In the midst of yet another setback, I think its only appropriate to take a moment to THANK YOU ALL who have helped me gain a better understanding of what it takes to build up an old school 'Nail, and ultimately something I've dreamed of completing for the better part of a decade. Thank you all for your continued outpouring of help, patience, knowledge, and persistence to help me within this community. It means a lot that some of you have given me countless hours upon hours of your time either here, via email / messages, or the phone. Your time is the most valuable thing you can give to someone, and I'm beyond thankful that each of you have chosen at one point or another to share a piece of your own personal wealth of knowledge. Its the least I can do, to take a moment of my own to be thankful and say HAPPY THANKSGIVING, Hot Rodders! (Picture is just a taste of what patience will provide. Heads are on for more precise measurements w distortion, Intake for inspiration to continue!)
CYLINDER BORES- Measured from bottom of cylinders because heads are on and torqued (for measuring only) with Mains Torqued too. Bores are clearly OUT OF ROUND. TWO F#cking shops have let this slide out their door like this... Im glad I have my tools now at least. Near the head, the clearance is almost spot on .0030 as it should be. THAT IS NOT WHAT I RECORDED for "TOP" in the chart- to show the "Issue" I'm facing. The TOP clearance is measured about .5 inches down from head/top of bore, and appears too big on ALL cylinders. ALL cylinders are tight at the bottom, MARGINALLY, along the X axis, (worst is .0017 clearance) which is IN-LINE with the Wrist Pin. Y Axis is in-line with the Piston Skirt, and "Towards the Engine Center" I hope this data conveys clearly. Ive been recommended that a DIAMOND HONE can potentially, on the right machine, open up the TIGHT spots near the bottoms of the cylinders, as indicated in the attached image, while NOT removing much material where my clearance is bigger than I was aiming for (.0040 areas near the TOP). .0030 is recommended clearance. Looks like the "tried and true" method of honing with the correct bolt lengths installed DOES NOT simulate an installed head. Anybody renting/loaning a Torque Plate so I can remedy this?
MAIN BEARING HOUSING All housings are tight Vertically, Y-Axis, and gradually open up around the bore, until they jump OUT of the "BIG END of the Spec", roughly .75-1.00 inch away from Parting Line ( X Axis) #5 Housing is the only Housing IN SPEC, but ONLY on the X-Axis- Leading to an oil clearance in the bearing thats TOO BIG (Indicated in following Data-Sheet) Picture showing "Tight / Loose" Areas has bearings installed. HOUSINGS WERE NOT MEASURED WITH BEARINGS IN- this is the only picture I have showing the "Problem Areas" on the Housing Bores though. "Loose" is where the Housing is larger than the "Big Spec" of 2.6880 Crush measures .0050 - .0060, which seems okay to me.
So, are you using the block or not? Are you able to seat the bearing inserts accurately enough to measure actual crush? Are the hone marks exactly the same at the parting line as elsewhere? (meaningless to the above decisions, just curious). The caps are probably beefy enough to mill .100"+ off and get a round hole from that side, but you would have a difficult time dealing with the block side of things. How creative do you need to get with this block? Thanks for the pics. Nice documentation. No new info has been learned about the bores... How much eccentricity do Nailhead bearings have compared to other makes?
.010 UNDER MAIN BEARING I.D. Pretty self explanatory on the Data Sheet. I measured the Y-Axis for the I.D. and subtracted the specific Journal O.D. from that to arrive with the Oil Clearances. Oil Clearnaces on #1, #4, #5 are too big for my liking. This seems to correlate with the Journals being Ground TOO SMALL (as seen in following Sheet) below the .010 UNDER Spec., EVEN THOUGH the actual HOUSINGS are too small Vertically (that SHOULD have aided in proper bearing clearance) The incompetence on the part of machinists is seemingly endless. I am SEROUSLY considering having the Mains RE-Ground for .020 under, after opening up the Main Housings via Line Boring to the low end of the specs (2.6870)
ROD BEARING HOUSINGS / BIG END I.D. Y-Axis checks out OK. NOT PERFECTLY ROUND, much like the Main Housings While Re-sizing #4, a piece of trash/metal debris jumped on the stone somehow, scoring the cap badly. Pic Attached #4 also appears to be the LEAST "acceptable" in regards to area thats IN-Spec. ALL are BIG around the Parting Line / making them out of round - Pix Attached Crush is good, around .0050 - .0060 on each Rod
ROD BEARING JOURNALS Again, MOST Journals are on the LOW end of Spec. or BELOW IT ALL Journals, unlike the Mains, have some Hourglassing (Smaller in Middle of Journal)
Rod Bearing I.D. I am not going to upload the "Finished" Data Sheet on this quite yet, as I MAY be RE (Re) Sizing the Housings again. However, I did check the Bearing I.D. on #3, and #4 which seemed okay. (.0023 - .0025) Its just not worth the hassle to check ALL of them quite yet, as I have not decided whether to leave the Housings alone, or try to close the X Axis by clipping the caps/ "RE" Re-sizing them. This would mess with the Balance of them, in my mind. Is it enough to worry about? Probably not... Im well aware Bearings have eccentricity, but they ALSO should have nice ROUND BORES to reside in... In a PERFECT WORLD, that is... I have to sleep on it though. Saturday, I may try to have them resized again. Ill keep updating until I am happy with what I have, or I decide it'd be easier to scrap the block and start over. The .0025 +/- Out of Round Cylinder Bores seem to be the biggest f#ck up so far... Followed by the Main Housing Bores. LOFTY update, so per usual, THANKS to those who are following along and chiming in! All these opinions- differing, conflicting, or otherwise are ALL appreciated and helpful!
