|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: B G Racing]
#569640
01/07/10 12:50 PM
01/07/10 12:50 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
this has been interesting. it seems there have been numerous "opinions" dispalyed other than the facts posted by BG and Curt Jr.
so, what if anything have we learned so far?
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
#569641
01/07/10 01:03 PM
01/07/10 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 760
Southington Ct.
turbobitt
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 760
Southington Ct.
|
Quote:
this has been interesting. it seems there have been numerous "opinions" dispalyed other than the facts posted by BG and Curt Jr.
so, what if anything have we learned so far?
I think we learned that there is no such thing as a "Buget" crank. After all these tweeks and fixes, you can buy a beter quality crank. To stay with the "Theme" of facts, I own a 440 souce, Eagle and K1 crank. The facts are that the K1 crank needed nothing , no corrections, no bearing scraping, no deburing, no fixing of flanges, and no regrind. I have read that to keep it on a buget, the corrects were going to be made. But at what hourly rate ?? I bet it's about $75 + per hour to scrap bearings, inspect hardware. Where is the savings ?? Lets see all the facts and time laid out in labor so far. If it's BG's choice to throw this in at no charge then fine, let us know how many additional hours it took to make it work so that we can guestimate what the majority of machine shops would charge to repair these issues.
Allan G.
1970 Challenger w/572 Hemi street car and my pride and joy.
1986 T-Type with 272 Stage 2 Buick V6 engine - True 8 second street car. Just updated the engine and put down 928 HP @ 35# boost to the ground on chasis dyno.
1976 Cee Bee Avenger Jet Boat - 460 Ford powered.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
#569642
01/07/10 01:42 PM
01/07/10 01:42 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 438
Great Lakes Region
abodiesonly1
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 438
Great Lakes Region
|
Quote:
this has been interesting. it seems there have been numerous "opinions" dispalyed other than the facts posted by BG and Curt Jr.
so, what if anything have we learned so far?
That people are going to continue to buy what they want. 
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: turbobitt]
#569643
01/07/10 02:08 PM
01/07/10 02:08 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,910
Eighty Four, PA
B G Racing
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,910
Eighty Four, PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
this has been interesting. it seems there have been numerous "opinions" dispalyed other than the facts posted by BG and Curt Jr.
so, what if anything have we learned so far?
I think we learned that there is no such thing as a "Buget" crank. After all these tweeks and fixes, you can buy a beter quality crank. To stay with the "Theme" of facts, I own a 440 souce, Eagle and K1 crank. The facts are that the K1 crank needed nothing , no corrections, no bearing scraping, no deburing, no fixing of flanges, and no regrind. I have read that to keep it on a buget, the corrects were going to be made. But at what hourly rate ?? I bet it's about $75 + per hour to scrap bearings, inspect hardware. Where is the savings ?? Lets see all the facts and time laid out in labor so far. If it's BG's choice to throw this in at no charge then fine, let us know how many additional hours it took to make it work so that we can guestimate what the majority of machine shops would charge to repair these issues.
Allan G.
We will have a total estimate at the end of the build.But as far as fitting bearing,minor dressinging of the crank(deburring,etc) setting clearences,weighing and calculating is not an extra cost but all part of the estimate that we would quote for the build.Adittional charges would only be for major corrections above and beyond anything not on the original estimate and would be agreed to with the customer before the extra cost would be applied to the original estimate.Most people that buy these kits usually are hobbyist that assemble their own engines,usually if your dealing with a professional shop to machine and assemble your engine you are working on a different level as far as componant selection.I don't think anyone that's buying a Source or other budget kit is looking to Barton,Monte,Darren,Banning or others for a build.The only reason BGR got involved is many of our friends that are selfhelp hobbyist racers came to us for assistance and this project they were a little over their head so we took on the project.We figured we would share what we learned with the many racers that were looking to these kits for a more economocal way to start or keep racing."What did we learn" was asked.I think a lot for just starting with the crank we have learned ,what issues to look for,how to correct them,and understand the basic parameters of what is acceptable and what isn't.More importantly not to assume anything,and if you have questions have a place to bring them for help,right here on Moparts.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: B G Racing]
#569644
01/07/10 03:00 PM
01/07/10 03:00 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 760
Southington Ct.
turbobitt
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 760
Southington Ct.
|
Thanks BG, I understand what your trying to do. If your a hobbiest or not, these cost will catch up with you anyway. Just want to be clear that it will add more cost to the final price. Most of us "Hobbiest" still need to have these corections made by someone and they will most likely not be as generous as you.
