![]() |
LOL i started a thread on this stuff back in 2007! Enjoy!
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/328636-measurement-instruments-metrology.html |
Quote:
|
Wear Limit
Quote:
True however, I don't think its common to find a used/re-used crankshaft that is larger than the 59.971mm spec. (material wears off making the diameter smaller...). As such the real concern with measuring to spec is oriented toward determining if the crankshaft journal measurement exceeds the wear limit - 59.990mm - or 59.99mm, which is measurable with a 0.01mm mic. My take - a 0.01mm mic has sufficient resolution to rebuild a motor. Gordo |
Quote:
The standard 1-7 main journal wear limit is 59.960mm, standard rod journal wear limit is 52.960mm. |
OK, very good. I will work with the .01 mikes and see what I get.
My guess is the larger number where you would expect a wear number might be the maximum diameter for a new unit. I thought that odd also. |
I tried miking one piston this morning and I can see how the two-digit metric mikes will likely be OK. However my results did bring up another question.
The piston, as one would expect, is out of round. However to my way of thinking it is out of round 90 degrees out. It seems to me any wear should be on the thrust faces, which to me would be the diameter of the piston 90 degrees to the pin axis where the side loads on the bore are greatest. This piston was just the opposite; the "fat" was on that part and the "thin" measurement was parallel to the pin axis. Is this right/normal, what. Sees counter-intuitive to me. |
Where did you measure it? The pistons are tapered.
|
Quote:
However, I have a feeling you would follow up with a question as to where to measure the cylinder in order to determine piston-to-cylinder clearance, taper, out-of-round, as well as other cylinder measurements. ..... and so on: Suggest you obtain a reference book of specs so you know what parts to check and to know the service limits of all the engine pieces. About $20 should do it. You could get a consensus from several responders, from a few or from one person, but why not be certain? Sherwood |
I have the info and am pretty sure I'm measuring at the right place; it just seems I'm getting some odd readings.
I haven't looked at the bores as yet. Rather moot, I'm just curious. |
About messuring...
I'm in the process rebuilding my 3.6 engine. Accurate instruments for absolute measurements are expensive. Measuring a difference like out of round with a bore gauge is easier and cheaper. So I thought like this: * Main bearings looked like new and no visual damage to crank => probably a 99% chance of healthy crank main journals. * Same as above with the rod bearings. * Check rod big end, if round = OK. * Pistons, ring lands measured OK and no obvious damage => Pistons OK. * Cylinders are nicasil and that don't wear, if not flaking or out of round => cylinders OK. Kind of a shady approach maybe, but it's my engine and I can do it all over again in a year or two if needed. The initial state of the engine has to be taken into account of course. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website