Specific Question - ARP Head Studs on 2.7 Magnesium case - Insane?

[Lapkritis]

In the 20's tonight so pretty darn cold; the heat off the SSI's is fantastic. I think I could bake cookies on my dash if I wanted to.

It was a great season of driving that is about to come to an end up here. As soon as the snow/ice piles on the roads they put down the nastiest salt that will take this old thing apart so it's going back into storage in the next couple weeks. Soaking up the last few miles of 2013 and loving it:

[Lapkritis]

100 mile drive tonight... PMO carbs do not like temperatures in the teens.

[Lapkritis]

Storage unit ready... Thursday is the day. Gas stabilizer and dry gas in the full tank and run through.

[Lapkritis]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

If this is a question about the Rockwell tester and measuring scale,
we used a Rockwell 3R and measured on the B scale.

Keeping things up to date here with recent discussions.

"There is no Rockwell scale for tests on cast iron, nor is there one for steel sheets thinner than 0.15mm. In order to close this gap, there are devices that work with the Rockwell procedure (with pre- and total test loads), but with much larger (or smaller) and thus non-standardised test loads."

"Cast iron: always use HBW x | 3000. Due to the smaller homogeneity, it is recommended to use the highest total test load of 29,420 N."

"The steel ball penetrator is used for softer materials. The softer the material, the larger should be the diameter of the ball and / or the smaller should be the total test load. For instance, the materials that can be tested with the HRB scale (ball 1/16" – total test load 980.7N) are harder than the materials tested with the HRL scale (ball 1/4 "- total test load 588.4N). "

If you're on testing using Rockwell on the b scale you did this wrong.

Guidelines to hardness testing

[Henry Schmidt]

Mechanical Properties of Gray Iron - Hardness
The typical hardness ranges available in gray iron are listed in Table 3. The Brinell hardness test is used for all irons because the Brinell test impression is large enough to average the hardness of the constituents in the microstructure. Rockwell hardness B or C scale tests can be used satisfactorily on machined surfaces where the supporting surface is also machined. Several Rockwell tests should be made and averaged, but extreme values should be discarded because of inordinate influence by a graphite flake or a hard constituent.


The Application of Hardness Tester for Metal Casting

Rockwell hardness tester

Rockwell hardness tester is also commonly used in the inspection to cast iron. All the parts with smaller grains, if there is not enough space for the Brinell hardness test, can be tested by Rockwell hardness tester. For pearlitic malleable iron, chilled cast iron and steel castings, HRB or HRC scale can be used, and if the material is heterogeneous, several readings should be measured to get the average value.

Rockwell hardness test is quick, convenient and has small indentation, which can be used to directly test the finished piece. It is suitable for testing mass production of finished or semi-finished parts piece by piece.


Once again Andrew: when you decided to use this previously untested cylinder, what method it you use to inspect the product?

[Lapkritis]

You're only making it worse showcasing that you don't know what you're doing. So far you're up to two different test methods from one test method and now snowballing into two threads.

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

Mechanical Properties of Gray Iron - Hardness
The typical hardness ranges available in gray iron are listed in Table 3. The Brinell hardness test is used for all irons because the Brinell test impression is large enough to average the hardness of the constituents in the microstructure. Rockwell hardness B or C scale tests can be used satisfactorily on machined surfaces where the supporting surface is also machined. Several Rockwell tests should be made and averaged, but extreme values should be discarded because of inordinate influence by a graphite flake or a hard constituent.


The Application of Hardness Tester for Metal Casting

Rockwell hardness tester

Rockwell hardness tester is also commonly used in the inspection to cast iron. All the parts with smaller grains, if there is not enough space for the Brinell hardness test, can be tested by Rockwell hardness tester. For pearlitic malleable iron, chilled cast iron and steel castings, HRB or HRC scale can be used, and if the material is heterogeneous, several readings should be measured to get the average value.

Rockwell hardness test is quick, convenient and has small indentation, which can be used to directly test the finished piece. It is suitable for testing mass production of finished or semi-finished parts piece by piece.

Originally Posted by Lapkritis

LMAO, you're reading me the catalog of a tool. Do you recall which machine, tool head and measurement method you used? I want to help you out here to understand what you did. Too funny.

