Broken Crankshaft Alt Fire Cam

[MAXX IT OUT]

Anything making a Ton of torque is no where near BULLETPROOF, unless it is a complete designed unit for the application and they still break. Nothing is cheap about Horsepower.

 

[Ne-max]

I love it. One of the first guys on here to have a USED crank fail with alt firing cam and now people say they don't do crap?

 

[DIESELMAFIAPER.LB7]

If you've seen some of the billet EVERYTHING 47re's that have came through Goerend's shop you wouldn't agree...if I had a 5000 lb or less race truck or daily driver yes... I've seen the 47re's that broke billet inputs and/or grenades the tiny planetary sets and destroyed whole cases and nearly every piece of the transmission... They are far from "bulletproof", and a 7500 lb truck with 850+ HP is hard on ANY transmission that's behind it, lol

Least it would shift the same till it came apart lol my truck is mainly a dd weighs around 7000. I just hate the shifting always having to learn or change when I up the power or drive it nice then want to play running no defuel on a allison they shift sweet but at the power levels the truck is running I don't think some hard parts would enjoy it much

Let's talk our talk to pms don't want to ruin this thread so bot!

 

[DIESELMAFIAPER.LB7]

I love it. One of the first guys on here to have a USED crank fail with alt firing cam and now people say they don't do crap?

I agree till I see a handful of new cranks fail with them I'm still on the side they work to help get rid of the problem

 

[x MadMAX DIESEL]

I'm sure it's been discussed a bunch... But do many ppl cryo treat them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dave c]

Dave, how much thinner are the NGM rod ends? Did they just enlarge the fillet radius to fill that space?

I'm always skeptical when someone claims "increases strength by a lot" with no data presented.....which is almost always the case with Wade.

"The fix" is merely more anecdotal evidence of a fix. How many engines are running that "fix"? How many miles on each? Are they also billet cranks made from a superior material and processing? I could go on and on...

A couple engines is not enough to declare a "fix".

I was under the impression that the crank and rods are hemi width. And utilize hemi bearing size. This is the exact same set up that handles 10,000 hp top fuel engines. Wade said they had FEA testing done and showed 15-20% stronger by cross section alone. Material improvement was not factored. Neither was fillet improvments. If it were it could be even more of a gain in strength.

This puts more weight on the crank and less weight on the rods further improving balance and hp by reducing enertial (rotating and recipricating )weight.

Iirc there are engine running this set up. I do not know how many or for how long. I would assume it's been at leat two years

 

[DIESELMAFIAPER.LB7]

Yea and some of the fastest still run allisons too

5 out of the top 30 still have a allison

 

[SmokeShow]

Thanks for sharing Shane! :thumb:

Can we talk a little more about this winberg crank and special rods?

 

[Dave c]

Wade is there anything that you haven't invented? Pay to be a vender or your rants about your ego trip are gone.

I'm sure if wade wanted to pimp his stuff he would be on here and would let you know he is here. I'm sure He has way too much work to do to be on the he forums all day. My name is Dave castro. I can pimp any product I want even, if Obama makes it! No offence but i Guess that makes me a liberal with a ego...lol

 

[Chevy1925]

I love it. One of the first guys on here to have a USED crank fail with alt firing cam and now people say they don't do crap?

I agree till I see a handful of new cranks fail with them I'm still on the side they work to help get rid of the problem

you guys realize everyone jumped on the "AF is a major help to the crank" after Jon's thread about it possibly improving the harmonic issues seen by his computer simulations and then, based on the little sample size we have here on this site, it was said it keeps them from breaking.

since that was done by Jon, the post on here and other forums about it FIXING broke crank shafts is rediculous and yet, no one jumped on them letting them know that its not a guaranteed fix. Now that we on this forum have actually seen a failure from our small sample size, its assumed that we all imply a AF cam does NOT help the crank. No one has said that and i hate to say it but implyed posts are where people take that info and run with it like a cummins external oiling system.

I see this happen all the time on forums and since i feel this forum is one of the top one for good, reliable info, id like to think we all look at both ends of the spectrum to put together our facts by a very well done deductive reasoning.

no hard feelings :hug:

 

[OregonDMAX]

^^well said James.

 

[DIESELMAFIAPER.LB7]

Nobody has seen a new one break yet also I never said it won't break just none to speak of still and empire was doing af cams long before jon did his tests

 

[PureHybrid]

I was under the impression that the crank and rods are hemi width. And utilize hemi bearing size. This is the exact same set up that handles 10,000 hp top fuel engines. Wade said they had FEA testing done and showed 15-20% stronger by cross section alone. Material improvement was not factored. Neither was fillet improvments. If it were it could be even more of a gain in strength.

This puts more weight on the crank and less weight on the rods further improving balance and hp by reducing enertial (rotating and recipricating )weight.

Iirc there are engine running this set up. I do not know how many or for how long. I would assume it's been at leat two years

So what material and process is used to make these cranks? I ask because if its TRULY set up like a fueler, they use a very small bearing (Honda actually) not a true hemi bearing. This means the pin is very small. You need a very good process to make that hold up. I'm sure running aluminum rods reduces stress too.

I'm not a fan of switching stress patterns on something used, if the crank was born as standard fire it should stay that way. If I tear my engine down for a build and the crank is fine, its getting a std cam. I guess that might be the 'tard in me talking, but I'd also run a built bottom end in the tow truck for a year before swapping it to the race truck and hitting it with all kinds of power.

 

[S Phinney]

To clarify what Wade is doing , it won't work on daily driven trucks. Aluminum rod's won't take that duty cycle and last. His main purpose is racing and the light assembly takes stress off the crank. No need to get everything confused because that isn't a fix for normally driven trucks.

