When I was 15, I bought my first car. It was a '32 "B" five window. As I recall everyone of my car pals refered to the engine as a 4 banger. No one ever called the four cylinder engines just "bangers", at least in my neck of the woods. Ron
There are several versions of these parts get a complete set so all the bolts line up. I found at least three versions of these probably different years. thinking you mean the universal joint housing?
If you look for banger racing on English sites it comes it comes up with stock cars some searchs come up with bangers as in head bangers a type of music. Early tees where often called jalopies here but I quiet like the four barrel name
RussTee, It is the Uni joint housing that I'm after. I have a 29 driveline so I'll need a 29 version, is that right? Or are all the gearbox bolt patterns the same?
28A I have a feeling the gearbox patterns are the same but the outta bolts where the two flanges of the Uni Joint and the steel liner bolt together differ
Call David Waight P.O. Box 26, Wendouree, Ballarat, Victoria Australia, 3355 Ph: (03) 53393673 Fax03) 53399900 whoosh@netspeed.com.au
Clayton- Another question, if you wouldn't mind-- Most of the guys running high revving A's or B's put a SBC damper on the front of the crank to try to take some of the torsional whip out of the shaft. With an even smaller, less stiff crankshaft, do you use one? If not, why not? Herb
I have hot rod magazines from the 50's through the 70's and up until the mid or late 50's the drag results included a 4 barrel division or cl***. I'm not going to dig them out to find the exact date. I remember hearing about the "A" block with valves and port big enough to p*** a Silver dollar. I also remember a lot of 50' races which were invariably won by the 4 barrel. I remember a guy in a new Jag that got fighting mad. Standard at that time was telephone pole to telephone pole. In 1953 I watched a pole to pole drag between a Triumph TR 2, or what ever the first ones were called, and a California highway patrol cruiser on a country road. Triumph just creamed the cruiser. I was taught or had the theory of power impulses explained to me. This was why the "Thumpers" 30.50's Gold Star singles could come out of the turns faster than the Triumph 650 twins on the short dirt tracks. With the 4 cylinder automobile engine firing 4 times against the 8 firing 8 per rev the ultra miniscule amount of time between power impulse's allows the 4 cylinder's tires to get more of a bite, the 8 tends to break loose . Of course this was before all of the technical improvements and better compounds the tires. Slicks in those days were worn out "Maypop" throw away tires and it was felt tread gave more traction.
Well...to be honest, I haven't ever seen or heard of that being done. This is most likely because there just isn't any room for one up front with the way the pan is: Look in the lower left of this example. The pan also serves and the front motor mount and bushing for the crank....just not enough room for a SBC damper. It doesn't look tight here, but it is. Plus...there are plenty of tried and true methods for balancing a T engine ...it all about "the art" of messin' with T's
Mr. T if you would look at page #2 post #31 you would see it being done. The function of the damper has nothing to do with the balancing, as stated above it is for torsional damping, which in a small bearing crank can become considerable. Keeping the compression & rpm down lessens the torsional effect. I also am curious why you didn't add counterweights to an engine you've put a lot of work into? A balanced inline 4 will still have vertical shake without counterweights, which translates into crank flex and seat of the pants vibration. The goal of an engine designer is to increase the counterweighting till the vertical and horizontal shake are close to equal at a chosen rpm, usually maximum hp. Pat
Thanks for the reply Pat! The engine in post #31 is a Model A, not a T. There is just no room for a damper like that on a T motor with the pan the way it is designed. I might be able to adapt a smaller one to fit from another engine, will have to look into that. As for the counter weights, Model T's don't leave much for the addition of counterweights. Those cranks really don't have...well....any (lol!) so adding them means either installing a counterbalanced crank (like ****'s new stroker kit) or the bolt on counter weights. I would love to get the new **** crank for these....but my wallet isn't deep enough for the kit and the extra machine work needed to make it work. The bolt on weights kinda freak me out because I have heard horror stories of those things coming apart and destroying engines. What do you recommend as far as counter weighting the engine?
