Engine builders; 308 FRONT SEAL/SPACER

Unknown

I'd like your comments by # to the following comments that I rec'd concerning Hudson 232/262/308 front oil leaks IMMEDIATELY following engine OVERHAUL.



1. Crankshaft spacer is not considered a normal replacement item during engine overhaul, they are simply cleaned up / polished up by the crankshaft grinder and new rubber-lipped seal installed in the timing case cover.



2. The original equipment seal in that engine (pre-merger) was a CR leather seal, not a rubber lip seal. Dale Cooper is selling a rubber lip seal as replacement, not the original design leather seal. In my opinion, an incompatibility may be found to exist between the design parameters of the rubber lip seal and the surface hardness of the original equipment crank spacer as designed by Hudson. If the rubber lip seals are grooving the stock spacers, it's a materials and design issue. The proper methodology for selling a replacement design (lip) seal would include a notation to the effect that a rubber lip seal is incompatible with a stock material Hudson spacer, (due to advanced rate of wear), and an improved metallurgy (or increased Rockwell hardness) spacer must be used when converting leather seals over to modern rubber lip seal. Bottom line to this issue is that when the parts vendor decides to vary from the original (as designed) seal specification (eg CR leather seal) to (rubber lip seal with sharp edge), it would become that vendor to inform that the original equipment spacer needs to (or must be) upgraded metallurgically to one that can be hardened on that surface where the sharp rubber lip rides.



3. The simplest cure for (leaking front seal) that seal surface at this point is to install a stainless steel sleeve through the seal and onto the spacer. There's a substantial chamfer on the leading edge of the spacer which facilitates that installation. Sleeves are .020 thick, and are simply installed with a properly sized mandrel and a mallet. Surface Rockwell hardness of sleeve OD is substantially greater than stock spacer, and can be expected to last significantly longer when interfaced with a sharp rubber lip (non-original design) seal. Concentricity issues upon installation do not apply, since sleeves are concentric (ID / OD) within exacting tolerances.



SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SLEEVE MIGHT STRETCH AND CRACK THE SEAL; WHY NOT A NEW SPACER THAT'S DESIGNED FOR THE NEW SEAL?



THANKS for your feedback

super651

54 HSWH wrote:

I'd like your comments by # to the following comments that I rec'd concerning Hudson 232/262/308 front oil leaks IMMEDIATELY following engine OVERHAUL.



1. Crankshaft spacer is not considered a normal replacement item during engine overhaul, they are simply cleaned up / polished up by the crankshaft grinder and new rubber-lipped seal installed in the timing case cover.



2. The original equipment seal in that engine (pre-merger) was a CR leather seal, not a rubber lip seal. Dale Cooper is selling a rubber lip seal as replacement, not the original design leather seal. In my opinion, an incompatibility may be found to exist between the design parameters of the rubber lip seal and the surface hardness of the original equipment crank spacer as designed by Hudson. If the rubber lip seals are grooving the stock spacers, it's a materials and design issue. The proper methodology for selling a replacement design (lip) seal would include a notation to the effect that a rubber lip seal is incompatible with a stock material Hudson spacer, (due to advanced rate of wear), and an improved metallurgy (or increased Rockwell hardness) spacer must be used when converting leather seals over to modern rubber lip seal. Bottom line to this issue is that when the parts vendor decides to vary from the original (as designed) seal specification (eg CR leather seal) to (rubber lip seal with sharp edge), it would become that vendor to inform that the original equipment spacer needs to (or must be) upgraded metallurgically to one that can be hardened on that surface where the sharp rubber lip rides.



3. The simplest cure for (leaking front seal) that seal surface at this point is to install a stainless steel sleeve through the seal and onto the spacer. There's a substantial chamfer on the leading edge of the spacer which facilitates that installation. Sleeves are .020 thick, and are simply installed with a properly sized mandrel and a mallet. Surface Rockwell hardness of sleeve OD is substantially greater than stock spacer, and can be expected to last significantly longer when interfaced with a sharp rubber lip (non-original design) seal. Concentricity issues upon installation do not apply, since sleeves are concentric (ID / OD) within exacting tolerances.



SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SLEEVE MIGHT STRETCH AND CRACK THE SEAL; WHY NOT A NEW SPACER THAT'S DESIGNED FOR THE NEW SEAL?



THANKS for your feedback

I just had a local Machine shop make one out of Stainless Steel to the Spec.of the Hudson factory one. The finish is smooth as chrome. is stainless harder ? ( higher Rockwell )

Thanks Rudy

[Deleted User]

Randy Maas supplies a replacement kit that includes the seal, spacer and gasket.

