| |
BUSY BOLTERS Are you one?  The Shop Area
continues to pull in the most views on the Stovebolt. In August alone there were over 22,000 views in those 13 forums.
| | Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
8 members (booger, Mike Roache, 32vsnake, COCOE, cmayna, 1955 1 Series, festerhairball, Jon G),
454
guests, and
1
robot. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics126,777 Posts1,039,265 Members48,100 | | Most Online2,175
Jul 21st, 2025 | | | | Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 | Can a 235 Crank #3701486 be used in a 1962 235? | | | | | Joined: Sep 2001 Posts: 29,262 Bubba - Curmudgeon | | Bubba - Curmudgeon Joined: Sep 2001 Posts: 29,262 | some info from the past from Paul, Jerry, Dave and Jim | | | | | Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 | I read this thread but It only mentions that the bearings are the same up to1961. What about 1962? | | | | | Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 28,674 Kettle Custodian (pot stirrer) | | Kettle Custodian (pot stirrer) Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 28,674 | All the 235/261 pressure-lubed crankshafts are identical, so far as I know. The 1941-53 235 spray-oiler cranks have the same rod and main bearing diameters, but the #3 main bearing thrust faces are wider. A pressure-oiled 235 crank will fit a 216 block by machining the thrust faces for the wider bearing, but the 216 pistons would stick out of the top of the block 1/8" unless a shorter connecting rod or a custom piston is used.
Jerry
"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and eliminate all doubt!" - Abraham Lincoln
Cringe and wail in fear, Eloi- - - - -we Morlocks are on the hunt!
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. - Ernest Hemingway
Love your enemies and drive 'em nuts!
| | | | | Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 | Thanks for the information. I happened to find in my Motors Manual that the 1962 crankshaft has main bearing journals that are .002" larger than the journals on the 54 to 61 types. Everything else is the same. I am trying to find if the 1962 crank had a different casting number. | | | | | Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 28,674 Kettle Custodian (pot stirrer) | | Kettle Custodian (pot stirrer) Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 28,674 | Your "Motors Manual" is wrong. The federal-Mogul engine bearing specification manual #115, dated 1982 which supercedes the 1980 edition lists the same crankshafts from 1956-63 for the 235 AND 261 engines. They have the following forging numbers:
3701486
3701488
3701488A
3770327
All the above crankshafts use the same rod bearings, Federal-Mogul 1950CP, and main bearings, F-M # 960M. THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES IN MAIN BEARING DIAMETER FOR ALL THESE CRANKSHAFTS.
Jerry
"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and eliminate all doubt!" - Abraham Lincoln
Cringe and wail in fear, Eloi- - - - -we Morlocks are on the hunt!
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. - Ernest Hemingway
Love your enemies and drive 'em nuts!
| | | | | Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Apr 2019 Posts: 10 | Thanks, both the Chiltons and Motors Manual list a .002" difference in diameter. I will go with your information. | | |
|
|
| |
