What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Topic: What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics) (Read 7585 times) previous topic - next topic

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #45 – April 04, 2013, 07:43:36 PM

Just a question if i may!!! Did you use a pre loaded lifter for checking the length. Just checking as you did not mention that.If not and i assume you did i would use a pre load of .035 just saying, And use the flank of the stem for a spot on setting!!

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #46 – April 04, 2013, 08:23:46 PM

In Post #30 he mentioned using a solid roller lifter up to that point so I would guess he is still using it?

Darren

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #47 – April 05, 2013, 12:29:54 AM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;412612

Just a question if i may!!! Did you use a pre loaded lifter for checking the length. Just checking as you did not mention that.If not and i assume you did i would use a pre load of .035 just saying, And use the flank of the stem for a spot on setting!!

Using a solid lifter and 6.660" pushrod, I get contact patches of .024" exhaust and .038" intake. It's a little different cylinder to cylinder, but I don't think there's getting much closer than that without going in between mass produced .050 increments. My numbers posted this morning were from last night on cylinder #3 while my tests with the 6.660" pushrod were on cylinder #2. I let sharpie dry on the valve tip before bolting the rockers down.

Flank of the stem?

I am picking up some 1250s3 gaskets tomorrow so I don't need to dremel up a stock one. My heads have ports 2.0"x1.2" while my intake is ~2.0"x1.13" (the intake ports have varying widths from 1.10-1.16. On the driver side, without gasket, the head sticks up slightly and with gasket, the intake sticks up slightly. The front sticks up more than the back. On the passenger side, the back sticks up more than the front, but in general the intake sits up higher overall on the passenger side. I have pictures I can post up later, but I think it's good enough for a street motor not having thousands in machine work, and without looking for every last ft/lb. I can assume my guide wear will be a little higher on the edge cylinders, but I'm not too worried with the contact patches I've found.

Now if/when the day comes that I build a 408, I'd likely be more picky and want the machine work to be much closer to ideal as a motor like that would be a bit more difficult to upgrade from. I'm not sure who around here I'd use for that work though.

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #48 – April 05, 2013, 05:19:38 AM

Darren if he uses a solid lifter and his cam is such that is fine. But he needs to add in the valve lash with it set correctly (valve clearance). But if in fact he is using a HYDRAULIC lifter in the final engine he needs to add in his PRE LOAD NUMBERS !!! Normally this is app .020-.045 just saying. Other wise he is setting it wrong!! Normally what i do for what it is worth. I use a lifter of the type the cam will run. Example a hydraulic lifter lets say and i measure the pocket to the roller or the flat tappet part if the cam is a flat cam. Then i gut the lifter add in the pre load (or should i say subtract the pre load) and that is the lifter that should be used to check the stem contact area. He will also have to check how much pre load will get him to this number with his final pre load adjustment. Another words how many turns it takes to get him in the BALL PARK!! I spend a lot of time with this at the shop when i build engines. It is very important because if not set correct the guides will GO SOUTH!!!!

NOW think about this how do you accomplish this on the 2.3 FORD!!!!! Talk about a problem WHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #49 – April 05, 2013, 05:30:27 AM

If the push rod length is correct the mark should be located on the inboard third of the valve-stem tip. Or the FLANK!!!

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #50 – April 05, 2013, 11:07:32 AM

I'm not too concerned about the contact I see with a solid lifter and pushrods long enough for simulating a 0.040 preload. I will play with the preload a bit to see what the motor likes while staying quiet. IIRC, when I last had these Comp Cams lifters in a motor, they did better with less preload then the FMS product. If I can get by with 0.020, then I'll use it.

Solid lifter with 6.660" pushrods. I'd need to try 6.710 to see how a longer 6.750 pushrod would compare with a simulated 0.040" preload, and preferably on the same cylinder...I will get two more sets of tests done this evening on cylinder 3 before bolting on the lower intake.

For the good news, the third power steering pulley installer kit worked well. The first two kept pulling out of the pulley and the second kept separating between the pulley stud and clamping stud. My pulley was a bit tighter than I've ever seen press fit ones...

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #51 – April 05, 2013, 11:47:52 PM

If the above picture is how it will look with a 6.700 pushrod and .040 preload I would run the 6.700 pushrod. Looks pretty good to me.

