The bearings weren't wiped or damaged, thankfully. The caps torqued down fine and uh, flat. I think they were just rubbing on the crank/eachother or something to that effect.
So...I would look a bit closer at things. If I assume the extreme pressure moly 'saved' them against some surface damage, there's still the factor of forcing them into an out of round condition, along with the rod housings. If the shells lost their spring and more or less fall out from their place, they are in trouble. Thinking about it...if it takes 20lbs to turn the assembly with all of the rings and it takes 60 more to turn bearings that aren't supposed to touch (assuming any side metal contact that's lubricated) then something was very amiss. Even a different torque spec rod bolt changes OOR and clearance, I can't picture full torque not doing a thing to the rod housing with the caps swapped/reversed. I would think you'd see more than side contact on the crank cheek, with the least being the widening of the eccentric area of the bearing. If a person wants to hastily ignore things like this and assume things that support 'all being well' , then I've got bad news for you...you'll see something down the road much worse. One of the reasons busy shops and individuals dealing with high quality builds have excellent success rates is because they don't push past 'it must have...' type assumptions. I'd continue after seeing exactly what it did do or simply touch those bores with a hone and replace the bearings if you don't have the measuring tools to inspect. All of us have seen bad things happen prior to assembly. How you choose to deal with that is the extent of lessening risk.
I didn't miss that. I'm merely suggesting you feel absolutely certain there's no consequential damage.
I do feel certain no damage has occurred. If I would've cranked the caps down to make them fit, rather than setting them on normally (albeit backwards), I could see if something went awry. All seems fine, caps torqued down (correct position) perfectly fine, engine rotates smooth. Didn't even disturb the lube on the bearings, other than how it normally does.
I'll take your word at face value. If all it did was take up a few thou of side clearance and nothing else was severely binding, have you a cause for the extra effort? Are there some lines on the side of the crank from a rod pushing against? Some of this is coming from a large shop mentality where something like this would get the parts set aside for corrective action or discarded, no questions asked. Also, from a small shop mentality where the same would happen. At least a bore gauge would verify OOR or total clearance. It would be a really good time to wipe the moly off your bearings (so it doesn't impede oil flow or dry up) and check everything again. Since the engine might be stored for awhile, I would consider another go at it part of the learning curve. The only engines I've ever seen that dismantled with dry bearing shells were run out of oil and a moment away from seizing or seized. They always seem to have engine oil there after many years. (20 lbs with rings is exceptionally low, BTW. Astounding, really). I guess what I'm picturing is the near impossibility that the rod bore is centered to the bolts within .0015"or so and the binding was likely 1/3 of the shell's surface on each side (1 upper, 1 lower)...enough to take up the clearance and grab the crank, except since you didn't wipe the grease off the shells you can't see anything amiss. I honestly don't know if that would smash the softer layer or press hard enough to pull the spring out of the shell enough for it to become a problem down the road. Sorry if I'm not getting what you are saying. Just friendly advice and sharing concerns. I see enough weird problems that have a potentially strange explanation, and this seems to fit
I appreciate your concern. I'll look it over once more before final assembly, and if all checks out, she'll be good to go. When I checked it after fixing my mistake, it was still the same clearance as last measured. And is 20ftlbs good? I mean, it is certainly better than 80, and unless I had perfect bores (used engine, so no) and low tension rings (I have sealed power pre gapped cast rings. .020 gap), I don't think it could be much lower if any at all.
Oil rings contribute the most to the number. Being you have standard rings I question your reading entirely. It's not a positive or negative, just doesn't seem right. For example, when I put .030" oil rails in a .040" engine to lower tension in rules limited CT engines, with specific bore prep and loose clearances, the drag is 25lbs or more still with neoprene seals. I wouldn't think clearance would change in the vertical axis. If you hold the rod vertical, the portion of the bearing in the upper half from 9:00 to 11:00, and in the cap... the portion of the bearing from 3:00 to 5:00 are what I envision were squished into conforming as you turned the crank. I would believe it if you told me the rods were also jacked out of shape. If I haven't described it well enough, it's as if you hold your hands around an imaginary pipe, then shift one off center. I can't see it not hurting something, that's all. If the built in eccentric to the bearing were greatly enlarged, I would suspect it would throw much more oil out and starve at full rpm. But you wouldn't see that if only checked vertically. I know you worked long shifts and it sucks typing out every detail here, but I didn't catch where you checked clearances and what you used. You indicated that the lube wasn't disturbed when you swapped the caps back, so plastigage wouldn't have worked. The spring on a bore gauge is almost always strong enough to scratch a bearing shell, so I can't see you doing that without asking advice... If I'm off base, please forgive me. Anyways...I apologize if you feel overly scrutinized, that's not my intent. I don't believe there is no damage.
Did I mention it? hmm, anyhow, the bearing clearance measured just under .002 (with plastigauge) on the rods and the mains with the messed up rods, I have yet to measure it again after the caps were fixed, I will do that today however. And the lube was disturbed, but as it normally is when it's rotated. It's kinda hard to explain. When you put the cap on the lube squishes out a little, and when you remove it it sticks and makes a pattern in the lube. What I'm gettin at is there was no part of the bearing that looked like it was compressed more than any other, the lube was all uniformly squished.
The caps went on easy, albeit backwards. They slipped right on, didn't have to fight em at all. If that matters. Same way when I put them on correctly. And to restate, 5 and 6 were backwards, and 2 and 3 were swapped.
I fully get what you are saying, I'm not exactly new at this Plastigage is normally not done with lube present as far as I remember. The clearance as measured in the vertical axis might not change. The horizontal axis (the mating surface of the caps) isn't normally checked anyways due to the intentional eccentric clearance there. So if it were pushed into conformity you wouldn't check that direction normally. You probably don't have a number there. I believe the mere presence of moly grease saved the surface from the extreme pressure galling and smearing, but may have forced the bearing into conforming to the new shape as it was crept up on torque and forced with a bar in rotation. If it were completely dry, it would have felt locked and have been destroyed upon turning with the extra force. There was definitely some force involved and something grabbing to require 80 lbs to turn some bearings that aren't supposed to touch the crank. If you find a huge-ass scratch at the rod sides or the crank, then there's your 80 lbs. Don't think your rods are sure to remain perfect. You can hit the big end with a hammer and knock them out of round, so it's a concern. They can go OOR from detonation and rpm abuse too. The lube still being there would still make a pattern when removed. Good idear to wipe it off when you measure. Also, if I hadn't mentioned...I'd be worried about the paste drying during long term storage. Then you would have some real oil flow issues. Please forget anyone mentioned moly 'might' be a good idea. The discussion for that benefit might not be suitable in this thread (there is potential, but maybe in a different manner) Millions of engines are assembled NOT that way, that do just fine. There's probably more issues WITH doing it vs. lube or oil.
I just tend to use solid/paste type lubes because the engines do sit for a while, but no more than a few days before being installed. I generally don't even assemble engines until near the time they need to be installed.
