Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apparently when I got my crank back from the machine shop the plastic bag wasn't sealed that well and some moisture got in there.

Here is a pic.  I was starting to clean it with some steel wool but figured I would see if people thought it was shot or should maybe be turned .020 under.  It is currently turned .010 under.

 

IMG_20190120_165228.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the shop look at it and make a recommendation. Sometimes polishing can clean up surfaces mere mortals like us think is toast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that journal where the rear seal rides looks pretty toasted.

Depends to on the engine if you got a lot tied up in it and polishing or turning to .02 doesn't clean up I would replace. I sure would not put it back in in that condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rsanter said:

Have the machine shop clean it up and measure it.

technically if you go from 010 under to 020 under you will need to rebalance 

Interesting. Did not know that. Right now I am planning on bringing it into the shop and having them take a look. Right now the worst part is where the rear main seal would ride. I know there are repair sleeves that can be installed in that but I don't know if they are prone to leaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't install a repair sleeve.  I have seen many harmonic balancer repair sleeves leak.  And yes they were installed with loc-tite between the repair sleeve and the balancer hub.  I think it has something to do with the surface of the repair sleeve being extremely polished and slick.

I think you are better off having your other crank machined and balanced.  You or the machine shop should have a balance sheet so whoever does the balancing will know the bob weight to use.  Also provide the harmonic balancer and the flywheel or flex plate when balancing the new crank.  Machining a crank 0.020" undersize has typically been frowned upon.  Not certain why, but try avoiding that route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update.  I am waiting to see how bad my taxes turn out.  Depending on how that goes I am either going to bring my extra crank in to be turned and balanced with my existing rods and pistons.  Or if I don't have to pay in that much I might get a full Eagle rotating assembly and stroke the engine to 332.  If I am able to afford the new assembly I am going to go with the AFR185 heads instead of the AFR165 heads.  My goal is to do the rotating assembly so that I can run the larger heads.  This way if I ever move to a 351 engine I can use the heads on that engine.  I think the 165's would be too small for a 351.  At least in a performance app. 

And thanks for reminding me about the harmonic balancer and flex plate.  I need to get both new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 3:26 PM, sixt9stang said:

I might get a full Eagle rotating assembly and stroke the engine to 332. 
If I am able to afford the new assembly I am going to go with the AFR185 heads instead of the AFR165 heads. 

Why don't you just make it a 347?

Trick Flow heads are much cheaper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, barnett468 said:

Why don't you just make it a 347?

Trick Flow heads are much cheaper.

 

Definitely thought about it but figured with the 332 kit I wouldn't need to worry about notching the cylinders for the rod clearance.  Am I making too big of deal about that?  I have never had to do that before.  I will check out the trick flow heads.  I also decided that once I figure out the rotating assembly I will probably go with the one Howards cam you suggested a while back: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-221275-12/overview/make/ford

I guess I didn't think about it but if I go with the increased displacement would that cam still work well? 

Thanks for your expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sixt9stang said:

Definitely thought about it but figured with the 332 kit I wouldn't need to worry about notching the cylinders for the rod clearance. 

Am I making too big of deal about that?  I have never had to do that before.  I will check out the trick flow heads. 

Notching the cylinders is childs play or a shop would probably do it for maybe $125.00, and you will save way more than that if you buy the trick flow heads. There is a big difference in power between a 331/332 and a 347.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, barnett468 said:

Notching the cylinders is childs play or a shop would probably do it for maybe $125.00, and you will save way more than that if you buy the trick flow heads. There is a big difference in power between a 331/332 and a 347.

 

 

Good to know.  Thanks.  I will check with the machine shop when I talk to them about my plans once I figure out finances.  I always thought the idea of turning the 302 into a 347 would be making it too strung out or unreliable but I guess tons of people have done it at this point with good results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sixt9stang said:

Good to know.  Thanks.  I will check with the machine shop when I talk to them about my plans once I figure out finances.  I always thought the idea of turning the 302 into a 347 would be making it too strung out or unreliable but I guess tons of people have done it at this point with good results.

Yes, the reliability factor is very high now with the only issues typically coming from poor machine work or spinning the engine to 8,000 rpm, lol. I will add that I prefer MAHLE pistons for 347's because they pull out of the bottom of the bore less far than most others.

If you might use the heads later on a bigger engine, and want big power out of your 347, I would use one of the 11r 190 cc trick flow heads if you are on a budget.

Scorpion roller rockers.

Howards thick wall push rod tubes.

Morel lifters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sixt9stang said:

I also decided that once I figure out the rotating assembly I will probably go with the one Howards cam you suggested a while back: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-221275-12/overview/make/ford

I guess I didn't think about it but if I go with the increased displacement would that cam still work well? 

Thanks for your expertise.

That cam would work fine in a 347 with 170 or 190 heads, but perhaps we should start from scratch and re-evaluate what you want the engine to do in case your goals have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1969_Mach1 said:

Just throwing this out there, you are spending all this money to build a stroked 302, why not just start over and build a 351W?

That is another thought too.  Main reason for using the 302 is that I have a block ready to go plus I have other things like headers and intake.  Although I may switch to a different intake since it is just the Edelbrock Performer.  And I don't know if my headers will clear the 4r70w transmission that I am going to be installing at the same time.  I would basically be saving the money of have the 351 block machined.  My father in law has a 351 in a pickup that is just sitting that I may be able to grab but it is as 86 or something around that year so a non roller block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sixt9stang said:

That is another thought too.  Main reason for using the 302 is that I have a block ready to go plus I have other things like headers and intake.  Although I may switch to a different intake since it is just the Edelbrock Performer.  And I don't know if my headers will clear the 4r70w transmission that I am going to be installing at the same time.  I would basically be saving the money of have the 351 block machined.  My father in law has a 351 in a pickup that is just sitting that I may be able to grab but it is as 86 or something around that year so a non roller block.

you will definitely be using a different intake on either a 331 or 347.

your headers need to be larger than 1 1/2" tubes.

nothing wrong with a non roller block, just buy link bar lifters.

you can stroke the 351 to 410.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp.  My taxes are done and it wasn't pretty.  Looks like I will be bringing my extra crank to the machine shop to have things re-balanced and this will be more of a budget build.  I would still like to use the trick flow heads.  I will have to see if my Speed Pro pistons will work with them in case I need different pistons before balancing.  I might even have to use my old heads and just put better springs on them but I don't want to. 

Then in the future I am thinking I will grab the 351 and slowly acquire parts to build that.  Someday :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sixt9stang said:

I would still like to use the trick flow heads.  I will have to see if my Speed Pro pistons will work with them in case I need different pistons before balancing. 

Any piston will work as long as the cam lift is less than around .600", but verify the exact number to be certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...