Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

great advice guys, I have a 29 straight 8 I hope to start rebuilding in a month or two and will surely come back to this post.
I wonder if you can point me in the direction of a supplier for the cam followers, the motor i have does not have them with the block.
Thanks
Barry Lowe
336-516-7009

For many years Egge reproduced the actual cam roller and pin assemblies, but announced a few years ago that they were going to stop production. IIRC they later reversed themselves, so first thing to check is if Egge still has the rollers and pins. Now the arms used in the 7th Series were the original stamped steel type, later replaced with forgings; for these you're going to have to look into the used parts market, Kanter would strike me as the best bet. If not, start looking for a junk motor - the arms themselves are the same for both the 320 and 385 cubic inch engines though of course the housings and shafts are different.

Attach file:

---

  (107.30 KB)


  (315.60 KB)

Alright guys I'm learning more and more about these motors as I read threads in this forum...
Today's question is can I use newer 320 rods that have shell bearings in my 7th series motor?

I don't know the full answer here, Hollander's indicates that the later rods do not interchange.

There is a notation in the 1933-36 parts list that replacements for earlier babbitted connecting rods are now being supplied for use with insert bearings. You may wish to note that in the 320 engine the even numbered connecting rods are different that the odd numbers, and this continued thru at least 1936.

Dave - I know I am shooting from the hip here...and believe me, I am NOT an expert on the 320 motors, but...
I do believe the later rods will serve as an updated replacement, primarily to take advantage of the insert bearings, and second, my recollection is the parts book difference is that replacement rods were supplied with the pin bushing installed, which is offset to one side. ...and I also have a brain cell buzzing to explain that the centerline of the rod neck is slightly offset, which is why you simply cannot turn a rod over to account for the bushing offset.
Would someone please chime in to clarify this....

And with all the effort and cost to change to the later rods, why not just have the original rods re-babbitted? Folklore suggests its the quality of the babbitt that is of issue, but there are so few shops now doing babbitt, the amateurs have been pretty much weeded out.

DAF

...and for purely self serving purposes, i have a set of later rods available.

Hi Dave:

Not an expert here either, I've always rebuilt with rods correct for the engine as originally built. But I do have a set of '34 320 engine rods and will take a look later and see if I can spot the difference between the even and odd numbered ones.

-------------------------------------------------------

PS: Good memory Dave! Examining my spare '34 Eight rods (last year for babbitt) I cannot tell if the small end eye is symmetrical with the rod centerline or not, but surely the pin bushing is installed with an offset to the front of the engine on the odd-numbered rods, and obviously the opposite on the even #s.

Re Ernie's comment on babbitt bearing life, my rods went 88,000 miles before I heard the first hint of a rod knock at cold startup - so I stayed with babbitt for the rebuild.

Good Morning all...I agree with the comment that just re doing the babbit is a good way to go. Many of us drive other old machines, as well and many have babbited mains and rods. If the machines are driven with the respect that they deserve, they will serve quite well and for many thousands of miles. Ernie