The Dodge Challenger Message Board

Hi all,

I'm still not sure what kind of bearings I want for my next engine, and I have to make up my mind quick, as my engine builder [HRC] wants bearings & rings for the crank assembly balancing job.

It's a 440 block, with a 440Source stroker kit (making 493 total displacement), 9.38 C/R dished pistons. This engine is topped with ported Indy heads. Melling High volume oil pump, and a mains girdle will be used also. Oil pickup tube and passage enlarged to 1/2.

I've aimed low for the compression ratio (easy timing setting on pump gas), and plan to install a Procharger (ideally, for permanent use around 8 to 10 psi and maybe more on the track) or a nitrous kit (track only).

I will install bearings with a "street" clearance (2 thou max).
I'm looking for fully-grooved bearings, possibly coated.

I'm also looking for rings.Has anybody here used C&A ZGS gapless rings?
Does anybody have good experience with mild boost and big-block rings?


I'm interested to hear any experience/advice on mains & rod bearings, and rings.


Thanks.

Speed Pro Hellfire rings might be an option if you go the nitrous route?

These are the bearings I decided to try. Fully grooved bearings do not have as much load bearing capacity as half grooved which I think is something to think about with blown engines.

I thought these 3/4 groove bearings would be a good compromise.

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetai ... toview=sku

dave-r wrote:Fully grooved bearings do not have as much load bearing capacity as half grooved which I think is something to think about with blown engines.

I thought these 3/4 groove bearings would be a good compromise.

Thanks Dave.
I've seen 3/4 grooved bearings in the Clevite V Series, and this kind of bearing may be the right compromise between constant oil pressure to the rod bearings and good lower half resistance.
Now I just have to figure out what scare me the most : the rod bearings starving for oil, or the lower mains meeting the crank..

Any thoughts on the rings?

fbernard wrote:Any thoughts on the rings?

Yes. The directors cut was better than the cinema version.

I think you need professional advice on ring selection from someone who has experience with blown engines.

dave-r wrote:Yes. The directors cut was better than the cinema version.

I think you need professional advice on ring selection from someone who has experience with blown engines.

Nice one.

Some questions;
What viscosity of oil will you be running ?
Will you be staying with a dinosaur blend or going to synthetic after the break-in period ?
What connecting rods ? Capscrew or nut & bolt retention ?
What rpm shift ?
How big is your crank, within the range of course, but closer to highside or the lower number of the spec. ?
"Street clearance" of ".002", Clevitte seem to have the best resistence to flake on the dyno, we've rattled the piss 'outa a few engines and they don't flake, however your V series selection may not be the best choice depending upon the above sizes, and or cap retention/rpm.
V stands for the "Vandervell" brg designation, long gone company.

Suggestions; .003" on mains, .0022"-.0024" on rods,(personally like .0025"), brg eccentricity dependeant upon above to determine load spread @ rpm.

Rings; At that boost, for the street, best "let it leak" some, and go with standard top positive twist ring, second negative twist.
Yep, just the regular plasma moly top, ductile iron second, but make sure the second has at least as much gap as the top so you don't build pressure between the two and unload the top from sealing.
Sorry, I just haven't found any power with "total seal" type rings on the dyno, tested 'till the cows came home, unless, during the honing process, I heated the customers block, and my CK-10's honing oil to operating temperatures, with the T/plate of course, and maintained .0002" straight and round @ temp., then allowed to cool and distort. this made for an ugly set of holes cold, but found power @ operating temp. This involves breathing heated chlorinated honing oil fumes during the process for the operator, is your shop doing this ?
I pluck on those who claim the extra power during standard rebuilding procedures ? I own a dyno and full service performance engine machining facility, the gains are very, very, limited for most, and are negligible at best, and easily defeated with other factors beyond discussion here.

Just my thoughts/opinions/experience, no wars wanted.

Follicly Challenged wrote:What viscosity of oil will you be running ?

Don't know yet. I'd say 5W40 or 5w50.

Will you be staying with a dinosaur blend or going to synthetic after the break-in period ?

Definitely synthetic.

What connecting rods ? Capscrew or nut & bolt retention ? What rpm shift ?

