Lateral Crankshaft Creep

david5244

New member
In drag racing applications where this engine will be run extremely hard is there any tendency for lateral movement of the crankshaft. At a bare minimum, I will be using some custom machined main caps of the proper grade of stainless steel. Will a mains girdle still be necessary to control this unwanted motion? If so does anyone make one for this engine? If not could anyone suggest a fabricator who would be competent to do this job?

Thanks for your help.

David
 
Just curious what are you building, I am building a 250 -6 drag race only turbo charged on e-85? I would imagine if all is lined up and line bored there should be no problem.
 
Crank flexing is always a problem in long inline crankshafts either cast or forged. Billet caps can help, but stainless isn't necessary and most aftermarket ones for the average V8's are only 1020 grade mild steel and can handle a 1000 HP with no problems. Better caps are 4340 steel. A girdle will also help and is just another piece of the puzzle to help reduce it. Since most of these components are run of the mill for the more common engines, for these 6 cylinders, they are going to be "one off", custom and expensive. You have to determine if you really need these things for your build or just being overkill. Several things to remember is that most of the gains seen in a performance engine also increase the flexing and lateral movement in the crankshaft such as higher RPM especially at or near a harmonic frequency for the engine, more cylinder pressure(compression). Your never going to cure it completely, but there are steps to reduce it.
 
"hotrodguy," I am contemplating building a 300 to compete in NHRA E/EA. The needed bhp for this engine will have to be in the 2.3 bhp per cubic inch range or higher. Ideally, the engine should crank out 2.50+ bhp. A Ford 250 is already pushing that number in competition. In Australia, quite awhile ago we were getting 2.25 bhp out of the Chrysler Hemi 6. I've been out of it for six years or so. I just want to try one more time.
 
david, use the shorter stroke 240 crank. It will have a better specific output. I assume you can get the weight down to meet the minimum ci/wt requirements. Also plan on doing a goodly amount of cast iron welding, since the rules state the valve cover rail cannot be modified so you are limited to changing the architecture underneath the VC rail.
 
Thanks for the good wishes and advice. CNC dude mentioned the ever present harmonic periods of an inline 6. Specifically can someone tell me the RPM bands where they occur and their intensity. I assume they are the same for both displacements but if I am wrong about this please point it out. Obviously, the build will have to account for these. From my experience they will literally dictate where peak horsepower will occur. For example having peak horsepower at say 6250 RPM in the middle of a nasty harmonic period is a formula for an early death of the engine. Good points Frenchtown Flyer, but the trade off is that at 240 cubic inches I will have to run a hard tail while with the 300 I can run a four link rear suspension. Considering the bottom end structure of these engines, I see no particular problem with running them to 7250 RPM or so. Opinions on peak RPM capacity this engine would be appreciated. I will not be using aluminum rods. I can not afford to replace them every eighty to one hundred twenty runs. However, this engine or engines will have to be built like the proverbial "brick ..t house." If a 7250 RPM red line is realistic, I would expect to be running a 12 to 1 or slightly higher compression ratio. If I am crazy, please let me know.

:help: David
 
Actually, the stroke does affect the harmonics a great deal because the journal overlap in the crank changes with the stroke. The shorter stroke cranks are often more desirable because they are usually lighter, but also more rigid because they have more journal overlap and resist harmonics are specific frequencies more than longer stroke cranks with less journal overlap. Also, an ultralight rotating assembly(lightened and knife-edged crank, aluminum rods and hollow domed pistons) can move the harmonic frequencies higher up in the RPM because there is less mass pushing back on the throws to flex it. Our 292 Comp Eliminator cranks were lightened by almost 12 lbs and the harmonic frequency that originally was around 6200 RPM moved to over 7000 RPM. So it can be a benefit to trim weight off of the crank where you can.
 