Unknown

Rudy, I assume that you used SS # 304, but there are over 100 kinds of SS. You might find the following to be interesting reading.



http://www.hurstcorp.com/docs/SS_PRIMER.pdf#search='rockwell for stainless steel'



Rudy, here is a website that writes about, " We handle a wide variety of metals such as stainless steels, heat resistant steels, WEAR-RESISTANT STEELS, gunmetal and bronze etc. Presently we are serving the diverse needs of engineering industry such as valves, pumps, automobile and general engineering. You can email them to find out the answer to your question (s). What we need to come up with is a good, economical, wear-resistant steel to produce the spacers that will not wear measurably and let that become the standard for use among the serious engine builders; i.e., change/upgrade once and then the only thing to change is seal # 3100 located in the timing chain cover.



http://www.indiamart.com/trident-steels/



Here's a couple comments off a knife website



"420 modified stainless, has been successfully used by some commercial knife producers, but availability is not practical for the hobby knife maker since darn few of us order steel in mill rolls.



VASCO WEAR is rather expensive but very, very good in edge holding. Resists grinding very well too! You'll swear your belts have all gone dull when you try it. Do everything you have to before heat treating, cause you sure aren't going to be able to do much afterward. Priced like lobster tails, when you can find it. Try Vasco-Pacific in the Los Angeles area. Vasco - Pacific uses their own series of names for their alloys."



Rudy, concerning golfing equipment (DuraSteel)



" In looking at most wedges in play today, Pelz notes that the normal stainless steel grooves wear down quickly. Tour players, he points out, change their wedges at least once a month, which would be prohibitive for the average golfer. To meet this quandary, Pelz has developed a new material, called DuraSteel, that he asserts is "at least 10 times more wear-resistant than industry standard wedges."



http://www.golfweb.com/u/ce/multi/0,1977,6647648,00.html



Rudy, "WEAR & STAINLESS STEEL" forum



http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=43513



Rudy, keep us posted on the type stainless that you used and after your analysis, what do you recommend?



Thanks,



john

[Deleted User]

My engine manual tells me to turn the space around when I replace the seal because the old one might have worn a grove and leak. I think that referred to the original seal, not a replacement seal so I am not sure the replacement seal is any worse than the original.

Park_W

Is this spacer-wearing problem just hypothetical at this point, or is there a documented history of accelerated wear with the neoprene seals?

Unknown

Alex, this is referring to the SPACER (turn it around) that the rubber-lipped seal rides upon or around.



This is why Randy sells the KIT ( 1) new SPACER to slip onto the crankshaft snout (rides between crank gear and the harmonic balancer; use loctite to secure and press on), 2) #3100, rubber-lipped SEAL that is pressed into the timing chain cover plus it rides around spacer, and 3) the GASKET that goes between the timing cover and the block).



One question is what type of metal is the current spacer made out of and is there a much stronger metal that can be swapped out economically such that future spacers will last indefinitely; if so, then in the future only replace the SEAL, IF there is no wear to the SPACER.

harry54

I would think that if you were getting an engine rebuild that you would get all new parts. Certianly anthing that could , if neglected , cause a potential oil leak. I would think you would get a new spacer and seal. I know that if that were an issue with me I'd be heeping mad.......

[Deleted User]

Basic fact--Manufactures are going to put into their kits the least expensive parts they can purchase that they do not make themselves. Just looking at the seal you get in the kit isn't worth the effort to make it. Accept it, get a new spacer and a good seal that is equal to the orginal and don't blame the vendor. Spend the $35.00 and do it right the first time.



Randy

[Deleted User]

Seems to me someone posted a NAPPA number for the neoprene seal in a gasket releated thread on this site some time ago.

[Deleted User]

Right on the money Randy. This isn't rocket science or in need of a big explanation. If you are going to spend the money to rebuild your engine buy the kit for $35 and be done with it. We know what the problem is we know what to do. Simple fix.

super651

John, I did not know that Randy had the kits in stock. Heck,fire the one I had made was 45.00 and I now find out that Randy has the kit.

I should have looked at his web-site first.

My spacer is in the 308 now so no way to check Rockwell.

Thanks for the info site on Stainless.

Thanks to all. Rudy.

[Deleted User]

National Federal-Mogul oil seal part #450084, along with a stainless steel sleeve over the crank spacer will correct the problem. The added .020 or so thickness of the sleeve promoted better sealing and will not damage the seal.

Unknown

Rob Fayette,



where does one buy the sleeve?



what is the part #?



how much does it cost?



is it .020" OR ".020 or so" (sounds like you really don't know)?



how does if fit over the SPACER (snugly, press-on, how to install)?



and does it have the same exact same length as the SPACER?



