Signet-ficant Other
- Thread starter Dr.Jass
- Start date
Stretch
Hey! There’s no easy button for a body like this!
I spent some time replacing the axle bearings for Signet-ficant Other today and it was a bit of a project. First I tried pressing it apart all at once but I couldn't get my bearing tool between the bearing and the bearing retainer.
When that didn't work I tried cutting the top off of the bearing cage, notching the lock collar and removing all of the rollers so I could slide the race up and get the bearing splitter behind it. That worked right up untill it stopped my 17 ton press!
Back to the press only to find out it wont sit flat in the splitter so I cut the race off.
I was finally able to press the son-of-a-bitch apart!
Then clean the parts up, replace the outer seals, pack the bearings, and press the new bearings and lock collars back on.
It took a lot of time to cut the stuff apart but I wanted to be damn sure I didn't nick the axle shafts with the cut off wheel at all. Now to run them up to Jass in the morning so he can assemble the rear diff for the ol' gal!
When that didn't work I tried cutting the top off of the bearing cage, notching the lock collar and removing all of the rollers so I could slide the race up and get the bearing splitter behind it. That worked right up untill it stopped my 17 ton press!
Back to the press only to find out it wont sit flat in the splitter so I cut the race off.
I was finally able to press the son-of-a-bitch apart!
Then clean the parts up, replace the outer seals, pack the bearings, and press the new bearings and lock collars back on.
It took a lot of time to cut the stuff apart but I wanted to be damn sure I didn't nick the axle shafts with the cut off wheel at all. Now to run them up to Jass in the morning so he can assemble the rear diff for the ol' gal!
TheIronSausage
Two brain cells left.. rubbing together for warmth
I didn't know it'd been your nickname for years, I did catch what it meant either earlier in this thread, or another one.. hard to remember amongst the glorious hijacking of all of them. Still, Shat..
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
:toot:
Didn't know if you'd go after the reinstallation tonight... I see you did. Nice work! Thank you, my good man!
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
So, in your forensic tear down and investigation of the Wicked 340, what is your assessment Doc?
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Well, I didn't fully tear it down. I popped out the one suspect piston in order to replace it and thus far have left the rest of it alone other than pulling the gear drive and "original" camshaft. I've actually had the piston out for quite some time but only got the replacement this past week. Interestingly, I found that once I removed the pin locks from the old piston, I couldn't actually remove the pin despite it being a floater. It spun freely and moved back and forth in its bore just fine, but once it got to the outside edges of the pin-lock grooves, it would stop. I actually had to pound the damned thing out. :hmmm: I have no idea how that's even possible, but again, that piston had some crown damage despite obviously never having been run. The new piston, which is obviously lighter and I might add signet-ficantly different from the old piston, installed without issue. The pin slid in with no issues, I popped in the locks, and Bob's your Mom's brother. Not much else I can do, since balancing the damned thing's clearly out of the question.
However, I was pleasantly surprised while taking the ring pack off the old piston. It looked like the second ring had some bizarre wear on it. The bottom edge of the ring face was shiny, but the rest of the ring looked normal. Then I tried to take it off. I guess none of us should be surprised to find this guy had also installed an approximately-$250 set of ductile-iron Total Seal gapless rings. That shiny area I saw was the edge of the small rail that fits into the main part of the second ring. :dance: This type of ring was one of those things I've always wanted to try, but was never willing to drop that kind of money to do so. I'm not convinced they're worth it, but I'm not convinced they aren't either. To be honest, I don't know that I'll be able to make a ruling on them anyhow.
However, I was pleasantly surprised while taking the ring pack off the old piston. It looked like the second ring had some bizarre wear on it. The bottom edge of the ring face was shiny, but the rest of the ring looked normal. Then I tried to take it off. I guess none of us should be surprised to find this guy had also installed an approximately-$250 set of ductile-iron Total Seal gapless rings. That shiny area I saw was the edge of the small rail that fits into the main part of the second ring. :dance: This type of ring was one of those things I've always wanted to try, but was never willing to drop that kind of money to do so. I'm not convinced they're worth it, but I'm not convinced they aren't either. To be honest, I don't know that I'll be able to make a ruling on them anyhow.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Moving on to the cylinder heads, I was disappointed to find that during the last build stock-LA-length valves were installed. W2 race heads are all designed to use longer valves in order to provide greater clearance between the valve retainer and guide, and to fit taller valve springs. I pulled an exhaust valve spring and measured the distance from the retainer to the top of the valve seal. I came up with .803" so there's plenty of clearance there, but the installed spring height with the short valves is only 1.786". That puts me in a bit of a spot with valve lift beyond .550" or so, due to the beastly valve spring pressures required with solid roller cams. The spot gets even tighter when considering I'm essentially limited to a 1.500" spring diameter if I'm going to re-use parts I've already got. The early castings have an oddball design on the two end exhaust springs where the casting tapers away from the seat; it was expected that spring locators/cups would be used with larger-diameter springs. I literally don't have the installed height to spare; those locators are .060" thick. A 1.550" spring is pushing my luck on those four end exhaust seats without any locators.
