Jump to content

Main bearing not flush


TGFAIN

Recommended Posts

I have noticed that the top #1 main bearing is not flush with the block.   It protrudes about .020.  Is this ok? The bottom bearing is flush.  The bearings were all the same stock number, so I don't think I would have gotten them out of place.  Should the top bearing be a different stock number?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a previous post you stated that the crank spun free with this bearing torqued down. That tells me that the locating tab is in its slot. .020 isnt much and I doubt it will make any difference. It does however indicate a quality issue with this set of bearings. I would be lifting the crank out and double checking oil hole and edge alignment on all bearings. Then plastigaging all journals. They should all be the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean, it's not flush?  I can take that more than one way, and I don't know how anyone answering the question already possibly could give an accurate answer without knowing what you mean exactly.

 

Flush at the top of the bearing in the saddle?  Or flush end to end (parallel with the crank) in the saddle?

How about a picture???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always compare the old bearings to the new one for exact match and size never failed me yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things here.  Always compare new to old. Make sure oil hole in half that goes in block aligns with hole in block. Some bearing sets have hole in both halves, some only in top half.  As far as the protrusion, all bearings need to have  "crush" to insure the bearing is tight in the bore. Some engines the crush "protrusion" will show equally in cap and block.  Some engines the crush will show in block and others in cap.  

On your end play, make sure you are exerting considerable force pushing crankshaft either direction, front or rear, so the thrush side of bearing are even.  

Also, I am not a big fan of plasti gauge.  I am old school, before anyone ever heard of that stuff.  A paper shim, about half inch wide, and width of bearing, laid in crank journal, or in cap if working from bottom, will give you a much better idea of actual running clearance.  A shim of .004 to start and go from there to establish actual clearance.  If it has less than .004 it will lock the shaft , more than .004 will turn easy.  Do not turn all the way , just back and forth a little bit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, pete23 said:

Also, I am not a big fan of plasti gauge.  I am old school, before anyone ever heard of that stuff.  A paper shim, about half inch wide, and width of bearing, laid in crank journal, or in cap if working from bottom, will give you a much better idea of actual running clearance.  

You need to step into the late 20th century then.  No one does it that way, and hasn't for over 30 years! (Actually, probably longer than that...)  Plasti gauge works just fine, is easy to use, and gives the correct clearance.  Way easier for a guy with little experience for sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J-Mech said:

What do you mean, it's not flush?  I can take that more than one way, and I don't know how anyone answering the question already possibly could give an accurate answer without knowing what you mean exactly.

 

Flush at the top of the bearing in the saddle?  Or flush end to end (parallel with the crank) in the saddle?

How about a picture???

Your right never assume anything. I had assumed the crank was still installed. The only thing easily visible being the front face. If it protrudes to the rear it could be our problem at the other end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J-Mech said:

You need to step into the late 20th century then.  No one does it that way, and hasn't for over 30 years! (Actually, probably longer than that...)  Plasti gauge works just fine, is easy to use, and gives the correct clearance.  Way easier for a guy with little experience for sure. 

Pete23 doesn't need to do anything except please keep posting as I for one (and I think others would chime-in) am very grateful for his sage advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J-Mech said:

You need to step into the late 20th century then.  No one does it that way, and hasn't for over 30 years! (Actually, probably longer than that...)  Plasti gauge works just fine, is easy to use, and gives the correct clearance.  Way easier for a guy with little experience for sure. 

Crankshafts have an allowable limit of runout and depending on the position of crank and what bearing is being checked, you can get a false reading.  Also, the temperature of the plasti gauge will give you different readings. I have used it enough to find that out, youngster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pete23 said:

Crankshafts have an allowable limit of runout and depending on the position of crank and what bearing is being checked, you can get a false reading.  Also, the temperature of the plasti gauge will give you different readings. I have used it enough to find that out, youngster. 

I've used Plasti-gauge forever its what My tech school recommended its very accurate as long as you use the right plasti-guage for the clearance range your working with I've even went so far as to double check its accuracy doing it old school with inside and outside micrometers and its spot on 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a crush height , I’m not sure what you engine is. So check bearing supplier tech .

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J-Mech said:

You need to step into the late 20th century then.  No one does it that way, and hasn't for over 30 years! (Actually, probably longer than that...)  Plasti gauge works just fine, is easy to use, and gives the correct clearance.  Way easier for a guy with little experience for sure. 

 

Pete is one of, if not the most knowledgable person on this board. You could learn a thing or ten from him. Tact, if nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jass1660 said:

But J-Mech has twenty years experience 

I have learned in 20 years that when someone who has been there and done that tells you something, whether you agree with it or not, you shut up and ask questions, because I have found 95% of the time sooner or later that info might just save your a**.............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Plasti qauge but my friend who owns a performance engine building shop ( he does all the machining as well) does not recommend its use. He says you don't know how old and how its been stored so he don't use it. He measures everything but that is in a different situation       just another perspective

 Pete gets my vote every time out of respect. I wish I could have apprenticed under someone like him. Without a doubt he has forgotten more than I will ever know 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nebraska1206 said:

The front main bearing is different than the middle ones, so I'd be checking things closely.