 

[Chevy1925]

Nobody has seen a new one break yet also I never said it won't break just none to speak of still and empire was doing af cams long before jon did his tests

right, i know you didnt but you agreed with the statement of "AF cams dont work", thats what i was directing towards. Empire also had a very small sample size out in working trucks too.

Its only a matter of time till a new crank breaks. we've seen them fail just as fast as used cranks when running a standard cam and in the crank thread, it was shown that the fillet that seems to induce the crack is there from new. or atleast thats how i read it.

btw, im not against the AF cam. i feel its a piece to the puzzle of making the crank last. we just have not gotten all the pieces together yet.

 

[LBZ]

If it's a fatigue based failure, and these AF engines are primarily run in competition with low total cycles....I hope you realize the conclusion you're drawing is extremely weak, statistically speaking.

If these AF engines were in city buses or garbage trucks....THEN you would find out the truth much faster!

It's only assumptions and speculations until failures happen in either respect. At this point, there haven't been many in either application.

To be able to say they do or don't work require a few parameters and conditions to be met.
For instance, max effort trucks IMO should be taken out of the equation altogether. They are low cycle, low hour, high torque and high hp engines that push parts to and beyond their design capabilities. Some guys have gone back together standard cam and broke a crank 3 passes later. Obviously that isn't a fatigue failure.

Where I see and want to know if the AF is truly helping is in the 600hp and under DD club. This is the hp range where many and likely most broke-including myself. I feel from talking to those that sell and build engines with AF cams it seems these are where most of the AF cams are going as well.
Also it needs to be made known if or when these failures happen was it on a new or used crank, how many miles at, approx hp, how it was balanced, etc. to fully get an accurate picture on how the engine was run. So to me it's just a waiting game at this point till the ones out there get some more miles racked up and all we really have to go on is computer aided data-not enough real world.

 

[Burn Down]

The technology exists to find internal flaws, as has been mentioned above. Ultrasound would be one good route to go. The trouble with UT in this case is the irregular shape of the part. Round shafts are duck soup, but we already know the failure is happening at the very edge of the journal and into the throw.....that is where the hard part is. Yes there are handheld UT units that you can use on shafts and simple parts. We used one in our plant for years until we upgraded to an immersion unit.

I am sure there are people set up to UT cranks. It is FAR from simple unless you have very specific setups where you can shoot the areas of interest and not get a complete bullshyt signal back. Then you have to have a standard to estimate a flaw size based on the amplitude and timing of the reflection. The technology is easy to understand but the application can be mind numbing.

But here's the bottom line. Unless you have a crack, UT doesn't show you anything. Nada, zero, nothing...until it starts. So the practicality of finding a crank that is just starting to fail and getting it UT'd is very low. Especially when the cracks appear to be originating at the surface (which makes some sense to me). It's entirely possible that the core of the crank is at a lower stress state and finding voids or cracks there could be almost meaningless.

One of the effects that Fingers postulated that still rattles around in my brain is the unsupported load at the end of the crank. If that is one of the main root causes, alternate fire may help but not completely solve the issue.

And yes the life of the crank will definitely contribute. A brand new crank in an alternate fire setup could last longer, but you'd have to run some extensive experimentation to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. A sample of 1 or 5 or 10 ain't gonna be enough to get statistical proof, especially when a lot of those setups are in pullers that have maybe 30 minutes of high power run time per season....

Just throwing out ideas.

I am one who still believes in the alt. fire... I was hoping it would be the end all but obviously it's not (sorry Shane that really sucks man). With that being said it still is helping some. Danville is using them in alot of setups with excellent results. I know Mark is a straight laced as they come and wouldn't push something that he didn't feel strongly in... With that said you are spot on with the competition only engines not seeing enough DD'ing.

What you mentioned above about Fingers commenting on the unsupported load at the front of the crank hit home. I wish Jon would post more about this stuff but I'm pretty sure he grows tired of arguing with dummy's Hopefully he is working on this and will show us something cool.

I wonder what it would take to build a support for the front of the crank?

 

[Chevy1925]

I am one who still believes in the alt. fire... I was hoping it would be the end all but obviously it's not (sorry Shane that really sucks man). With that being said it still is helping some. Danville is using them in alot of setups with excellent results. I know Mark is a straight laced as they come and wouldn't push something that he didn't feel strongly in... With that said you are spot on with the competition only engines not seeing enough DD'ing.

What you mentioned above about Fingers commenting on the unsupported load at the front of the crank hit home. I wish Jon would post more about this stuff but I'm pretty sure he grows tired of arguing with dummy's Hopefully he is working on this and will show us something cool.

I wonder what it would take to build a support for the front of the crank?

what i have always wondered when Guy at Socal pointed it out to me is why a wider #1 main isnt being made/used. i understand in a stock truck application as keeping them all the same size is more economical, specially if it holds up just fine but in our cases i see it benefiting. there is plenty of room up there to add a wider one.

or maybe thats not enough support?

 

[bcdeutsch731]

Nothing against Shane but I think tuning has a big part of it. You can break anything with bad tuning! Not saying that's what happened here at all. I know it's an extra $1000 but I will only start with a new crank now.

 

[bcdeutsch731]

To clarify what Wade is doing , it won't work on daily driven trucks. Aluminum rod's won't take that duty cycle and last. His main purpose is racing and the light assembly takes stress off the crank. No need to get everything confused because that isn't a fix for normally driven trucks.

Jeremy has steel rods that work with the Winberg crank that you can run on the street