greg yoder
Member
will this work?? thanks
will a fly wheel off of a 1972 440, work on a 1974 440 motor??
- Thread starter greg yoder
- Start date
lemondana
Active Member
Depends on forged or cast crank. and show a picture of the back side. Did Ma Mopar ever put sticks behind cast crank 440's. I seen a 440 out of a mid 70's pickup with a manual and it had the forged crank.
lemondana
Active Member
The 72 440 should still have the forged crank, 74 not so much.
57fury440
Senior Member
You never know for sure what Mopar did back then. Like lemondana said, show us a picture of the back of the motor. I would guess that the 1974 has a cast crank.
lemondana
Active Member
I've seen several 74 Nebraska State Patrol Gran Fury's that had forged crank 440s. You just never know?
If both have a forged crank, yes. Forged crank flywheel on a cast crank would take some custom balancing as Mopar did not make such an animal.
fury fan
Old Man with a Hat
I've heard that some engines, even though they might have a forged crank, did not have the hole for the MT input shaft drilled sufficiently.
They are drilled, but not the final size. Either not correct ID of the hole, or not deep enough. (or both?)
Have read that is why some old trans will be seen that some of the input shaft got crudely hacked off.
Have also read that some guys use the pilot bearing from the 5.2/5.9 Magnum engines, which used a larger roller-bearing assembly that fits into the register for the torque converter snout. That might still need the input shaft shortened, I dunno.
Personally, I'm not a fan of putting an worn input shaft into a roller bearing. The bare rollers need a correct/true surface to rotate on.
A pilot bushing has more surface area and is much more forgiving of bad surfaces.
But maybe the bearing would last for 25k miles and do a plenty-good job? Who knows.
So you might just be held captive by whatever parts/situation you find yourself in?
They are drilled, but not the final size. Either not correct ID of the hole, or not deep enough. (or both?)
Have read that is why some old trans will be seen that some of the input shaft got crudely hacked off.
Have also read that some guys use the pilot bearing from the 5.2/5.9 Magnum engines, which used a larger roller-bearing assembly that fits into the register for the torque converter snout. That might still need the input shaft shortened, I dunno.
Personally, I'm not a fan of putting an worn input shaft into a roller bearing. The bare rollers need a correct/true surface to rotate on.
A pilot bushing has more surface area and is much more forgiving of bad surfaces.
But maybe the bearing would last for 25k miles and do a plenty-good job? Who knows.
So you might just be held captive by whatever parts/situation you find yourself in?
USSMOPAR
Active Member
there are great mopar performance books - the engine book - it will in detail give the information required regarding the 440 cast vs forged crank.
As far as a pilot bushing vs the roller bearing the roller bearing is far superior to the bushing - period. the pilot bushing is old school and should not be used. The area that the roller bearing rides on is not a wear surface at all! It does not require a shorter input shaft. Yes some cranks are not drilled deep enough, so the input shaft gets shortened but the roller bearing is still riding on a unworn surface........... A pilot bushing is a bad choice
As far as a pilot bushing vs the roller bearing the roller bearing is far superior to the bushing - period. the pilot bushing is old school and should not be used. The area that the roller bearing rides on is not a wear surface at all! It does not require a shorter input shaft. Yes some cranks are not drilled deep enough, so the input shaft gets shortened but the roller bearing is still riding on a unworn surface........... A pilot bushing is a bad choice
MOST electric motors these days, and for many years now have survived and thrived for many many hours without damage, spinning endlessly, steel shaft in bronze bush.
A manual transmission input shaft only needs to slip inside a pilot bearing for seconds at a time.....most of the crank/pilot bush/input shafts' lives are spent spinning 1 to 1. I think the potential for wear is quite negligible in a properly aligned setup. And an incorrectly aligned setup could be a disaster for a roller bearing as well.
fury fan
Old Man with a Hat
Bearings are for high load, high speed, or reducing friction - none of those apply here.
Bushings are for 'tougher' jobs that don't have all the geometric precision that a bearing requires.
This bearing would be superior if it had an inner race, but it doesn't, and that changes everything. The area that the roller bearing would ride on is not a load-surface, but it still must be a bearing surface. I assure you that the A833 input shafts were not machined to needle-bearing specs and surface hardness, and certainly not further rearward where this new bearing would ride.
Any imperfections in a 60-year-old input shaft will interact with the rollers. Surface rust that a guy wipes off with emery cloth? Not a good surface for needles to roll on. There's also grease right there, so any debris generated is held captive.
Due to the low duty cycle, the bearing would probably work fine on a shaft that isn't ideal for it - but that doesn't mean it's superior and the bushing is a bad choice.
And if the crank is not drilled to the correct dia for the original-type bushing, and also not drilled deep enough, then you need a shorter input shaft even if you use the bearing.
Similar threads