Like Nebraska 1206 said, the front main is different. I believe it's narrower than the next 5 inline. On a 400 series the front 6 mains are the same width. I'm wondering if you have a 400 series main bearing set. It could easily happen. It may also explain the thrust issue. I'm not near my books now, but I believe the cranks between the 2 engines have the same bearing diameter. I know the rod bearings are the same. You did say Reliance. right? 

http://www.reliancepowerparts.com/Product?productGuid=RP93230&partListId=1703534

http://www.reliancepowerparts.com/Product?productGuid=71823846&partListId=1703530

https://partstore.caseih.com/us/TownCountryImpl1/parts-search.html#epc::mr58137ar1099818

Hopefully you get through this. I haven't been that far into a 361 now for years. Seems like a rash of smaller gas engines lately.  263's and 282 diesels. 

Also if I may comment to the nature of some replies. We're all here for the same reason, we like red stuff. Try to help people out without making another human feel like a dumbass. I know several people who are excellent mechanics who won't post here anymore, because some other people seem to have this "I know more than you so listen to me" attitude. That's ridiculous. Pete is one of the wise men here. Don't doubt his knowledge. I've been at it a number of years now, close to 40, and if I say I know it all that would be a huge lie. I never stop learning, and I probably annoy a lot of other mechanics when I have an issue. 

I'm done preaching now, good luck TGFAIN. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plastigauge is not the best way to check clearances. If the crank is out of the engine, if this is an out of frame, find a buddy or someone with mic's and a dial bore gauge. That is the proper way to check clearances. But if this is an inframe that is not an option.  Platigauge does not tell you if you have an out of round journal or taper. Pete has forgotten more than I will ever know. I value his experience and knowledge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Pete.  All you non techs and guys who aren't trying to help the OP but are just jumping in here are quite opinionated..... and Frankly only adding drama which is completely unnecessary.  

Lets focus on the problem at hand here.  He already installed the crank and platigauge will give him a quick go/no go on the bearing clearance.  The crank has been ground, it better not be out of round.  We need not debate how to use it, or what problems can arise from it..... it will work fine for what he (and we all) would like to know:  Is the rear bearing journal ground correctly.  Whether you personally like to use plastigauge or not, you have to agree it WILL tell us if that bearing is too tight or not.  

 

@pete23 I'm sure you are an experienced tech and meant no offence.  I don't know you, and in all fairness you don't know me.  I was trained a long time ago under a very experienced tech.  I learned a lot from him, but he was also always open to new ways of doing things.  That's how you stay relevant.  We need not argue the problems that can arise using platigauge.  You aren't wrong:  It can give false reading.  So can a mic if it isn't used properly, or you don't know how to read it.  Yes, in fact I have had it misread on a very large crank that had a slight warp in it.  The warp was within spec, but it made it look like one bearing was too tight when in fact it wasn't.  I don't think we need to worry about that here.  We just need to know if one bearing journal is too tight or not, and with the crank already installed it will only take a few minutes to plastigauge it and get an idea of where it is.  Then we can instruct him further.  If after getting more info we suspect a warped crank, then we can tell him how to do some checks from there.  My apologies if you think I was being rude. 

I'm open to other ways of doing things, but I'm not here for advice either so to everyone else, don't jump my butt for disagreeing with another tech.  I've got enough experience to have an opinion too, and I'm just as entitled to it as anyone.  There are more than one way to do some things, and I personally think that plastigauge is fine to use.  It has after all, been an acceptable way of measuring bearing running clearance, and sold as such for a long time now.  As with a lot of things it has improved over the years.  Whether you personally like to use it or not, it generally works just fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DT 361 main journal diameter is 3.3742 to 3.3755.

300 and 400 series is 3.3742 to 3.3755. 

I'd bet on a bearing issue, but what do I know? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, J-Mech said:

You need to step into the late 20th century then.  No one does it that way, and hasn't for over 30 years! (Actually, probably longer than that...)  Plasti gauge works just fine, is easy to use, and gives the correct clearance.  Way easier for a guy with little experience for sure. 

 

5 hours ago, pete23 said:

Crankshafts have an allowable limit of runout and depending on the position of crank and what bearing is being checked, you can get a false reading.  Also, the temperature of the plasti gauge will give you different readings. I have used it enough to find that out, youngster. 

I have seen Pete give advice on here and often hope he responds because he really seems to know what he is doing. I would let him work on anything that I own . I don't know if Pete is 20 or 80 but his responses certainly reminds me of my wifes Uncle George who was an engineer at Hinsdale . He knew how it was made and how to repair it to new condition

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

 

I have seen Pete give advice on here and often hope he responds because he really seems to know what he is doing. I would let him work on anything that I own . I don't know if Pete is 20 or 80 but his responses certainly reminds me of my wifes Uncle George who was an engineer at Hinsdale . He knew how it was made and how to repair it to new condition

That's great.  But I don't have to agree with him.  My great, great uncle owned an IH dealership, and my dad worked at it as a mechanic.  Does that make me any more important than anyone else? Do I now get to be in the "club" or something?  I worked for Case IH as a tech too.... do I get to have an opinion that differs now?  Maybe some respect at least of my right to disagree?

I already said I meant no disrespect.  Let it go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a 361/407, YES, the front main bearing protrudes from the front surface of the block. 

That thrust better have pressed it to the block good, not just dropped in. 

We have had problems with the thrust bearing out of reliance kits. They just dropped in with no press. Thats just asking for trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...