I-beams from 440 source, capscrew with ARP bolts.
Probable RPM shift around 6K, with a rev limit at 6.5.
I've been looking into camshafts, and I'm still hesitating between a radical mechanical cam (312adv/.590 lift Mopar Performance) similar to the one that was in the engine until now, or a "big" hydraulic cam, that may be better suited to a blown engine and would bring the RPM range at or below 6K.

How big is your crank, within the range of course, but closer to highside or the lower number of the spec. ?

Don't know yet, it was just delivered to the engine builder's shop, some 600 miles from my home. I'll collect everything next week, when I go to the EuroFinals.

"Street clearance" of ".002", Clevitte seem to have the best resistence to flake on the dyno, we've rattled the piss 'outa a few engines and they don't flake, however your V series selection may not be the best choice depending upon the above sizes, and or cap retention/rpm.
V stands for the "Vandervell" brg designation, long gone company.
Suggestions; .003" on mains, .0022"-.0024" on rods,(personally like .0025"), brg eccentricity dependeant upon above to determine load spread @ rpm.

I'll keep that in mind. I just want to avoid the huge clearances found in a "drag" short block (which is what I had in the car when I bought it). It gives a lousy oil pressure, and that scares me when I look at the gauge. I hate to be scared when I see the time and money that goes into a rebuild.

Rings; At that boost, for the street, best "let it leak" some, and go with standard top positive twist ring, second negative twist.
Yep, just the regular plasma moly top, ductile iron second, but make sure the second has at least as much gap as the top so you don't build pressure between the two and unload the top from sealing.
Sorry, I just haven't found any power with "total seal" type rings on the dyno, tested 'till the cows came home, unless, during the honing process, I heated the customers block, and my CK-10's honing oil to operating temperatures, with the T/plate of course, and maintained .0002" straight and round @ temp., then allowed to cool and distort. this made for an ugly set of holes cold, but found power @ operating temp.
This involves breathing heated chlorinated honing oil fumes during the process for the operator, is your shop doing this ?

Somehow, I doubt that!

Thanks for the info.

Nornally a swap from solid to hydraulic camshaft drops the low end torque and increases peak HP rpm.

The Old Mopar 312/.590" was sold under pn 4120663 ? I think? next number in that series was pn 4120661? which was 296/.557" I think? What I do remember was the .557" was a 110 LSA, and might be worth consideration for the blower if you're bent towards a mopar cam.

Skip the Flat tappet hydraulics. IMO
Or,
go with hydraulic roller, accept the low rpm range(up to 6000) but get the torque. Problem with hydraulic rollers is you just can't keep the lifter pumped up against the required spring pressures @ rpm. There are some that go 6000 though I think.

Blowers like a wider LSA, don't require as much overlap for cylinder scavenging because it's being pushed in at higher pressures.

You might want to try a BDS grind.(Blower Drive Service), California. They offer some excellent designs ground by ISKY for BDS. Their 4500 series are "ballpark" .600" mech. flat-tappet, but with 112 LSA or thereabout.

An engine with .003" main clrc., and .0025" on the rods, machined with care "straight & round", using 1/2" pickup done properly and a high volume melling pump should idle @ 45 psi on 5-50 synthetic, and show 75-80 psi @ rpm. This will be "HOT", cold are higher.

6000- 6500 rpm W/ capscrew rod, Clevitte cb 527 "P"'s are fine on mid size crank, "H" would be best if crank's on minimum. Yes, the "P"'s should have sufficient chamfer/spacing in the rod, to fit the crank Fillet radius, but if you're guy wants the H thats great too. Either way, it won't pinch on the parting line @ those rpm with that rod.

Had a customer bring a 440 source Crank last week(Chinese forging) for a mid-season repair on his 540" deal, decent piece for the money. Some problems;

Bent .003" end to end, had to grind mains .010"(freight or packaging)

Rod throws were ground Highside, .0005" taper ( dufus on the crank grinder). Had to grind .0015" to .0005" below minimum spec., but saved @ std., "persnickity" job to do.(made it like a Callies)

Required 600 grams to balance internally, slugs front & rear, normal deal, even on a Callies crank.

