Cracking open my waterboxer.

[stevey88]

[ourv12]

If all the crank bearing surfaces are within spec. then wouldn't a new set of standard size bearings be OK ? No need to measure the bearings then? Just wondering. (I'll be doing this job too come spring time and just curious about my assumption.)

[JPrato]

[tencentlife]

You can buy good-quality bore mic (i.e. bore micrometer, not snap gauges) complete set for $80 from Summit, JEGS, many other vendors. If you're going to build engines, even a single one, and can't borrow them for your single use, you ought to make the small investment in some decent measuring tools: bore mic set ($80; .0005" increments; 2" to 6" range), journal mic set ($40 at HF; .0001" increments; 1", 2", 3" mics), 12" digital vernier (about $15 at HF; good to .0005"/.01mm; worth having just for the instant inch-to-metric conversion capability), and a 1" dial indicator (.001" accuracy) and magnetic stand (less than $30) or the more versatile segmented arm with 1" dial indicator (about $35 at HF last time I checked). Total invested: $170, for a lifetime of fun.

Now I'm not calling anyone here so far a tool snob, but one will undoubtedly stumble along and say I'm stupid, that you have to spend a lot of money to get sufficient accuracy, and then go on and on spouting bullshit about China and so on, so right here I will preemptively call that person an idiot just to get that out of the way. I make my living with the same tools I described, and I deal with excellent machinists who also use many of the same items. We have checked ours against each others, against each others' standards, and against expensive old-school instruments and not found them lacking in the least. Improper use will produce greater error more often than differences between instruments ever will.

Snap gauges are very difficult to get accurate or reliable inside bore measurements with due to the aforementioned difficulty of knowing when you're on an exact diameter. The bore mic lets you see when you are at the maximum extension, ergo an accurate diameter. You also get your reading directly instead of having to transfer every measurement. But you do need a journal mic to set up the base measurement of the bore mic. I wish I had never bought one because now I get to know just how f-ed up everything really is so I have to fix it.

I'm having trouble believing that Charlie is still wondering which crank is in his GW 2.2. It's common knowledge that GW uses only the 2.1 crank with 76mm stroke in their 2.2 engines, as do I. To have 2.2 liters displacement on the 1.9 69mm crank would require 101mm bore. Those stroke figures are readily available in Bentley. It's also easy to see which you have by measuring between the same faces of opposed rod journals, that distance will be the stroke. Just holding a tape measure or ruler up from journal to journal is enough to tell.

Beisdes looking at the bearing style once the case is opened, the case type can be found by the type code that precedes the serial number: DH for US 1.9's, MV for US 2.1's. 2.1 cases of course have the main saddles with notches for the alignment tangs on the late-style bearings, except #4 which is the same as 1.9 or Type1. 1.9's use all dowels as Type1's did, and could actually use a Type1 main bearing set if it wasn't for the #1 bearing being wider.

Either crank will run in either case or style of bearing.

Now as soon as you begin measuring main journal OD's and bearing ID's, you're going to discover VW's dirty little secret: they have spec main bearing clearances of about .0045", mas o menos. Yes kids, that's four and a half thousandths of an inch. The actual final clearance will depend on the crush your case puts on the main bearings.

And, as Bentley notes, there are two different 2.1 cranks in circulation, blue dot and red (or pink) dot. Their main journal OD"s differed by .0005", red dots being the smaller ones. But, as far as I can find out, only blue dot bearings are being sold. So this is something you really need to know, and know for sure: which crank do I have? The dots can be very hard to see, if they are still visible at all, so you do need to mic the main journals with a .0001" mic to see which of the two size ranges your crank conforms to. The reason being, if you put a red dot crank in a new std. bearing set, you will end up with over .005" main bearing clearances. Four and a half is bad enough, I would not feel good with over five, myself.

You would not want a .001" mains clearance (rods are another story) because for that to work the journal concentricity would have to be perfect, and it is unlikely that it is that good, and also unlikely you would find anyone who could align-bore this case to that degree of perfection. The awesome German engineers designed in a lot of fudge so production could move ahead instead of tossing out two cases for every good one. Of course this sloppy mains clearance is probably the source of most of the wbx's low oil pressure woes.