You cannot make the Y axis dimension smaller by line boring without starting over with more material, such as milling off HUGE amounts from the caps (and to avoid moving the main line towards the cam on the block side unacceptable), boring the main line HUGE for an insert of sorts, such as 1/2 a cylinder sleeve pinned in place. If you are only enlarging the bore by taking material from the X direction, you will lose whatever crush you did have. You would not need to scrap the block, it would just not work for YOUR desires. Simply use a different one and this time don't give them one already out of spec. As far as balancing, a crank balance shop would simply take your $$ to clamp on the weights, spin the crank and correct the NORMAL deviations seen when the weights are simply taken on and off. You should know this having worked 5 years in a shop. You probably wouldn't lose a full gram total so the overall bobweight/percentage would not change, all 8 would all likely measure the same as each other. How does your OOR cylinder bore measure torqued up? (Sorry if you covered that and I missed it) I can relate to and understand your frustrations, but I'm starting to agree with the previous post stating that you will never be happy. Is this shop accountable for any deviations beyond agreed dimensions or are they falling within a suggested range, such as AERA? Are you OK paying a significantly higher price for your level of perfection and starting with more suitable cores they would have a chance of success with? It's very hard to side with someone using the internet to publicly bash someone or when they mislead people by ignoring specific training or knowledge.
New Block? Depends on if I can make the Cylinder Bores a bit rounder. Buick calls for less than .0005 Out of Round. Im staring at .0025 in some bores. The Main Housings are easier to address than the OOR condition, i think. They both pose the biggest issues I've presented thus far, I think.
Will Maybe take out a big loan, buy all the necessary machines and do it yourself, then you can sell the machines and move on It comes across that you are going to give yourself a coronary with this engine (send it my way if your going to scrap it) I applaud your attention to detail with it, but it was a mass produced, low revving tractor engine not an indi car screamer It will never measure out perfect. I have machined things and the flex in the material itself made them out of round Anyway, obviously following along
Read my post that crossed and you'll see what I mean...you'll have a tough time taking a dimension that's too big along one axis and shrinking it by cutting it again. Also re-read a previous post (weeks ago?) where I describe how much material you have to grind from the flat of a cap or block register to tighten things up a couple of thou., it's huge. The OOR cylinder bore might be indicating other troubles. The hone (mostly) follows the hole left for it. Could be cracked, thin, or have a weak spot . Likewise, the line hone wouldn't have turned out any different if it were oriented 90* in the machine. Issues of bellmouth and taper are far easier to encounter, as you have to spin the block end for end when the material and the stones don't play friendly. It was already too big along that axis if they are relatively the same (error).
Yes, sir. I follow what you're saying and agree. Seems like thats the only feasible way of fixing the Housing Bores-- (Opening up the Tight Y Axis, while closing the wideness on the Caps- not so much the block) while using the material thats at my disposal (Cap Material to cut away). Like I said, Housing Bores seem easier for me to "live with" or FIX, than the Out of Round Cylinder Bores. I dont know where to begin with that. Called TA- NO DECK PLATE AVAILABLE. BHJ has one for 500+ Dollars. Not too sure if throwing a Plate on there and Honing MORE out is even a good idea.. Comes down to this if I hone more out of the tight spots, it seems.. -Inherently Opening up the Y Axis in there, which is already more than Id like- while simultaneously opening up the TIGHT X Axis. For those reading- TRUST ME- Bolts do NOT simulate the heads being torqued to ANY degree of accuracy! How I fix the Cylinders? IF I even hone them more, at all.. We'll see..