Mr. T, the "T" crank poses a chalenge to adding counterweights but not impossible. As far as bolting on counterweights being safe many Jeep & industrial engines bolted them on. In your case welding on plasma or waterjet cut weights might be more practical. I ***ume you are endeavoring to maintain the original looks and modifying the front of the pan may not be desireable to allow installing a damper. People that I have bolted on c'wts and added a damper to their A's are amazed that they are able to see something in their mirror. I'm including some pics of weights I've installed, the engine in #31 with 4-barrel carb. has a "B" crank with bolted on weights and is currently in a functioning track roadster, the young driver (52) has steadily gained skill & is now running the engine up to 4,000 rpm. Peak hp. is probably around 5,000/5,200 rpm. Also a scan of George Rileys book from 1931 showing bolted on wt's. Pat
I have a piece of BMW 328. At foirst looks like a broken rod.... but it's a main cap Those weights bolt on one bolt broke and took out center main web. Not my engines this was a prewar built one..... The bolts go into the crank I have pulled cranks out and found the bolt hole cracked thru the crank There is no place to put a dampener on my HAL either
Nice work Pat! Modding the pan would prove to be way more work than is really necessary to add a damper. The front of the pan serves as the front oil seal, motor mount and hand crank mount/bushing...it's not something I want to change if I don't have to. As for the weights, I certainly have seen them on industrial engines and other applications...but there is just "something" about a block of metal bolted to the crank...spinning at 2,200 + rpms that freaks me out a bit. Maybe it's just me, lol! The T cranks don't leave much to the imagination as far as mounting counterweights....not like an A or B engine does. Here is my crank: Bolt on weights were made for these cranks. Here is a quick look: I'm also not completely concerned about extremely high RPMs either, though I do know that proper balancing and weighting is essential for any engine at any RPM for sooth running and to avoid damage. Model T's do not have a high rev limit, especially with a stock or mild built T. A stock T's rev limit is about 1,900 RPM...2,000 if you push it. Hopped up flatty like mine...2,300 to 2,500 possibly. I don't like to push mine either If I do add a set of these weights, how do I balance them?
Clayton, I know some of the T guys use the early Chevrolet crankshaft (they're easier to add the weights to)- I have a couple extra from our "honey hole" runs. Let me know if you'd like one and I'll hold it back from going to espay... AND there's a very reputable machinist down here in GA who will add the weights for around $250.
The bolts I use are 7/16-20 rated at 170,000 lbs. tensile strength, probably twice as strong as what was available in 1931 as well as larger. As important as the strength is that they are properly torqued, maybe the BMW wt bolts weren't tight enough, hard to ****yze after the fact, but if the bolts were loose that could have allowed the crank to flex leading to the crack failure. I torque my bolts to 70 lb. ft. with anti-seize. The picture of the T bolt on wt's looks like a useable compromize and certainly easier than welding on & subsequent machining. The balance operation would need to be done after the wt's are bolted on using a std balancing machine. Pat t
I just reread Urb Stair's model T hillclimb engine build article in the S O S S magazine. He said he had 150 horses. He had a model A crank and his cam was ground on an A cam. It was an overhead. Ran just .5 off of the record at Signal Hill.
Big counter weights hold more oil = heavier crank And cause more crankcase pressure AND Fling more oil on the bores and inside pistons
Early Chev and Model A cranks were and still are popular upgrades for a T, but my wallet sadly isn't deep enough for the extra costs for setting up the T block to accept either crank and the crank to fit in the block properly. If I had, this motor would have a Model A crank and full-pressure oiling or ****'s new stroker counterbalanced crank kit I actually have an early Chev crank along with the OHV head...if I get the itch to convert it, but thanks for the offer! Thanks for that info Pat. I think the bolt on weights are really the best way to go at this point, don't want to go too crazy...or I'll never get this thing done! lol!