The only way to get mains clearance closer short of having custom bearings made is to go to undersize mains, and have the crank journals custom-ground to set your own specified clearance that way. I do all my cranks this way and tighten up the mains clearances quite a bit, but my specs are my own. Suffice it to say that a rule of thumb is .001" per inch of journal diameter, but I'm not making mine quite that tight because I don't trust the cases' concentricity that much.

Same for rod clearances, VW's spec are over .002". With rods you have the option of undersizing the rod big ends and custom-trimming rod shells, or get the journals to custom sizes during the crank regrind so you can use off-the-shelf rods and undersize shells without needing to modify them.

Many times people here will say you just trot down to your local machinist and have this kind of custom work done, and it may be so where you live but where I live it was a royal bitch to find a crank grinder who could consistently produce my spec numbers at all, never mind at a fair price. Engine rebuilding is a dying art and the skills that support it are dying too. Judging by the many accounts of people having a machine shop build their bottom ends and the tales of disaster that have followed I don't think it's a whole lot better elsewhere.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[klucz]

Wow. Thanks for sharing all that info, Chris.
_________________
84 Westy 4spd sold

[iltis74]

Yeah that is good to know. I usually borrow most of those kind of tools from a guy that retired a year ago and is being found in the city less and less. I was caught in limbo between not wanting to spend a lot of money, and not wanting to waste any at all. Thanks.

[syncrosimon]

[tencentlife]

I dunno, maybe you could say that, to me there are too many other variables to come to any conclusion pointing to one cause. But it's definitely something you need to know about if you want to make this engine better than VW built it, which is what my work is all about.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[psych-illogical]

Wow! That was a ton of good information.

I learned a lot from that post. As for the tools;

A long time ago in a place far, far away I did make my living as an industrial machinist. During the course of that brief career I accumulated a really good assortment of tools. Including all the precision measuring devices tencentlife mentioned. Yesterday I had a real Homer Simpson "d’oh" moment when I realized that I do own a set of bore mics that have been buried in a toolbox drawer for the past quarter century or so.

Here’s my assortment of stuff (mostly because we all like pictures):

My 2-3” mic, the bore mic and the 2” rod there is a measuring standard for checking the mic.

As for the telescoping gauges I own I do recall that I never really trusted them. I can measure a bore with those 20 times and get 20 different measurements. The theory is that they are self-centering but I don’t trust ‘em. I could take 30 measurements, calculate a mean and standard deviation and then calculate a percent confidence that my reading is accurate but, I’d rather not. Tencent is right about using a bore mic to be able to feel when you’re at max diameter.

I guess I wasn’t aware that GW uses a 2.1 crank to get the stroke and ultimately the displacement for their 2.2 motor. So, last night I just eyeballed the stroke using a metric rule and it is indeed pretty darned close to a 76mm stroke.

I do indeed have a DH code 1.9 case. I still can’t discern any paint marks on the crank and the bearings aren’t color coded. Since my case is the 1.9 I assume that I must use 1.9 specific bearings because of the dowelled case?

Based on the main bearing clearance spec of .0045” I suppose I should quit whining about .003”. Actually once I started using the bore mic I found out I’m in a little better shape than I thought. Assuming that I’ll get a little crush upon torqueing the case I think I’ll be OK.

Clearances:
Bearing #1 is .0028”
Bearing #3 is .0021”
Bearing #4 (the little one) is .0031”
Bearing #2 I’ll check w/ plastigage when I’m putting the case back together.

I understand the need to have wide enough tolerance specifications so that you can manufacture with a minimum number of rejects and still keep the price reasonable but somehow I expected a wee bit better than .0045” out of VW.

I also torqued up the rod caps and measured those w/ the bore mic and found out that I’m close to the upper end of the spec but still within. Out of round maximum was .0002”. I’m withholding judgment until I Plastigage them. The small end did require use of the telescoping gages as my bore mic only goes down to 2”. I measured .0008” to .001” clearance with the pins. Inserting the pins and giving them the ‘feel’ test confirms that they’re nice and snug.

