The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Sleeved Block

Been following Bryce's questions and comments on rebuilding his 216. And I would have to say I'm in agreement with him on staying with the 216.

I'm doing a complete frame-off on a 1951 3100, back to original, and I certainly want to stay with what came in the truck. But that's just my preference. It ain't for everybody, and that's ok.

The block that came in the truck had apparently been bored years ago, and had way more wear in it now that what we could find pistons for. I'm not up for a .060 bore anyway. So we have decided to sleeve it and go back to standard bore. We sleeved round track small blocks years ago and never had a problem with them, so why not?

As for re-babbeting the rods, my machine shop resized the rods, taking all of the remaining babbet out, and we're going back with standard rod bearings. All we had to do was machine a slot on the rod cap and the rod for the bearing tang. Anybody ever done this, or seen it done? Any reason why this wouldn't work? I sure hope it does, cause we're gonna try it.

Any pros or cons, I'm open to hearing about it.

Mike (Kades pawpaw)

I have had the rods in my truck's 216 machined for inserts but they were inserts made for that application, not ordinary inserts.

Correct. We are using, (or going to use), a rod bearing designed for this application.

We checked around, and they may very well be done cheaper, but $90.00 per rod to re-babbet, I was not up for.

The simple fix for a 216 with a worn bore is to use aluminum pistons for a 235. It's a 1/16" overbore (.0625") with the same wrist pin diameter and compression height as a 216. There are plenty of standard bore 235 pistons available at reasonable prices- - - -check Ebay. The engine ends up at 224 cubic inches, has a little more compression, and the aluminum pistons don't wear out the rod bearings as fast as those heavy cast iron pistons do! We did that for a lot of years with no problems with the overbore. It will cost less than half what a 6-sleeve job does.
Jerry

Definitely the best cure.

We used to do the same thing with Plymouth flathead sixes- - - -bore the block out and install Dodge pistons.
Jerry

Another priceless, quick-hitter from HRL!
I hope someone is chronicling and archiving these gems for future generations (and for forgetful old farts who CRS).
Carl

Curious, what is the rod machining and insert bearing going to cost?

I was under the impression that was pretty expensive as well.

I have done Babbit rod machining, and with the proper setup it is not terribly expensive. Unfortunately, the conversion bearings are getting scarce, and somewhat expensive. Don't even think about finding .020" undersize- - - -nobody's got them anymore. Standard size bearings are also hard to find, so we're left with .010 or .030 undersize.

Rod bearings for a Massey-Ferguson 165 tractor with a Perkins Diesel engine are almost a perfect match for 216 and 235 splasher rods. They are inexpensive and available in bulk, in standard diameter and several undersizes, but they require a little bit of modification to work with a stovebolt engine such as drilling oil holes in a couple of places and machining a groove in the center of the bearing. I'm in the process of building fixtures to do that type of modification.
Jerry

I just finished overhauling my 1940 216 and I used rods rebabbitted by Federal Mogul. I bought them on Ebay a few years back. I had the shop that was doing my head check the rods and one was bent! It is all back together now and running fine.

Clevite CB416P

We're taking this bearing, sizing the rod to this bearing, and then we can cut the crank to fit whatever we need it to. The worst than can happen is that it works.

Our NAPA DC here had a machine shop back in the 70's and 80's. Guy who worked there for years was telling me that they did re-babbiting and did what we're going to do. He remembered that there was a tractor bearing, (as you said above), that was an almost exact fit. He thought it was either a John Deere or a Massey.

And let's not fool ourselves on a restore. If you are not aware that several thousand dollars (or more) can be/will be spent on doing this, you had best leave it alone. But you save where you can save. Trying what we're trying is way cheaper than re-babbiting.

I'm in kind of a unique situation in that I have access to a machine shop and a machinists that has 20+ years of doing engines. He did all our oval track small block stuff years ago, so I kinda trust him.

As I told someone recently, it would kinda foolish to have the truck sitting here, no motor, just to look at. I can spend however much time trying to find a good useable 216 block (unlikely), or I can use what I have, as long as it works and functions correctly. If the rod bearing deal we're doing works, then the next guy can do it. If it doesn't work, I add that to the list of stuff that I know doesn't work.

Old time racer told me this years ago, he had legal pads full of stuff that did not work, but he did have half a page of stuff, that did work.

Mike

Other direct-fit bearings after machining are Federal-Mogul 1415SB and TRW CB503B. They already have the correct oil grooves and holes to fit the splasher rods, and the correct bore size for the machinist to use is 2.403-2.404". I stop a couple of thousandths short of the final diameter and finish-size the holes with a Sunnen hone. Good luck on your project!
Jerry

I'm not disputing any of these comments or suggestions, but I'm a big believer in stepping outside the box to see if maybe this will work, or that will work, and so on.

Jerry, obviously, you do machine work for a living, (or have or did).
I have not, but I'll certainly ask why this wouldn't work, or that wouldn't fit, or whatever.

We'll know in the next week or so how all of this turns out. It may turn out to be a train wreck. At least we'll know.

Mike

So if the re-babbiting was going to cost $90 per rod, is the machine work and insert bearing going to cost $50?

Just curious. Got a 216 I'd like to rebuild at some point.