Is it made from SS? 304?



if the neoprene seal is designed for the SPACER diameter (~ 1.872") how can you rationally expect someone to believe that when the neoprene seal is stretched even farther to ~ 1.892" that this will not exceed the design limit and split resulting in even a larger leakage?



Have you actually used one? for how many miles? and if so what was the outcome?

Unknown

harry54-Joe, I am heeping mad/angry, and I haven't gotten into the rear main leak issue as yet; but, that thread will be started when I discover what the problem is. I am in contact with another engine builder that said there is a TRICK involved with solving the rear main leaks issue. I believe I know how to solve it. I first must document the tear-down with photos each step of the way, both front and rear; this way there can be no guesstimating or argueing about what occurred with this engine. Of course, a complete static and dynamic balancing of the entire rotating assembly must be accomplished and documented including photos each step of the way. I intend to get that set of issues corrected and purchase the most exacting 7X cam that I can find and rebuild the engine. It ('51 308 + .060, 7X valves, relieved, w/232 head) will be painted Universal Gold and will be listed on ebay for auction. It won't be cheap!

harry54

I Can't say I blame you for being Heeping mad...... I know I would be livid. I wish you well on your endevour. If I can be of any help please let me know. Hudsonly.Joe

Unknown

Who in their right mind believes the following?



1. "Crankshaft spacer is NOT considered a normal replacement item during engine overhaul, they are simply cleaned up / polished up by the crankshaft grinder and new rubber-lipped seal installed in the timing case cover."

Unknown

I believe what we need here on this thread is some rational feedback from someone like Walt Mordenti, or maybe Steve Farkaly. Someone contact Steve and ask him to put in his 2-cents, OK!



Maybe one of those guys has some genuine input.



Something rational, because 1. to me seems ABSURD! perhaps a short-cut to save time and money!! just let it (new engine) leak, leak, ........ who cares?

[Deleted User]

54 HSWH wrote:

I believe what we need here on this thread is some rational feedback from someone like Walt Mordenti, or maybe Steve Farkaly. Someone contact Steve and ask him to put in his 2-cents, OK!



Maybe one of those guys has some genuine input.



Something rational, because 1. to me seems ABSURD! perhaps a short-cut to save time and money!! just let it (new engine) leak, leak, ........ who cares?

Always wanted to run my '41 against one of Farkley's engines. Who has one --I'M ready. Meet me at the tree or I can bring to the Nats. He has nice pictures, now lets run. 1/8 or 1/4--any takers?



Randy

[Deleted User]

I want to stand in the center and drop my arms like the guy on Pinks. Hey thats the ticket lets get you guys on pinks. I will come so I can be one of the guys milling around doing the smack talk during negotiatons LOL

[Deleted User]

Okay 51Hornet--not willing to give up my title but you can hold the bet money whether I win, lose, or draw. Talk all the smack you want.

Randy

[Deleted User]

There are two sleeves that I have used with success:

National "Ready Sleeve" Part #99187 stainless and a press fit.

Harmonic balancer sleeve Part #MS226-2 chrome finish installed with green locktite and excess length of the sleeve must be ground on a belt sander. These are only two examples and I am sure there are many others. I do hope this is helpfull and for the rear main leak, all I can say is, if sealed correctly you will not have a complaint. Both Egge and Dale Cooper offer seal kits that if done correctly (that is the key) will fix the problem. But remember if the cotton packing is not correctly placed in the channels on each side of the rear main cap you will have a bad leak a the rear of your engine

[Deleted User]

Sounds good I am there. It ain't an event unless someone is talking smack.

Unknown

National Federal-Mogul Oil Seal P/N 450084 (1.875 x 2.996 x 0.500)

hudsonguy

For What It's Worth,



When doing a recent engine rebuild, I'd already installed the crank/rods/pistons/pan, etc., when I realized I hadn't properly flushed out the oil holes in the cranshaft journals!



Actually, a friend pointed out that someone else he knew kept ruining his crankshafts and bottom ends right after startup! I think these were SBC's, but I digress.



Anyway, I tore it apart again to clean the crankshaft properly, and in so doing discovered that I'd improperly installed one of the four rope seals, that go into the front and rear mains. I'd coated the cotton rope with Silicone, and carefully packed it into the holes using a long, thin punch, etc. But I hadn't 'bottomed it out' properly, so in essence I had only about half of the cavity filled with the seal! It would have leaked like a sieve!!



So I pulled apart one of the newly done rope seals that I was happy with, and stretched it out so I knew how much material HAD to be installed into the cavity. That way, there was no doubt I was filling the holes properly. BTW, I've got the engine running now, and it doesn't leak a drop.