Connecting Rods

[Riktord]

Short of ripping down my own multi-fuel I have no access to connecting rods but I would like to know the measurements. Does any one have one on hand an a caliper to take measurements?

I am looking to have a set of forged h-beams created for the application. I also have the same request for the wrist pins.

Thanks.

 

[R Racing]

I have seen used 1s on e bay cheap. You would be better off buying 1 and sending it to the connecting rod company of your choice so they can get accurate measurements.

 

[rlwm211]

As per TM 9-2815-210-34P FIG 16

Item 1 Part Number 11641916 Coonecting rod assembly

Item 6 Connecting rod (individually) 10889753

Here are the specs:

Characteristics Data Response for NSN 2815-00-617-8625
Item Name: CONNECTING ROD,PISTON
MRC Requirement Statement Clear Text Reply
NAME ITEM NAME CONNECTING ROD,PISTON

AAGR CROSS-SECTIONAL SHAPE STYLE G1 I-SECTION TYPE AARN

FABRICATION METHOD FORGED

AETC METALLIC HARDNESS RATING NOT RATED

AKEU SHAFT CONNECTING END STYLE F4
AWQD STRENGTH RATING NOT RATED

AXPW END THICKNESS 1.622 INCHES MINIMUM AND 1.632 INCHES MAXIMUM

BQBP END HOLE INSIDE DIAMETER 1.627 INCHES NOMINAL

BQBT PISTON CONNECTING END INCLUDED BEARING

BQBW BEARING REPLACEABILITY REPLACEABLE

BQBY PISTON CONNECTING END INCLUDED
LUBRICATION DRILL FEATURE

BQBZ PISTON CONNECTING END SPLASH
LUBRICATION METHOD

BQCB SHAFT CONNECTING END NOT INCLUDED
BEARING

BQCC SHAFT CONNECTING END HOLE 3.251 INCHES MINIMUM AND
INSIDE DIAMETER 3.252 INCHES MAXIMUM

BQCG SHAFT CONNECTING END WIDTH 5.000 INCHES NOMINAL

BQCH SHAFT CONNECTING END 1.769 INCHES MINIMUM AND
THICKNESS 1.771 INCHES MAXIMUM

BQCZ SHAFT CONNECTING END NOT INCLUDED
LUBRICATION DRILL FEATURE

BQDB SHAFT CONNECTING END FULL FORCED-FEED
LUBRICATION METHOD

BRNG CENTER TO CENTER EFFECTIVE 8.748 INCHES MINIMUM AND
LENGTH 8.752 INCHES MAXIMUM

BXYS PISTON END CONNECTION STYLE E1

MATL MATERIAL STEEL

 

[Riktord]

I have seen used 1s on e bay cheap. You would be better off buying 1 and sending it to the connecting rod company of your choice so they can get accurate measurements.

Not necessary. I am drawing it up in CAD and sending it to a machinist buddy of mine for prototyping.

As per TM 9-2815-210-34P FIG 16

Item 1 Part Number 11641916 Coonecting rod assembly

Item 6 Connecting rod (individually) 10889753

Here are the specs:

Characteristics Data Response for NSN 2815-00-617-8625
Item Name: CONNECTING ROD,PISTON
MRC Requirement Statement Clear Text Reply
NAME ITEM NAME CONNECTING ROD,PISTON

