The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop New to the forum- engine advice needed

It sounds like you got 1941-49 rings.
You might try a different supplier.
The rings you want only fit 1950-52.
GM part number for a standard bore is 3694009, these will have a 3/32" top ring.

On another note.
Be very careful when adjusting rod bearings on a used crank.
The way that seems easiest to do this is to have the rod and journal at the bottom of the stroke while testing.
When checking clearance there you are checking on the part of the crank that sees the most wear.
If you set the clearance in that position with Plastigauge you will find that when you turn the crank 90 degrees, for example, the rod will be binding on the journal.
Make sure you can shake each rod side to side, with little resistance, during a complete revolution on the crank when you are done.

No, and I'm not suggesting it would- - - -the ring diameter must be correct, but ring thickness on the same bore size ring can be accommodated by altering the piston. Since there is a difference in ring thickness for different year models, getting the right rings for your engine is the best bet. I once assembled an air cooled Volkswagen engine with an oddball big bore cylinder and piston set with half a set of flathead Ford V8 rings- - - - -it ran another 50K miles that way, trouble-free. I had to alter the ring groove dimension on those pistons to make the rings fit.
Jerry

Thanks Dave! I did make sure to do that. I plastigauged each rod, got the measurement, then put the cap back on and torqued it, then turned it a revolution, shaking it like you said. I had no binding issues, thankfully. I only had 1 piston in the engine at a time (without rings) to try and reduce the drag as much as I could, so I could feel it better if it was binding. It was a super long process, working under the truck, but I knew if I didn't do that I could severely regret it later.

Before we started adjusting bearing clearances back in the dark ages, we always measured the crankshaft for taper and out-of-round. Some guys would actually file a couple of thousandths off a rod cap, rather than put one together with no shims. That was NOT a recommended practice, BTW!
Jerry

I've heard of guys doing that. Also, while we're talking about things that aren't recommended...I've had several guys say they or someone they knew took a piston out of a 6-banger to keep the engine running, say if it had a bad bearing or something. They all said the engine didn't have as much power and had a miss under load, but other than that, it kept them on the road! Lol

The squirt-oiler engines could do that- - - -no drilled passageways in the crankshaft so there would be no change in oil pressure with a piston missing. It would also be necessary to remove the pushrods and valve lifters to that cylinder so the valves wouldn't operate.

I've put around 20K miles on an 05 Buick Rainier 4.2L engine with very low compression on one cylinder- - - -it's got a bad exhaust valve. I've just been too busy to get a head rebuilt and swapped out. It idles a little rough and I probably get 5 MPG lower gas mileage, but it keeps up with traffic on the interstate with no problems.
Jerry

Some time ago, an older gentleman/ mechanic was looking at my truck and got to telling stories from the good old days

He shared that the Chevy dealer in our area used to have a tool/fixture that allowed a 216 crank to be ground without removing the engine from the vehicle. Was hard for me to imagine, but once I looked it up, seems as though it was fairly common procedure.

I had another guy tell me that, too!

Ok guys, I promised I'd get a pic of the ol' girl, so here she is! The photo isn't the best, but it's the only one I have on my computer.

Work of art!

The biggest drawback to in-the frame crankshaft grinding was getting the all the grit cleaned up after the resizing operation. Ditto for boring and honing cylinders in the frame- - - -the cleanup was horrendous!
Jerry

I imagine so!

Just one look at that picture and I can smell the distinctive odor of blow-by wafting from the slits of the valve cover, and hear the whine of the those steep gears in that rear end.
Beautiful truck!

Thanks 52Carl! That means a lot, knowing that others appreciate it as well. And you are spot on with your description, especially the steep rear end gears.
Looking at the ol' girl now, you'd never know my Mom took that truck through a bridge when she was a young girl. She was heading to the grain elevator, crossed a bridge she usually crossed, then CRASH! Went right through the bridge and ripped the rear axle right off and spilled grain everywhere.

