Hemi starter to flywheel engagement problem

I need help, Hemi gurus! I started a couple other threads with my questions and brought up questions in other threads and the information was just getting spread out and confusing, so I'm starting a new thread to focus on the problems at hand.

The engine:
1953 331 Chrysler (extended bell) rebuilt with a 354 crankshaft, stock extended bell starter, Wilcap 146T flywheel.

The problem/symptoms:
Starter will not engage enough to turn engine over and it's damaging the teeth on the ring gear.

What I've learned so far:
My 354 crankshaft is slightly longer (approximately 1/4" longer) than the early 331 crankshaft that would have been associated to this block and starter combo, which is placing the flywheel just far enough away to keep the starter from engaging. (in theory)

Here's some threads that helped form some conclusions:

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=403684

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=403678

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346193

Looking at the starter, when pushing the solenoid all the way in (pushing the bendix gear to it's fully engaged position) I get 1.875" to the end of the gear from the starter mounting face:





When I measure from the mounting face on the starter housing to the back of the ring gear, I measure 1.750"



For those of you who aren't familiar with the early blocks, they look like this:



Here's what things are looking like with the new flywheel. Nothing a little filing could fix, but depressing none the less.



Here's the summary of my dimensions:



So basically, it seems the flywheel is just TOO far away. I'm guessing this crankshaft (being that it's from a later engine) would have normally used a 172T flywheel and matching starter.

General thinking and questions:

* Is there a starter out there that will work with a 146T flywheel that is slightly longer so I can get the engagement I need?

* Will machining the mounting face of the starter and starter housing make up the difference I need to get engagement?

* What is the ideal starter engagement? (assuming full depth of ring gear) Can I get away with 1/4" of engagement?

* Is there something I can modify on the starter to give me additional reach (shorten the plunger on the solenoid and/or change the thrust washers on the nose to something shorter)?

* I'm running a manual transmission. Since the flywheel is about a 1/4" closer to the transmission, will I simply need to locate my pilot bushing accordingly as well as buy the appropriate length t-out bearing for the situation?

* Even if I switched to a shorter "earlier" 331 crankshaft, it seems the starter would only be engaging an additional 1/4" or so. Why am I NOT getting more engagement? (assuming Wilcap machined the flywheel correctly)

* Will I ever get one of my engines to run so I can finish my Model A?
(Magic 8-ball says: "cannot predict now". Stupid ball!)

Seriously though. If anyone has some thoughts or input on a reasonable solution, I would sure like to hear it. Would be GREAT to hear that someone went through the same pain as me and found a solution so I don't have to reinvent the wheel, but I realize it's a long shot.

Thanks for reading!

 

Scott, I agree with your thought that a ¼" engagement with all stock parts seems inadequate. But this is based on measurements with the aftermarket flywheel, correct? It would be good to compare the new 'wheel to an oem.
It does not look like there is a ¼ inch to 'loose' on either the starter or the bell. You might get by with 0.125 on each but then you have 'oddball' parts to deal with...gggrrrr

Logic (and the engineer part of me) says that if the crank is off by ¼" then there should be a corresponding flywheel to match. ...Unless someone comes up with a starter that is deeper/longer....

I'll sit down with my old parts books and see if anything shows up. I did check about 12 cranks that I have and all are the same including 2 that came from Industrial engines (air raid sirens)...hhmmmm
I'll go back and look at forging numbers this weekend.

Carnac says, "all will work out if you drink a quart of Yak milk..."

Perhaps my Karma is good, as I have never seen this before. It is valuable to learn new things.

.

 

Maybe machine the mounting area of the bellhousing down .25" ?
Did you try a starter from the engine with the longer crank? Maybe it's different length?

 

My crankshaft came out of a 1956 Chrysler, 331 Truck (same as a 354), which meant that it would have the later 172T flywheel and matching starter. To the best of my knowledge, this starter will not bolt up to my starter housing. I don't have one to try either.

Maybe someone with a later starter could at least measure how far the reach is of the bendix gear from the mounting surface. Maybe all this is as simple as replacing the flywheel with a 172T flywheel and matching starter, if the starter will match up.

 

Yes. Drinking.... UHG!

Maybe there is enough meat on the flywheel to take some off and install shorter bolts. I will have to discuss this with Pat, though. I didn't measure the thickness, but if I recall, it was pretty substantial.