AAGR CROSS-SECTIONAL SHAPE STYLE G1 I-SECTION TYPE AARN

FABRICATION METHOD FORGED

AETC METALLIC HARDNESS RATING NOT RATED

AKEU SHAFT CONNECTING END STYLE F4
AWQD STRENGTH RATING NOT RATED

AXPW END THICKNESS 1.622 INCHES MINIMUM AND 1.632 INCHES MAXIMUM

BQBP END HOLE INSIDE DIAMETER 1.627 INCHES NOMINAL

BQBT PISTON CONNECTING END INCLUDED BEARING

BQBW BEARING REPLACEABILITY REPLACEABLE

BQBY PISTON CONNECTING END INCLUDED
LUBRICATION DRILL FEATURE

BQBZ PISTON CONNECTING END SPLASH
LUBRICATION METHOD

BQCB SHAFT CONNECTING END NOT INCLUDED
BEARING

BQCC SHAFT CONNECTING END HOLE 3.251 INCHES MINIMUM AND
INSIDE DIAMETER 3.252 INCHES MAXIMUM

BQCG SHAFT CONNECTING END WIDTH 5.000 INCHES NOMINAL

BQCH SHAFT CONNECTING END 1.769 INCHES MINIMUM AND
THICKNESS 1.771 INCHES MAXIMUM

BQCZ SHAFT CONNECTING END NOT INCLUDED
LUBRICATION DRILL FEATURE

BQDB SHAFT CONNECTING END FULL FORCED-FEED
LUBRICATION METHOD

BRNG CENTER TO CENTER EFFECTIVE 8.748 INCHES MINIMUM AND
LENGTH 8.752 INCHES MAXIMUM

BXYS PISTON END CONNECTION STYLE E1

MATL MATERIAL STEEL

Thank you.

 

[Billy Bobbed]

We do alot of tractor puller cranks and their is a guy that we do alot of cranks for that makes his own custom billet rods,Baker Engines.Any size or length if you got the money.I would say he can make a set with ARP bolts.

 

[ODdave]

Not necessary. I am drawing it up in CAD and sending it to a machinist buddy of mine for prototyping.



Thank you.

soooo are they going to be billet? or forged ? just wondering where your getting the forgings from?

 

[cjtroutt]

custom or after market engine parts would be nice for the white ldt465 multyfuel engine
and upgrades.

 

[rlwm211]

JPG of the rod.

 

[Riktord]

soooo are they going to be billet? or forged ? just wondering where your getting the forgings from?

Depends on what he can do with the design I send him. The facility he works at has the resources for both.

JPG of the rod.

I REALLY need to rip into one of these engines. Is there any particular reason the cap is cocked to that angle?

custom or after market engine parts would be nice for the white ldt465 multyfuel engine
and upgrades.

I don't want to shoot myself in the foot but I believe this engine is capable of much more than what is standard now. If my goals are met then I will be more than willing to share the spoils.

 

[Alredneck]

Am I missing something but in rlwm211 post it said the rods were already forged.

I you trying to go with a longer rod?

I could see the need if you were going billet but for the money custom forged rods might not be worth it.

I would look into balancing and blueprinting everything. All the rods the same weight , already enough weight being thrown around the crank and at redline rpms tend to break stuff.

 

[ALFA2]

I sure hope you get some results from the R&D. From what I can determine, the rod cap is on to one side to make it easier? to remove the piston and rod while the crank is till in the block.
Somewhat a field rebuild/repair expedient idea. The rod bolts are not all that great in those, and if one loosens up, there is your rod through the block...
As for keeping that engine together, to make more than it does, one Item is obvious: the balance of the heavy reciprocation assembly is very important to the rpm ability of any engine, especially a heavy one with a long stroke. I do not know if the factory even attempted to balance them when new, due to low rpm expectancy of use, and the technology available to do it accurately at that time for truck engines. Even if the original design attempted a balance of sorts, as replacement parts were added over the years to an engine on government spec., at that time, some parts may be a little off, due to manufacturing differences, methods or day of the week. A mix of mismatched parts in this type of an engine will seriously affect balance, and will try to rip the engine apart from the inside, as the rpm climbs. Based on what I have seen, some harmonic balances on LTD 465 are not the best type for longevity, and can loose the bind between the outer ring and hub due to deterioration of rubber, chemicals and just age loosening it all up, until the balancer is no longer in balance, which will also greatly affect the engines ability to hold together under load and as rpm increase.
To my knowledge,?? I have not seen an aftermarket or a performance type balancer that would fit the LTD 465, but I did found one NOS, loose on ebay a while back.
Hopefullly you can find a way to resolve these irritating issues, that may increase the Deuce's power and durability.
Good luck to you.
ALFA2

 

[ODdave]

ok, just on a curiosity level, (not stepping on toes) have you biult engines before? generaly the rod designed like that has the cap offset so it can fit in the bore of the engine for assembly....... it can Not be fitted with studs. If you wanna make power from these, GIVE UP ON THE MULTI FUEL CAPABILITY. Change to a lighter piston, lower your compression, push more boost. rods wont fail as often due to them slinging less weight and you will make more power!