Here’s one of the rods:

Notice how GW ground the snot out of it on the cap end. I assume this is for clearance. I’m gonna take a close look at how everything clears when I spin it through a couple of revs when I’ve got the case bolted up.

That IS my kitchen counter that the rods are on. It was 20 deg. out in the garage last night. My wife was a very good sport about letting me put my rods, bearings, crank, etc. on her counter. I DID clean them well first.

Anyway, that’s all for today. As always thanks for the help.
_________________
83 1/2 Westy waterboxer
'57 Beetle-sold
Coupla '81 BMW motorcycles (R80G/S; R100RS)
'96 BMW R1100GS

[tencentlife]

What you're showing is a proper bore, or inside micrometer. What I was calling a bore mic is one of those rigs that presents the changes in bore size on a dial indicator, like this:

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/81600/10002/-1

(and I see that JEGS has raised their price on it, but I'm pretty sure you can still find this same setup for about $80 unless everyone has raised theirs)

I called that a bore mic as opposed to a bore gauge because a lot of people call telescoping snap gauges bore gauges. I have never found any agreement on consistent terminologies for these things.

I think the type I linked to at JEGS is probably the easiest to learn to use. And it lets you bolt together a case and makes it pretty easy to reach in to take bore measurements even at the center saddle.

So Charlie, if you're measuring the clearances you wrote above, I'm curious what you're getting for the crank journal OD's. My typical .0045" main clearances (this excepts the small #4 bearing, usually a bit tighter, but I barely consider it a main bearing since it carries very little load) are based on my many measurements of both old and new 2.1 bearing sets clamped up in cases, vs. crank journals that are bang on the high end of the published spec range. I don't use the 1.9 cases so I have few measurements of those lately, but I recall them having the same kind of mains clearances overall. I'll toss one together to confirm.

I'm wondering if GW is also regrinding to attain closer clearances, is why. Of course for them to do so means that your bearings were at least 0.25mm (0.010") under.

You can normally tell under and over on KS bearings by looking on back of the #1,2 or 3 (typically no offsize markings on #4) for a capital U or Ü followed by a mm size, e.g. o.25mm, 0.5mm, etc.

U is for unter, or undersized. Sizes are U 0.25mm, U 0.5mm, U 0.75mm (and I think there's a U 1mm but you never see them)

Ü is for Über, or oversized (remember Dan Aykroyd as "Übermann"). Sizes are Ü 0.5mm, Ü 1mm, Ü 1.5mm

It's harder to find the 1.9 bearing sets in offsizes these days, so if yours are in good shape treat them with care, you may need to reuse them (and there's nothing wrong with doing so so long as they are still a good fit in the case and to the crank).

Anyway I'd love to know your journal OD's if you don't mind sharing.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[JunkYarDog]

I heard a rumor once.... Someone supposedly setting type 1 engines up for Chevy journals. Is this possible and if so why would you do it???
_________________
I have never owned a VW I didn't like, but there have been a few Fords and Chevy's.
85' GL Sunroof
68' Beetle sedan
72' Chevy C10 (LWB Step)
(67' Volvo 122S pending)

[tencentlife]

Chevy rods are commonly used in hotrodding Type1 engines; you could do the same things on a wbx, if you modified the small ends for 24m pins. Chevy journals are only 2", VW are 2.165", so the smaller journal allows a smaller rod which will have less need of case clearancing with long strokes, and sometimes Chevy journals are chosen in order to produce a longer stroke from an existing crank, but that method tends to leave the crank weak across the center main.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[tencentlife]

So, following up, the different tolerances thing between 1.9 and 2.1 bearing types had me curious. So I pulled out a few 1.9 cranks that I had kept their bearings with, and miked the #1 bearings on each. Here's what I found:

One thing not made clear in Bentley is whether the blue dot/red dot thing applies to 1.9 cranks. It does, there are some that are .0005" under the others and conform to the journal sizing ranges in the Bentley table. Sizing ranges are identical for 1.9 and 2.1 cranks despite the stroke difference.