I have just been catching up on this thread. So my 1951 1 Ton Canadian truck has the 216 version with the short side cover. I too had a crack at one of the exhaust seats. I had it repaired and it wasn't successful. I eventually found a head from a Canadian car with the casting number of 3835499. My old head had the Canadian casting number of 3695451.

By the way that is a beautiful truck you have there!

Yesterday I pulled the harmonic balancer on this ol' 235 so I can replace the crank seal. It appears there is a replaceable sleeve on the balancer that the seal rides on. Is this a Speedi Sleeve, or is this factory? I've never used a Speedi Sleeve, but this seems thicker than what I would've thought a Speedi Sleeve would be.
Hopefully there are 2 photos attached.
I'd like to remove this sleeve and replace it. I just carefully cut it off and press a new one on, right? And I just order a new sleeve for a 235 harmonic balancer? I looked online and there are many different brands. Are there any in particular that are better than others? I already have a new rubber lip seal made by National, so I just need the new sleeve.
Thanks!

do a Google search on:

chevrolet 235 harmonic balancer repair sleeve

I'd buy/use the pair of parts that come in the repair kit.

The balancer snout is the same size as a small block V8 and the new design sixes, so a repair sleeve for any of those engines will work well. Don't get conned into paying some outrageous money for a stovebolt-specific sleeve. I like to put the balancer in a freezer overnight to shrink the hub a little before tapping the sleeve on, and use red Loctite to be sure the sleeve bonds to the balancer well.
Jerry

Does the groove in your speedi-sleeve catch your fingernail? If not, you can buff out any roughness with a long strip of fine Emory cloth and a shoe shine motion.

It does.
Guess I'll do a google search and get a sleeve headed this way! Thanks guys!

The project is going well. I got all the pistons cleaned up, re-ringed, and installed. My ring clearances were just a thousandth or two off the minimum spec, which I didn't think was too bad considering there was a pretty good ring ridge at the top of the cylinder bores. Anyways, I had an issue with one of the oil dipper cups on the rods. When I took the rods out, one had a cup that was cracked, and came apart. I am in need of 1 oil dipper cup for a 1951 235, so if anyone can help me out or point me the right way, I'd appreciate it. I will also post in the classifieds.
Thanks

If one dipper was damaged, the others might be suspect. New dipper sets are on Ebay pretty frequently, and not too expensive. If you don't find something elsewhere, drop me a PM.

Edit: search "connecting rod dipper" on ebay- - - -six sets of brand new ones there, priced from $12.00 to $50.00 a set. Pay no attention to year designations- - - -they're all the same.
Jerry

1937-53 216 and 235 will all work, 1929-36 will not.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the help.
Next question is about gasket sealer for the oil pan and timing cover....in the past I've always applied the Permatex "ultra black" max oil resistance gasket maker to my gaskets before assembly. I've also heard of an anaerobic gasket maker. What would you guys advise using? I know anaerobic means it doesn't take oxygen to cure, but what are the different applications between regular and anaerobic sealant?
Thanks!

Your Permatex Ultra Black is just fine. Use on the pan side only. Make sure you get the end pieces up into place in their grooves. No problems!🛠

Thanks for the reply. Why do you say only on the pan side and not both sides? Just curious. Also, keep in mind, the engine is still in the truck, so while I've tried to get the block mating surface as clean as I can, it's not as good as I could get it if it was out of the truck.

Also...does anyone have a Fel Pro number for the sleeve that goes over the harmonic balancer? My parts guy at Napa has the SKF version, but it's *choke* $40. I see Fel Pro sleeves online, and they're around $5, but I don't know the correct part number.
Thanks!

In case you have to drop it again. Just rub a little oil on the block side.🛠

The 216/235/261 have the same size harmonic balancer snout as a 350 small block. Get a sleeve for one of those. Credit goes to HRL.

Does anyone have a part number for the Fel Pro part?

Some of the parts listed for A-D 235 engines on Rockauto.com cost less than $5 plus tax/shipping.