CNC-Dude":1sq618qi said:
Actually, the stroke does affect the harmonics a great deal because the journal overlap in the crank changes with the stroke. The shorter stroke cranks are often more desirable because they are usually lighter, but also more rigid because they have more journal overlap and resist harmonics are specific frequencies more than longer stroke cranks with less journal overlap. Also, an ultralight rotating assembly(lightened and knife-edged crank, aluminum rods and hollow domed pistons) can move the harmonic frequencies higher up in the RPM because there is less mass pushing back on the throws to flex it. Our 292 Comp Eliminator cranks were lightened by almost 12 lbs and the harmonic frequency that originally was around 6200 RPM moved to over 7000 RPM. So it can be a benefit to trim weight off of the crank where you can.

Very interesting CNC DUDE and Frenchtown Flyer. Share your thoughts if you would. I am turbocharging a 300. I plan to run a conservative boost of 15 lbs but limit the RPM to around 5k . The pistons are lite. a lot lighter than stock. The rods are from a 240. Taking a shot at helping the rod angle ratio. The crank is a steel F600. It is all balanced and the crank has been cryo treated. One thought is do harmonic balancers get old? Does the rubber deteriorate? Do you see a weak spot or problem brewing? Thanks in advance.
 
15 lbs of boost will roughly double the peak torque, putting extra strain on the rotating components. All the things you planned will help. Everything that is stressed has a finite lifespan (google S-N diagrams). Higher stress levels will dictate a shorter lifespan. It is not possible to predict the point of component failure precisely, so the things you mentioned will prolong the life of your engine.
Yes, dampers get old; the rubber wears out from repeated twisting. Think of a heavy weight bouncing from the end of a rubber band. Eventually the rubber band will break. The heavier the weight (i.e. more crank twist) or the more rapid the cycling (i.e. increased RPM) or the more time spent bouncing (i.e. repeated rotations) are all factors in how soon the damper will fail. Sometimes the bond between the hub/elastomer/outer ring will fail and the outer ring will slip on the hub and the timing marks will no longer be accurate. It is prudent to inspect the damper occasionally for a cracked and chunked elastomer ring or timing mark slippage. Dampers are cheap.
 
CNC Dude if I might ask, are you using aluminum rods?? Bill MIller engineering suggests that his rods be replaced before 100 runs. Others I have talked to suggest as high as 120 runs. I had planned on using Crower rods as they are practically indestructible. Are the aluminum rods just another expense one has to eat if they plan to run competitively in Comp eliminator? I suppose in the scheme of things they are not really that significant an expense. Jon Kasse figures running a big block comp eliminator effort on a national level costs well in excess of $500,000 per year. I have no illusions regarding the amount of money this all is going to cost, and I am not going to be running at a national level. And, at that point, if it is absolutely necessary to lighten the rotating assembly as much as possible, I would think that an ultra light billet crank from some source such as Sonny Bryant makes sense. If I read your post correctly, you would work with the 240 in a hard tailed altered as opposed to a 300 with a four link rear suspension. We were turning the "Hemi 6" at 265 cubic inches to right around 7,000 RPM with the upper harmonic in the range of 6250 RPM. If your upper harmonic is at 7250 what sort of a red line are you looking at? Thanks for the help.

David
 
Yes, we were running aluminum rods. Just think though, this was back from 1978-ish to the late 1980's, so costs and technology weren't what they are today. I think the yearly racing budget was between $10 and $15 thousand depending on parts failure and breakage in the early days, but we ran at the front of the pack also. Given inflation over the past 35 years and the high cost of "high tech", I can believe Kaase's estimate of $500K to be competitive in today's market. But in the early days when things were simpler and you had to go racing with the money you had in your pocket, it was still tough. Our engines were expendable, and at our peak HP level, they were good for (20) quarter mile passes before the crankshaft either broke or was replaced because on pass #21 it would break. Our compression was over 15-1/2 to 1, not desirable for steel rods, and we left the starting line between 10,500 and 11,200 RPM, but our shifts were made at 7000 RPM. These engines were literally on the ragged edge, but that's what it took to be at the top. I'm sure it no different today, even with billet cranks and billet heads. Many of the "deep pocket" racers use titanium rods which are about $4500 from Crower. We used them once, and about halfway through the second pass at the Mile High Nats in Denver, one of the entire rods still attached to the piston and part of the crank journal came through the side of the block. They were still about $4000 a set even back in the late 1970's. There is just no guarantee that even using the best pieces will result in longevity or piece of mind.

