Author
|
Message
|
NoShortcuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 2 Years Ago
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 179.6K
|
Paul. Yes, the crankshaft rear oil slinger is part of the crankshaft itself. It's just in back of the rear main bearing surface, but before the rear seal surface. Click the link below to see a series of pictures of a 312 crank. A couple of the pictures give a view of the rear main bearing surface, the rear oil slinger, the rear seal surface and the adjacent rear crank flange. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1957-FORD-HI-PO-312-CRANKSHAFT-CRANK-1956-THUNDERBIRD-SPECIAL-RACING-Y-BLOCK-/272414611317?fits=Make%3AFord&hash=item3f6d2d1775:g:60cAAOSw-CpX98ld&vxp=mtrClick on the link below for the dimensional information for the 272/ 292 and the 312 cranks as shown on John Mummert's web site. http://ford-y-block.com/crankshaftid.htm
NoShortcuts a.k.a. Charlie Brown near Syracuse, New York
|
|
|
Cliff
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 863,
Visits: 13.3K
|
Hi, I had a problem like what you have, it turned out to be the cam plug, after 2 or 3 times of taking it apart, the aftermarket retainer may be the problem, if you match up a factory retainer you will find that the bore is off center, in the aftermarket one it is in the center, also the Ford shop manual has good instructions on the subject.
|
|
|
paul2748
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 497.5K
|
Ted The seal before the new rope seal was the black neoprene one from Best. I know the leak is coming from the area around the middle of the rear of the engine as it is dripping from the trans cover. I did notice a few drips coming from the downdraft tube (running the stock set up) but the major leak is the middle of the rear of the engine. I am going to try the dye thing as it might lend some new insight to the problem. The last two times the rear seal was changed the crank was removed and all bearings were examined and did not have any appreciable wear. I really don't have any history on the engine although it is not original to the car because of the replacement block. It looks to be standard bore. Thanks for the info and thanks to the others who have posted their comments. All are appreciated as it may help me with the problem. I did try a PVC system but it didn't solve anything and I was having a problem with carb to hood clearance so I went back to the draft tube. I really hate to replace the engine as it really runs good and other than the leak and has gone many miles (even at high speeds) with no other problems. Just a dumb question - the oil slinger is part of the crank, right? not a separate piece? Ted (10/20/2016)
Paul. Thanks for sharing in detail the history of your rear main seal woes. It would appear that you’ve tried the majority of fixes. At this point and with a fresh load of leak detecting dye in the oil and with the car on a lift with someone watching under it, start the car and look for the first place the colored oil comes from. Your oil pressure attributes mirror those on my '55 Customline and with 145K+ miles on it now, rear main seal leakage is minimal if any at all. With that in mind, I think you can rule out the oil pressure being the culprit. Were you using the black neoprene seal before going back to the rope type of seal? We likely already discussed this but have to ask anyhow. I’ve had the older orange seals wear out very quickly but have had very good luck with the newer and harder black Best Gasket seals that replaced the orange seals for the 312 engines. While it’s been brought up about the concentricity of the seal surface versus the rear main journal, it would have to be off a bunch to be a sealing problem. Whenever a crankshaft is being turned, it is possible for the seal surface to be slightly out of alignment with the journal and if the crankshaft has been turned multiple times, then this alignment (concentricity) can be off even more but unlikely to be off enough to be a rear main sealing issue. Haven’t seen that yet but there’s a first time for everything. Whatever amount the seal surface is off will be the same as the rear flywheel flange so any misalignment can be checked for at the rear of the crankshaft also. I have cleaned up the 312 seal surfaces as much as 0.010” without any issues in regards to the neoprene seals being a problem so there is a given amount of latitude in that area. If and when the engine is pulled down, look at the rod bearing wear. If the bearings are not wearing squarely across their surface and the wear looks to be crooked or lopsided between the top half and the bottom half of the bearings, then the crankshaft may not have been ground in a grinder that was 'not' parallel between the ends. In this case, you’re dealing with a rear seal surface that’s not parallel with the main journals. It boggles the mind how the first generation of Flathead V8s did not even have a rear seal and wouldn’t have a leakage problem until the blowby was bad enough to actually push some oil out. Now with all modern engines having some kind of a positive type of rear main seal, there’s a major oil leak if all is not perfect.
54 Victoria 312; 48 Ford Conv 302, 56 Bird 312 Forever Ford Midland Park, NJ
|
|
|
Vic Correnti
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 3 days ago
Posts: 346,
Visits: 12.2K
|
Paul do you run a PVC system in the car? Just thinking that if not maybe the crankcase is pressurized in some mysterious way where as the PVC would pull a vacuum.
Vic Correnti
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 205.0K
|
Paul. Thanks for sharing in detail the history of your rear main seal woes. It would appear that you’ve tried the majority of fixes. At this point and with a fresh load of leak detecting dye in the oil and with the car on a lift with someone watching under it, start the car and look for the first place the colored oil comes from. Your oil pressure attributes mirror those on my '55 Customline and with 145K+ miles on it now, rear main seal leakage is minimal if any at all. With that in mind, I think you can rule out the oil pressure being the culprit. Were you using the black neoprene seal before going back to the rope type of seal? We likely already discussed this but have to ask anyhow. I’ve had the older orange seals wear out very quickly but have had very good luck with the newer and harder black Best Gasket seals that replaced the orange seals for the 312 engines. While it’s been brought up about the concentricity of the seal surface versus the rear main journal, it would have to be off a bunch to be a sealing problem. Whenever a crankshaft is being turned, it is possible for the seal surface to be slightly out of alignment with the journal and if the crankshaft has been turned multiple times, then this alignment (concentricity) can be off even more but unlikely to be off enough to be a rear main sealing issue. Haven’t seen that yet but there’s a first time for everything. Whatever amount the seal surface is off will be the same as the rear flywheel flange so any misalignment can be checked for at the rear of the crankshaft also. I have cleaned up the 312 seal surfaces as much as 0.010” without any issues in regards to the neoprene seals being a problem so there is a given amount of latitude in that area. If and when the engine is pulled down, look at the rod bearing wear. If the bearings are not wearing squarely across their surface and the wear looks to be crooked or lopsided between the top half and the bottom half of the bearings, then the crankshaft may not have been ground in a grinder that was 'not' parallel between the ends. In this case, you’re dealing with a rear seal surface that’s not parallel with the main journals. It boggles the mind how the first generation of Flathead V8s did not even have a rear seal and wouldn’t have a leakage problem until the blowby was bad enough to actually push some oil out. Now with all modern engines having some kind of a positive type of rear main seal, there’s a major oil leak if all is not perfect.
 Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
NoShortcuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 2 Years Ago
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 179.6K
|
Paul. Here's a picture showing the difference between a 292 and a 312 rear seal retainer. Some engine builders believe that the difference in the depth of the 312's retaining groove affects the reliability of the seal. The length of the 292's retainer 'fingers' would seem to provide a more positive grip on the seal.
NoShortcuts a.k.a. Charlie Brown near Syracuse, New York
|
|
|
aussiebill
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 5 Years Ago
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 11.4K
|
NoShortcuts (10/19/2016)
Paul. What follows is theoretical. We need someone like Ted, Tim McMaster, or John Mummert to indicate IF there is merit to the thinking. IF the crank in your block was turned undersize for reconditioning purposes by a machine shop, might the crank set-up have been SLIGHTLY 'off '? IF not chucked up correctly, could the real seal surface NOT be EXACTLY concentric with the remachined main bearing surface? Again, I'm suggesting one cylindrical surface being slightly out of alignment with another by mere thousands of an inch creating a minor cam effect on the sealing surface. In initially assembling and running the engine after assembly, the rear seal would tolerate the discrepancy for a period of miles. Seemingly, a concentricity discrepancy would take longer to wear a pliable neoprene seal than it would a fixed rope type (packing style) seal. Doubt all of that happens, most people just arnt as good at fitting new seal as they think unfortunatley, i have 4 y block cars, all rebuilt at one time, one with turned down 312 crank also and nary a drop of oil from the lot, 2x4, tripower, 4/71 blower and single 4 bbl. IF you proceed to replace the rear seal yet again, the concentricity of the rear seal area could be verified using a dial indicator mounted with a magnetic base to the oil pan rail. The checking would be done after the aluminum seal retainer was removed and before doing anything to the main bearing caps that secure the crank. Again, this is an unusual possibility suggested by the number of rear seals you've had fail over different mileage periods and by my machining experience which does not include the operation of a crankshaft grinder, but a lot of engine lathe set-up and machining work.
AussieBill YYYY Forever Y Block YYYY Down Under, Australia
|
|
|
NoShortcuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 2 Years Ago
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 179.6K
|
Paul. What follows is theoretical. We need someone like Ted, Tim McMaster, or John Mummert to indicate IF there is merit to the thinking.
IF the crank in your block was turned undersize for reconditioning purposes by a machine shop, might the crank set-up have been SLIGHTLY 'off '? IF not chucked up correctly, could the real seal surface NOT be EXACTLY concentric with the remachined main bearing surface?
Again, I'm suggesting one cylindrical surface being slightly out of alignment with another by mere thousands of an inch creating a minor cam effect on the sealing surface. In initially assembling and running the engine after assembly, the rear seal would tolerate the discrepancy for a period of miles. Seemingly, a concentricity discrepancy would take longer to wear a pliable neoprene seal than it would a fixed rope type (packing style) seal.
IF you proceed to replace the rear seal yet again, the concentricity of the rear seal area could be verified using a dial indicator mounted with a magnetic base to the oil pan rail. The checking would be done after the aluminum seal retainer was removed and before doing anything to the main bearing caps that secure the crank.
Again, this is an unusual possibility suggested by the number of rear seals you've had fail over different mileage periods and by my machining experience which does not include the operation of a crankshaft grinder, but a lot of engine lathe set-up and machining work.
NoShortcuts a.k.a. Charlie Brown near Syracuse, New York
|
|
|
NoShortcuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 2 Years Ago
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 179.6K
|
Paul. I can understand your frustration. I can't think of anything to add to the thread you exchanged with Ted last year. Click the link below. http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost116109.aspxMy sense is that the 312 retainer is more difficult to accomplish a seal with than the 239-292 retainer. I attempted to locate a picture Ted previously provided of the two different seal retainers side by side in a previous Forum thread. The groove for the 312 clearly has less cross-sectional root holding area than the 239-292 retainers have.
NoShortcuts a.k.a. Charlie Brown near Syracuse, New York
|
|
|
shakey
|
|
Hitting on all eight cylinders
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 8 Years Ago
Posts: 5,
Visits: 434
|
my 312 is 30 years old in a 54 mercury hasn,t been touched , oil it uses 10/30 oil pressure at 1000 rpm is 55 psi and at idle is 50
|
|
|