 

[WillWagner]

The big end is canted like that for a couple of reasons. To allow for the largest possible big end bearing and to keep the dimensions of the block casting as narrow as possible. Nothing to do with ease of maintenence.

 

[rlwm211]

From what I have gathered in the forum over the last couple of years,
the rotating assembly is not the weak point of the multifuel.

When you increase power, you inherently increase the temperatures
inside the combustion chamber of the diesel engine.
That is why folks use a pyrometer to monitor the exhaust temps
to avoid melting things when they turn their fuel up.

Too much fuel will start destroying the pistons long before
you put the crank, rods and bearings out of commission.

There was a poster who commented on a thread a little over a
year ago who uses the OLIVER Tractor version of the engine
and he commented he was getting well over a thousand horsepower
from the engine in tractor pulls. He also added that he was using
water injection to keep the temperatures under control.
I also believe that the OLIVER Continental engines do not
have the swirl top pistons like the Multis do.

I believe that the thread was about turning the fuel up,
or else a disintegration of an engine that a OP had created.

For what it is worth, the LDS version of the engine produces
almost 100 hp more than the LDT and that is due to piston cooling
and a couple of other modifications as well as the different
Turbo/Supercharger the LDS uses. The cranks are the same.
The rods are the same. The pistons are different.

The search for more power will be one where you will also
have to address the really high compression ratio of the multi
as opposed to the average diesel of today. 22 to 1 is pretty high
and certainly influences the design criteria for more power.

Just my two cents

RL​

 

[mudguppy]

...There was a poster who commented on a thread a little over a year ago who uses the OLIVER Tractor version of the engine and he commented he was getting well over a thousand horsepower from the engine in tractor pulls. He also added that he was using water injection to keep the temperatures under control. ...

if it's the same rumor i read (on here) it was estimated to be 500hp w/ Water-Meth. i flat out do not believe the block will withstand anywhere near 1000hp, nevermind the rotating assembly. i'd bet a bunch of money on it.

and i call it a rumor because no one has discussed seeing this first-hand. ...or even third-hand.

 

[rlwm211]

Agreed on the amount of power generated.
I am working on my memory and I am not as young
as I used to be and if that is a cop out, well, it is.

I would contend that a Multi could probably sustain somewhat
more than the estimated 225 HP that the LDS in the
5 ton series could produce, but to do so it would require monitoring
the exhaust temps and additionally, it is a general consensus that
operating the Multi at near peak RPM is a recipe for disaster.
Cruising RPM is ideally the same as the governed RPM of the
Farm Equipment version of the engine utilizing the same
lower end and that is typically 2200 RPM.

That is my cruising RPM and I am content
to drive at 50-52 MPH all day long.

If you want to go faster and do not have a supply
of spare Multifuels I strongly suggest that
you consider that as a cruising redline.

Just my two cents worth

RL​

 

[saddamsnightmare]

February23rd, 2011.

Between you, I and the wall:

I just love it when someone tries to improve, expand, uprate and otherwise reengineer an engine that was inherently designed for low rpm high torque operations.... They might be successful, sometime or the other, but given the way fuel prices are about to through the ceiling, I suspect the time would be better spent figuring out how to raise the MPG from 8-11 to something approaching the gas Unimog's 18. If the fuel prices go up as they are likely to do, most of us are going to be like our european friends with their Unimogs, nice to look at but rarely ever driven.
Besides which, only a few of these trucks still earn their daily bread, most are kept like circus animals, something to show off and brag about, but rarely ever used for the off road service they were designed for. When the choice comes to between driving and eating, I'm gonna bet there will be a lot of 2-1/2 to 5 tons not getting much road time... And even when the Army had these as new trucks, they were almost never road marched above 45 MPH, so anything above that is probably straining the old girls fabric somewhat, probably worse closer to red line then down in the 2000 RPM operating range.

If you really want power and speed, just rip out all the drivetrain and substitute a jet engine, you would most likely set a Guiness Book of Records World Speed Record for the deuce, and still not be able to stop without drag chutes!