 

Just found a picture of the flywheel mounted up. Clearly not enough meat at the middle of the flywheel to remove. Looks to be about a 1/2" thick.

 

Scooter, I ran into a similar problem (but with a different combination of parts) when I put the hemi in my digger. I know you probably don't want to hear this, but what I did was to have the starter gear moved on the flexplate. My logic was that I didn't want a bastardized starter since it was a replacement item. In my case I felt the gear was simply engineered wrong and I had them correct it (for which they charged me) they also suggested that 1/2 engagement (1/2 the width of the ring gear was adequate) which to this day I disagree with. IMHO the starter ought to engage the full width of the gear.

Good luck in your starter search.

If all else fails I recall that Tilton had an extra long gear available that could be installed on their 'standard' starter. Seemed like an iffy approach to me, as that starter gear isn't supported by both ends. Just thought I'd mention it.

So I gotta ask - COULD you have the starter gear moved?????

 

I appreciate your input! Thanks man!

I'm honestly not sure if it can be moved or not. Never really thought about it. I don't even know if it's pressed one, fastened on, or what. If it COULD, then maybe it's as simple as making a fat shim between the flywheel and gear. Would probably have to be re-balanced, I suppose. I don't have it balanced as part of the rotating assembly, so making changes there won't be a big deal.

I agree, it would be better not to basterdize anything so parts remain interchangable.

 

Scooter, if your flywheel is like others I have worked on. The ring gear is a 'shrink' fit. To take it off you need to heat it with a rosebud tip. The flywheel probably has a lip on it to locate the depth of the gear. The lip might be machinable enough for you to relocate the gear.

Hope this helps.
Len

 

Thanks Len! Just looking at pictures, that appears to be the case.

I'm going to contact Pat, since it's his flywheel, and talk to him about the whole thing. Maybe a special flywheel is in order here... At least to do it where parts are interchangable, anyway.

 

A 'new' wheel might be the best solution, but, it is a billet 'wheel, right?

Maybe one of the resident welding experts can chime in, but how about building up the front centre by 0.300 and bore the back as needed? Do you have enough input shaft spline engagement (to the disc hub) to allow any movement?

It is unlikely that the flywheel is heat treated in any fashion so it should work if properly done.

.

 

To the best of my knowledge, it is indeed a billet steel flywheel.

Just had a thought. And maybe a stupid thought, with regards to welding and machining. Let's say .300" was removed from the crank side of the flywheel. What if a plate was simply machined and dropped in on the other side that was .300" thick, and then welded in place and the whole thing rebalanced. Am I asking for trouble? I realize that I have lost some uniform mass by doing this, but just putting it all out there for discussion at the moment. Probably not a hot idea, and I would be reluctant, but just thinking out loud, so to speak. Also, if adding mass to the clutch side of the flywheel, what will interfere, if anything?

 

By the way, I've been chatting with another HAMBer that had similar issues and he was able to solve the problem by physically altering the starter to get more throw out of it. I'm certainly not upposed to this idea and I'm just waiting to hear back as to what was actually done to make it happen.

 

The problem that I see with that is you will run out of space for the disc springs. I had a SBM flywheel that had been ground too much. Ended up having a special disc made up. The shop had to find a disc center that had smaller springs in the hub.

 

i'll say up front i have no experience here,

but just looking at this picture, it seems you can make up all the distance you need by moving the ring gear closer to the inside edge of the flywheel. i dont see any ridge there that would be preventing you from just heating it up and sliding it back (forward in this picture) to sit flush with the inside face of the flywheel,

but maybe the picture is deceiving, and all of this is just crazy talk.

 

YOU, SIR, ARE CORRECT!! It DOES appear that the ring gear is a heated and pressed fitment. Not screwed in place. I get a measurement to the back edge of .313!! That would seem to be perfect engagement, if the ring gear were moved to the flush position. I would have to check and make sure that it would clear the bellhousing, but one would assume that there was a flywheel/flexplate in that position at sometime in the engine's lifetime, so I expect there will be no clearance problems.

Before doing all this, I think pulling the engine and mocking the transmission and pilot bearing up is going to be very important.

Now we're getting somewhere! Let's hope it's as simple as all that...

 

nice

 

This weekend I'm going to yank the motor out ( this bums me out because it's literally primed, fuel in the carbs bowls, and ready to fire ) and I'm going to take a closer look at all this business.

Moving the ring gear seems like the logical solution, at the moment, as long as the extra length on the crank won't effect my clutch operation and clearance. Fingers crossed!

 

Whether or not straightsnotshapes has experience, he does have a good eye!!
No doubt the 'wheel has a shoulder against which the ring is positioned during install so it would be necessary to make a spacer of some sort. the ideal fix would be to lay a short bead or two in 10-15 places, against the existing shoulder and machine to match.



.

 

Was this flywheel made for an early hemi, or is it an over the counter 426 flywheel that has had a recess milled in the back face to center on the crank flange?

 

Both. Wilcap makes these especially for early Chrysler Hemis and they also have the locating recess as well. It's definitely a tight fit.

Saturday breakfast with other HAMBers brought on some interesting conversation this morning and we were talking about this. The simple idea was proposed, "why not just add another ring gear and use the other as a backer/spacer?" Awesome! Why not?? I need to measure the ring gear, but it appears as if there is enough of a step to accomidate another ring gear and still clear the bendix gear in the nested position. Even if it WAS slightly too close, at least the starter could be shimmed. Seems like a reasonable idea and something that would be SUPER easy to do. Heat it up, drop it on and align it with the other gear. No modifications or fabrication required.

 

**UPDATE**

Okay! So here's what's going on. After talking with Pat, he told me that 3/16" would enough engagement to get it turned over without hanging up the bendix gear in the engaged position. So, it seemed logical that a little off the starter housing would take care of the issues and for that matter was the easiest option, as it meant I wouldn't have to yank the engine to pull a flywheel or something along those lines and I could still use the stock, un-modified starter.

So far so good, EXCEPT! It got a little thin in one area of the casting. It's a non-critical spot, but it's a hole, just the same.



The area that I shaded in with a black marker that is kind of the shape of a trapazoid is the area where it's thin. There is plenty of mass around it. I think I will at the very least go ahead and clean up hole and polish the surrounding areas with a dremel or die grinder to get rid of any fractures that could lead to cracks, later on down the line. I suspect that I could even just open that whole trapazoidal window up and it would be fine.



Whatever the case may be, it seems that the longer crank is what through the engagement off just enough. I think I should be back in business with this modification though. I will bolt it up tonight and see if it reaches.

Just one thought... I was thinking of adding a support to the rear of the starter just to be sure. Overkill??

Thank you everyone for your input! Hope this solves everything.

 

Done deal. Now get back to work.

 

WORKED!!! Turned the motor over tonight and it engages just fine! No stutering! I simply cleaned up the break through and found that the more I cleaned it up the more substantial it looked. Not worried at all now.

I didn't have any fuel other than what was in the bowls of the carbs from the last attempt, so no "beauty sounds" other than a couple POP POPS, but the engagement issue is solved! WOOHOO!

On to whatever OTHER problems are ahead...

Thanks everyone for your input and help! It's much appreciated!

Scott

 

Congrats!!! I knew you could do it!!! Sometimes stuff like this can drive you nuts.

 

Hey Scooter, I have my hearing aid turned up on high but I'm not hearing anything yet...get to work...


.

 

Scooter:
Great to see a solution! I have the same crank, but short bell. I
will proably have to mod the adapter.

What did you do for a oil pan? I never saw any info posted on
your final decision.

Look's like some fancy smoothing on those rocker arms?

Rich (thank's for your Hemi tech!!!)

 

OK, someone has to know! I tried to use the starter on this old dog, and got nothing, not even a click.
Instead of rebuiding this old growler, I'd really like to use one of the newer geared starters, and the question is: Is the tooth count on the flex plate compatible with newer starters? I have heard the 57 - 61 models had 130 teeth, yet everybody is talking about 172 tooth setups. I have a ton of the later starters for anything from 67 through 78, and it would be great to be able to use one of these. Short of pulling the old bugger off, can someone assure me that a newer one will work?

I just want to get the right starter on this thing and turn it over! Any and all help greatly appreciated. Embarrassing to be a Chrysler nut all these years and not know what to do, but a guy should learn to know his limits!

 

57-62 starter only. Late 130 tooth units mount differently, bolt differently.

Do an intro before the etiquette cops see ya....


.

 

hey SCOOTER...i would say it's more than thery. a 1/4 inch could just put the flyweel out enough to cause big problems. well that's my 2 cent's good luck my friend...POP.