|
Re: How common is a .055" OS 440 cylinder really too thin?
[Re: BradH]
#1409858
03/29/13 02:07 AM
03/29/13 02:07 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,043
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,043
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
The .060" is simply going back together w/ a ring & bearing job since it checked OK (no cracks, etc.)) at the last inspection. I'm just band-aiding it to get the car back on the road... more or less.
The pi$$er would be if the .055" block was tested and turned out to be too bleepin' thin. Other than the final decking, all of the rest of the machine work (bore & deck-hone, install aluminum main caps, etc.) is already done on it. Gawd, I'd hate to find out it's just a boat anchor...  And I'd hate to blow it up, too. 
It's not a boat anchor , sleeve the thin bores .
I have in my possession a .040 over 69 block that has 3, or 4, thin walls, on the pin side, that are around .090. If I were to do anything serious with it, after I buy it of course, I would sleeve the 4 cylinders . 
|
|
|
Re: How common is a .055" OS 440 cylinder really too thin?
[Re: BradH]
#1409862
03/29/13 11:43 AM
03/29/13 11:43 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,716
Baltimore/Denver
64Post
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,716
Baltimore/Denver
|
Quote:
Just got off the phone w/ C&C in Manassas and they want $175 to take only 4 readings per cylinder... Sounds really high to me, so I'm going to call some other folks (first anyone I can find in VA, then across the Potomac @ Performance Machine) to see what else I can find.
Man, run away from that place... 
IMO, minimum should be 3 readings per axis per cylinder... that's 12 per cylinder X 8. That's what I got for $75 back in Denver... 
|
|
|
Re: How common is a .055" OS 440 cylinder really too thin?
[Re: Stanton]
#1409866
03/29/13 01:41 PM
03/29/13 01:41 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,675
Columbia, CT
moper
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,675
Columbia, CT
|
The transducer has two "feet" and they are machined for a certain radius. Mine is ground on a 4" which I think is fairly common and according to Dakota it's accurrate for most bores from 3" to 5". Because they are set into ceramic and precision ground the curve is very specific, and the calculations the unit makes includes those curves and distances between the "feet". You will get false readings trying to read without both "feet" flat against the surface. So you either get the transducer you need, or test it incorrectly. They make a variety of transducer shapes too.
The cheaper units are not accurate enough to provide the insurance against failure. They aren't worth the shipping no matter where they'r emade or shipped from. Look for one that comes certified and that is calibrated off the piece you're testing because cast iron varies tremendously.
Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know.
|
|
|
Re: How common is a .055" OS 440 cylinder really too thin?
[Re: BradH]
#1409867
03/29/13 02:31 PM
03/29/13 02:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
|
Quote:
Just got off the phone w/ C&C in Manassas and they want $175 to take only 4 readings per cylinder...
Yea, $175 sounds high.
But the details of what they are measuring is worth talking to each shop. They might only write down 4 readings per cylinder, but hopefully (check) they will run the probe down the cylinder and record the thinnest area they see on each of the 4 sides. I have also heard of shops that take a reading 1" down and 3" down or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