Fair enough. I guess I'll try that and hope for the best.

Thanks! I found 3 different types available, and got one ordered.
Just curious...what do you mean by "A-D 235"?

I only looked up part numbers for 1947-1955 Advance-Design Chevrolet trucks, in particular the full range of 235 engines. The same part might work for all years 216 (1937-1953), 235 (1941-1962)*, and 261 (1954-1962/3) stovebolt engines?

* there were two versions of the 235, with the most significant difference being the low-pressure oil-lubrication system with babitted rod bearings, and the high-pressure oil-system with insert rod bearings.

Oh ok! I get it...A-D is Advanced Design!

Another question....I read online the rod bearing clearances for the oil dipper 235's should be .001 minimum and .003 maximum....
Yesterday I also read where a couple guys said .001 was way too tight, that it would cause the bearings to "smear" (?). They said .002 or .003 was what you should shim them to.
However, another source said that anything .002 or larger could cause a knock. When I shimmed the rods, I did one cylinder at a time (no rings on the piston), then after checking it and re-torquing it, I rotated the crankshaft 1 full revolution to check for binding, and there was no tight spot for any cylinder that I could feel. Also, the bearings looked good after pulling the rods after doing that. They didn't have any fresh scarring on them.
I shimmed all my rods to .001, .0015, and .002. (I couldn't get them all the same because on some I ran out of shims to pull, as some had been previously removed).

Then lastly, another source said the dealers back in the day would pull shims until the rod got tight on the journal (Just tight enough that they could knock the rod back and forth with a hammer), then pull shims until the rod could be slapped back and forth on the journal by hand I think. No real measurement there it seems. I did check mine, and I can move them back and forth just a tad by hand. But it's just barely.

So did I do the right or wrong thing? Or am I just reading too much? Also, what is "bearing smear"?
Before he died I used to ask my other grandpa questions like this, and he said on the farm they just pulled the engine apart, did what needed done, and stuck it back together to get back in the field. He said they didn't know about all that kind of "fancy stuff", yet they never had an issue. I've heard these stovebolts are pretty forgiving, so hopefully .001-.002 is alright.
Thanks!

A-D = Advance-Design

Here is a copy of GM's document introducing Advance-Design Chevrolet Trucks

.001-.002" is perfect.

Thanks!
Also, what do you guys use to clean your crank journals?
I've tried all sorts of finely woven rags, but they all seem to leave a tiny piece of fuzz or two on the journals. Am I being over-reactive, or is there a better way?

Quoting myself from my book:
"If necessary, the mating upper & lower pair of bearing halves can be of sequential sizes (rather than both the same size) to achieve a specific clearance. The Ford factory manuals for the “Indy” 255, “Le Mans” 427, and “Trans Am” Boss 302 recommend this procedure. If you have .001” now and want to obtain .0015”, you don’t have to grind the crankshaft, just use one +.001” bearing half and one +.002” bearing half."

That is one Beautiful working truck. And thanks for the exchange as you go thru this engine.I hope it works out well for Grandpa.

The oldtime method (before Plastigauge) was to put a small piece of .002" shim stock between the rod cap and the crankshaft and shim until the flywheel could be turned with a firm drag. Then remove the shim stock, torque up the rod cap, and move on to the next rod. Rotating the crankshaft 90 degrees and checking to see if the rod could be moved fore and aft by hand checked for out of round. These old engines were designed to survive some pretty primitive shade tree repairs, but the more accurately they're assembled, the better. Since Babbit rods don't have insert bearings, ignore the advice about mixing and matching different undersizes- - - - -it doesn't apply to the early stovebolt engines. It is possible to use an extra .0005" or .001" shim on one side of the rod cap to split the difference between even numbers of shims on both sides.

Very fine grit cloth-backed emery can be used to polish crankshaft journals before checking clearances, but be sure to do a thorough cleanup of any abrasive leftovers.
Jerry