First i would like to say i don't have an own opinion about this because of lack of knowledege and i hope i don't open a can of worms, but i have read this from a Reid, at the MTFCA, i think it was and i quote. ----------------------------- Dont use crank weights! DUNN weights. Some guys swear by them! The weights were a great seller 80 years ago, and many sets were sold. I bought into the hearsay and ad. testimonials. I installed a pair. I put them on right. I spin balanced the crank to 5k. Perfect. I felt the car ran like gangbusters and was very happy and smug for a while. Later on I realized the hidden danger of counterweights on a stock T crank. I took them off. Even though I _thought_ the car ran smoother with the counterweights- once they were gone- what was this? the car ran just as well, if not better. I was fooled by the famous Placebo Effect. But I took the Dunns off for a seriously scary good: I'd finally figured out that the extra m*** of the weights, which are nothing but extra flywheels distributed along the crank, caused the bent wire T crank to twist and squirm very severely at certain engine speeds. Twist and untwist as it never did before. Added counterweights can very well wear out a T crank. Meaning, it breaks without warning. Ask around about a real, aftermarket counterweighted crank made in the 1920s- it was a big seller, and not Mickey-Mouse looking like the bolt on Dunn weights. It had integral, forged counterweights of much smaller m*** than the Dunn weights. This "SureMike" crank promised you'd "Run faster with less vibration", and indeed there was merit to SureMikes's claims. It would be better named, however, "SureBreak" because they have a reputation for letting go sooner or later. Why? Maybe the forging wasn't equal to Ford's work... OR.... ****ysis of the problem involves explaining some basics about the behavior of a crankshaft in the running engine. It is long, it is skinny, it is undamped at the forward end. It has crooks or bends and forging flaws and usually, hidden cracks due to long use and old age. The crank throws receive terrific power impulses, reoccuring in a certain order. Each explosion forces a twist into the springy crank. This is a torsional vibration. If the torsional vibration becomes large in amplitude the crank will quickly fatigue, much as when you bend a paper clip back and forth. Hopping up a T engine to produce double its stock horsepower is a good way to break a crank. The metal only knows twist. More twist less life span. This is why modern cars and quality cars of olden days have much thicker cranks than in the T, to reduce torsional flex. Another crank-breaker is harmonic vibration. Any object that can be flexed has what is called a "natural period of vibration". A piano string has a natural period of vibration- for that is where it will vibrate with greatest amplitude with minimum power input. So does a wooden yardstick clamped to a table edge and sprung by the hand. A crankshaft, loaded with reciprocating pistons and rods, and having a number of kinks and changes of cross section along its length also has a natural period of torsional vibration- perhaps several! In practically every engine, the rear end of the crankshaft is loaded (or constrained) by a m***ive flywheel. The flywheel cannot suddenly reverse its direction. And even though torsional vibrations will not be reduced one bit, the flywheel checks harmonic vibrations. In practically every modern engine, we find a "harmonic damper" attached to the free, front end of the crank. Whatever its design, the harmonic dampers job is to absorb torsional movements at the end of the crank. The T has no harmonic damper, which is a bit of a shame, because it would really benefit from a damper. Now, what happens when we add upwards of 16 pounds of rotating m*** to the flywheel, distributed between the one and two and also, between the three and four cylinders? The harmonic resonance point of the engine has been drastically altered. When harmonic vibrations occur- and they occur just as they did before, only at different bands of engine rpms- the extra m*** of the Dunn weights makes the crank suffer far larger harmonic excursions than before. Like this rough example- extend your arm outward and wave it up and down through an arc of six inches. Do this as fast as possible. Next take a weight of some sort in the hand and repeat the test, trying to get the same up-down speed and keeping the same restricted arc of motion. You cannot- not without using much more muscle! The T crank does not have muscle; only springy steel. And so, the result to the T is that the torsional vibrations increase in amplitude. I found in my own car that at a road speed of 42 mph the harmonic vibrations became so powerful as to make the whole engine and car thrum very loudly. This was a dynamically balanced crank, btw. One night I was out doing a speed run and when p***ing through that critical speed of 42-45 mph the fiber timing gear suddenly was stripped of its teeth. I had to get a flatbed ride home. The Dunn weights did it. How? Because at the critical speed of resonance the back-and-forth _shimmy_ at the front end of the crankshaft actually turned the steel crank gear into an immensely powerful battering ram- to the fiber timing gear. It fractured a fiber tooth and that spelled destruction for the remaining teeth. Wham! What a noise it made at 45 mph! When replacing the timing gear with yet another fiber gear I pulled the lower cover to clean out the gear debris. And take off the Dunn Weights. Next ride I found there was no more distress at 42. None at all. As I said, even a stock crank has considerable periods of harmonic vibration. They are made much, much more intense by Dunn counterweights. On my own car the barometer of harmonic activity in the crank is my fan belt. Yet- seriously. My fan belt runs tight. Its treated with an anti-slip compound. It runs straight and true on a ball bearing fan hub. I drive with the hood off, and I can glance at the belt while driving. At several road speeds the belt can be seen to flutter. I avoid steady driving at about 32 mph, for instance, because this is a belt fluttering speed. Close the throttle and the flutter instantly stops. Open wide, and the flutter gets worse- but only over a road speed band about 2mph wide. With the Dunn weights that flutter at 42 mph extended up to 45 mph. The belt whipped and flapped so violently that I thought the loud thrumming noise must be from the belt itself! It was not. I slipped the belt off the pulley and ran up the critical speed again. No belt, and the thrumming was louder than ever. I determined in fact, that a low-slip fanbelt actually confers a very useful degree of harmonic damping to the T crankshaft. Harmonic damping is a good thing. Much more recently I read in a book on vibration theory that close coupled engine accessories do indeed help damp the crankshaft contortions. The harmonic damper is better, however, because it is a full time, purpose built device. If one carries this logic to its conclusion, it is quite clear that if a crank is so heavy and beefy that it twists very little, it will hardly ever fatigue. If it is twisty as a paper clip, and you force it to twist further than intended it will break sooner than later. Dunn counterweights force the T crank into much larger torsional excursions at resonance. Similarly in a sense, doubling engine HP forces larger excursions at all rpms. But even at double HP, the maximum excursions of the stock crank in a highly hopped engine by my guess are not so severe as those brought on by the heavy Dunn weights in a 20 HP T running at the critical speed of forced harmonic vibrations. What the T needs is not counterweights. It needs a thicker crank. Reid -End qoute.