#2 and #4 mains are spaced slightly toward the rear of the block from the center #3 thrust bearing. This is a forging error. This is probably fine on most stock blocks, however, be sure to have your guy check the counterweight clearance to the caps in those areas.

It's a fairly easy thing to spot if you're looking, install the crank in the block, then look at #2&4 mains, you'll probably notice the counterweights on the front side of the caps are closer than on the rear, no big deal normally, but
These crank forgings have a larger than normal "step" on the counterweight just above where the journal fillet begins that may cause grief when setting crank endplay, Because the "step" might ride on the cap. Might be fine on a production block, didn't fit worth a darn on an INDY MAXX block, lotsa grief milling the caps narrower to accomodate, then re-align honoing etc. Crank finally put the thrust on #3 where it 'outa go !

Yours will probably be fine, just wanted to mention some things, as it's easy to check first during mock-up. Nice cranks for the money.

Good luck with it, 'outa be a neat deal !

The Eagle crank I bought is perfect as far as I can tell although I have not checked rod side clearence yet (OK I admit I forgot). The only thing I am not happy about is that it has 0.008" endplay. I would have liked less. But for $400 off ebay I can't really complain.

Follicly Challenged wrote:The Old Mopar 312/.590" was sold under pn 4120663 ? I think? next number in that series was pn 4120661? which was 296/.557" I think? What I do remember was the .557" was a 110 LSA, and might be worth consideration for the blower if you're bent towards a mopar cam.

Why "old"? Isn't it made anymore? I still see this ref. in suppliers catalogs. This is the cam I would choose If I was sure to stay normally aspirated.

Blowers like a wider LSA, don't require as much overlap for cylinder scavenging because it's being pushed in at higher pressures.

I agree. But it's really hard to find anything outside of the "standard" 108°. 110 and 112 are pretty rare. I've been considering a custom grind for a while.

An engine with .003" main clrc., and .0025" on the rods, machined with care "straight & round", using 1/2" pickup done properly and a high volume melling pump should idle @ 45 psi on 5-50 synthetic, and show 75-80 psi @ rpm. This will be "HOT", cold are higher.

That will be perfect for me.

Had a customer bring a 440 source Crank last week(Chinese forging) for a mid-season repair on his 540" deal, decent piece for the money. Some problems;

Yours will probably be fine, just wanted to mention some things, as it's easy to check first during mock-up. Nice cranks for the money.

Good luck with it, 'outa be a neat deal !

Hope I won't have that many problems, but I'll see during the mock-up.

fbernard wrote:Why "old"? Isn't it made anymore? I still see this ref. in suppliers catalogs. This is the cam I would choose If I was sure to stay normally aspirated.

Those MP cams were designed 40 years ago. Almost any other make of cam is better in my opinion. They will work and you can make good power but you can make more power and get a wider power curve with less duration when you use a more modern design.

There have been quality issues lately too. Last year there were several people I know and more I have heard of that had lobes wipe off for no reason.

I would not use a MP cam if you paid me too.

Please don't get me wrong, I LOVED the old .590 mopar cam in the early 80's, wasn't trying to "diss" as the kids say, it was and "IS" a great and very versatile bumpstick, but I'm with dave, just wouldn't use one nowadays, especially if I was "hang'in a lung on it to make wind"

Too much newer tech stuff out there, especially when heading into stroker territories with modified piston dwell times @TDC, .904" dia lifter ramp speeds, better heads, etc., etc.

If you do get the .590", make sure you break-it in on no more than 100 lbs seat pressure(remove the inner springs) for a very generous period (at least 2 X 30 min runs @ 2000 rpm). Then you can re-install the inner springs but still no more then 120 lbs seat, with reccomended rate per inch. 320 lb/inch I think for the .590 ????

Thats the "RIGHT" way to insure break-in on anybodys solid cam, but moreso it seems on Ma Mopars stuff.

Try comp tech. and inquire about a "tight lash" ground on 112, 251/257 with .572/.580, let them suggest the installed C-line for that one.

Just my thoughts, hope I'm not confusing the situation BOB