 

[m880 unimog]

so many good ponits throughout the whole thread-

he has asked us,i believe he will be doing the alterations-

the hardest test for any type of engine,is drag racing,tractor pulling and land speed racing-all 3 are toatally different diciplines,requiring engines to be built certain ways,having been involved with drag racing and land speed racing,my knowledge is biased that way-however we have not asked what needs to be achieved with this engine,i hear here and there that the rods in the multi,s are a weak point,but would agree that under increased power conditions and at these C/R,s the old fashioned pistons would check out way before the crank-maybe this has been covered?
the best engines we have raced all have the same thing in common-built by us,from known quality components,weighed,balanced,crack tested and CRYOED-
the last i believe is singular best thing you can do with an engine destined for a hard life.

either way-let the metal scream ! be interesting to hear what the end design use is.

 

[mudguppy]

... I suspect the time would be better spent figuring out how to raise the MPG from 8-11 to something approaching the gas Unimog's 18. If the fuel prices go up as they are likely to do, most of us are going to be like our european friends with their Unimogs, nice to look at but rarely ever driven. ...

14.50s singled out, stake sides/bows/cargo cover removed, lighten the load, lockout hubs front and intermediate, and 4.90 gears are about the best thing you could do to maximize mileage all-around. [turning up the fuel a tad can help, also: getting up to cruising speed faster can actually save fuel than taking a long time to accelerate to cuising speed. but's it's an arguable technique.]

don't think there's much else to do to the engine without major redesign (counter to your point). i.e. lowering compression to allow for advanced timing can increase the fuel burn efficiency, but so could ridding the hypercycle combustion technique altogether and use a more modern combustion design with improved injection patterns.

 

[Riktord]

Am I missing something but in rlwm211 post it said the rods were already forged.

They are cast rods. This can be seen by the way they break but that can also be attributed to the metal used and its elasticity vs. harness. Harder metals tend to snap and crack where more elastic metals with bend and warp.

ok, just on a curiosity level, (not stepping on toes) have you built engines before? generally the rod designed like that has the cap offset so it can fit in the bore of the engine for assembly....... it can Not be fitted with studs. If you wanna make power from these, GIVE UP ON THE MULTI FUEL CAPABILITY. Change to a lighter piston, lower your compression, push more boost. rods wont fail as often due to them slinging less weight and you will make more power!

I have worked on, designed and built various engine types starting from when I was a kid tooling on Chevy small blocks and two-stroke constant speed equipment all the way to the F135 turbines, I have helped install now.

Until I have my hands on a multi-fuel outside of a vehicle, my knowledge on it is limited only to what I can find and verify.

The big end is canted like that for a couple of reasons. To allow for the largest possible big end bearing and to keep the dimensions of the block casting as narrow as possible. Nothing to do with ease of maintenance.

Excellent. Thank you.

if it's the same rumor I read (on here) it was estimated to be 500hp w/ Water-Meth. I flat out do not believe the block will withstand anywhere near 1000hp, never mind the rotating assembly. i'd bet a bunch of money on it.

and I call it a rumor because no one has discussed seeing this first-hand. ...or even third-hand.

From firsthand accounts and various research I have done via web and communications with field service mechs. The block and crank are both capable of the number you expressed. The main design flaws/restrictions lie with the rods, pistons, wrist pins, oiling and head gaskets.

That being said; if certain goals are met within the year we will press forward beyond simply improving the baseline reliability and truly see how high this engine can be elevated.

February23rd, 2011.

Between you, I and the wall:

I just love it when someone tries to improve, expand, uprate and otherwise reengineer an engine that was inherently designed for low rpm high torque operations.... They might be successful, sometime or the other, but given the way fuel prices are about to through the ceiling,

That is why the main requirement is to keep the multifuel capability. This project is falling in line with a branch of other research that directly is involved with multi-fuel capability in the future.

Would you not agree that being able to utilize a vast array of fuels will be necessary when a gallon of standard fuel costs well over five dollars a gallon?


...


I openly welcome criticism but please keep in mind that I am not some barn yard mechanic. Doubting something simply because you don't have all the relevant information is a failure on your own account. It does not mean I will fail.

As the project progresses, I will keep you all posted.

First step is the rotating assembly. Lightened, balances and strengthened with new alloys and steels to allow for higher sustained RPMS and better efficiency.