Reply to "grass roots movement for a new cast iron cleveland block"

Ron,

a "caged" bearing assembly is a one piece assembly. To install it on a multi-journal crankshaft, the crankshaft must assemble in pieces by pressing it together. This is how it is done on motorcycles, which use splash lubrication for the cranks. Lord knows, those motorcycles can spin to F1 rpm levels, but it would be very expensive to do this on an american V8. I'm not aware of any other method to employ a one piece bearing on a crankshaft.

Roller bearing assemblies are used for camshafts however, because the camshaft can just slide through the bearings, it doesn't have throws like a crankshaft.

I thought of promoting the idea of an improved oiling system (i.e. 427 side oiler) but no, I decided it is better to keep it simple and as close as possible to what's already available, and to keep costs down. The more we complicate the block, the less likely it will become a reality.

The Cleveland oiling system really isn't that bad, like the Cleveland block's weaknesses, the short comings of the oil system are overblown. In fact, the Cleveland's oiling system isn't any more convoluted than many other American push rod V8s. I plan on writing about this subject this coming Friday unless something comes up to take me away from the computer.

I'll give everyone something to think about. The 3 middle bearings are where the bearing failures occured, and the 3 middle bulkheads are what tended to crack. If a bulkhead is twisting or displacing, the bearing saddle is going to move with it. So was the oiling system the problem to begin with? Perhaps the engineers were on to something when they had the NASCAR block cast with thicker bulkheads.

In the mean time, everybody please give Joe your support for a new, race quality, cast iron Cleveland block.

your "lubricated" friend on the DTBB, George