Machining for the CB416P will cut a divot out of the rod bolts- - - -the CB416B has an OD of 2.436/2.437", while the correct conversion bearing for the Babbit rods is only 2.403/2.404". The 416 bearing is also almost 1/8" narrower than the correct bearing. That might work, but I'd strongly recommend using the right bearing for the job if you can acquire them. The conversion bearings also have the holes drilled in the proper location to align with the dipper holes. The CB416 bearings for the later model 235's will have to have some holes drilled in different places, and you'll need a groove cut in the center of the bearing to provide 360 degree lubrication. You will end up spending far more time and money than either rebabbiting your rods or using the correct bearings. Your money, your choice, but I've converted a couple of hundred rods this way, so I can speak with the voice of experience.
Jerry

I hate to say this, and I'm sure it's painfully obvious to the veterans here, but there is a presumption (not limited to old cars) that the finished product must be worth whatever it cost to fix.
This makes for busted marriages, foreclosures, ruined friendships, etc.
I dimly remember someone's mod of a price/time estimate for an engine rebuild: "Make it more realistic - add $5,000 and 2 years".

I had an outfit named L&B CON ROD SERVICE in Anaheim CA. machine my 216 rods for inserts. The rod bearing I used was a Clevite CB503B Purchased as part of a kit (with aluminum pistons) from Green Bay Parts World. The parts were all high quality name brand parts and the price was excellent when shopping around. I have sleeved lots of blocks and it is labor intensive and costly, but a good fix. I like the sound of the 235 pistons, if there is enough meat that sounds like a good option to me. Scott

The reason why older blocks generally have thicker cylinder walls isn't to improve the quality of the product, or permit more rebuilds.
It was to reduce the number of blocks that must be scrapped because of bore location errors.
Some 3.500" blocks will allow .125" over (very accurate casting) with no bad results, some will crack in service at .090" (bore isn't centered in the casting).
IMHO +.060" is both efficient and harmless.

I applaud what the OP and HRL are doing here.

Although the 216 has its limitations, I shudder to think how many are being scrapped every day in lieu of 235s or SBCs. For that matter 235s are disappearing every day, too.

I'm in my mid 30s and would love to be able to devote more time to this hobby later in life. By then, stovebolts might be relatively scarce, especially the 216. Although millions were made, the supply is not infinite.

Rebuilding a 216 may not be the most practical thing (what about this hobby is practical anyway?), but I'm glad some are trying to preserve a process that makes it at least possible.

I'm in the process of developing a high volume oil pump option for the 216/235 engines, using gears from a small block V8 pump and a spacer between the pump housing and the cover to take up the difference in gear height. I've been soundly criticized for attempting it already, so the naysayers don't have to repeat themselves. I'm very interested in keeping as many splasher engines in service as possible, so if anyone within reasonable driving distance of south central Tennessee has one cluttering up their scrap heap I'll be glad to relocate it for you!
Jerry

I'll take the hit for this. I originally started this topic wanting thoughts on sleeving a 216, hence the 'Sleeved Block'. But my mind got ahead of my typing (hunt & peck), and I got off on the rod bearing deal. I probably should had done that in another topic.

There is a reason there is vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and so on and so on. Some want exact original, some want close as they can get to original (or appearance thereof), and some want a disc brake set-up with a small block V8.

Me personally, I wanted to do this truck, back to original as close as possible. I want it looking and driving like it did when it left the Chevy dealership back in 1951. Have no intentions of selling or swapping or trading it. I'm not in my mid 30's, but mid 50's. And my 9 year old grandson (Kade) already knows it's his one day.

My thinking, if it came with a 216, for it to be authentic, it needs to stay with a 216. And whatever course I have to go, to make this 216 run like new, then that's the course I'm taking. But that course may not be for the next guy. And that's fine. That's why Baskin-Robbins is in business.

I don't really care that my 216 had to be sleeved, it didn't come sleeved, but it's going to run like new, and it for all intents and purposes, it has an original (or real close to it) 216.

HRL, you can add your oil pump option to that legal pad half-page of stuff that DOES work. Know this, those naysayers have not attempted it.

Now that I'm off my soapbox, any pros or cons on sleeving a 216?

Mike

I have had some engines sleeved because the cylinders were egg shaped and causing piston slap. The slap caused a sound similar to bad wrist pins. Never had a problem after they were sleeved, they ran great. Many farm tractor engines have either wet or dry sleeves in their cylinders. Part of their rebuild is to replace the sleeves.

Rick

Back when I was building round track small block engines in the high school auto shop where I was an instructor for about 30 years, I was GIVEN several race-prepped 350 4 bolt blocks because "It's already 60 over- - - -it's worn out!" I put my advanced-level students to work installing 8 sleeves and going back to standard bore. They got lots of good practice, and I got a block with at least 75% of the prep work for a race engine done, for the cost of 8 sleeves. Use 3/32" wall sleeves- - - -no point in boring big enough for the 1/8" heavy wall sleeve if you're not repairing a crack or a hole in the cylinder wall. Also, skip cylinders with the sleeving operation- - - -sleeve cylinders 1,3,and 5, then go back and sleeve 2,4,and 6. It decreases the distortion of the block that way. Leave a 1/8" wide step at the bottom of the cylinder uncut for the sleeve to rest on as it's driven in, then face off the top of the sleeve flush with the top of the block. That sandwiches the sleeve between the head and the un-bored step and prevents it from moving. Use a .002" press fit and drive the sleeve in with a piece of heavy steel plate and a BFH, not a press. The hammering actually creates less stress on the block than a steady push. (Yes, I've installed a few hundred sleeves in my 50+ years in the trade!)
Jerry