Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
401 Crank oil passages "wrong"? |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||
jpnjim
AMC Addicted Joined: Nov/25/2007 Location: New England Status: Offline Points: 2752 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: Aug/23/2015 at 8:22pm |
|
I had seen something similar to this statement here a few times:
"all sizes of AMC cranks have their Main to Rod oil passages drilled a little bit differently from one another, all work OK, except for the 401 crank, which has two of it's passages inexplicably drilled backwards/wrong." I went through a bunch of cranks today, what I found was interesting, but I don't know if it means that the way a 401 is drilled is bad, or atleast not any worse than a 290. I checked oil passage location, and direction in an (unknown year) ArmaSteel (cast) 290, 2x 1970 360's, a 1972 360, a 1968 390 & a 1973 401 crank. Here's what I found with the 290 & 360/390's: All 360s & 390 cranks were drilled exactly the same as each other. The 290 crank is drilled exactly the opposite of the 360/390 cranks. The connecting rod journal holes of all the cranks seem to be in identical locations, it's the main journal oil hole locations that vary. The 290 location was always on the opposite side of the main journal compared to the 360/390's location Simple explanation: View the engine/crank from the front rod journal is at TDC, oil hole on all is located at your top right hand side of the rod journal. The 360/390 oil holes then travel from right to left, through the center of the crank to exit on the bottom LEFT side of the crank journal. The 290's oil holes stay on the right side of the journal straight down, in line with the crank throw, and end up on the lower RIGHT side of the main journal. The 290 holes are also heavily chamfered compared to the 360/390, due to the steeper angle of the hole (relative to the circular journal). So this generated some questions for me: are the 360/390 cranks drilled like that for strength? (going through the center of the crank has to be the strongest place to drill a hole) If the 360/390 way is stronger, why drill the 290 another way (especially since the longer slot of the 290 would take more work/effort in manufacturing to clean up) Was this a running change, after the 290 method was found to be bad? OK, with those unanswered questions looming, I dug out the 401 crank. Connecting rod oil holes 1,3,4,5,6&8 are drilled exactly the same the 360/390's I checked. Hole exits top right on the rod, bottom left on the main. But the rod oil holes for rod #2 and #7 are "almost" the same as the 290. (I say "almost" because those two oil passages do travel a bit closer to the center of the crank than the 290 passages do, and pop out on the main the slightest bit over from where they do on the 290... maybe for a tiny bit more strength? but they still pop out on the right side of the main journal as the 290 does). So if the 401 is considered drilled backwards for those two passages, then the 290 is "drilled backwards" for all it's passages (and at a slightly steeper angle backwards). Sorry this isn't a picture thread (yet), and I am still trying to wrap my mind around what the oil is doing at each point in the rotation relative to rotation, oil inertia and tons of other stuff that hurts my brain. But if anyone followed this far into this post, and has a better grip on what this means than I do, I would appreciate the explanation. Cliff notes: AMC history says 401's have a couple of the oil passages drilled funky/wrong 290 crank oil passages drilled straight down, from right of rod journal to right of main journal 360/390 oil passages angle drilled across the center of the crank from right of rod to left of main 401 oil passages #2 and #7 drilled straight down right to right like a 290 401 oil passages #1,3,4,5,6&8 angle drilled across the center of the crank from right of rod to left of main like a 360/390 If it's bad for the 401 to have 2 passages drilled like this. wouldn't it be TERRIBLE for the 290 to have ALL it's passages drilled that way? Has anyone heard of 290 (and I'd presume 343) failures due to crank oiling issues? Thoughts? Thanks! |
||
71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX
some Jeeps and some Fords |
||
Boris Badanov
AMC Addicted Joined: Dec/14/2013 Location: NH USA Status: Offline Points: 4209 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Oiling system failures in AMC products were
legion back in the day. But the stockers rarely if ever failed due to the drilling of the crank oil holes. The AMC oil system was a nearly exact copy of the worst oiling system of the day that being the Buick V8 and V6. AMC added a little plastic button on the bottom of the oil pickup that failed often and umbrella valve oil seals that shattered after the heat got to them blocking the oil returns in the heads. IMO the oil system was marginal even when working properly. |
||
Gremlin Dreams