Will, Just my opinion here if I will. I feel your being too critical on all of this. As mentioned these were ALL mass produced engines & they were NO WHERE'S near perfect when they were brand new & most of them with normal maintenance lasted for 100K miles plus depending on how hard/badly they were driven. Although I must say that the machining that came from Buick was far superior to other manufacturers. I know this doesn't make things any better just thought I'd throw it out there. Tom T.
If you 'fix' the main line as you describe you'll worsen the effect on crush from the block side, worsen crush on the cap side by half as much, have the block side of the main bearing left with a whopping .002" overall more eccentric (give or take) , and not have the extra eccentric on the cap side (leaving a .001" step or so each side)... I'm not seeing any benefit to only 'fixing' half the problem in the name of having a perfect circle (which isn't perfect on one side) while at the same time ignoring that a performance bearing might come with more eccentric if it were a different application, when you discuss alternatives such as "scrapping the block" vs. having a "perfectly machined" one. I'd prefer a tad more crush and leave a wide parting line enhancing eccentricity, meaning...bolt it together or use a different block. lol. What is crush for the main bearings now? (Rod info only posted?) Are you referring to a B455 torque plate? What are your dimensions when the head is bolted to the block? Is the deviation following some type of major casting feature or direction? Is the shop fighting a learning curve with a diamond hone or something? Love the post about buying the machines and reselling them. Maybe a bunch of cores, cutters, abrasives, and 6 mos. training with the previous shop's machine operators to learn EXACTLY how they cut so you don't screw up this one shot only block that's trying to be saved. Curious what info you might be sandbagging to magically fix an imperfect block.
8ad-f85, I tried to private message you. Your inbox is full. Whats your name, by the way? I'd like to pick your bones about a thing or two, rather than unintentionally coming off like I have a bone to pick with you! I had something typed up to post here, theres just too much going on, its just too cluttered and too easy to be misread. I feel a phone call would be more productive. My phone number is in my signature. Please shoot me a call/text at your soonest convenience! It'd be greatly appreciated.
Small Update: 12-11-16 I have found yet another gentleman in the area who has THE MOST comprehensive Machine Shop, yet. One Man Show. The catch? No advertising, no website. So what, who cares. The Good? He has let me hang out and shoot the ****, and even stretch my own rod bolts to .0055-.0060 while we (Re) Re-sized the Housings. Greg at Laurell did an absolute **** job on my rods. Go back a few posts and look at just #3 and #4.. The gouged cap and all. Unacceptably OOR. The gouges in #4 Cap are now cleaned up 90%. This guy is on the level, and understands where I've been, and what I've been through (3 Ringers), and has opened his shop to me to come in and go through the motions with him~ like we did with the Rods. Guess how they came out this time.. NEXT to perfectly round! Only .0005 out, .25 inches up/down from the parting line. Compare that to the previously posted pix... I can live with these, now. Tomorrow, I'm ordering a Torque Plate ( my wallet is hurting thinking about it ), and well see how straight we can get the Cylinders with his "Rigid" hone, and a Plate. If they won't clean up/ take too much out of the "Loose" spots, I have a block sourced for a reasonable price... Still sucks to think about, especially considering how much time I have in prep-work, cam bearing fitment, and prep for the Embecco 885 Block Fill. To those reading this, in MY experience, you NEED a Torque Plate! Then again, the shops that've had their hands on this block thus far, even with a plate probably would've left the bores OOR... So, take this with a grain of salt. At least I have a good set of rods now, and didn't have to press the Pistons off, (Potentially damaging them) and were both in agreement that the .0030 we took off the caps isn't enough to require RE-Balancing of them. However, the ROD JOURNALS being Hour-glassed from the last guy (Sloppy Joe, I mean Greg..) polishing it MAY be getting a re-grind for .020 Under. Same with the Mains for .020 Under. Cleaned up one mess ( Rods ) 3 to go... 1. Cylinder Bores 2. Main Housings 3. .020 Under Bearings/RE-grind of crank/ RE-Balance... More to come in the next few weeks.
Hi! I've had some trouble with moving, saving, and clearing out my msgs. For some reason I missed your last post (scratches head) . Glad to see you found a way to straighten things out.
