Cheepy Three-Sixty build

RAMM said

This is true but easily verified by putting a dial indicator on the #3 main journal and turning the crank. @Cudafever--if your crank truly needed 100 ft/lbs to turn I would want to know why. I would suspect a MAJOR problem like .010" bearings on a standard journal or worse--cracked main bolt holes allowing the bore to distort irreparably I might add. I use Plasti-gauge in a pinch but I have seen it tell me clearances are tight when they're not and tell me clearances are loose when they aren't. When direct measurements aren't available feel becomes VERY valuable. I don't really want to convolute this thread but this may become relevant when I lay the crank in and possibly encounter a problem. J.Rob

Click to expand...

I had an old beam torque wrench, and it would take 100 foot pounds to break it loose. With all the assembly lube(white grease) took a lot less torque after the initial movement of the crank. If you let it set for more and a couple of minutes, it took that much again to begin it to turn.
This was a rotating assembly(with piston and rods rear main seal cam and timing chain). Not just the crank in by itself.
I have always asked the machinist, on every motor i have build sence, to check the line bore. That first motor was the only one that had this problem.
It was a .060 over 340
It wasn't a bearing problem because they only wanted the block and crank back. I keep the bearing rods piston exc.
this is also the block that i cracked a cyl wall and figured out it had a BAD core shift in it, several year later.

The only other crank problem i have had, with a crank was with my most recent stroker eng that had 0 trust, do to screw in studs for the main caps......but that's a whole ether story.