motor color and penetrating oil

jam51m38cdn · Post by **jam51m38cdn** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:58 pm

rebuilt mine 2 yrs ago myself, everything was brand new except the block and head. got a brand new crank out of Istanbul, Turkey. The most critical part of the rebuild that I can think of is the front main journal. Alot of machine shops like to clean/machine that, if you do it screws up the end play on the crank and you can`t fix it without spray welding it and remachining it. The rods and pistons won`t be in the center of the bore,at which point it was pointless to rebuild it. I had right around 2000.00 in parts and machine shop fees, no labor

bobatwarsaw · Post by **bobatwarsaw** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:47 pm

thanks wes, and yes brian that sure looks like air force blue
but the unit markings are from the 49th amored division
from texas, which i was in

bobatwarsaw · Post by **bobatwarsaw** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:51 pm

the 49th was Texas Army National Guard

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:07 pm

Looking for an eventual unit to mark mine with.

Since it won't be a factory, but motor pool at best, something late 50's early 60's makes sense.

Since it's an M38 with those markings, wonder if we can find a time window?

In service photos?

Thought about the units involved in Operation Longhorn. That would be something from Fort Hood, and there are photos of that operation.

jimm · Post by **jimm** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:02 pm

RICKG wrote:https://www.engineeringforchange.org/ne ... g_oil.html

They lost me when they used WD-40 as a standard for comparison as a penetrating oil. True, WD-40 advertises itself as one, but definitely not my "go-to" product for that purpose. Not surprised that the vegetable oil - acetone combo worked better.

Engineer that I am, I couldn't help but read the full report. It was from an "intro to engineering" class, which is usually a freshman or sophomore college level class intended to start students learning the engineering methodology. A major flaw I see in their experiment was a far too small sample size with high variability in the data from which to draw the conclusions they did. They measured the torque with each concoction on only two bolts, and in some cases there was a 2X difference between the two samples. It's pointless to report an average from that and use it to compare to another "average". But, to their credit, most engineers don't learn that in college (especially as freshmen) and some never ever do even in their careers.

RICKG · Post by **RICKG** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:15 am

Ya Jim, I did notice also that on their torque spec chart that in at least
one instance the more acetone added the more torque reqd.. it was,
however, an interesting read..

ChuckW · Post by **ChuckW** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:36 am

Didn't see any mention of the industry standard "BFH"!

Post by **wesk** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:44 pm

The problem is how engineers are defined. They are college educated to use computer programs to design aircraft, automobiles, toilets, tractors, lubricants to be used in the field by someone else! The key word is someone "ELSE" instead of the engineer! These folks design a living $&% for mechanics. From secondary school to college to the computer cad program they never worked any of their dreams in the field.

The best relationship I can ever recall having with engineers was at an aircraft heavy jet D check facility where we performed many serious modifications on 747's that the engineers up on the 3rd floor designed. Whenever we hit a problem area it was a quick phone call to the bud with his name on the blueprint. Down he would come and we would rub his nose in the error of his design and an hour later we had new blueprints to work off of.

For me the ideal relationship with an engineer is to be driving across North Dakota in a blizzard at 10 below when I see a car broke down along the shoulder. As I slow to see if I can help the fella turns and looks at me and on his forehead is stamped "I am an aeronautical engineer". At that point I punch the gas, pop him the bird and feel wonderful!

The fact that I survived 55 years of professional wrenching is a testament to my ability to "Improvise, adapt and overcome" some of the sorriest engineering on this planet!

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:48 pm

My best friend and duck hunting buddy is an engineer.

We were sitting in a duck blind one January morning. It was ten degrees. I had just broken the ice on the pond so the decoys looked like they were floating instead of being locked up in solid ice.

I turned to him and asked,"Hey Joe, why do engineers think they are better than everyone else?"

He never batted an eye. He looked at me with a twinkle and said,"They teach us that in college...."

jimm · Post by **jimm** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 8:48 pm

wesk wrote:The problem is how engineers are defined. They are college educated to use computer programs to design aircraft, automobiles, toilets, tractors, lubricants to be used in the field by someone else! The key word is someone "ELSE" instead of the engineer! These folks design a living $&% for mechanics. From secondary school to college to the computer cad program they never worked any of their dreams in the field.

Be careful about making gross generalizations, Wes. I have a degree in mechanical engineering followed by a 30 year career, but before that I was a Machinist Mate in the Navy running and repairing a steam propulsion plant, and before that I worked in my dad's pump and motor shop. I've had the pleasure of working with engineers who have designed and built their own cars from the ground up. There is a lot more to the college education than how to use computer programs. One thing a lot of people who deal with only one part of the picture, such as mechanics, don't realize is that engineering design is a process of making trade-offs. Often we recognize that the result isn't going to be ideal for maintenance, but we also have to meet performance, cost and schedule requirements. Until you've been in their shoes, you might not appreciate the full picture.

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:08 pm

I think I see both sides of what you guys are saying. Neither are exclusive.

My experience in the oilfield business is engineers right out of college are given a project to cut their teeth on, and show the company they can bring a project in on budget and on time.

LOTS of training and teeth cutting occurs during this time frame. Lots of long time and experienced help smooth the way and fix problems before they occur because they've been there before and see the problems the Newbie does not.

No knock, just lack of experience. I think these may primarily be Wes' folks.

On the other hand, working with retired engineering employees who are now contractors on projects is a dream, as you know they've been there, done that, and if they say something will work, or won't take it to the bank.

I think Jimm your perspective folks fall in this category.

My two cents.

Post by **wesk** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:13 pm

Well looks like you are one of the fortunate ones who learned how to turn the wrench before you designed the bolt. It's very easy to tell you fortunate ones from the others!

The bottom line in any product development is cost. If you can meet performance requirements then don't waste any more money making it serviceable is the rule. At least 70% of the engineering sanfu's I run into can be made serviceable without any effect on performance or weight. Just the money.