[wbnapier]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

You do get an appreciation for how well the original engines and all the internal components fit together and worked flawlessly for millions and millions of miles when weird stacked-up tolerance problems like this happen. I have built probably just under 100 Pontiac V-8 engines and I have never seen this problem crop up. But there it is and apparently Butler has seen it. Another little thing I will certainly check moving forward. I am glad the OP won't have a huge expense getting this fixed. A tough lesson for sure. My personal thank you for sticking with the Pontiac engine and getting it repaired so you can enjoy the car. It will be worth it.

Thanks for the kind words...

I just emailed Luhn to get a new set of cam bearings. That's my first purchase.

Working through the list of new gaskets and what not now. Most of them got mangled in the tear down...

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by wbnapier

Thanks for the kind words...

I just emailed Luhn to get a new set of cam bearings. That's my first purchase.

Working through the list of new gaskets and what not now. Most of them got mangled in the tear down...

I see you are in CA, but if this helps....... PM me a list of what gaskets you need and I will send them no charge other than postage . I should have everything other than head gaskets. They would be a mixture of Fel-pro, Mr. Gasket and OE. Want to see you back on the road.

[tom s]

I have a Xtra set of cam bearing I can loan you until yours comes in.Can take them to Mike today if it helps.Tom

[wbnapier]

Originally Posted by tom s

I have a Xtra set of cam bearing I can loan you until yours comes in.Can take them to Mike today if it helps.Tom

Tom,

That would be great. I'm not sure if it would speed things up, but worth a try. Thank you.

Luhn hasn't responded to my email yet.

I've ordered the ones that are not teflon coated, item # PGCB-P.

[dmac]

Is this something that would be caught by any basic shop assembling/installing a rotating assembly?

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by dmac

Is this something that would be caught by any basic shop assembling/installing a rotating assembly?

Most likely. But, if I am reading this post correctly, a shop did not assemble the engine, the forum member did.

That said, and not to be mean, there are things that many of us who want to assemble our own engines after the machine shop has done all their work, can miss or not even know what to look for. I myself have learned mostly from a lot of hands on assembly, and yep, screwed up. But, I wanted to assemble my own engines as well. So there is a learning curve if you don't do this daily and most times you won't encounter problems such as this.

I do a lot of reading and have many books covering many brand makes of engines to include Pontiacs, that go over "blueprint" practices for those high-performance and race engines. You can pick up a lot and even apply some of that to our Pontiac engines.

I know to check my bearings at those edges that will meet the radius/fillet found on the crank. The radius is important and having one makes the crank stronger. Race engines having race type cranks can have a very large radius just for that reason. So it is important to verify that if your crank has a good radius that your bearings have a chamfer so as to clear the radius or use a narrowed bearing. Some makers offer main bearings with the radius already cut into them. Rod bearings are the same thing.

But, if I did not know to look/check for this, then why would I? You buy all new parts, have the machine shop do the needed machining, and then figure they just need to be assembled doing all your basic assembly checks as the original member did. So nothing was really done wrong, it was just that something that would have never caused an issue with a stock crank became an issue with an aftermarket crank.

I think the lesson is that anything aftermarket really has to be taken to a machine shop who can them really give it a 100% inspection/check and even go as far as blueprint it to make sure the item is within spec and not just assume it is because it is new and right out of the box. Sad that has to be said, but quality does not seem to be what it used to be anymore.

Luckily, no major harm was done to the engine and all will be well and up and running again in short order.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

Most likely. But, if I am reading this post correctly, a shop did not assemble the engine, the forum member did.

That said, and not to be mean, there are things that many of us who want to assemble our own engines after the machine shop has done all their work, can miss or not even know what to look for. I myself have learned mostly from a lot of hands on assembly, and yep, screwed up. But, I wanted to assemble my own engines as well. So there is a learning curve if you don't do this daily and most times you won't encounter problems such as this.

I do a lot of reading and have many books covering many brand makes of engines to include Pontiacs, that go over "blueprint" practices for those high-performance and race engines. You can pick up a lot and even apply some of that to our Pontiac engines.

I know to check my bearings at those edges that will meet the radius/fillet found on the crank. The radius is important and having one makes the crank stronger. Race engines having race type cranks can have a very large radius just for that reason. So it is important to verify that if your crank has a good radius that your bearings have a chamfer so as to clear the radius or use a narrowed bearing. Some makers offer main bearings with the radius already cut into them. Rod bearings are the same thing.

But, if I did not know to look/check for this, then why would I? You buy all new parts, have the machine shop do the needed machining, and then figure they just need to be assembled doing all your basic assembly checks as the original member did. So nothing was really done wrong, it was just that something that would have never caused an issue with a stock crank became an issue with an aftermarket crank.

I think the lesson is that anything aftermarket really has to be taken to a machine shop who can them really give it a 100% inspection/check and even go as far as blueprint it to make sure the item is within spec and not just assume it is because it is new and right out of the box. Sad that has to be said, but quality does not seem to be what it used to be anymore.

Luckily, no major harm was done to the engine and all will be well and up and running again in short order.

Just my 2 cents.