Allan G.
1970 Challenger w/572 Hemi street car and my pride and joy.
1986 T-Type with 272 Stage 2 Buick V6 engine - True 8 second street car. Just updated the engine and put down 928 HP @ 35# boost to the ground on chasis dyno.
1976 Cee Bee Avenger Jet Boat - 460 Ford powered.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: B G Racing]
#569646
01/07/10 03:14 PM
01/07/10 03:14 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
mickm
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,179
California
|
Quote:
..."What did we learn" was asked.I think a lot for just starting with the crank we have learned ,what issues to look for,how to correct them,and understand the basic parameters of what is acceptable and what isn't.More importantly not to assume anything,and if you have questions have a place to bring them for help,right here on Moparts.
also important not to forget is this is one of the early kits, and things have changed since then. i won't dare to say "improved", i'll keep that to myself 
time and time again, everyone says that you must inspect everything, no matter what you pay for it or who it comes from. there are stories here of perfect Source cranks, and stories of bad Callies cranks, and everything in between.
what i have learned is exactly what bob has stated above. if/when i go to build an engine, i'll make my decisions more on how much HP i'm looking for, and what kind of money i can put into it. i know i won't make the decision by brand name.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: Mick70RR]
#569647
01/07/10 03:33 PM
01/07/10 03:33 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,752
detroit area
moderncylinder
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,752
detroit area
|
it seems to me this post is all about showing errors of defective 440 source parts,, not about an actual build.
crank "pin" lightening holes drilled at an angle is not a big deal at all,, i have callies, scat, and other cranks here that have holes at angles to lighten, aslong as you maintain .150 or so thickness,, it will be fine, ive been down to .100 on th eedge where the lighten hole started in on a angle in a scat super stock hemi crank that i make 900hp with and run to 9000rpm with a 2525 bobweight,, no cracking or breaking of the crank,,, not even a clue of it..
bob george said something about the "center of the crank" being out of balance because the way the center two pin holes were drilled,, thats funny,, does it have center counterweights?? no it doesnt along with 90% of cranks out there,, therefore they cannot be balanced in the center. this is just another thing brought up that doesnt mean anything.
everyone makes cranks with 1/8" radius in mains and rods,, i would fight with this on callies cranks, i could never get bearings that would work out of a box,, cause they didnt exist,, so i would scrape the mains,, rods we would just narrow if needed.,, everyone makes cranks that way,, everyone has to fit their bearings,, it wont blow the motor up if you dont,, but its not that best. all bearings are made to clear a 3/32" radius,, 1/32 less than 1/8",,, if you made the main width narrow enough on the crank then you have issues,, callies does,, scat just makes it,, and eagles are fine,, usually...
it was obvious that the crank was etched at 2300gram bobweight, then rebalanced, but it was made to sound like there was something terribly wrong with the bobweight being lower than that,, how should that have been handled??? spin the crank and see if its balanced to see if it is 2300 or the actual weight for your parts,, then say something,, just gives bad press for no reason other than a guy getting jumpy and making something out of nothing.
jeff
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: moderncylinder]
#569648
01/07/10 03:53 PM
01/07/10 03:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,923
NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,923
NC
|
Quote:
crank "pin" lightening holes drilled at an angle is not a big deal at all,, i have callies, scat, and other cranks here that have holes at angles to lighten, aslong as you maintain .150 or so thickness,, it will be fine, ive been down to .100 on th eedge where the lighten hole started in on a angle in a scat super stock hemi crank that i make 900hp with and run to 9000rpm with a 2525 bobweight,, no cracking or breaking of the crank,,, not even a clue of it..
jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for the information.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: gsmopar]
#569649
01/07/10 04:27 PM
01/07/10 04:27 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,472
Overland Park, KS.
Joshs68
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,472
Overland Park, KS.
|
Quote:
Hobbyist here! Where do you find the other "kits?" I googled K1 and found their web site, but it's far from user friendly. I prefer to buy American even if it costs a little more.
Thanks!
I am by no means an engine builder, saving a few bucks is great but having to redo something because I didnt know what I am doing is not in the budget.
This is what I did and I thought it was super easy.
I got together with a shop I trusted, I talked to the owner and told him what I wanted. 470 pump gas ect.
