mean by keys. The big chamfer on the big end of the rod must go outward on each journal. Otherwise you have a square side of the rod running on the radius cut into the crank. Also look at your rods they have numbers etched into them at the big end on the rod and cap. They will face up towards the cam when installed right.
Post some pictures of your are confused. I did my very first rod backwards but caught it as I was sliding the rod down to the crank.
By key I mean the slot in which the notch that the bearing sits in
Cargo Master
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 8
From: York, Pa
Those are just the locating tangs for the bearings. They won't help you with rod orientation. I know what your going to be doing!
So if you don't have your rods in right that means your bearings probably aren't in the rods right either. Pay close attention to those to there is a top and bottom. They too have a chamfer that corresponds with the chamfer on the rod.
Look on the bright side youre going to be a pro at doing circlips.
When the bearings are right the square side of the rod should have the bearings lining up pretty much perfect. On my other set of bearings the chamfer was very hard to see and when I did not have them in right the bearing on the one side looked longer than the other side. They just didn't mate together right so it was obvious something wasn't right.
So if you don't have your rods in right that means your bearings probably aren't in the rods right either. Pay close attention to those to there is a top and bottom. They too have a chamfer that corresponds with the chamfer on the rod.
Look on the bright side youre going to be a pro at doing circlips.
When the bearings are right the square side of the rod should have the bearings lining up pretty much perfect. On my other set of bearings the chamfer was very hard to see and when I did not have them in right the bearing on the one side looked longer than the other side. They just didn't mate together right so it was obvious something wasn't right.