Long ago Dan Whitmore told me the Pontiac V8 and the small block Mopar had the same oiling system. So he used information that came from the Mopar circle track guys who raced them back in the day. Transferred it to our Pontiacs.
Its good to read stuff about other engines.
It looks like a somewhat happy ending for the OP. Hope he gets it back on the road soon.

[tom s]

JMHO,I love the Butlers,buy quite of bit from them.BUT from the email from them they knew there could be a issue and for sure there should of been something put in with the receipt to call attention to the issue.And I still have not found a narrow main bearing?H are for HiPo and X is for 1 thou more clearance but find nothing with a N like a narrow rod bearing?Tom

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by tom s

JMHO,I love the Butlers,buy quite of bit from them.BUT from the email from them they knew there could be a issue and for sure there should of been something put in with the receipt to call attention to the issue.And I still have not found a narrow main bearing?H are for HiPo and X is for 1 thou more clearance but find nothing with a N like a narrow rod bearing?Tom

As stated, I am not an expert on engine building and am sure you have more experience than myself, but I found a few interesting things in an article on the web. I realize that rod bearings come in narrow widths - which is more of what I was leaning to. The chamfers on the main bearings I did find available for a small block. I also know that you can purchase a tool to chamfer bearings, but of course the average guy with an electric drill and vice isn't going to be doing this.

Clevite & King sell a .001 narrowed main bearing set (also .002 for Clevite) and King main bearings do advertise the chamfers for large radius cranks.

Here is what I read: "Taken as a generalized statement, stock replacement rod bearings are often slightly wider than their high performance bearing cousins. To illustrate this point, we measured the width of a set of stock replacement aluminum Federal-Mogul connecting rod bearings for a big-block Chevy compared to a set of Federal-Mogul (Speed-Pro) performance tri-metal bearings. The stock aluminum versions measured 0.885-inch while the performance bearings were 0.020-inch narrower at 0.865-inch. Using the wider bearings on a performance forged steel crankshaft could cause the outer edges of the bearing to bind on the larger fillet radius of the crankshaft. This could cause immediate bearing failure, and at the minimum will cause bearing debris to be released into the oil."

Now I found this interesting and thinking out of the box, is it possible the bearing halves were mixed up at the factory? I realize you align the oil hole in the bearing half with the oil hole in the block, but what if the wrong half got drilled at the factory? Why I ask is that this same article mentions the register tang position having an upper & lower position to the bearing half - this is again in regards to a rod bearing, but could this apply to a main?

"Narrowed bearings also brings up the issue of rod bearing chamfers. Most performance rod bearings are designed with a chamfer on one side of the bearing to accommodate the large radius on the edge of the journal. Since the inboard side of the bearing avoids this fillet radius, there is no need for a chamfer on both side of the bearing. But with both upper and lower bearings, this demands that the bearing be placed in their proper orientation. Because the bearing is located by its tang, a chamfered bearing must be installed either as an upper or lower bearings since the chamfer will be on the opposite side for a lower compared to an upper bearing half.

This requires performance rod bearings with these chamfers to be marked “upper” and “lower”. Some bearing companies abbreviate this by using “U” and “L” as stamped on the back side of the rod. If these bearing halves are incorrectly installed, the bearing’s flat edge will face the fillet radius and create immediate bearing wear in this location–often the rod will even bind once the cap is torqued. "

I read that the bearing tang was slightly off. Is it possible the factory.manufacturing source had the bearings flipped and drilled the oiling hole in the wrong bearing half thus positioning the tang in the wrong place and pushing the bearing in the direction of the crank radius rather than away from it? Just thinking here knowing how quality control can be - especially if outsourced from overseas.

[wbnapier]

I read that the bearing tang was slightly off. Is it possible the factory.manufacturing source had the bearings flipped and drilled the oiling hole in the wrong bearing half thus positioning the tang in the wrong place and pushing the bearing in the direction of the crank radius rather than away from it? Just thinking here knowing how quality control can be - especially if outsourced from overseas.[/QUOTE]

I am hoping that the Clevite rep takes an interest and answers these questions.

For the record, I have no illusion of financial relief at this point. Just intellectual curiosity.

[Sirrotica]

I'm kind of surprised of the content of that E Mail. Although I've never done any business with the Butlers, I have shared an adjoining spot on the manufacturers midway at Norwalk for 7 years, and have had occasion to talk to them during the event in the course of selling my Pontiac themed T shirts.

One year there was someone displaying a crank that was pretty much destroyed in the swap meet, that was from an engine that had problems, alluding to the crank was bought from the Butlers, and was alleged to have been defective when bought, causing the engine to fail. The situation got back to the Butlers and they went and discussed the situation, and came to some type of understanding that the aggrieved party was going to get some type of compensation for their trouble.

From the story I was told, it didn't sound to me that the crank was the fault of the vendor, but in a leap of good faith they were willing to do something to help out the customer.

I've heard that some of the employees in the past have been abrupt on the phone with customers, and that the owners would have been less than happy with the responses from their employees. In my speaking with them over the years they're nice, fair, people. I'm wondering if the E Mail was from an employee, rather than one of the Butler family.....