I let him order the parts and assemble the short block. He used parts from companies he deals with on a regular basis, end result Is I am very happy with no worries.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: moderncylinder]
#569650
01/07/10 06:03 PM
01/07/10 06:03 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 741
Carson City, NV
440sourcedotcom
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 741
Carson City, NV
|
Quote:
it seems to me this post is all about showing errors of defective 440 source parts,, not about an actual build.
crank "pin" lightening holes drilled at an angle is not a big deal at all,, i have callies, scat, and other cranks here that have holes at angles to lighten, aslong as you maintain .150 or so thickness,, it will be fine, ive been down to .100 on th eedge where the lighten hole started in on a angle in a scat super stock hemi crank that i make 900hp with and run to 9000rpm with a 2525 bobweight,, no cracking or breaking of the crank,,, not even a clue of it..
bob george said something about the "center of the crank" being out of balance because the way the center two pin holes were drilled,, thats funny,, does it have center counterweights?? no it doesnt along with 90% of cranks out there,, therefore they cannot be balanced in the center. this is just another thing brought up that doesnt mean anything.
everyone makes cranks with 1/8" radius in mains and rods,, i would fight with this on callies cranks, i could never get bearings that would work out of a box,, cause they didnt exist,, so i would scrape the mains,, rods we would just narrow if needed.,, everyone makes cranks that way,, everyone has to fit their bearings,, it wont blow the motor up if you dont,, but its not that best. all bearings are made to clear a 3/32" radius,, 1/32 less than 1/8",,, if you made the main width narrow enough on the crank then you have issues,, callies does,, scat just makes it,, and eagles are fine,, usually...
it was obvious that the crank was etched at 2300gram bobweight, then rebalanced, but it was made to sound like there was something terribly wrong with the bobweight being lower than that,, how should that have been handled??? spin the crank and see if its balanced to see if it is 2300 or the actual weight for your parts,, then say something,, just gives bad press for no reason other than a guy getting jumpy and making something out of nothing.
jeff
Thanks Jeff for the first grounded and accurate post I've seen here. I'd like to clarify a few things. First, I can appreciate and respect what BG is trying to do here, that is examine the parts and post his findings. However, somewhere during the process (perhaps due to a lack of familiarity with what is being examined?) things went awry. Please allow me to respond to some of the things that have been mentioned.
If my responses don't agree with BG's in some areas, please don't take as a personal attack against him, it's simply my point of view on the matter.
The first thing in question here is how the crank is drilled through the rod pins (lightening holes). I believe this is done at an angle on some forgings to ensure that the lightening hole does not intersect the rod to main oiling passages. Several people responded to this by saying they would send the crank back, and BG stated he'd be afraid of it weakening the crank, and even went so far as to say "you get what you pay for.How the Manufacture could ever ship a product in this condition is beyond me." Another well known "expert" on this site says "IMHO, I would NOT run that crank in an engine with decent power. You have effectively weakened the throw into the cheek and that would be a likely place for a break."
With respect, this can only be due to the fact that these "experts" don't understand what they are looking at, and how the stresses are distributed through that forging under load.
The truth is, these cranks have been manufactured this way since day one. Over the last 7 years, we've sold thousands upon thousands of them all over the world. The majority of them go into bracket motors running 9's or 10's, and many are in cars in the 7 and 8 second range. I even know of a dozen or so running in the 6's for the last couple years. Hot rod magazine recently did a twin turbo motor with our crank in it that made 1434 horsepower, and it's still running great to this day. How many hundreds and hundreds of people on this very site are making serious power with our cranks (often for many years now) with great success?
To take an item like this that clearly does not fail during it's intended use, (in fact has proven itself in literally thousands of successful cases over a period of time spanning most of a decade) and then take one look at it, and proclaim you've decided it's defective and will most likely fail during use... well that just doesn't add up.
BG states in one post that "if we want the truth then we better be able to handle the truth." Well, to me, the "truth" is the undeniable RESULTS thousands of racers are getting with these same cranks.
So, I respectfully ask what BG's response would be to the proven track record of this crank he's so quick to label as a complete waste of money?
This reminds me of a similar post a couple months ago about our water pump housing. Some self proclaimed moparts "expert" analysed our water pump housing and found the ports to be smaller than he would have liked. Right away, he posted how our housing would without a doubt cause the engine to overheat because of the smaller passages. Well, I personally run one of those housings on my own car, and I'd never had any kind of overheating problem, so I thought it was a bit strange. So, I looked up our sales data, and it turns out we've sold many thousands of those same housings over the last 3 years and we've not heard of any overheating problems caused by them. Even if 1% of the people who bought those housings had an overheating problem caused by them, that would still be hundreds of calls we would have received about the problem, so we definitely would have known about it.
