In reply to hhaase:
I would argue that PM connecting rods in motors, for example in the LS2, is definitely not a good use of the application! 
They don't shatter in 4.8 truck motors, but you wind up a GTO or Corvette a little more than that...
In reply to hhaase:
I would argue that PM connecting rods in motors, for example in the LS2, is definitely not a good use of the application! They don't shatter in 4.8 truck motors, but you wind up a GTO or Corvette a little more than that...
Javelin wrote: In reply to hhaase: I would argue that PM connecting rods in motors, for example in the LS2, is definitely *not* a good use of the application!
Agreed, a good forged rod is definitely a superior piece, particularly in performance motors. But in place of cheap cast iron pieces in more 'general consumer' oriented cars? It's just something we'll have to get used.
Javelin wrote: In reply to hhaase: I would argue that PM connecting rods in motors, for example in the LS2, is definitely *not* a good use of the application!
They seem to hold up well in the diesel pickups. Not exactly and easy application and there's plenty of shock and vibration.
Like it was stated earlier, its all about the proper design for the application. You can't just change a part from a machined component, to a forging, to a casting, or to powdered metal.
You need to update the design to take into account the material properties and best practices for designing parts for a particular process.
You wouldn't just change a control arm from steel to aluminum without updating the design, right? The same thing goes with PM, the part needs to be designed to work within the acceptable parameters for PM.
In reply to Javelin:
So if I made some gears out of un hardened Chinese " steel" they'd be better than "powdered" metal.
Javelin wrote:chiodos wrote: No one here knocked powdered metal technology, they have their place and as we all know almost all cars these days have pm gears, but in an aftermarket oil pump that replaced steel with pm, that's not the place and that's the point of this thread.Thank you!
Incorrect the tone of the thread is "powdered metal" bad. "Steel" good. With no mention of alloying or quality control issues.
I like my steel like I like my Macaroni and Cheese mix, powdered.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
Remind me again how you get "tone" from texts online with only one emoji?
And please show me where someone said powedered metal is bad? This thread is about powdered metal oil pump gears in high performance/stress applications. No one said anything negative about powdered metal.
In reply to chiodos:
Third post of thread. Now back to my third gin and tonic. I helped pioneer pm tech at Remington arms.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: the tone of the thread is "powdered metal" bad. "Steel" good.
Yeah in the context of putting powder gears in an oil pump that worked perfectly fine with solid steel ones, since 1954.
BrokenYugo wrote:Fueled by Caffeine wrote: the tone of the thread is "powdered metal" bad. "Steel" good.Yeah in the context of putting powder gears in an oil pump that worked perfectly fine with solid steel ones, since 1954.
You're argument makes no sense. Effectively you are saying Boeing is stupid of having replaced wood and canvas for aircraft making because they worked perfectly fine for years. New fangled aluminum and rivets.
Or solid tires with pneumatic ones. Stupid kidneys should stay pulverized.
Seacrest out.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:BrokenYugo wrote:You're argument makes no sense. Effectively you are saying Boeing is stupid of having replaced wood and canvas for aircraft making because they worked perfectly fine for years. New fangled aluminum and rivets. Or solid tires with pneumatic ones. Stupid kidneys should stay pulverized. Seacrest out.Fueled by Caffeine wrote: the tone of the thread is "powdered metal" bad. "Steel" good.Yeah in the context of putting powder gears in an oil pump that worked perfectly fine with solid steel ones, since 1954.
Osterkraut, is that you?!?
Dude, I never said PM was bad! It's bad in this application, and the Boeing analogy is bullE36M3 and you know it. This would be like putting wooden wagon wheels on a 747 instead of tires and then bitching that they crashed the plane. There's nothing wrong with wooden wagon wheels, on a wagon. There's also nothing wrong with PM in the applications designed for it. It is a superior method for gerotor pumps, it's great in oil-bath bearings, and for low-stress connecting rods it's a more economical choice. In oil pumps for older engines that are high NVH even when stock, that were designed in such a way that cast steel is barely adequate, and are likely going into a high-performance rebuild with much higher stressors, it's NOT. Period, the end. You can't change the laws of physics because you helped develop it, it's just not right for the application. The manufacturers are trying to cheap out by making all of their gears in PM, and it is costing us time and money. I'm just trying to give a heads-up to the hivemind that it's an issue again, and to be aware of it. This isn't supposed to be some online pissing match!
stan_d wrote: How do you tell the difference?
