Doug in CA <vanagon@ASTOUND.NET> wrote: What is up with the rods in the 2.1s Is it as simple that they are getting pounded oval and the bearing spins, so you just need to re-size them back to factory and everything is AOK?
Doug, Mike, Zoran and other fellow vanagon types
let me start with some shameless self promotion I have located new German rod bolts that fit the WBX rods these are not bug or 1.9 bolts but work with no grinding and I am now offering rebuilt 2.1 rod sets for $140 exchange this includes the new bolts they are weighted sets and ready to hang on the crank. I also have a large selection of vanagon main bearings and this includes the 2.1 20 case std crank mains 025 198 471A that have not been seen in this country for a few years I also can measure and alignbore if needed all air-cooled and water-cooled flat 4 blocks please visit my web pages and read the other article on 2.1 rods please consider me for you engine rebuilding needs Boston Engine where you get more than engines and engine parts
I wrote and never finished these rod notes a while ago yes they ramble and could use some cleaning up but I offer them the way they are for now due to time restraints.
You've reminded me about the testing and clearance checking I've done with rebuilt and used bug and WBX con rods. So I spent this morning going over my notes on con rods and con rod bolts. I also took a random sample of used 1.9, 2.1, one rebuilt 1.9 rod and a used bug rod. I torqued them up with and without bearings and measured them. I also brought in and measured a set from one 1.9 core engine had only 65k miles on them they measured consistently what I would consider round but .0005ths to big according to the maximum listed clearance range and .001th larger than the spec I use to get the rod bearing to crank journal clearance I want of .0015th. This got me thinking about bearing sizes. Do the original German Kolbenschmidt bearings measure thicker than the more common replacement Brazilian Mahle or metal levi bearings and is this part of the difference in clearances we see when rebuilding engines and checking clearances. Incorrect clearances with new parts and parts that are within spec are not uncommon and are called tolerance stack up when all the parts measure within tolerance but the clearances is incorrect. The new bearings I pulled of the shelve and the old 1.9 bearings with 65k measured the same within a couple of 10ths of a thousandth so they are consistent this time. when I install the bearings torqued and check the ID of the rod bearings in the 1.9 low mileage rods they where just to big to suit my preferences in clearances for the rod bearing to crank journal. Now that I am measuring bearings I found a used 2.1 con rod bearing that had the copper showing opposite the beam of the rod this bearing measured 001th thinner at the warn copper area. I then assembled torqued and measured the 2.1 con rod that I took the bearing from the rods big end measured smallest of all rods I checked opposite the beam of the rod in the very same place where the copper was showing. The rod also showed .001th cap shift the cap had moved sideways all the other cores I had selected for the mornings testing. This decreased the bearing clearance at the parting line the in the used 2.1 rod to less than .0005ths at 45 degrees from the parting line and to 001ths opposite the beam. I would have thought the rod would become larger opposite the beam. The end results of cap shift and the rod bearing wear is that the clearance of the rod bearing increases over time and the symptom of this is that at a warm Idle the oil pressure light comes on even with a thicker oil. And that my friends is the only warning you get before you throw a reused rod with new bearings threw the block and with only a few thousand miles on a reassembled engine ( I did not say rebuilt did I ). The rod bearing to crank clearances that the federal mogul master spec book used by crank grinders and engine builders listed a range of oil clearances from .001ths to a wear limit of .003ths. The max limit of .003th from my experience is that this is to much because the high mileage engines I have taken apart with symptoms of the oil light coming on at a warm idle have typically only one clearance out of spec and that was the rod bearing to crank with a clearance of 003ths and often more
Other notes The rod bolts are serrated there the two halves of the rods come together making for a tight fit and to prevent the misalignment of the machined rod halves. The rod bearings are always slightly thinner at the rod parting line to accommodate for a slight shift in the cap and to hold oil and is an aid in oiling. The oil pump cover gasket that comes with the German gasket set has the same part number as the bug but if measured you will se its thicker than the bug gasket and the engine will have a lower oil pressure at an idle if used.
My conclusions are that all the bug , 1.9 and 2.1 rods I measured had distorted over time and the miles. the 2.1 rod took the prize for most distortion. Its my opinion that the stretch to yield bolt is responsible for this The 2.1 rod has 5 distinctions from the bug and 1.9 rods. The first is that the 2.1 engine makes the most power 2) It also uses a different rod bolt of the stretch to yield type 3)the 2.1 is the only rod that gets smaller opposite the parting line 4) they throws themselves threw the block with little or no notice. 5) the rod angle is greater due to the longer stroke of the crank
I have spent thousands of dollars on micrometers and gauges so I can know exactly what the clearances between the bearings and crank are. Yes I've used plastagauge and that was fun but it won't show you the out of round of the rod and crank journals or the cap shift that I saw when we put the rod on the rod gauge. Plus don't you feel better knowing that the rod bearing to crank journal clearance is exactly 0015ths almost all the way to the parting line on the rod. that is what has worked for me so well for the last few hundred engines with no rod bearing failures. That's that will get you all the way home
going faster miles an hour I remain Bob Donalds Boston Engine
All rights reserved |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.