Just another instance of how an "expert" can take one look at a perfect good and proven part, and then post on here how it can't possibly work.
The other thing I wanted to address is the comment about "The better" (meaning name brand high dollar) "parts are always right."
Anyone who tells you a part is "ALWAYS" going to be perfect because it costs a certain amount of money or has a certain companies name written on the side of the box, is showing you the ignorance of their inexperience. We sell a lot of product from the top, most well established name brands in the industry, including Edelbrock, Comp Cams, ARP, Clevite, etc, etc. I can tell you from personal experience that ALL of these companies have had a product at one time or another that has been defective and that we needed to exchange.
Engine builders who have real experience, (and I'm talking about builders who have built thousands of engines over decades) will tell you that anyone who says anything in the aftermarket parts world is "always perfect" has their head up their you know what. Making a comment like that simply reveals that the person is either (A) ignorant, or (B) has very little real world experience.
As I said earlier, and I can understand and respect what is trying to be done here. But if you examine any part, from any manufacturer, with a super fine tooth comb, and your sole intention is to try to find a defect (or even something you don't like,) believe me, sooner or later your going to find something. I don't care what the part is, where it's made or what company makes it.
Thanks for allowing me to provide my input, thanks BG for your effort, and I'll look forward to the sections on the rods and pistons.
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: 440sourcedotcom]
#569651
01/07/10 06:38 PM
01/07/10 06:38 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,752
detroit area
moderncylinder
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,752
detroit area
|
a comment on the water pump housing,,,,, ive had obviously diferent looking cylinders in my super stock stuff due to heat or lack of,,, i started reducing the water port sizes and it started to equalize the way a piston looked,, chamber looked,, before you could point out the hot ones and the cold ones due to water flow,, im down to a .625 inlet into the block, and a .500 out of the head or vice versa if i reverse cool,,, didnt make it one degree hotter after the run
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: moderncylinder]
#569652
01/07/10 07:02 PM
01/07/10 07:02 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,295
U.S.
moparniac
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,295
U.S.
|
please explain this from your site? im confused... We do not just use what's "written on the box" or any "estimated" weights for any part of the balancing operation. Other shops call this a "competition balance" and charge a few hundred bucks extra for it. We call it standard practice. On the waterpump housing deal isnt there bolt hole mis-alignment? and jeff at MCH does all of your cnc head porting right  please enlighten so I know the facts about this stuff
Mopar Performance
|
|
|
Re: 440 Source kit update part 1
[Re: 440sourcedotcom]
#569656
01/07/10 07:36 PM
01/07/10 07:36 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,910
Eighty Four, PA
B G Racing
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,910
Eighty Four, PA
|
The opinions that have be expressed here by me and others are just that our opinions an expression on how we feel and they were quite varied.That we questioned certain things about the crank and people responded with their thoughts.Many of us had different takes on cause and effect,you will never get answers to questions if you don't ask the questions first.I don't think I was bashing 440 Source by any means.I.am not a crank expert by anymeans and don't think two many of us here are either.But I'am smart enough that If I have questions I know I can find the experts that can answer our questions.Brandon,you could have jumped in on the first post and explained your position and thoughts and we could have all gained from it,but no,you had to wait on some "expert" opened the door to get your foot in.Now any and all meaningful discussion and opinions are worthless since you and Jeff have decided to circle the wagons,that's two wagons and there is still a thousand of indians,does the name "Custer" ring a bell.I tried to show the good things as well as bad and was hoping that this thread didn't succumb to personal attacks.I think I was fair and let everyone express their thoughts.That that crank looked ugly at best raised concerns,that we continue to evaluate the build and will see the end performance of the parts will be the true test.I think everyone responded in a manner to keep the thread on track and respectfull,you and Jeff are the the ones that seem to want to derail it instead of contributing to it.So here's my final take on the crank after talking to Alan Krem, a respected Design engineer with his degree from the Univ.OF Pittsburgh,who does crank design and also does R&D for Oliver rods and many others.I have known worked with him on projects for over 30 years and he knows more than you and Jeff will ever know about cranks.I respect his opinion,his qualifications,and his professional mannerisms more than what I have seen from you two "experts" Is the crank ugly? Yes. Is it usable? Yes.Will it hold up? Time will tell. To everyone on Moparts,I apologise for having ruffeled any feathers.  So now we see the connection 
Last edited by B G Racing; 01/07/10 08:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