Cast steel on the left, powdered metal on the right. These are rods, not gears, but you can visually see the differences.
Great explanation of OE PM being adequate turning into an issue in a performance application, for the gerotor oil pump in Ford mod motors: https://www.lmengines.com/mod-motor-oil-pump-failures/
Javelin wrote: I would argue that PM connecting rods in motors, for example in the LS2, is definitely *not* a good use of the application!
I have in my possession a bent 6.0 connecting rod. It didn't shatter, it just got a little twisted.
I've seen a lot of people blow up LS engines on track and the damage suggests that the rod was not the starting point. Piston will be destroyed and a hole blown through the block by the rod, that wouldn't happen if the rod broke first.
Not all failures are the same, of course, but the PM rods in this application are really good.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
I usually agree with you, but...
In reply to Javelin:
Thanks for the heads up.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to chiodos: Third post of thread. Now back to my third gin and tonic. I helped pioneer pm tech at Remington arms.
Did you work on the one with the defective safety?
Javelin wrote: In reply to hhaase: I would argue that PM connecting rods in motors, for example in the LS2, is definitely *not* a good use of the application!
Took 4.8L truck rods and crank to 8800rpm with 38psi of boost several dozen times and never saw a failure.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:BrokenYugo wrote:You're argument makes no sense. Effectively you are saying Boeing is stupid of having replaced wood and canvas for aircraft making because they worked perfectly fine for years. New fangled aluminum and rivets. Or solid tires with pneumatic ones. Stupid kidneys should stay pulverized. Seacrest out.Fueled by Caffeine wrote: the tone of the thread is "powdered metal" bad. "Steel" good.Yeah in the context of putting powder gears in an oil pump that worked perfectly fine with solid steel ones, since 1954.
By that logic, if Boeing built a Model 40 biplane out of aluminum instead of wood, replicating the construction shapes in the same manner, i.e. solid aluminum shapes, just like wood shapes previous used, it will fly the same. It won't. To get the same strength to weight ratio, the aluminum part would be shaped vastly different.
For a PM oil pump to function correct, it must be designed with the properties in mind. You shouldn't replace one material with another of the same shape and expect the same exact atributes. That's lazy engineering.
chiodos wrote: Edit: again flighservice, no one is knocking pm technology, its amazing when its within its limits but as you know, a yanmar diesel isnt making a bunch of revs. We are talking performance/aftermarket oil pumps, not powedered metal technology, give me an address and ill mail you a panty detangler
See I need no panty de-buncher....
And as noted previously bashing PM in general was the on-going theme.
Yeah only deal with slow stuff. The gear reduction units we made for jet turbines to run pumps and generators had us wondering if we would ever get over the stigma!
I made the Yanmar reference as no one know who Tuff Torq or Kanzaki is. Yanmar is a little bit better brand. Very cool but odd company. Good people.
They also build some very good gear shaving equipment.
Anyway, strange this came up twice in about 2 weeks but the materials and design have to go hand in hand. Aluminum, steel, PM, the tear from your realization of dreams your SWMBO has crushed and you are just now noticing, all have to be designed to.
In reply to spitfirebill:
The 700 issue was before my time.
Here's a division of Remington most people no nothing about. http://www.remingtonpmpd.com
Javelin wrote:stan_d wrote: How do you tell the difference?
Rod on the left also looks a great deal like a sand casting or a sls part. Looks can be very deceiving Depending on how much machining or surface great the part goes through.
Flight Service wrote: And as noted previously bashing PM in general was the on-going theme.
Yes, and clarified like 25 posts ago.....yet 2 posters won't drop it. Geez.
In reply to z31maniac:
Did you notice that the on going theme of this post is PM bashing? (you had to know it was coming)
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to chiodos: Third post of thread. Now back to my third gin and tonic. I helped pioneer pm tech at Remington arms.
Those two statements explain why you got so worked up. As to the first bit, the "pm bashing" was from one dude who only posted once in this thread so, 
I mentioned how to tell about the melling oil pump gears.
You'll need to log in to post.