|
||
jpnjim
AMC Addicted Joined: Nov/25/2007 Location: New England Status: Offline Points: 2752 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
OK,
I found the other thread that goes into depth on this: http://theamcforum.com/forum/390-cranks_topic67162.html? and the info I found with my own cranks today that conflicts with this is: my (73) 401 crank has journals 1,3,4,5,6&8 drilled identically to the 360/390, it was journals #2&7 that were different, mimicking the 290 journals, only with slightly less angle & less chamfering. In that thread I did ask and get a good answer there from Hurst390:
But after rereading it I just went and double checked my 73 401 to the 68 390, 1,3,4,5,6 and 8 (including journal #6) are drilled identically it's 2&7 that mimic the 290/343. I am certainly not trying to call anyone out thats been doing this stuff (and doing it very well!) for 20-30-40+ years, just trying to get the facts straight & wrap my head around it. I have a 77' 401 crank tucked away. My next step will be to dig that out and see if that is drilled the same as the 73 401 crank. Thanks |
||
71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX
some Jeeps and some Fords |
||
jpnjim
AMC Addicted Joined: Nov/25/2007 Location: New England Status: Offline Points: 2752 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Boris, yeah I think the engineers spent a little too much time thinking of that company on the other side of the lake, Buick was the wrong design to copy for sure, but it's the cranks that has me thinking. Up till now I thought the 390 crank had an advantage of better oil passages, and that still may be true, but wouldn't the 290/343 cranks be the worst of all since all their rod journals has the "right side to right side oiling" like the 'bad' #2 and #7 401 journals have? |
||
71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX
some Jeeps and some Fords |
||
Rebel Machine
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/03/2007 Location: Western Il Status: Offline Points: 5122 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This is interesting. I'm going to look over some of my cranks and see if I can wrap my head around this. Looking at some pics from previous builds the main #3 bearing has the oiling groove in both the top and bottom but mains 1, 2, 4 & 5 only the upper main bearing has the oiling groove. If all cranks were drilled dead center from main to it's respective rod it would seem the odd number rods fed by all mains other than #3 would oil ATDC and the even number rods fed by all mains other than #3 would oil BTDC. Rods (4 & 5?) fed by main #3 would oil 360 degrees.
I guess offsetting the passage tries to get those non #3 main fed odd numbered rods closer to BTDC oiling? I'm probably missing something. -Steve- Edited by Rebel Machine - Aug/23/2015 at 9:50pm |
||
jpnjim
AMC Addicted Joined: Nov/25/2007 Location: New England Status: Offline Points: 2752 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I haven't gotten to the point of sitting down to figure what it all means for crank position and the oil feed hole in the block.
I've also read a lot of different things concerning which engines got full groove, half groove & no groove main bearings. I wasn't thinking different mains got different bearings in the same engine. But to clarify, the hole location on the #2 main that feeds the #2 rod is different 401 vs 360/390 the hole location on the #4 main that feeds the #7 rod is different 401 vs 360/390 ^these two oil passages more closely mimic the 290/343 oil passages (which are all opposite from the 360/390) all other passages on my 401 crank were the same as all the 360's and the 1 390 I checked. Clear as mud? |
||
71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX
some Jeeps and some Fords |
||
401jim
Supporter of TheAMCForum Joined: Jan/07/2012 Location: Brunswick,Ohio Status: Offline Points: 793 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Oh boy am I dizzy now! I think I will stick to the fully grooved mains and hope for the best. WOW!!!!!!
|
||
|
||
amc67rogue
AMC Addicted Joined: Nov/05/2008 Location: Phx. AZ. Status: Offline Points: 1578 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
From the factory 71 401s had half groove mains , 73 up were full groove. All the others 290 -390 were half groove. In the early to mid 70s all the after market replacement main sets had the full grove center main.
|
||
Keith Coggins 67Rogue X code
|
||
SC397
AMC Addicted Joined: Apr/30/2009 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 5476 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
Class Guy
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/02/2007 Location: Arkansas Status: Offline Points: 969 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So a destroked 390 crank for a "high performance" 290-343 would be better than the stock crank? (besides being forged)
|
||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |