|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Forum Ambassador
 
|
No ,I'm absolutely certain that 356 counterweights must be removed to do a proper crank job. I suppose you could grind less than the full width of the rod journal and then use a narrowed bearing insert so that it wouldn't ride on the part of the journal beneath the weight, but that sounds like a really bad idea.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Forum Ambassador
|
My 356 weights had to be removed and to make it worse, apparently not all shops have the equipment to handle the job. My engine rebuilder was able to do everything else on the 47 and also did a 54 engine with no problem but had to find someone with something special to handle either the width or length on 356 crank to remove them--don't remember which.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
I agree, it sounds like a really bad idea. I guess I'll know more when i get my engine apart, as I've never rebuilt a 356 before.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Forum Ambassador
|
Dave, Do you have any idea why Packard went this route? Was it because the technology didn't exist when the engine was designed because of it's length and weight. Where they adjusted with the bolts for balance perhaps? Just curious.
I doubt the local engine shop would have the necessary skill or equipment but on the other hand they are equipped to rebuild large displacement diesels etc.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:27
|
|||
|
______________________________________________
Dave |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
My 356 weights had to be removed and to make it worse, apparently not all shops have the equipment to handle the job. My engine rebuilder was able to do everything else on the 47 and also did a 54 engine with no problem but had to find someone with something special to handle either the width or length on 356 crank to remove them--don't remember which. What did you do about bolts?
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Forum Ambassador
|
Dave, Do you have any idea why Packard went this route? Was it because the technology didn't exist when the engine was designed because of it's length and weight. Just curious.
Certainly not the available technology as the 120 shaft in 1935 had intergral counterweighting. I'd say that it was done to keep the overall length of the shaft and block with 9 mainbearings within a desired length. PS - I suspect the 51-54 9-main engines had narrower main bearingsk thus giving more "room" within the block. Packard couldn't wait to drop the 356, it was a VERY expensive engine to make. What did you do about bolts? Not to jump in on a question meant for others, but the shop I'm most familiar with just makes them.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Funny they did it this way, as the 9 main 327 has integral counter weights and is the same length. There must have been a different reason for doing it that way.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Forum Ambassador
|
Eric, check the width of the main bearings, and the total projected main bearing area of the 356 vs either the 327 or 359 9-main engines and let us know what you come up with. I think it will answer your question.
PS - what I'm getting at is the TOTAL cumulative width of the mains. Please, take up the challenge and let us know what you find.
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering Packard v. Hudson
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Forum Ambassador
|
Quote:
That's what makes me curious as well? If technology existed in 1935 to make a one piece crankshaft for the 120 and subsequent inline engines why would Packard use the 1920's technology from the 385 and 320 engines up until 1950 in the 356?
Posted on: 2009/12/30 20:48
|
|||
|
______________________________________________
Dave |
||||
|
||||
