Chevrolet 216 - engine bearings
 

Hi all,
I am currently working on a Chev 216 engine that someone has converted to shell main and big end bearings. Not sure of the makers of the shell bearings and do not have the numbers to hand.
What I am in need off is the machined size of the bearing locations in block and con rods (not journal sizes). This is for checking purposes.
Was there a GM instruction on doing this conversion or was it some aftermarket mod?

regards, Richard

The main bearings were shells from the start although they were shimmed.
As far as I know the mod to put shells in the big ends was an after market arrangement.
Unfortunately I don't have the dimensions to hand that you require. I'm sure I have the big end bore diameter for shell installation somewhere but that is possibly on board the truck in the UK.
The shells are quite thin and are available from Jim Carter Antique Truck Parts in various under sizes.
Sorry I can't help you more Richard

Dave

I've had a look through my 216/235 bits and pieces and have not found any of the dimensions requested.
I did find a set of new big end shells for these engines which means that at some point I may need to have a set of rods bored to take them. The shells are in a packet labelled Michigan 77 and the shells are marked CLEVITE.
I to need to know the bore diameter of the connecting rod big end for proper fitting of these shells.

You may find with the conversion the shells on the conrod big ends are from a 235 Chev dipper motor
I did that conversion on the C8
I do not have dimensions for them though

bearings
 

I have a 30 page booklet published by GM themselves. It describes how to install precision MAIN bearings into 1937 to 48 Chev 216 engines . The precision bearings became available around 1948 , these were to be retrofitted into the earlier engines instead of going through the costly line boring process as described in the manuals.

At Corowa years ago, Uptons had boxes of Chev precision main bearings the local GMH NASCO brand . I bought quite a few of them but I havent been able to work out which years they fit . I have .030 and .040 sizes . I will take a few pics Mike

Thanks Mike,
I will be investigating further tomorrow, but it looks like the rods have been bored out and may not be true to the axis of the rod. Either that or rods are bent slightly. Will make a note of all shell bearing numbers as well, they are
-020"

regards, Richard

bearings
 

These are for 216 ? For use in remanufacturers assemblies only ?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1937-53-C...item4ad7a4b4a9

Thanks Mike :thup:

Although the packaging is different (the packet that I have looks more modern) the big end shells that Mike found on E-bay appear to be similar in thickness to the Michigan 77, CLEVITE set that I purchased from Jim Carter a few years ago.
The shells appear unusually thin as the rods were not made to take shells.
I'm sure that 's what the reference to 're-manufacturers assemblies' is all about. The rods need to be precision bored.
This brings us back to the original question posed by Richard, 'what is the bore diameter of the big end to take these shells?'
I would also like to know the answer.

David

Thanks Dave,
There is more to this saga, on inspecting one con-rod so far, the big end cap joint faces looks to have been ground roughly and on laying the faces on a surface plate, it rocks! Not looking good :(

I fear more will be revealed tomorrow.

Thanks for all the responses so far

Richard, Repco Australia sold slipper bearings fit the 216 chev, part # 6B3308 in std, 002 , 010 , 020 , 030 , 040 , and 060. The dimensions quoted are shaft 23.311 / 2.312 tunnel 2.403 / 2.404 wall o.0452 / 0.0455 .
there is a page showing the machining necessary. if you need it I will have to go elseware to have it scanned.
They also made slipper bearings for Ford 100E (E93A ??)

hi John,
Thanks for the dimension of the tunnel, I will check that out and see how it works out.

I may be back!

regards, Richard

Thanks John for your help. The inside diameter of con-rod (without shell fitted) was just what I needed.

Also thank you to everyone else who responded, much appreciated. :thup2:

regards, Richard

Figuring the figures
 

Thanks John. That dimension of 2.403/2.404 is what I wanted.
I would very much like a copy of the page that you mention giving machining requirements if convenient.
No hurry at all but it would be nice to have.

David