crank journals larger than....

Post your technical queries / problems here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
sierra3dr
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:20 am

crank journals larger than....

#1 Post by sierra3dr » Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:49 pm

....the main and big end shell bores. Has anyone experienced this. On a Ford i4 dohc and using Glyco new shells,the main cap bores with shells measure 54.78mm whereas the journals are 54.93mm. Same as the bigends which the bores measure 50.30mm,the journals measure 50.85mm. Your opinions mostly appreciated

megadethmaniac
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:53 pm
Location: Essex

Re: crank journals larger than....

#2 Post by megadethmaniac » Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:31 pm

I wonder if these are for engines that have been re bored as they seem if my maths is right 6 though over and 21 ish thou over?

sierra3dr
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:20 am

Re: crank journals larger than....

#3 Post by sierra3dr » Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:37 pm

thanks for your reply Mega.... 54.93mm minus 54.78mm = 0.15mm, which in old money is 0.005905512in. Several weeks back,I took it to a local engine builder to do what's needed to get the crank turning. He put it down to me,for putting the wrong main caps on. Which did get me thinking that I did put the wrong caps on,which came off a 2 litre i4 dohc that I stripped to use the crank on the 2.3 i4 dohc that I'm building. Having located the correct caps off the 2.3,which are being used on the existing engine build. The caps aren't the issue,as both engines are identical,just the bore size.

suffolkpete
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:54 am

Re: crank journals larger than....

#4 Post by suffolkpete » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:58 am

Like Mega, I wonder if the shells are undersizes for re-ground cranks, although they seem funny values, I always thought they went in steps of 10 thou. What are the markings on the shells. Your engine builder ought to know.
1974 Rover 2200 SC
1982 Matra Murena 1.6

User avatar
gazza82
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Contact:

Re: crank journals larger than....

#5 Post by gazza82 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:43 am

sierra3dr wrote:Having located the correct caps off the 2.3,which are being used on the existing engine build. The caps aren't the issue,as both engines are identical,just the bore size.
That's true if the caps are aligned correctly. If they were line bored the mismatch may be one or more is slightly offset on the block and this is causing the crank to lock/jam.
"If you're driving on the edge ... you're leaving too much room!"

Retirement Project: '59 Austin A35 2-door with 1330cc Midget engine and many upgrades
Said goodbye: got '98 Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TSpark to 210K miles before tin worm struck

sierra3dr
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:20 am

Re: crank journals larger than....

#6 Post by sierra3dr » Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:18 pm

suffolkpete wrote:What are the markings on the shells.
The markings are STD,and main shells have 2mm wall thickness using a vernier caliper,but precisely measure 2.139mm as per Glyco specs

sierra3dr
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:20 am

Re: crank journals larger than....

#7 Post by sierra3dr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:01 pm

Well,here's a surprise. I've decided to use King bearings and the crank turns by hand..... :?: :?: :?: :?:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests