John.  This is a good topic as there seems to be several different approaches on how to get around the journal width issue when using the aftermarket connecting rods in the Y.  I have been using the narrower than stock bearings but even at that, the bearings come close to kissing the radius or fillet in the crankshaft if leaving the journals at the stock width.  Just getting an additional 0.050” in width at the journal helps in not having to rechamfer the bearings themselves.  At  this point, I’ve got a reasonably good feel for which crankshafts can stand some extra widening of the journals and those that don’t.  For those that don’t, there is just some extra work to be performed on the bearings themselves.  I’m still dealing with a generous radius in the crankshaft fillets at this point as gut feel says that there’s a considerable reduction in strength if the radius at the journal edges are removed.  Haven’t had a broken crankshaft yet and simply just trying to keep it that way.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Ted:

Something you may not be aware of.  When I had my 312 crank ground to 2.100, I did not widen the throws, I narrowed the rods to Y width.  The crank guy said TRW makes a bearing that is narrower than the stock sbc one for use on cranks with larger than stock radii.  I did not use those bearings, I made a fixture from an old sbc rod and chamfered the stock bearings to clear the radius on the crank.  Thinking back, I should have bought the narrower bearings, after I cut the chamfer the bearing surface ended up being narrower anyway.

John

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

Thanks for the info Ted, I was woried more that you had seen a breaking problem I had not concidered the oil hole. I'm planing on taking a 292 to 3.6" with a journal dia. of 1.888, but I won't be making the journal wider. As you may know we "De-stoked" Charlies crank to get less cubic "s , then I just faced the rods for the proper width of the journal. No bearing problem was to be seen.

Tim

   God Bless.   Tim                           http://yblockguy.com/

350ci Y-Block FED "Elwood", 301ci Y-Block Unibody LSR "Jake", 312ci Y-Block '58 F-100, 338ci Y-Block powered Model A Tudor

tim@yblockguy.com  Visalia, California    Just west of the Sequoias

Tim.  For the 292’s I’ve essentially come across three styles of oil paths or drilled oil holes in the crankshafts which is what must be considered if increasing the stroke by lieu of offset grinding.  The steel cranks are one of these styles, the early crankshafts with the alternate oil holes at the rod journals is another, and the common fare 1956-1964 cast cranks is the remaining.  The later while also being the most common is the easiest to work with in regards to offset grinding to a smaller journal size while taking the journal widths out to 1.800”.  This wider journal alleviates having to remove as much material from the replacement connecting rods in order to make them work without having to narrow the rod bearings themselves.

 

The ‘alternate oiling’ crankshafts make nice 2.100” journals while going wider but the oil holes are exposed in the radius when attempting to go to the 2.00” size.  The common fare cast cranks make nice offset ground 2.00” journals while making the journals to the 1.800-1.810” widths.  The problem with the steel cranks when offset grinding to the smaller journal size (1.889” and 2.000”) lies in trying to make the journal wider than stock.  That’s where the oil hole in the crank becomes exposed at the radius and this tends to vary from crank to crank due to manufacturing variability.  Some make it and some don’t and that’s with the proper radius being maintained in the fillets of the journal.  An undressed grinding rock that removes the radius from the edge of the journal simply compounds the issue.

 

Probably more info than was asked for but felt a lengthy explanation was needed to know that there were some differences in the oil holes themselves which drives which crank can be offset ground the most.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Hey Ted,

tell me what you know about problems with offset grinding the steel 292, is it all steel 292s or just ones that have had the radius ground out of them?

Tim

   God Bless.   Tim                           http://yblockguy.com/

350ci Y-Block FED "Elwood", 301ci Y-Block Unibody LSR "Jake", 312ci Y-Block '58 F-100, 338ci Y-Block powered Model A Tudor

tim@yblockguy.com  Visalia, California    Just west of the Sequoias

I like taking them apart just to see what someone else has done to them. This maybe a bored out 272, but according to Mummert's chart it is a 55-56 292. I know that others have found things that did not jive with his charts, but it is still the best resource that we have. I have completed stripping it down, just need too remove the galley plugs, and plan to haul it to the machine shop next week for vatting. I am still amazed at the condition of the crank and bearings, this engine had very few miles on it. If it checks out OK it will make someone a good start to a stock rebuild. I'll be hanging on to the crank and rods though.

Glen Henderson



Freedom is not Free

Letohatchee, AL

Taking down one of these old motors is always fun, sometimes exciting or depressing.  A "runner" last winter had two broken rods, and was a mess.  But still "kind of" fun.

Mike, located in the Siskiyou mountains, Southern, OR 292 powered 1946 Ford 1/2 ton, '62 Mercury Meteor, '55 Country Squire (parting out), '64 Falcon, '54 Ford 600 tractor.

hi glen, they used a lot of 256 and 272's in 600 series buses, they may have bored it to std 292 when they rebuilt it, just a thought.

 lincoln/merc. y-blocks &mel's                                                               bucyrus, ohio.

Bummer Ted, that is exactly what I was planing, but no problem I have a std/std cast crank as well. I'll just have to find something else too use the steel crank in. Planing on using the C1TE rods in a 312 for my Fairlane if I ever get time too finish it. If this block checks out I may just build it back for someone else to enjoy.

Glen Henderson



Freedom is not Free

Letohatchee, AL

Glen.  Sounds like a good find.  Just shows that getting out there and looking will still find a few good parts to be had.  Be forewarned that the steel cranks do not take kindly to offset grinding to the much smaller rod journal sizes if you plan on going that route.  I can give more details when the time comes if that’s your plan.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)