Offline
My TR was rebuilt twice over the past 20 years. When I replaced the rod bearings 14 years ago, they were sized 1000 under and the crank looked great, so I just used the same. I remember the plasti-gauge being inconclusive back then, seeming too tight, but I ignored it and the car ran great.
Well, I want to replace the bearings again since I'm inside the engine doing all sorts of mischief (new cam, etc.), and I just plasti-gauged the rod bearings again with new 1000 under bearings. The result showed about .0020 (or maybe even .003, like .0017 less) clearance, and factory spec, if I'm reading it correctly, is .0028. In other words it's still too tight. Is plasti-gauge that exact, even from a package 14 years old?
I'm inclined to ignore this as I did 14 years ago and drive scenic roads with a big foolish grin on my face.
Any serious caution out there?
(thoughts for all hurricane victims and those displaced; they have some issues worthy of real consideration)
Well, I want to replace the bearings again since I'm inside the engine doing all sorts of mischief (new cam, etc.), and I just plasti-gauged the rod bearings again with new 1000 under bearings. The result showed about .0020 (or maybe even .003, like .0017 less) clearance, and factory spec, if I'm reading it correctly, is .0028. In other words it's still too tight. Is plasti-gauge that exact, even from a package 14 years old?
I'm inclined to ignore this as I did 14 years ago and drive scenic roads with a big foolish grin on my face.
Any serious caution out there?
(thoughts for all hurricane victims and those displaced; they have some issues worthy of real consideration)