MTFCA Forum

Just started to fit my rebuilt connecting rods and I am not sure if this is a Babbitt defect or not. It is a 3 under rod from Langs and i was using Timesaver to fit it my 1.2223 - 1.2226 (0.0003 out of round) fat crank journal. First, I did a loose dry fit and then scraped some high spots that were along the width of the rod at the cap to rod split. Then I went to the Timesaver. When I removed the rod and cleaned of the Timesaver, I saw this possible crack in the Babbitt.

Is it defective? Is the Babbitt maybe not cracked? Did I cause the crack? Can I just go forward and use this rod?

I have not touched the other 3 rods and they look good.

Thanks, Richard

The only thing I can see is that the groove needs to be cleaned up so not sure where you are seeing a crack. You might take a marking pen and circle where you are asking about. Or try soaking in mineral spirits and see if leave a wet spot where the crack might be. After wiping off, the mineral spirits will leach out leaving a wet mark.

I do not see a crack all I see is a dull cutter scraping the babbitt for a oil groove.

It's a crack all right. do not use it.

Blow the photo up to full screen size and you will see 3 cracks, the major one is up the oil groove closest and another one on the other oil groove and also one running around the radius.
As an engine builder I do not approve of these type of rods in a T engine. Oil grooved rods give less mileage due to loss of internal hydro oil pressure.

Hard to tell- is the babbitt at the apex of the groove lifting up? Might just be a burr kicked up by the grooving tool on a 2nd pass- look how the groove is somewhat displaced off to the left of the arrows. Try prying on it with a box knife blade or Exacto knife. The other groove that I put the box around appears to have some wiped babbitt in the groove - I would debur that for sure.

The rod was not tinned properly and the temperature might have been too cold so that the babbit did not stick. It will eventually break off so you need to re-pour or replace with another rod.
Norm

I can get the point of my exacto knife under the crack, but it does not easily lift. Perhaps, they just cut all the way through the babbitt with the X cut.

New Photo after some crude scraping. A private message indicated that it was just a burr. From the results of my scraping, I believe that it is just a burr as much of the "crack" has been removed.

If I bought a rod like that, I would be asking for an exchange. Even if those are not cracks, it shows sub-standard work which the vendor needs to know about.

Allan from down under.

To my eye... there are issues with the babbit on that rod. Especially since that's not present on the other 3... It also looks like the X grooves aren't even... some deep, some shallow... You want them to be even so you have equal oiling within them... Add to the obvious cracking...

I would (politely) ask for it to be replaced, return the questionable rod, so the vendor can examine it and, possibly, adress it with the people doing their babbitt work. It's Lang's; I'd be surprised if they don't work with you on this. Honestly, if I were building a motor I don't think I'd trust that in something I built.

I have uploaded all 4 new rods. I am anxious to move this project forward.

No dipper holes? and what's with all those shims on the second rod photo?

Another thing I just picked up on, those rods have no oil swipe cut on the parting lines, with no oil hole for a dipper and no swipes, I give them about 15 minutes before they stuff-up.

With no oil holes, and no relief at the parting lines, I wonder whether those roughly cut X groove in both cap and rod would ever get much oil. Contrast that effort with the beautiful job Herm used to do.

Allan from down under.

I ‘gotta’ ask, if you cut an X that big in a rod, are you doing more harm than good? look at the surface area of the bearing that’s lost. The X lets oil in, but also gives the oil a path out under presure

I ‘gotta’ ask, if you cut an X that big in a rod, are you doing more harm than good? look at the surface area of the bearing that’s lost. The X lets oil in, but also gives the oil a path out under pressure. In my mind the film strength of the oil is what prevents metal to metal contact (bearing failure) and if you have a big old X, it’s like those grade school papers with an X I got, something an’t right. Why not leave the engine bearings like Ford intended?[attachment=1]9BFA54B5-FBDD-47C8-91C2

Those are ugly. The corner radii are not round, and there is a lot of grime on the flat areas around the bolts, even on the edges of the babbitt. The X grooves will do nothing without oil holes and dippers. I have seen nicer grooves put in with a can opener. You would be better off without them. Some of the shims look used. I would hate to put them in an engine. Looking at that quality of work, would you want to bet they were straight?

Just for comparison, here's some re-done rods both plain and with oil hole and X'd for a dipper. These are what you should expect from a quality rebuilder.

Yikes!!

Sorry if that offends, but I think comparing the ones Dan shot a picture of VS the ones you have says it all...

I think I'd be shipping them back. And Langs needs to talk to their rebabbitt people. I know it's a delay, but IMO it's worth it as otherwise you might be back into this motor before long...

Bob,
Question asked, and answered with what you posted, spot on, a bearing of surface area the size of a T crank will suffer with X'ing.