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

The Brinell hardness test is used for all irons because the Brinell test impression is large enough to average the hardness of the constituents in the microstructure. Rockwell hardness B or C scale tests can be used satisfactorily on machined surfaces where the supporting surface is also machined. Several Rockwell tests should be made and averaged, but extreme values should be discarded because of inordinate influence by a graphite flake or a hard constituent.

Originally Posted by Lapkritis

The Brinell hardness test is not a Rockwell test; they're very different. Not sure what you were doing or what setup you had rigged but the experiment description is already changing. First you said it was Rockwell test... now Brinell test? Which is it? It can't be both tests. If it is Brinell then we will discuss the integrity of the result.

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

Once again Andrew: when you decided to use this previously untested cylinder, what method it you use to inspect the product?

Originally Posted by Lapkritis

Fuel, fire, miles and smiles. Thanks for asking.

[Lapkritis]

Henry - let me ask you this because the data you're presenting about the hardness experiments doesn't hold air. I believe you when you say you noticed increased wear when you tried these out.

1) Do you think the current iron alloy used is the exact same recipe as the years ago when you tested? If so, what leads you to believe this as fact?

2) Do you consider that your engine experiment which was improperly cooled and performed poorly contributed to increased cylinder wear due to excessive heat? Do you consider a properly cooled example would last longer?

[crummasel]

Originally Posted by Lapkritis

In the 20's tonight so pretty darn cold; the heat off the SSI's is fantastic. I think I could bake cookies on my dash if I wanted to.

It was a great season of driving that is about to come to an end up here. As soon as the snow/ice piles on the roads they put down the nastiest salt that will take this old thing apart so it's going back into storage in the next couple weeks. Soaking up the last few miles of 2013 and loving it:

You live in a beautiful country.

[Lapkritis]

Thank you

[Turbo_pro]

Andrew stamps his foot, shakes his fist at the sky and proclaims:

Originally Posted by Lapkritis

...... NONE of your business ............

Besides adolescent angst, personal attacks and supposition lacking in any real world observation, what do you bring to this community?

[Lapkritis]

2) Remember the golden rule. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable fact that on the Internet, everyone is ten feet tall with an IQ of 250. It's also true that the subject of Engine Rebuilding, particularly in the area of performance modifications, inspires people to be very passionate about their opinions and approaches. That's great, and that exchange of ideas is what makes this forum so valuable.

However, it's important to remember that the anonymity of the Internet is not a license for personal attacks, deliberate "flaming" or the advocacy of illegal behavior. Remember always that this forum is a privately funded and furnished to us at no cost, so let's show its sponsor, Pelican Parts, and one another the same respect as we would sitting around Wayne's living room in person.

...

[TimT]

David Exxxxxx - 1020 Wxxxxxxe Coxxx xxxxxxx, CA - home phone 9xx-xxx-xxxx. Home purchased for $1 billiion in 1998

That was pretty low class and uncalled for...

[Turbo_pro]

Originally Posted by TimT

That was pretty low class and uncalled for...

Andrew has spewed misinformation, hatred and bullying throughout this entire thread so nothing he does should surprise anyone.

[Lapkritis]

Please refrain from flaming the thread with personal attacks- forum rules are above. Thank you and happy holidays.

[lindy 911]

Lots of folks RSVP invitations, Andrew. Merry Christmas to you too!

[Wayne 962]

Interesting thread that was recently brought to my attention. Here are my thoughts on this, and then I will close the thread. If you guys wish to continue back and forth, then start a new thread please. My thoughts:

- In my Engine Rebuild book, I recommend using steel studs with the magnesium cases. As Henry pointed out, this is a tried-and-true method that has worked with thousands of rebuilds. While I don't know how many people have rebuilt their engines using my book, we have indeed sold more than 25,000 copies of the book, and I haven't heard anyone complain about this combination not working well. Henry has his own brand of steel stud that is a great seller here at Pelican, and the customers who purchase them have only good things to say about their performance.

- Lapkritis and Henry are both correct in this thread, one coming from a point of questioning conventional wisdom, and one coming from "doing what has worked well in the past." Neither approach is incorrect, but both posters here have shown a distinct lack of respect for the other's opinions and approaches to the discussion. That is disappointing, as they both have value to add to the conversation, and within their own realm of experience, they are both correct.

I'm going to close this thread now, as a cooling off period, I hope that these two can just chill out and respect two different (and not necessarily incorrect or counter) opinions to this subject.

-Wayne