heinrich

Brendan please call me, I left you voicemail earlier today.

6.0-928S

[QUOTE=Mike Simard;5083452]Good point Mike, I never thought of it that way but that's very true.

Hammer

UKKid35

More importantly you don't have to look at a guage, you can see it in your peripheral vision, whereas reading a digital display means you have to take your eyes off the road (or at least I do).

atb

Just a heads up BC. When I used a dial bore gauge to measure the internal diameter of the mainline with bearings installed and then mic'd the crank, the difference was closer than the factory minimum tolerance. I think it was Garrity that told me to just follow the WSM procedure and use the plastigauge, which I did and it was right in the middle of spec. That was a relief, but afterword I went back and did everything possible in my measuring technique to find that extra half a thou of clearance (that registered with the plastigauge) and couldn't do it. So, there is definitely a crush factor that needs to be taken into account when measuring crank clearance.

I'll be curious if you have the same experience.

BC

Well, all I will have available this weekend, if I actually GET to the assembly is the plastigauge, as I had to order the dial bore gauge for the (for me) more important rod bearing issues.


BTW - ALL the rod bearings I am being set are yellow. There are no blue or red ones in all 16 packages.

dr bob

Brendan--

I've used the telescoping bore gauges with the corresponding micormeter for more than a few projects, no complaints. Not as much fun as the dial type doing ovalled bores with cam'd pistons but what the heck. Using the same mic for inside and outside means the clearance will be obvious regardless of cal on the micrometer. Verify with plastigage of course, but plenty good for the pre-assembly checks.

BC

Just an update, I ordered from Enco and it will be here this week.


New Toys!

BC

Well, it came, and its pretty.

It also was followed by an inch thick novel, I mean, uh, catalog from Enco.

So, its not as easy to use as I originally thought. The Dial bore gauge I mean. So you set the anvil and spacer to best suit being a bit larger than the bore you are measuring right?

Then you set the zero line at a prescribed distance - maybe like 3.9", and then when I stick in the bore of a 5.0L, which should be right around 3.937, I can then see what its true diameter is by adding the number I see above 3.9 to it?

SharkSkin

Brendan, it's not quite as easy as that. The bore is probably not perfectly round, and it probably has a taper. The $60,000 question is, are the out-of-round and taper within spec. You will have to take a number of measurements in each bore to see where you're at.

You may not be able to detect any such irregularities with the gauge you have. If that's the case, then the machinist did an excellent job. It does NOT mean there are no such irregularities, though. At this stage of the game you can make it or break it by overlooking a detail or taking something for granted.

Ole

With an acurate and calibrated outside mic, set it to target dimension, lock it. Use the outside mic to zero the dial bore gauge. Check the bore with dial gauge, compare dial reading.