Messages

    As you obviously realize, without the shield, well, it's just not going to be "correct"; but of coarse once installed who would know?   
    The actual purpose of this shield is to reduce the sum of splashed oil that might come in contact with the exhaust heat cross-over passage section of the casting located on the bottom; this intended to reduce the sum of that oil which might be "damaged" by the excessive heat exposure and even worse will tend to "coke", even becoming a solid contaminant suspended in the oil.   

    So, if ones' vehicle is just driven off trailer to the display parking spot, or just never allowed to get hot (for fear of burning the engine or manifold paint  ), or even just never run hard producing elevated exhaust temperatures, or best, the intake manifolds' cross-over passage is blocked (reduces the burnt paint on the top of the intake issue, or is done to reduce the tendency for fueling vapor-lock  ) it probably really isn't a necessary component (that is as long as you don't tell anyone its' missing!  ).

    Scott.

      Just for thought:

      Actually as defined the current flow is the directional movement of the free electrons thru a  conductor, but realize that since electrons are negatively charged they actually flow in the direction towards the positive terminal of the battery!   

      Ever wonder why many older vehicles were "Positive-Ground"?   

      Scott.

Why purchase from Ford who no longer manufactures these solid lifters, but buys them from an outside ( Johnson ) source.

    Did Ford Motor Company actually manufacture the original lifters for these engines?  Somehow I just don't think so.     

    Scott.

    But if in either case if the "hole" in the lifter shell presents a greater flow capacity than the intended leakage rate down-stream then perhaps there's a different intention? 

    Perhaps this dimension was just carried over from the hydraulic lifter, here adopted so as by presenting a smaller exposure to the engine oil gallery the valving in the lifter isn't so influenced by pressure fluctuations and with reduced flow rate capacity into the lifter's hydraulic reservoir better control is had and reduced tendency for "lifter pump-up"? 

    Heck, I don't know, but I thought it sounded good anyway? 

    Scott.   

    You'll need to measure the holes to be sure of their sizing as they could have been modified from as originally, but generally these will measure something around .440" which means a .500" press-in cup-plug would be to big; probably closer to a 29/64" as this would equate to .453" allowing for some interference pressing for retention.

    Better yet though would be to drill and tap these orifices for 1/4"npt threaded pipe plug application.

    B.T.W. the two each stakings at each hole indicate that these have been replaced previously and damage often as the result of this are an additional good reason to convert to a screw-in type plug. 

    Scott.


 

    Perhaps the lesson here is that there is a lack of absolutes, so be wary of making such? 

    Scott.

    The use of a bevel shaft drive system for overhead camshaft applications wasn't really new; for example take a look at this 1930's MG currently at auction:

        https://bringatrailer.com/listing/mg-n-type-magnette/

    In this example, though I acknowledge that with the shared use responsibilities that this involves less material usage and a resultant lighter weight, and of course a more compact packaging result, but I'm not so sure that the dynamo placement is really conveniently positioned for servicing?    

    B.T.W. John,

    The "bevel" shaft (as popularly termed, but more accurately more of a "worm-drive" here) gear train of the GAA has proven to be quite robust in quite abusive service applications. 

        https://www.flickr.com/photos/27666849@N04/6060962410

    Scott.

    For further study see:

    https://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/Ford-GAA-V8-Data-Sheet-beta13.pdf

    These engines (the GAA, GAF & GAN), though none of the engineering probably was truly new, nor had never been produced before, but was advanced over the engine examples it was originally intended to compete with (1650 R.R.) as a V12 aircraft engine. and for a true "production-type" engine (something just short of 30,000 units + spares were produced) not as a one-off racing engine example, were certainly of advanced engineering for the day, which wasn't picked up into American production vehicles until the later decade of the last century. 

    I always debate with myself, when someone states that the "Modular" engine program was Fords' first endeavor into the aluminum over-head cam field, whether I should thrust these examples into the conversation as a correction, but................    

    Scott.

     Back in the day, for race effort 289/302's, it was popular to convert the core plugs for screw-in type, and we did many of them; and this included the addition of the BOSS 302 windage tray also.   

     Scott.

Any thoughts before I give the Machinist his instructions tomorrow morning?

     In the past when I've been involved with providing service that involved the removal of these I would always take a measurement of where the seal was riding and then this would provide a guide as to were to target the seal ring in order to provide that the seal would be located on the flat of the ring.  If though your off in left field fishing for where they should go, then I would go to the axle housing and assuming that the axles are not installed but that the seals are pressed into place and acquire a measurement from the bearing stop machined on the inside of the axle housing end inward to the seals' sealing lip, what is this distance?  Now take this dimension and measure from the face of the axle bearing's outer race, that which contacts the stop in the housing tube end, to the point on the axle shaft as measured and make a mark (Magic-Marker  ), this is where the seal lip will ride, the sleeve needs to pressed on to a position so as to present the flat surface in the diameter for the seal to ride upon, actual distance for or aft is not critical.   

      Do be sure that if your R & R 'd the seals that you acquired the as originally proper for 31-spline axle application.   

      Scott.

        Although there often is more than one way doing things and acquire the same outcome, I always press the seal sleeve on separately.   

        First, the thin sleeve with it's radiused edge really isn't strong enough or intended as a pressing fixture for the installation of the bearing and retainer (which definitely should be pressed on together); and then the seal sleeve will in it's installation effort will stop either when it abuts the bearing retainer and the bearing is stopped in motion by the step machined into the axle for this intention, or, often when the radiused over edge contacts the necking up of the axle shaft from the narrower unmachined as forged surface to the larger in diameter machined surface intended as the relief for the next step up to the bearing locating surface and this length is not a well controlled dimension, and you don't want this to be dictating the bearings' position vs. the intended bearing shoulder stop as machined in the axle.   

        Look closely at the photo provided in the previous posting and one will witness that the sleeve appears to not be in contact with the bearing retainer ring.   

        Scott.   

So they won't, in theory affect the current balance of the rotating assembly.

     Correct.   

     Scott.

      Although the standard 390/428, that which is perhaps appropriate for the '68 mustang chassis application and should fit, but is of a greater mass, it still, like the one pictured which is of an earlier application intention, is of a "neutral" balance configuration an therefore swapping one for the other will not change the "balance" of the revolving assembly.   The greater mass, particularly that which is located on the inertia ring, is part of the "tuning" of the damper's torsional harmonic dampening effect by the manufacturer, but does not really have any function in the endeavor of "balance" in this case.     

       And yes, I would probably attempt to utilize the "correct" later style (bigger) damper as this will present increased options for success in acquiring pulleys of the compatible sheave count, diameters and offsets.  Though we also are not sure that the current water pump pulley, fan spacer, or cooling fan are "correct" or present acceptable placements with compatibility for..............

       As far as for the "cookie-cutter" type seal sleeve/spacer as currently mounted on the crank snout behind the damper assy., I would leave it in place as one will just have to "assume" that it was accounted for in any previous balancing intention.    

       Scott.

     

That is most likely a remanufactured distributor sold thru service department in a reman box ........ probably Fred Jones or another reman business.  The stamps on that distributor were done on a machine look at how straight lined up and spacing is perfect.

       +1   

       Scott.

     Excellent tutorial, particularly with the inclusion of photographs!   

     Scott.