Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
Piston to bore clearance tsm typo? |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
First_Gear
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/18/2010 Location: Mukilteo WA Status: Offline Points: 644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: Jan/26/2021 at 11:57am |
Ok so I have my old 232 partly taken apart. I have the new head in the mail. I want to replace the rings as well since increased compression in the head can cause blow by around the rings or so I've read.
Anywho the tsm states "piston to bore clearance specification is 0.0003 to 0.0009" is this a typo?? This is an insanely tight clearance. I would think 0.003- 0.009 makes more sense. It does not specify where in the bore you are supposed to take this measurement. Then it says cylinder taper must not exceed 0.003". This does not make any sense if the piston to bore clearance is a tighter tolerance.. I'm assuming, hoping it's a typo. I'm not even sure I can accurately measure 0.0003" Thoughts? Does anyone have a later tsm? This is a 66 and I'm reading the specs for the 232. Edit: I now see it says to measure this 2 5/16" below the top of the deck. It still seems insanely tight. Just honing it could change it by several tenths.
Edited by First_Gear - Jan/26/2021 at 12:06pm |
|
58American!
AMC Apprentice Joined: Nov/26/2020 Location: Kansas Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That has to be a typo. Standard would be right in the range you mention, although I think better is 0.003 to 0.006. 0.009 is starting to get a bit loose.
|
|
First_Gear
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/18/2010 Location: Mukilteo WA Status: Offline Points: 644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I did some more research. I don't think it's a typo! There's no way a used engine is going to meet those specs so I'm just going to press on with my ring job and not worry about it. If I were doing a full rebuild I would bore it out and buy oversized pistons but not for a simple ring and head job.
|
|
Cricket
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/06/2015 Location: Milton, FL. Status: Offline Points: 736 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Now you Don’t think it is a typo? I’m Pretty sure it IS a typo, .0003-.0009 is ridiculous tight for anything, especially an engine.
|
|
First_Gear
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/18/2010 Location: Mukilteo WA Status: Offline Points: 644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Trader
AMC Addicted Joined: May/15/2018 Location: Ontario Status: Offline Points: 6761 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That's the Piston to Pin clearance put in the wrong spot.
|
|
First_Gear
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/18/2010 Location: Mukilteo WA Status: Offline Points: 644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
JEEZ!
|
|
First_Gear
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/18/2010 Location: Mukilteo WA Status: Offline Points: 644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
https://theamcforum.com/forum/uploads/1736/232_Engine_Manual.pdf
And page 23 here? It just seems crazy there would be that many typos but the ring clearance does seem hard to believe. |
|
58American!
AMC Apprentice Joined: Nov/26/2020 Location: Kansas Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You could maybe go that tight for cast iron pistons in a cast iron block, but no way for aluminum pistons in a cast iron block.
|
|
First_Gear
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/18/2010 Location: Mukilteo WA Status: Offline Points: 644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
When I get the pistons out I will measure the bore diameter and the piston and post my findings.. Of course this engine had been rebuilt in the past plus some wear and my tools aren't accurate to the nearest 0.0001 but maybe it will shed some light on this. Every source I have checked on google seems to be around 0.0009 to 0.0017 with some minor variations.
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |