"Inside-out" seal

[motto]

That seal is rather unique. Especially when you consider that it doesn't only have to keep lubricant in but also keep water out. It looks as though Richard has come up with a source for a replacement. I no longer have a DUKW SNL but the GM number given (2199398) looks good.
I have installed conventional seals in that position but have not immersed them so can't comment on their effectiveness for amphibious use. You could install them with the lip outwards to prevent water entry and pump grease through after service. Assembly using conventional seals is a little tricky as the seal must be on before the bearing cone and tapped into the spring mount as it is installed.
I have any amount of NOS pressed steel adaptor rings that are driven into the spring seat but no spare OEM seals.
When I purchased the surplus dealers stock many years ago included with it was 3,000 of the early type felt ring you mentioned that were obsolete during the war. I didn't know what to do with them and at the suggestion of a friend donated several hundred to a local kindergarten for the kids to play with. I still have a few about the place.

David

[Ed Landstrom]

Thanks. I've printed out the list of cross-matches and next time I go to town, I'll make the rounds of the bearing and truck-parts shops that couldn't find a replacement. Maybe one of them will be able to track down one of those numbers.

Apart from the difficulty of assembling the parts with a conventional seal, the other problem is that the shaft where the original seal is pressed on isn't finished to a standard that would allow the lip to seal against it. It could be mounted in a lathe and polished, but the shaft assembly is so far out of balance that the biggest part of the job would be fabricating and attaching a counterweight to allow it to be turned. Some people would do it free-hand with a belt sander, but I'm not that brave.

[Ed Landstrom]

I made the rounds of the bearing and truck parts suppliers today. None of them could find any of the 14 cross-match numbers. One old codger had a stack of the old paper catalogues that no-one else remembers, and spent half an hour going through them and calling contacts who usually have obsolete stock. No luck.

So what's wrong with these cross-matches? Did manufacturers use different numbers in the UK? ALL of them?
Are all of these numbers as obsolete as the GMC number?
One supplier suggested that this may be a proprietory part that was made only for GM, and never listed as available to anyone else.
I did notice that the list was published by a Chinese company, so maybe it's all lies. Though the dimensions they list are correct.

While looking at alternatives, it occurred to me that a simple way to solve the problem, rather than trying to polish the shaft, would be to machine a half-inch thick annular disc, a press fit on the shaft, with appropriate clearance in the bore, then cutting an o-ring groove in its outer edge. The o-ring would then serve as the seal. What am I missing? Why wouldn't this work?

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Ed Landstrom

So what's wrong with these cross-matches? Did manufacturers use different numbers in the UK? ALL of them?
Are all of these numbers as obsolete as the GMC number?
One supplier suggested that this may be a proprietory part that was made only for GM, and never listed as available to anyone else.
I did notice that the list was published by a Chinese company, so maybe it's all lies. Though the dimensions they list are correct.

Hi Ed,
Sorry you drew a blank here. I have used that website in the past to find alternative part numbers for bearings and seals without issue. Probably in this case it has been obsolete for some time.

Richard

[rob love]

I looked it up in my old Victor reference cataloques, and it seems that seal was used in some GMC rear wheels until about 1942. There were no listings after that. The seal was still listed in their 1965 catalogue, but not their 1970 catalog.

There are regular seals that would fit the shaft and bore you listed. Is there room in the housing to hold a seal?

[Ed Landstrom]

The existing seal is 1/2" wide, so a conventional seal of the same width would fit. One problem is that the part of the shaft where the existing seal is pressed on is not smooth enough for a seal, so it would have to be polished.

The other problem is that with the bearing pressed on the shaft and the seal pressed into the bore, there is no way to assemble them. Motto says it can be done by slipping the seal onto the shaft and gradually tapping it into the bore as the mount is slid onto the shaft. That looks like an awkward operation with lots of opportunity to foul up.

I had considered turning down the shaft to make the bearing a slip fit. This way both the bearing and seal could be installed in the bore and the mount could be slid onto the shaft just like a wheel hub. If there is any reason the bearing shouldn't float on both the shaft and bore, it could be held in the bore with Loctite.

Then I thought of making an adaptor to use an 0-ring. It seems so beautifully simple there must be something wrong with it. It wouldn't involve any modification to either the shaft or the mount and making the adaptor disc is a simple enough lathe job I could even attempt it myself.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Ed Landstrom

Then I thought of making an adaptor to use an 0-ring. It seems so beautifully simple there must be something wrong with it. It wouldn't involve any modification to either the shaft or the mount and making the adaptor disc is a simple enough lathe job I could even attempt it myself.

O-Rings don't like sealing on rotating surfaces such as hubs, but will tolerate sliding surfaces (as in a Piston Ring).

Perhaps a Speedi-Sleeve could be used to dress the surface to be suitable for a regular seal? Unfortunately, it might need to be removed and replaced each time the bearing is replaced, but how often do you expect that to be?