The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Hagerty RedLine Video of Stovebolt Rebuild

Having never torn down my '49 216, I found these Hagerty RedLine video's of a stovebolt rebuild very interesting. They are certainly not detailed enough to use for instructional purposes, but a good opportunity to see what the internals look like.

Video of 216 reassembly

There are other videos in this series that might be interesting:
Attempted first start after pulling from woods
216 teardown
216 in the machine shop

I've been watching every episode since they found the truck sitting in the weeds.

Wow, awesome! Thanks for posting that.

Thanks for the link. Great to see a lot of the parts I've been reading about. I suspect I'm like many here in that over the years I've built and rebuilt several engines from a Volve 164E, Triumph TR3, 40hp VW to several Mopars as well as Fords and a Chevrolet or two along with a few I'm just remembering. However my learning curve on Stovebolts has been and is still straight up. I did see a few things I'd do different on the video but all in all it was well worth the time. Lots of little tidbits of information dropped in the assembly process, nice to see the distributor and fuel totally disassembled for rebuild.

I'll spend more time on that channel for sure.

RonR

I'd like to see some old-school Babbit rod fitting and oil clearance adjusting with shims- - - - - -this guy's using conversion rods and insert bearings!
Jerry

Jerry,

I seem to recall someone telling me about the babbit process. Am I right that the babbit is cast onto the rod journals, and then machined to spec?

We have auto engineering and auto tech programs at my university, and every so often I'll get some of those students in my principles economics classes. Once I had two great young guys who were auto students, really into cars, and we'd talk cars after class. I have 3 or 4 bars of babbit metal I bought at an estate auction, and I took one in and challenged the auto tech students to tell me what it was. They didn't know, of course (give them a break, they're only 20 years old), but I told them and explained as much as I knew about how babbit-lined bearings work. It was a good conversation and perhaps their only link to a bygone technology.

I found a video of the Redline guys getting their Model A rods and block babbited: here you go!

Actually, Chevy sort of pioneered a process called "Centri-Casting"- - - - (centrifugal casting) where the rod is heated and spun in a fixture with the rod journal at its center, and molten Babbit metal is sprayed into the spinning rod under pressure. Then it's machined to the size of the crankshaft journal, standard or undersize. It adheres to the rod like solder sticks to a wire connection or a piece of sheet metal when the temperature and fluxing is correct. Reconditioned rods usually didn't get that treatment- - - -most of them were simply poured with a mold like the Model A and T rods. I can usually tell an OEM rod from a recon because the reconditioned rods will have the entire bottom of the rod tinned so the molded-in Babbit will stick better. The OEM bearing material is also harder than woodpecker lips- - - -most recon rods have softer bearing material in them.

I've got a milling fixture that I built for my lathe that holds the rod on the carriage and uses a micrometer-adjust boring head in the spindle to cut the Babbit and a little of the steel out of the rod to fit a Massey-Ferguson tractor rod bearing. That bearing costs about $5.00 each, and is plentiful, compared to the very scarce and expensive conversion bearings the resto-ripoff places like Egge Machine sells. The downside is the journal size- - - -it's 1/16" smaller than a standard stovebolt rod bearing so the crankshaft has to be reground to fit the bearing. Even that can be an advantage- - - -a "worn out" .030" undersize 216 crankshaft can be salvaged and run with a standard size Perkins diesel (Massey-Ferguson) bearing.
Jerry

Thanks Tyler.

I am hooked on these Hagerty videos now! They're making me want to learn more and more about the rebuilding process and auto machining. My school has an auto tech program and I get free tuition--I just looked at the schedule for the Automotive Engines class (100 level, prereq for the 2-semester auto machining classes), but unfortunately it does not work with my teaching schedule. Dang!

I don't get the reason to paint the block underneath the side cover. Won't that area be smothered in oil?
I would be more worried about that paint letting go over time and gumming up the works.

With the right paint and prep I believe it to be safe. It’s pretty common to paint the lifter valley on V8s to hasten oil drainback.

Personal experience beats a WAG every time. Paint, even Glyptal transformer dope, DOES NOT adhere to the valve valley and crankcase well, at least on a couple of dozen small block Chevy racing engines we tinkered with. The only way we could ever get Glyptal to stick was to take an abrasive cartridge roll to all the exposed cast iron we wanted to paint and smooth out the rough casting surfaces. Then after a good wash-down with lacquer thinner, the stuff would stay put. The only good reason for painting inside a block is to keep imbedded sand from the casting process from washing off and contaminating the oil. On a street machine, it's a waste of time and effort.
Jerry

I enjoyed the videos. I have never rebuilt a 216 and did not know you could convert the babbit rods to insert bearings. I don’t paint the inside of my Chevy 6 parts like he did, but I have done a couple of small blocks, mostly to aid oil drain back, that was the thinking anyhow. Who knows whether it did any good.

I did notice that he was unsure about the locating dowels on the head, and installed the intake without the rings. Maybe 216 motors don’t use the rings? Otherwise very enjoyable.

It looks like dowel/pin ("alignment pin") was used on each end of the head on Chevrolet 216/235/261 engines (GMC sixes used bolts):
Group 3.275

I'll bet that the rings ("sleeves") were also originally used on all years of 216/235 and probably all 261 engines (through 1963)?
Groop 3.291

Intake manifold rings don't actually seal vacuum- - - - -the gasket does that. However, it's almost guaranteed you'll gat a vacuum leak from gasket misalignment if you don't use the rings to keep the manifold aligned with the ports. Yes, 216's had rings from the factory.
Jerry

It is also possible that the alignment rings might actually cause leaks.

If the head's and/or manifolds' mating surfaces have been planed a few times since birth, the alignment rings might "hold/keep" the head/manifolds apart.

If that happens, you have to grind-down the alignment rings' mating "edges".

The rings can also cause leaks when the manifolds are warped and they are assembled misaligned. That can be masked by the gasket and the close proximity of the manifold, especially in inexperienced hands. Then a dose of #2 Permatex is added in an attempt to stop the vacuum leak. That trick, when done neatly makes the misalignment that much harder to spot and the vacuum leak that much harder to find. Afterwards the alignment rings are typically unusable. If you find a heat-riser valve stuck in the "heat" position check carefully for warpage.