Now to address your question, as FTF has already suggested using the shorter stroke 240 engine as your engine, I would also agree for several reasons. One, is that in my opinion, the shorter stroke crank and large bore will be a better engine combo and yield a higher net HP. It will come at a higher RPM as well than say a 300 stroke engine, but the shorter stroke is going to be better suited for this, and you will also be able to get a much better rod length to stroke ratio to help reduce side loading issues and prolong engine life. Second, it can also put you into a better entry level class with smaller cubic inches where the slowest guy in the faster classes still has 750+HP or more with a 300 cubic inch engine. Its still going to have to be "game on" to be competitive in the smaller engine class, but in those bigger cubic inch classes, your also having to run against 300 cubic inch V8's that are making 800+HP in the same class. There's not many V8's that are in the 240 cubic inch range, so you'll truly be running and competing against other inlines in the same class as you. We ran in D/D(D/Dragster) from 1983-1988 in NHRA's Comp Eliminator, and won several national championships during that time and set quite a few records as well in that class. Hope this helps!
 
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER":3hyjq6i7 said:
15 lbs of boost will roughly double the peak torque, putting extra strain on the rotating components. All the things you planned will help. Everything that is stressed has a finite lifespan (google S-N diagrams). Higher stress levels will dictate a shorter lifespan. It is not possible to predict the point of component failure precisely, so the things you mentioned will prolong the life of your engine.
Yes, dampers get old; the rubber wears out from repeated twisting. Think of a heavy weight bouncing from the end of a rubber band. Eventually the rubber band will break. The heavier the weight (i.e. more crank twist) or the more rapid the cycling (i.e. increased RPM) or the more time spent bouncing (i.e. repeated rotations) are all factors in how soon the damper will fail. Sometimes the bond between the hub/elastomer/outer ring will fail and the outer ring will slip on the hub and the timing marks will no longer be accurate. It is prudent to inspect the damper occasionally for a cracked and chunked elastomer ring or timing mark slippage. Dampers are cheap.

I know all dampeners are not created equal. Life is easy to just use a stock one with the 3 grooves for my accessories.. I checked the mark at TDC and this one has not slipped and it runs true. That doesn't make the rubber isn't worn out. LOL I can test a lot of things but I doubt I have specs or tools to do it. There are some after market V8 dampeners which are pricey. There are refurbished and pasts house replacements. Summit has a Dorrman for just under $70. Then there is over the counter Ford. What makes the most sense?

Bill
 
The actual rubber durometer is very critical in having an efficient dampner. The hardness is different for inline engines than for V8's because the do not share the same bad harmonic frequencies. So installing one from a V8 onto a 300 may not be advisable, and can even be like you don't even have a balancer on the engine at all. I'm sure even a new Ford balancer/dampner is a good alternative.
 
As to crankshaft dampers, we sent both new and used Chrysler dampers to the manufacturer that designed and fabricated the dampers for the "Hemi 6." That is the general rule of thumb when acquiring an appropriate SFI approved damper for an engine where none currently exists. They will run them one off for you but you will be paying for the engineering and development charges as well. This is not totally foolproof as they must have in house an appropriate metal housing or one that can be machined to be applicable. Beyond that I really do not known what to suggest.
 
CNC-Dude":2a0b044z said:
The actual rubber durometer is very critical in having an efficient dampner. The hardness is different for inline engines than for V8's because the do not share the same bad harmonic frequencies. So installing one from a V8 onto a 300 may not be advisable, and can even be like you don't even have a balancer on the engine at all. I'm sure even a new Ford balancer/dampner is a good alternative.

CNC, do you have an opinion on the friction type, like fisher or I think innovators west as well?