On blue-dot cranks, oil clearance in the #1 1.9 bearings on the horizontal axis was typically .0030" to .0035". So yes, they had tighter clearances than 2.1 bearings, by about .0010" to .0015". Using a red dot crank poses the same problem of leaving .0005" more clearance though, since only blue dot bearings are sold (I'm using "blue-dot" as a name, you won't find any dots on the bearings themselves). Although a red-dot crank in a blue-dot 1.9 bearing still has about .001" closer clearance than it would in a 2.1 bearing.

These bearings were mic-ed on the bench, clamping them in a case with proper saddle clamping interference (the misnamed "crush"*) of about .002" would result in oil clearances being about .0002-.0004" closer.

I never spent any time checking 1.9 bearings since I never use those cases or cranks, so it was interesting to me to learn this. It won't change what I'm doing to fit 2.1 cranks into 2.1 bearings, but if and when I ever use the 1.9 stuff I have piling up (I have turbo on the brain), this is good stuff to know about. Of course for those of you building on 1.9 cases, it is invaluable, so I will happily accept your donations of fine single malt scotch whiskey by mail.

*We call the difference between relaxed OD of a bearing and the ID of its case saddle "crush", but it's a misleading term since the bearing is not crushed, as in permanantly deformed. The interference fit compresses the bearing shell but well within its elastic limits, so when removed the bearing returns to its original size. If it were indeed "crushed", as in compressed to plastic deformation, then the bearing could not be used again after the saddle was tightened onto it once. This is not the case. "Grip" would be a better term, because that is what the interference fit accomplishes, that grip is what keeps the bearing from spinning, dowels and locating tangs are for indexing purposes but are not intended to control bearing spin.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[psych-illogical]

I spent a lot of time in the garage last night measuring, assembling, fitting, re-measuring, re-assembling ad nauseum. Actually, it wasn't that bad.

First, tencent's request for crank journal sizing.

Main #1 = 2.3615"/59.982mm
Main #2 = 2.1645"/54.978mm
Main #3 = 2.1646"/54.981mm
Main #4 = 1.5748"/40.000mm

Now I'm going from memory since I'm at work and the Bentley book is at home but I think #1 and #3 are kind of at the low end of the spec for a 'blue dot' crank and #2 is at the high end for a 'red dot' crank. #4 is high end of spec for either. In either case it's definitely not a regrind.

As I stated in a post yesterday, my measured clearances were .0021-.0031, the worst one being on bearing #4, the little one at the pulley end of the crank.

I'm trying hard to pay attention on this rebuild and not let my brain go into cruise control so I noticed this on the #4 bearing.

Most mains I've seen have a large oil groove on the backside and a fairly large hole to feed plenty of oil to the bearing surface/rod journal. This one has a teeny little hole being fed by a fairly large passage in the crankcase. Seems like this will just back up the pressure behind the bearing and just dribble in enough oil to keep things from galling up. Obviously, this bearing carries little to no load due to the proximity of the #3 bearing. I just thought it was kinda interesting.

Rod journals were all 2.1650 - 2.1653 (54.991 - 54.999) Right in the ballpark per Bentley (once again, going from memory).

All of my rods Plastigaged at .0015" very consistently. I'm happy with that. Once again, I woulda liked .0010" but what the heck. I'm still gonna be able to run a very long time before I wear these to the .002" limit (unless I run it out of oil again ).

I torqued up the case to check for out of round in the bearing bores. The worst one was right up at the front on the #3 main and it was .0002" out of round. I'm OK with that too.

Just for fun I stuck that #4 bearing in the case and re-torqued it just to see how much crush the bearings see. I couldn't measure any difference in the bearing.

I still have to Plastigage the #2 bearing in the case, install the timing gear on the crank and hang the rods for the final time then I'll be ready to bolt the case together.

My goal here is to get an engine that I know the clearances on, that'll run reliably without having to constantly worry about oil pressure and that DOESN'T LEAK. I've got a big tube of the Reinzosil sealant and I'm assuming the yellow goop for the case and head bolts is in that shrink wrapped package of gaskets that's sitting on the floor of my garage. I was thinking of ordering the good flywheel seal from Van-cafe or GW. It's about $30 but having a leak there would really piss me off. Opinions?
One thing I will say about this motor for GW. It was really sealed up well. W/ 45K miles on it it never leaked a drop of oil (or coolant).

Oh yeah, somebody early in this thread asked me to post a photo of the case grinding that GW did.

See those two round bosses adjacent to the cylinder bore? I don't know how well the photo shows it but those have had some grinding done to them. The same two bosses exist next to all 4 cyl. bores and have all be ground down. I'll be paying attention to how close the crank swings by these when I bolt the case together.

That's all for now.
_________________
83 1/2 Westy waterboxer
'57 Beetle-sold
Coupla '81 BMW motorcycles (R80G/S; R100RS)
'96 BMW R1100GS

[tencentlife]

Yup, your journal sizes say you have a std. blue-dot crank, toward the small end of the size range but within spec.

I was really asking because I wondered if GW was custom grinding to tighten up clearances, but apparently not (kind of spying on the competition, as it were....)

The #4 bearings have a small oil inlet to limit flow and sustain pressure for the larger bearings, that is normal. That one bears very little load, excess oil would just make life harder on the pulley seal as well as raise the oil level in the cam gear chamber, costing power.

0.0015" is really nice rod clearances, I would be plenty happy with that if I were you.

Only .0002" ovalling of main saddles is quite good. These cases are stouter than al get out, it's rare to find saddles with more oval than that.

Crush on the #4 is going to be very slight due to its size. When I generalise about bearings I'm only discussing the real mains, not the jokey little #4. Measure the OD free of the #3 and #1 in vertical and horizontal axes, average those if they differ, and compare with inside bore measurements of the saddles, if you have .0015-.0020" interference that's really good.

Reinzosil is excellent for almost all sealing jobs on the engine case. I use it for the case halves, under the bearing saddle nuts inside the water jacket, to seal the oil pump body gasket and the cover sans gasket, etc. The yellow goo I only use under the head nuts. Do careful prep on head nuts and studs, especially: chase all threads, dress the underside of the nuts flat, clean them out well, and put a drop of 30w on each stud's threads and run a nut onto each to lube all the threads well. Then wipe excess oil off face of nuts, and then wipe with Brakleen, so the yellow goo can seal to a clean flat surface, while you have good thread lubrication for those long twisty studs.

And PM sent. Cheers.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[psych-illogical]

Thanks for all the tips, especially chasing the threads. I don't know if I would've thought to do that. I was intending to dress the flat surfaces of the nuts on a piece of glass w/ a little 400 or 600 grit paper just because I had read that elsewhere. All great suggestions.
_________________
83 1/2 Westy waterboxer
'57 Beetle-sold
Coupla '81 BMW motorcycles (R80G/S; R100RS)
'96 BMW R1100GS

[klucz]

[psych-illogical]

[tencentlife]

I guess he's keeping the really good stuff for himself.
_________________
Shop for unique and useful Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
also available at VanCafe.com!

Please don't PM here, I will not reply.

Experience is death to doctrine.

[psych-illogical]

So, here's the tip for single malt snobs on a budget. Macallan 10 y.o. Try it, you'll like it.

Now, does anybody have an easier way to heat up the timing gear to get it back on the crank than holding my heat gun on it for 20 minutes? And better for my health than throwing it in hot oil in my wife's electric skillet?

I have actually though about buying a really cheap pan and heating in oil but suggestions are always welcome.

Also, another thing I've been thinking about is the 258 ft/lb torque spec'd for the front pulley. I had a hell of a time getting that off. I've only got a torque wrench (clicker type, I know not the best) that goes to 150 and my beam type only goes to 140. Who's got the trick for this one? Should I quit being a cheapskate and find an extension? When I was a kid I used to calculate my weight and the distance I should stand out on the end of a cheater bar. That was for the big axle nut on my bugs. How's that for a budget torque wrench? I think I'd rather do it a little better on this motor.
_________________
83 1/2 Westy waterboxer
'57 Beetle-sold
Coupla '81 BMW motorcycles (R80G/S; R100RS)
'96 BMW R1100GS