Messages

     No, but I did manage to separate a cylinder head from the jug!   

     But one must understand that these airboat installations are a terrible environment for these aircraft engines. 

     Scott.

    I'm gonna have to get the O-540 cranked-up!   

    Scott.

                                    "If you have the funds available call us today at (605) 519-8866!"


    Well,................................

    Scott.

Sharpening stones are much finer than sandpaper and will not remove much material.

     Yes some are, but they are also available (and I frequently use  ) in many different grit sizes and materials to adjust cutting rates and effectiveness on different materials to be dressed.   

     Scott.

     I would use a flat 'honing' or 'sharpening stone' for at least the initial surface reduction, stepping to finer grits, utilizing sandpaper, on a hard backing, only as the final process, if required, to acquire the finish desired.  The reasoning for this is that the stone will permit a faster and more even sum of stock removal this resulting in a more level surface and sharper, squarer edge definitions.   

     As this generally presenting more like a machine manufacturing execution rather than a hand one.   

     Scott.

Back in the mid to late 80's, ............more likely Fel-Pro was recommending to increase the head bolt torque by 10 ft/lbs to prevent head gasket failure.

Now that you mention it, I think the recommendation was for an additional 10 ft/lbs for the upper row. Whatever the root cause was/is, I'm with you that the additional 10 ft/lbs solves the problem.

      Though there is a wedging effect in the torquing of the intake manifold on the S.B.F. that does attempt to pry the heads off the block (therefore one should be only tightening the intake retention fasteners as required to hold the intake on, not attempting to hold the engine together!  ), the main reasoning for the recommended greater staggered torquing values is due to the greater elasticity presented in the longer fastener on the intake side, this otherwise giving a lesser clamp-load if torquing equally to the shorter.   

      Generally, and particularly as stated by ARP Fastener, the torque value listed is in a range of approximately 80% of the yield value, so it is permissible to increase this torquing sum, 'some', for greater clamping loads.  Just be aware you'll be testing the fastener manufactures consistency of production quality, and of the capability of the structures involved and that they will tolerate such force.   

      Scott.

     The Ford guys have been a little slow on the subject of "Restored" engine executions in the overall restoration of a vehicle; one should reference the Corvette crowd, as they're down to studying the striations in the surfaces left from the O.E.'s original machining of the block's deck surface where the numbers are stamped, this as the 'fakers' (I mean "Restorers"  ) have acquired the ability to create ideal representations of the original O.E.'s stampings but still working on duplicating the factory machining marks! 

     And shazam!............it's "ALL MATCHING"!   

     Scott.

   For those of you that contacted me..........
     Randy

      Who in the heck, wants to talk to this guy!   

      Take it easy Randy.   

      Scott.

     Reality is that there is a small amount of fore and aft movement which is limited by the clearance between the gear, cam , and plate relationship.

    But, generally this intermittent and mostly self cancelled thrust value as accurately described from the lifters being ramped up the angled camshaft lobes is greatly masked by the more constant rearward (in relation to the engines relevant in this forum) thrust created by the oil pump and its' drive geared to the camshaft.  This is generally witnessed of used components taken out of service with the greater evidence of wear to the thrust-plates' forward face and the timing gear sprocket's rear thrust face. 

    As an additional example, (though to early for relevance to this forum, but still of Ford Motor Co. manufacture anyway), would be the early ('58 - '62) FE's which did not utilize a cam-thrust-plate, rather the camshafts' nose consisted of a flange with a rear facing thrust surface which acted against the blocks' forward face and aided with a spring loaded "button" against the timing cover.  This engineering demonstrates that the major thrust in this application is rearward and only a minor concern exists in the forward direction; the overriding value being supplied by the load incurred in driving the oil pump.   

    Scott.

Henry Ford actually built what became the first Cadillac, this was after a failed business partnership with who ?

     I think the name your looking for is Henry Leland, who with others, turned the failed Ford Motor Company into Cadillac; then sold out to General Motors; then created Lincoln Motor Company; which then in a twist of fate, in a time of suffering his own failure, was in short taken over by Henry Ford.   

     Oh, and just to confuse things further: The Dodge Bros. as suppliers to Ford, and with his inability to pay the bills would become "investors" in the first (?) Ford Motor Co., along as the same with Leland as he assumed those responsibilities, and were also later mechanical suppliers to the new Ford Motor Co. though perhaps somewhat hesitant at allowing Henry Ford to get out there to far in the monetary relationship again.   

     Scott.

       Ya'  know, they say as time passes ones' memory mostly retains the "good times" and "high lights", but there are also the instances of the heights of distress and trauma; and I'm still trying to forget the time I was considering (for a very short period!  ) the purchase of a brand new '77 MACH I to replace my '72 MACH I, fortunately I woke-up and realized it was only a passing nightmare, even if I was actually physically sitting in the drivers' seat of that yellow '77 in contemplation, I could still run!   

       O.K., on the topic blue car, it does look better, to bad it wasn't production then, but I also seem to get Vega influence vibes in there, which although 'period', really doesn't help either.   

       Remember, you asked!   

       Scott.

   NOT Ford ,...........

    +1

    Scott.

     I'm going to keep it short: 
                                 
                                                THANKS JOE!   

     Scott.

It's a big deal to do this with virtually nothing to gain.

I and many others would have to disagree.   

A failed input shaft bearing would likely be the most significant indication that there was an alignment problem.

Generally the damage incurred is witnessed at the juncture of the input and mainshafts involving the intermediate bearing and to related improperly loaded surfaces.   

Without a dedicated fixture to plug everything into, this is going to take you days if not weeks to determine accurately.

Please read the post from OldGuy!   

Sorry, I just had to say it!   

Scott.

   It was also used on other "non production" engines like the Tunnel Port 302 and Boss 302 T/A engines.

     Randy, did these engines with the crankshaft (C7FE ?) bearing the heaver counter-weights and the addition of the center weight also still require the hatchet?   

     Scott.