CALLING ALL 2056 engine owner/builders, survey for past AND future 2056 builders Options

[orange914]

i am interested in the REAL world cost and issues incured by others who have built these motors. i recently finished one and so far am extreemly happy with how strong and smooth it runs. there where issues as with alot of things but after working thru them, all is well. my 2056 probably has a bit more done to it than most 2056 builds, that may account for the successful outcome BUT maybe not. from what i've seen this is a highly sucessful combination.

don't be shy and tell us what ALL was done and your detailed experiance with building/driving it. this could be a great help for past and present 2056 builds.

if there is interest i'll make another poll on presures and temp.'s

mike (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

EDIT MCMARK: Added "No Problems"

[Jake Raby]

Nope, no O/S or U/S bearings were used or available.. The variances simply resulted in more or less running clearance because the tolerances are so open... Check out Bentley..

The stock engine is a fairly grossly toleranced unit, look at the tolerance for balance between a set of pistons, or a set of rods.. Its absurd, the same goes with tolerances for runing clearances.

Thats why the engines wake up and run so much better when properly blueprinted and assembled, hell when Blake made 130+HP from a bone stock 2.0 engine and people wonder why, this is exactly why... Control of critical tolerances.

can't see what plating/coating a std bearing is going to do to solve this situation

You missed the point.. We coat bearings for a totally different purpose, to assist with oil retention between the bearing and the journal, not to hone clearances. When this is done the bearing coating takes up some of the clearance, generally .0005" so that has to be considered during the journal sizing.

My numbers just happen to have come out exactly where I wanted them with my very large crank diameters for the weight of oil that I intend to run and RPM that the engine will be used for.

If I ever need to set a clearance to a specific number and the components I have don't add up to that size, we then have to go a full .010 under size, then measure that bearing installed into the big end of the rod and have the crank cut to that specific diameter.. Usually doing this requires the micrometer that was used to set the bore gauge with the crank so that specific tool can be used to measure the journal diameter for absolute accuracy.

Its a bitch.

This post has been edited by Jake Raby: Aug 31 2010, 07:14 PM

[Don M]

Nope, no O/S or U/S bearings were used or available.. The variances simply resulted in more or less running clearance because the tolerances are so open... Check out Bentley.

Jake,
Bentley is of no value in this situation.. wear limits do not apply here unless you plan to exceed recommended housing bore sizes (very bad idea) or run used/worn bearings...all booked bearing specs, using max rod bore and min shell thickness show an interference fit on a 2.1682" journal dia. and that's without allowing for proper crush on the inserts. if you don't mind sharing... what size did you finish the big end of the rods to?