All opinions welcome. Thanks.
 
drag200Stang, I have not used either of those brands you mentioned, but know several high HP inline racers both Ford and Chevy guys that have and both had great success with them and were very pleased with their results.
 
drag-200stang":38k7h9tc said:
CNC-Dude":38k7h9tc said:
The actual rubber durometer is very critical in having an efficient dampner. The hardness is different for inline engines than for V8's because the do not share the same bad harmonic frequencies. So installing one from a V8 onto a 300 may not be advisable, and can even be like you don't even have a balancer on the engine at all. I'm sure even a new Ford balancer/dampner is a good alternative.

CNC, do you have an opinion on the friction type, like fisher or I think innovators west as well?

All opinions welcome. Thanks.
For a top level engine build I want the best for, I would personally use Innovators West. For a lower tier build, I wouldn't feel bad using a Fluidampr or ATI, etc. Just my feelings.
 
I'll weigh in on a few topics mentioned.

I run bracket race motors. Unlike a Comp Eliminator motor mine have to last myriad runs and do it on a greatly restricted budget. As such, they are not built to an all-out level. On a good day my crossflow S/P slug makes an estimated 550 HP at the crankshaft. My U-flow motors, maybe 360 HP. All are in the 12.5 - 13.4:1 CR range.

Regarding aluminum rods: I ran aluminum rods for many years; Bill Miller, Superods, Veniola, Howard - i tried several brands. It got frustrating pulling an engine out just to change out the finite lifespan rods for a new set. I asked my block machinist about steel rods. How much will it slow my combo down? To my surprise he said "not a bit. It may even make more power with steel rods." He explained that aluminum rods needed additional piston-to-head clearance to allow for more growth/stretch by the aluminum. So with steel rods we can run tighter quench, giving more compression, and thus make more power. Plus, their profile is skinnier so they cut a much more aerodynamic path swinging through the oily mush in the crankcase. He proved it on several circle track customer motors. He recommended Oliver brand. They are very pricey and they insisted on ordering in sets of eight. But I have had the same set of Olivers in there for the last six years and plan to re-install them this winter when I rebuild. In that same time span I would have gone through six sets of aluminum rods (to say nothing of the expense of tearing an engine apart to change them). So the Oliver steel rods were a bargain. And the car ran just as quick as with aluminum rods.

The only catastrophic engine failure I have ever had in the last fifty years of racing was on a 300 engine with aluminum
Superods. I neglected the periodic rod changeover. One broke and exited the block after 294 passes [I joke that from then on I changed my rods after 293 passes - LOL.]

Regarding harmonic dampers - yep, tried several. On the crossflow S/P car I use a Fluidamper for a Boss 302 or 351 Cleveland with neutral balance. I've made my own accessory drive hub/pulley to drive the alternator. As far as using a V8 damper on a six consider this scenario:

If you were shopping for a shock absorber for your 6 cyl car's suspension and had the choice of using 1.) NO SHOCK, 2.) a V8 SHOCK, or 3.) paying the shock absorber company the R&D costs to develop a shock specific to your vehicle's suspension needs, which would you choose? Again, with the V8 damper - no crank failures for me. On a 700 HP Comp engine - maybe not so much.

On my older vintage nostalgia altered that only gets run at three or four races a year I am using a vintage Moroso clutch type damper. They are supposed to be disassembled periodically and cleaned out. I am embarrased to report that I have had no issues with it despite not doing regular cleaning / maintenance on it.

Regarding racing a six in a class where V8's compete on a weight/cubic inch basis: Power comes from burning fuel. The more fuel you can burn the more power you can potentially make. Do you think an engine sucking fuel through six intake ports will match the specific output of a simillarly sized engine sucking fuel through eight intake ports, especially if the eight cylinder has the advantage of head development used on larger eight cylinder engines? I don't.

Of course the usual caveat of "your results may vary", but over the course of my racing hobby these are the solutions I have arrived at that make the best use of my resources in terms of time, money, safety, and fun.
 
One additional tip: Always machine the crankshaft snout for a longer key way and use a Chevy key. The Ford key that aligns the cam drive gear just barely engages the damper and if the crank bolt loses torque failure can result.
 
Back
Top