To give you an idea what I mean about being in a tight spot, original 340 valve springs have 91lb of pressure seated at a 1.650" installed height and 231lb "over the nose" (max lift) pressure. That's actually a pretty healthy spring rate of 325lb/in, but we're only talking about .429"/.444" worth of lift, too. For comparison, Lunati suggested I have a 1.950" installed height--that's taller than the free height of a stock 340 spring--with 210lb of seated spring pressure, and a spring rate of 495lb/in. That's an over-the-nose reading of 517lb. Stiffer than a wedding dick. Remember when I said those lift/duration numbers might not sound very intimidating? That's the level of valve control needed with a solid roller. Even the leetle baby ones have semi-idiotic spring requirments.
Where all this becomes a problem is finding a spring that can both be installed at 1.786" height while clearing .621" of lift, as well as providing anywhere near the kind of pressures involved. It's not as easy as you think. 1.786 - .621 = 1.165" spring height @ max lift. However, an extra .100" clearance between max lift and coil bind is considered a minimum, particularly at high RPM. So, I need a stout-ass spring that has a coil-bind measurement of 1.065" or less (preferably less)... in a diameter of 1.500" or less. Weee.
Or, I could go the proper route, and put way more money into this project by putting the right valves in the heads, redoing a perfectly-good valve job, swapping out the retainers, and still needing to buy valve springs. I could also fully disassemble the heads just to have the spring seats spot-faced to clear locators and taller springs, but I'm not a fan of removing metal under constant pressure, especially that much pressure. The early castings aren't as thick in that area, either. That would also require shipping, since no one around here can spot-face a spring seat. Sorta need fancy, expensive cutters for that.
I've decided to piss with the dick I've got, and have spent the last three-plus hours wading through valve spring catalogs. Comp, Lunati, Trick Flow, Crane, etc. I finally found a number in the Howard's catalog that I think is "close enough" but I'm going to call Steve at Lunati tomorrow and get his thoughts. It's a 1.500" diameter spring, 187lb @ 1.786" installed height, with a 475lb/in rate. Coil bind is 1.040", putting me at a .125" bind-clearance sweet spot. Over the nose, I'd be at 482lb. I'm pretty sure I'll get the thumbs-up on this, but if not it's back to the drawring board. I'm too tired to look for anything closer than that at the moment.
Now, all that being said, the truth is I've completely over-thought this. The simple fact of the matter is that with the wonky pushrod angles of the 59° LA lifter configuration, and the relatively-loose lash settings Lunati recommends, I'm probably well short of .621" valve lift. In fact, Steve told me if I wanted to tighten up the lash for a little extra lift, there's a lot of room to play. I probably will run the lash a little tighter than recommended, not for the extra oomph so much as to quiet it down a tad. But I've nothing against extra oomph, either.
To give you an idea what I mean about being in a tight spot, original 340 valve springs have 91lb of pressure seated at a 1.650" installed height and 231lb "over the nose" (max lift) pressure. That's actually a pretty healthy spring rate of 325lb/in, but we're only talking about .429"/.444" worth of lift, too. For comparison, Lunati suggested I have a 1.950" installed height--that's taller than the free height of a stock 340 spring--with 210lb of seated spring pressure, and a spring rate of 495lb/in. That's an over-the-nose reading of 517lb. Stiffer than a wedding dick. Remember when I said those lift/duration numbers might not sound very intimidating? That's the level of valve control needed with a solid roller. Even the leetle baby ones have semi-idiotic spring requirments.
Where all this becomes a problem is finding a spring that can both be installed at 1.786" height while clearing .621" of lift, as well as providing anywhere near the kind of pressures involved. It's not as easy as you think. 1.786 - .621 = 1.165" spring height @ max lift. However, an extra .100" clearance between max lift and coil bind is considered a minimum, particularly at high RPM. So, I need a stout-ass spring that has a coil-bind measurement of 1.065" or less (preferably less)... in a diameter of 1.500" or less. Weee.
Or, I could go the proper route, and put way more money into this project by putting the right valves in the heads, redoing a perfectly-good valve job, swapping out the retainers, and still needing to buy valve springs. I could also fully disassemble the heads just to have the spring seats spot-faced to clear locators and taller springs, but I'm not a fan of removing metal under constant pressure, especially that much pressure. The early castings aren't as thick in that area, either. That would also require shipping, since no one around here can spot-face a spring seat. Sorta need fancy, expensive cutters for that.