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #52 – April 06, 2013, 12:51:27 AM

Quote from: thunderjet302;412709

If the above picture is how it will look with a 6.700 pushrod and .040 preload I would run the 6.700 pushrod. Looks pretty good to me.

I agree. I cleaned all surfaces well and did it again. 6.715" length with solid lifter was closer to .032-.033 in contact. It was difficult to do the camera (phone) work and caliper holding at the same time. The phone's camera lens does some huge warping off-center, but the caliper gets the point across. With solid lifter and 6.665" length:

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #53 – April 06, 2013, 12:59:42 AM

I also spent some (a lot) time tpuppies the intake gaskets from a MS93334 kit. The 1250s3 were slightly too small for the ports so I figured if I need to trim something, may as well do it on the $10 gaskets instead of the $40 ones. I did accidentally start on one of the water ports on the second gasket, but nothing that rtv can't take care of. Minor pitting on the intake surface will require rtv anyway.

I will bolt the intake on and get everything done tonight except the accessory bracket studs that I want to make. Fire tomorrow if compression goes as planned!

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #54 – April 06, 2013, 03:34:16 AM

Did an unfired compression check and found two cylinders that I wish were just slightly higher. Because it hasn't been run yet though, it could be due simply to chambers having more or less oil vs coolant washout on the cylinder walls, although they were cleaned out. Still great readings for having not started though. I don't have a leakdown tester/gauge on hand.

Cyl 1: 181
Cyl 2: 190
Cyl 3: 193
Cyl 4: 188
Cyl 5: 192
Cyl 6: 193
Cyl 7: 185
Cyl 8: 189

If it wasn't for cylinder 1, the range would be within 4% instead of 6%. Drop the second lowest and they are within 2.5%. There's always those that don't behave...

Adding a few squirts of oil in Cyl 1 brought it up to 184psi.

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #55 – April 06, 2013, 10:37:48 AM

So hopefully you get it fired off today!

Darren

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #56 – April 07, 2013, 04:40:34 PM

I got stalled on my oem mustang valve covers not quite clearing the rockers. I'm going to pick up some parts to more quickly grind away the casting ribs. Using cutoff wheels were taking forever last night.

I have the valve covers, intake, and coolant left. Drained the oil, pulling some coolant out that fell down when the heads were pulled. Put new temporary oil in that I will start it with before switching back to my more expensive oil. Primed the oil system. Cranking the motor with the starter, the engine seems pretty even across the cylinders. I think my previous one shook a bit more with an uneven sound when cranking. Getting the second of Chuck's motor mounts installed undoubtedly is also holding the motor more firmly in place.

So yeah - I will hopefully get the clearance I need with some new angle grinder discs today and then get it started. They were the only real issue I ran up against. I also hope I have no vacuum leaks as my poorly-built exhaust made getting the passenger side on a huge hassle that took many hours for the two bolts...

Also, I'd like to ask, my lower intake arp studs don't have enough length to allow the alternator and A/C steel brackets to have their support braces installed. Are either of these really needed? I couldn't use my March alt bracket as the 6" bolt wasn't long enough with maybe 2 threads into the block so I'm using the stock bracket until I get that resolved. The A/C has the huge steel bracket that bolts to 2 waterpump studs, then the aluminum bracket that has 3 head "accessory bracket" bolts which I used stainless steel studs for. Should I really use the additional rear brace to the lower intake, or just leave it out? I'd need to pull the stud and run a factory one otherwise, if I can. It just seems the aftermarket brackets never use the front to back lateral brace, although I do see them as having a tiny advantage. Did Ford just over-engineer the accessory brackets in this way also? Rigid is good, but if it can just be left out, why bother.

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #57 – April 07, 2013, 05:34:25 PM

Can you post up a picture of the brackets in question? I'm not sure I know what you are referring to.

Darren

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #58 – April 07, 2013, 06:25:23 PM

Pulled from a search on this forum:

The alternator and A/C both have bracket to front lower intake black metal bars as additional support.

What was wrong with this cylinder? (pics)

Reply #59 – April 07, 2013, 08:17:25 PM

Looks like only one rib was causing the problem on the passenger side. The driver side doesn't have it. I tested bolted to the car without gaskets to check for clearance. I think they'll be good for now, with gaskets, until I get get more desirable valve covers.