Re-Rebuilding the 440-493 in a 1970 Charger

[Kern Dog]

I don't trust myself with a bearing scraper on a rod bearing in a high performance engine. I'm going to do some test fitting and brainstorming. The Summit store is 2 hours away if I get the urge to drive there today. That would allow me to test fit a narrower bearing.

 

[Kern Dog]

I think you need the narrow bearings for the stroker crank you have

View attachment 1341000

I looked at the placement of the tangs in those bearings as well as the marking of UPPER and LOWER.

I noticed how the tang is closer to the outer edge compared to the ones below.

 

[Fran Blacker]

I don't trust myself with a bearing scraper on a rod bearing in a high performance engine. I'm going to do some test fitting and brainstorming. The Summit store is 2 hours away if I get the urge to drive there today. That would allow me to test fit a narrower bearing.

Don't think could scrape steel backed bearings, they'd need machining.
Rather than driving to Summit have them sent overnight, it would be cheaper.

 

[Kern Dog]

Not in stock in the Nevada store so that is out. For the money, I'd prefer to test fit these things in one of my rods.

 

[NoCar2023]

Maybe put it together without the rings. Check for binding and verify your new rods clear the block okay since it is stroked.
Use light oil for the mock-up.

 

[cdr]

99% sure the bearing you have will be a VERY bad decision, they will not work with a large radius fillet , they might go in the rod but they WILL touch the radius fillet & probably blow up, you also better make sure you have the radius main bearings if touching it will have the same result

 

[cdr]

I had to cut the radius bevel in my main bearings so it would clear the fillet

 

[Kern Dog]

More developments.
I was able to find some of the old bearings. Charlie was right.

The old ones are different and are marked as he stated.

The old ones are narrower.

Here are the old ones mocked up.

You can see that there still is a little offset but that they sit inboard from the edges more than the standard bearings.

 

[Kern Dog]

you also better make sure you have the radius main bearings if touching it will have the same result

The crank spins quite easily. I can pull off a cap and see if there is wear at the edges.
Thank you.

.050 is a lot.

I am not going to try to make these regular bearings work. This isn’t Cuba. I’ll order the right parts instead of scraping bearings. I’m okay with modifying stuff when no parts are available but not for high stress engine parts!
Thank you Charlie and whoever else pointed this out to me. It surely saved me a lot of trouble.

 

[4406bbl]

More developments.
I was able to find some of the old bearings. Charlie was right. View attachment 1341191
The old ones are different and are marked as he stated.
View attachment 1341192
The old ones are narrower.
View attachment 1341193View attachment 1341194
Here are the old ones mocked up.
View attachment 1341195

You can see that there still is a little offset but that they sit inboard from the edges more than the standard bearings.
View attachment 1341196

That is how my bearings looked in my manley rods, I made the bearing tang a little wider to get them lined up, a few grooves were also not deep enough. A dremel disc was all it took. With narrow bearings the perfect alignment may not be an issue, but I fixed it anyway.

 

[cdr]

The crank spins quite easily. I can pull off a cap and see if there is wear at the edges.
Thank you.

.050 is a lot.
View attachment 1341201
I am not going to try to make these regular bearings work. This isn’t Cuba. I’ll order the right parts instead of scraping bearings. I’m okay with modifying stuff when no parts are available but not for high stress engine parts!
Thank you Charlie and whoever else pointed this out to me. It surely saved me a lot of trouble.

on the mains, 1st check the thrust clearance, also put pressure front & the from the back while spinning the crank, you will probably find it marking the bearing

 

[Cheapsunglasses]

This is really good information, thanks Kern dog, and everyone else!

 

[Kern Dog]

This is really good information, thanks Kern dog, and everyone else!

You are welcome.
I often learn several things during the course of these threads. For me, these topics serve several purposes. For one, they encourage others to take the plunge into projects that they are contemplating. My 5 speed Tremec thread was inspired by "Watermelon". He had a thread on his installation so I followed his lead.
Secondly, these threads serve as an archive for techniques, part numbers and reference pictures.
I grew up reading Hot Rod, Car Craft, Popular Hot Rodding and when I got full time into Mopars, High Performance Mopar. Mopar Muscle and of course...Mopar Action. I like telling a story through pictures and captions.
I have a few threads here on stuff that I have done to this car and in each one, members have chimed in to help steer me back on course when I am making a mistake.

I just ordered the correct bearings from Summit and expect to have them by the end of the workweek.
If I had been paying closer attention, I would have noticed the unique bearings upon disassembly and ordered them back then.

 

[Geoff 2]

Kern,
[1] I am absolutely amazed I am the only one pointing out this problem, failing to get it correct could result in near instant...& expensive....engine failure.
Go back to the pics in post #400. You can clearly see the machined chamfer {or bevel } [ it is not cast or forged that way ] in the rod & cap on the right side of the pic; [ the rod on the left side has been turned over & you cannot see the chamfer ]; the chamfer is adjacent to where the brg shell sits. Stock rods also have the chamfer. Have a Look!! [ If anybody with better skills than me could re-post the pic with a red arrow pointing to the chamfer, that would be great ].
That chamfered side has to go up against the crank cheek; it ensures no interference/contact with the fillet on the crank journal.
[2] You do NOT need narrower brgs with your crank, nor do you need to modify them other than checking the tangs as I mentioned earlier. You would lose precious brg area with narrow brgs & gain nothing.

 

[Kern Dog]

I see what you stated. One side is flat....that side is where the rods are next to each other on the crankpin. The beveled/chamfered side aims to the counterweight/fillet on the crank. I've noticed this on stock rods but didn't notice that with these right away.
Looking at the new bearings that I have, they are wider by .050 and do extend into the chamfered area in the rod and sit almost flush, maybe slightly outboard of the flat section on the cap.
I'm guessing that with the radiused edge seen in aftermarket cranks, one needs more chamfer or a narrower bearing to obtain adequate clearance.

The rod body and caps are the same width though:

 

[cdr]

I see what you stated. One side is flat....that side is where the rods are next to each other on the crankpin. The beveled/chamfered side aims to the counterweight/fillet on the crank. I've noticed this on stock rods but didn't notice that with these right away.
Looking at the new bearings that I have, they are wider by .050 and do extend into the chamfered area in the rod and sit almost flush, maybe slightly outboard of the flat section on the cap.
I'm guessing that with the radiused edge seen in aftermarket cranks, one needs more chamfer or a narrower bearing to obtain adequate clearance.

The rod body and caps are the same width though:

View attachment 1341251View attachment 1341252

Yes you need the narrow bearings LOL, you are correct Kern, stock crank stock bearings, aftermarket crank, narrow bearings

 

[Wietse]

[1] I am absolutely amazed I am the only one pointing out this problem, failing to get it correct could result in near instant...& expensive....engine failure.
Go back to the pics in post #400. You can clearly see the machined chamfer {or bevel } [ it is not cast or forged that way ] in the rod & cap on the right side of the pic; [ the rod on the left side has been turned over & you cannot see the chamfer ]; the chamfer is adjacent to where the brg shell sits. Stock rods also have the chamfer. Have a Look!! [ If anybody with better skills than me could re-post the pic with a red arrow pointing to the chamfer, that would be great ].
That chamfered side has to go up against the crank cheek; it ensures no interference/contact with the fillet on the crank journal.
[2] You do NOT need narrower brgs with your crank, nor do you need to modify them other than checking the tangs as I mentioned earlier. You would lose precious brg area with narrow brgs & gain nothing.

I think you repeating something everyone already understands for some time.
His issue is not the where the chamfer goes, he just needs the right bearings that suit this particular rod, which he already found.
A narrower bearing does not mean it's bad, if it is intended they will be manufactured to withstand the increased forces (lbs. / sq./inch) it will have to deal with.

 

[Geoff 2]

Read post #415. He states he 'didn't notice' until it was pointed out....

 

[Kern Dog]

Thanks.
Call it a brain fade....I have built several medium performance engines where the rods and pistons were together and numbered. That takes a LOT of the guesswork out of this. Part of me thinks that I would have noticed it as I was assembling things. That happens to me all the time....I do something and along the way, the whole thing becomes much clearer.
This could have been bad if I didn't get good advice or if I didn't see the issue myself.
See posts # 365, 366 and 367.
I will not claim to know everything. I'm glad that I can still learn new things.

 

[4406bbl]

The good news is now you know of the issue and will fix it. Just be sure those tang grooves are deep enough with any bearing.