Thanks for clearing a few things up for me everyone. Im fairly new and am eager to learn. I will go with the 32 axle/reverse eye route. I am also running 550x16 in the front and 700x16 in the rear, if I have to much rake with the stock spring in the rear would a T spring get me down a bunch? Maybe if I remove a few leafs? Also, what mallory model should I be looking for to fit my now pre '50 build? Is a Mallory dual point #2301105 too modern?
I've been doing this type of research lately, pre vs. post war. I ended up deciding on a 2" dropped A axle and reversed eye spring up front and a T spring in the rear. I figure a 3" drop all around with 600x16 and 700x16 blackwalls will put me in the ballpark. Then again, I have a Victoria. It probably wouldn't have been modified back in the 40's anyway. By the way, some one else can correct me if I'm wrong. The banger threads mainly pertain to the motors, carbs, intakes, ignitions etc.. not necessarily the car or ch***is they reside in. Although, I don't think anyone will mind too much.
I have a 32 34 front axle on my RPU and it dropped the front end 1 3/4" then a reversed eye spring with a couple of leaves out and with the added weight of the 2 port possibly lowering it a little more due to weakened front spring it looks *****en' (to me anyways) but the only way I can get the Winfield's back to level is to remachine the carburetor mounting flanges. I think I will pull the 2 port and go back to a Winfield flathead. Can't make up my mind, can't drive the thing myself.So why? Watch out with them 700's if you don't increase the beans you might lose top end and p***ing gear.
RECORD OHV setup: Has anyone ever seen a car with a RECORD overhead, is there any info out there? Someone once told me they were made in France
Do you mean compression? You've had problems with 700's on stock motors? Don't have the tires yet but, I'm planning on buying before spring.
You guys know I have a 31 Woody for sale. We get the motor started today Spun it some, just to get oil kicking around and shake the dust out of the starter. After that it fired right up. No smoke leaks NADA. Kindda like the VW in Woody Allen's ''Sleeper'' First tire kickers come tomorrow.
How my friend Pete and I spend Saturday, I drove my 30 A pickup to Orcutt, Ca. to all Ford Show. I live about 24 miles away. About 4 miles form the show the A shut down and was making bad noses, let it sit a short time and restarted it and ran ok, think a valve got stuck. After getting the to show we meet up with Phil, Max and Pat,(BHT8BALL) from SLO and Paso. It was my lucky day as Pat had his new 2 piece cylinder head at the show and I was able to see and get my hands on it. It is very nice. Max's Model A roadster won his cl***, as for my pickup we made it home ok Mike
It has been a long time but yes, you will notice a difference with 700's on the rear of an A with a box stock engine. Not so much driving on level ground or going downhill. Actually you would notice a slight improvement in top speed on level or down hill but you will also notice a slight loss in your hill climbing ability and or your acceleration. You will not only increase the diameter but you are also increasing rolling resistance due to wider tread. These things are small but a slightly tired engine will be affected even if ever so slightly. So, a guy goes out and buys a stock engined A. Basically a stock car. After the initial thrill of driving the old car wears off the next step is to improve the performance. A straight through design muffler helps. Maybe no muffler, after all, it is a Banger now! then maybe a different carburetor. Now we bolt on a higher compression head, improve the ignition. We need a reason to pull the engine down to replace the camshaft cause every one says that what you need to go even faster, put one a them metal timing gears on too. Goddam!. does this thing run now. Faster than snot. 65 miles an hour! No sweat. Oh ****! what's that knocking sound? Could that be one of them rods the guy's on the forum talk about? Guess I'm one of the guy's now, sitting here looking out the window at my broken model A ford or maybe its hidden from sight in the garage and you are seriously removing stuff now! Causing the wife or mom to ask questions like, "Well why can't you drive it?" "What's a rod?" Why did you say you need one?"" When are you going to put the fenders back on?" "Looks like a tuxedo with tennis shoes!" " HOW much did you say?" "NO we can't!"or " NO you can't!" Life goes on!
The Jalopy Journal