I've decided to piss with the dick I've got, and have spent the last three-plus hours wading through valve spring catalogs. Comp, Lunati, Trick Flow, Crane, etc. I finally found a number in the Howard's catalog that I think is "close enough" but I'm going to call Steve at Lunati tomorrow and get his thoughts. It's a 1.500" diameter spring, 187lb @ 1.786" installed height, with a 475lb/in rate. Coil bind is 1.040", putting me at a .125" bind-clearance sweet spot. Over the nose, I'd be at 482lb. I'm pretty sure I'll get the thumbs-up on this, but if not it's back to the drawring board. I'm too tired to look for anything closer than that at the moment.
Now, all that being said, the truth is I've completely over-thought this. The simple fact of the matter is that with the wonky pushrod angles of the 59° LA lifter configuration, and the relatively-loose lash settings Lunati recommends, I'm probably well short of .621" valve lift. In fact, Steve told me if I wanted to tighten up the lash for a little extra lift, there's a lot of room to play. I probably will run the lash a little tighter than recommended, not for the extra oomph so much as to quiet it down a tad. But I've nothing against extra oomph, either.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Boing, motherfucker!
A sample of the old valvesprings is on the left, the new is on the right. Nothing wrong with the old springs for most LA engines; at installed height they're good for about .565" of lift, with around 400lb/in rate. Unfortunately, they coil bind @ 1.150" where the new one goes down to 1.050". Over-the-nose pressure is an impressive 559lb. The extra 42lb above the original recommended pressure helps account for the longer rocker ratio. If going by a straight ratio comparison, the max-lift pressure would be around 551, so I landed right in the ballpark.
These suckers have just enough seat clearance at the head to work. Another .015" in diameter and they literally wouldn't fit. :wtf:
A sample of the old valvesprings is on the left, the new is on the right. Nothing wrong with the old springs for most LA engines; at installed height they're good for about .565" of lift, with around 400lb/in rate. Unfortunately, they coil bind @ 1.150" where the new one goes down to 1.050". Over-the-nose pressure is an impressive 559lb. The extra 42lb above the original recommended pressure helps account for the longer rocker ratio. If going by a straight ratio comparison, the max-lift pressure would be around 551, so I landed right in the ballpark.
These suckers have just enough seat clearance at the head to work. Another .015" in diameter and they literally wouldn't fit. :wtf:
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
This showed up in my stock order at work yesterday. :dance:
After careful inspection and research, I'm pretty sure it's actually a 750 rather than the larger carb the donor thought it was. No disappointments here, considering the price of free-ninety-nine. The throttle plate was installed backwards, bowls reversed (they were correctly oriented to the throttle plate :wtf: ) and lots of small miscellaneous stuff missing including one of the accelerator pump housings, the squirters and check valves, etc. I've got all the bits needed to make it complete again on the way. It would polish up nicely, but meh... I don't know that I want that look.
After careful inspection and research, I'm pretty sure it's actually a 750 rather than the larger carb the donor thought it was. No disappointments here, considering the price of free-ninety-nine. The throttle plate was installed backwards, bowls reversed (they were correctly oriented to the throttle plate :wtf: ) and lots of small miscellaneous stuff missing including one of the accelerator pump housings, the squirters and check valves, etc. I've got all the bits needed to make it complete again on the way. It would polish up nicely, but meh... I don't know that I want that look.
thrashingcows
Drowning deep in my sea of loathing...so I'm
I prefer to just leave them alone. I have tried the clear coat on carbs in the past, always found that the fuel gets in/under the clear coat and turns the coating foggy or yellow.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
The pictures make it appear worse than it really is. It's just discolored a little bit, not really corroded--still smooth, just not polished-shiny. Half an hour with some Meguiar's and some paper towels would have it looking new. The innards look great, what innards there are; the inside of the bowls are clean raw aluminum and the metering blocks shine like a freshly-polished bumper. The "issue", if you could call it that, is purely cosmetic. I sorta like the ugly, slapped-together look personally.
The valvesprings are a bit more than anything for which I'd planned with my home-made valvespring compressor tool (the one I made out of a rocker arm and Inland shifter). I need a slightly more stable handle for it. I can compress them far enough to install the locks, but the handle slips and they come out of there like a bullet. After two attempts, nearly being maimed during both, I gave up and borrowed a proper compressor.
The valvesprings are a bit more than anything for which I'd planned with my home-made valvespring compressor tool (the one I made out of a rocker arm and Inland shifter). I need a slightly more stable handle for it. I can compress them far enough to install the locks, but the handle slips and they come out of there like a bullet. After two attempts, nearly being maimed during both, I gave up and borrowed a proper compressor.
thrashingcows
Drowning deep in my sea of loathing...so I'm
Glad you survived....There is a time and place for redneck engineering.....
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Well, it felt like the time, and this is definitely the place....There is a time and place for redneck engineering.....