The core shift response sounds like a far fetched reach in trying to explain away what happened with the rotating assembly. Just kind of surprised at that response.

I'm in agreement that core shift happens during the casting process when the block is made. It has little to do with how main bearings sit in the block decades after the fact. IMO, If anything, the factory machining initially would make a problem, not core shift. FWIW.

I have a friend that builds his own SBC oval track engines, when he stepped up to using aftermarket cranks over factory pieces, he also ran into the radius problem on rod throws. He caught the interference problem and had to order the relieved rod bearings to solve his problem. The Pontiac community doesn't have anywhere near the choices of bearings that SBC builders do, we sometimes have to modify the bearings themselves rather than buy a bearing that fits our applications. Just a fact due to the supply, and demand in our small circle..............

[wbnapier]

I spoke to my machinist yesterday, and the long block will be ready for me to pick up the week after Thanksgiving... So, I should have it installed and running by Christmas.

He will be using FM bearings this time around!

Some other interesting points from the machinist.

The camshaft woodruff key didn't sit well in the groove and I broke one cam gear on install, and another on disassembly. The machinist uses a non-Pontiac one that has a flat bottom and nests better, solving this issue.

Also, he doesn't like the composite dizzy gears. I had a BOP one I was going to put on, but he thinks a gear that matches the camshaft alloy is best.

Anyway, I'm excited to get this project moving forward. I'll post photos when the time comes.

[dataway]

I don't know if my experience is typical, but I bought a stock crank from Butler, turned .010" . Had to be remachined to fix it, journals varied by close to .001. And the key was still stuck in the dirty crank snout so well I had to TIG weld a piece on it to get it out.

However ... Butler does not do the machining on their off the shelf stock cranks, it was machined by Lunati. At least that was the case a couple of years ago.

[Sirrotica]

Just for clarification, the crank was a new in the box, cast 455 replacement crank, not something that was refurbished factory style.

[lust4speed]

I would expect to see the rear edge of #5 bearing tore up if the problem was the radius contacting the bearing. Instead it looks like either the block bearing journal was machined smaller at the rear or the bearing was thicker at the rear. Possibly the guy running the hone was pulling up short or there was another problem? The journal size can still be measured to rule this out. Also, a short radius touching the bearing would attempt to spread the bearing and damage would be much more centralized at the rear. I use Clevite bearings because the FM Babbitt thickness's were all over the map while the Clevite's were much more uniform, but...

How did #4 thrust spin 1/2" or so and the tangs are still perfect?

Don't think we will ever figure out the plugs closing up or the chipped cam gear.

Just think we're going down the wrong rabbit hole chasing the position of the rear bearing.

[MarkS57]

Originally Posted by lust4speed

I would expect to see the rear edge of #5 bearing tore up if the problem was the radius contacting the bearing. Instead it looks like either the block bearing journal was machined smaller at the rear or the bearing was thicker at the rear. Possibly the guy running the hone was pulling up short or there was another problem? The journal size can still be measured to rule this out.

This is a good point. Something noticed in post 193 (attached) check out the red circle.

[mgarblik]

Been thinking about the Butler response to this condition being core shift and that being dismissed out of hand by everyone in the thread. While I agree a machining error in tang location or the crankshaft is the most likely cause, IMO core shift is a possibility. Here is how. The main saddles are part of the multiple cores assembled in the core box for the block. During the pour of there was a minor shift in the core box, one or more of the main saddles could be slightly out of position. When it was originally line bored and assembled with a cast OE crankshaft with almost no fillet radius it may have just barely cleared and run without issue. When the Scat crank was installed with the large radius, everything changed as far as fitment and minimum clearance and then the failure. So , I am saying core shift is possible. It's something I have never seen in the #5 of a Pontiac, but I learn new things every day. I will sure be looking more carefully in that area now.

[wbnapier]

mgarblik - Maybe.

For me, I am trusting the machinist on this. He told me that he is sure, with certainty, that it is a #5 Clevite bearing issue. He has compared it older style Clevite bearings and modern FM bearings. He has bearings there now, 3", 3.25", standard and 10 under. Also, he has the Clevite rep involved, whom respects his diagnostic abilities enough to come to the shop and now has scheduled a revisit to pursue this as a QC issue.

Also, I want everyone to know that is reading this, that my only request of Butler was to contact Clevite, as a reseller, on my behalf regarding the QC issue. I told them that the local Clevite rep is involved and gave them the contact info of my machinist.

It would be great, if out of this debalcle, Clevite would introduce a more chamferred and/or narrow bearing for aftermarket forged crankshafts.

[mgarblik]

I agree with you. It's great that a Clevite rep is interested enough to get involved. It is also in their best interest to determine if it is in fact a bearing problem so they can recall effected bearing sets, or at least get the word out to vendors, shops and customers to check for a defect if one is found. Not doubting your machinist at all. If Joe Sherman was involved with this shop I would trust them absolutely.

[tom s]

The #4 bearing was a optical illusion.It was in the proper position when removed.There have been other reports of rear main bearings on pontiacs.Not a one time issue.Tom