2270 Build thread, Looking forward to making all of the mistakes! Options

[vjb206]

Hey folks! I've got...

• Case halves from an old 1.7 (cleaned as best I could)
• 2270 crank + P&C kit
• #163/86b Web Cam
• 2.0 heads with 44X36 valves, where I'll be installing dual springs and 38mm exhaust valves
• Upgraded oil pump and other goodies

So my first question for the community has to do with ensuring the rotating mass is spinning freely/correctly…

I started by measuring all of the the main journals on the crank and I got a range from 2.358” - 2.360” (I used a digital caliper and I'm pretty sure I did this correctly).

Then I “dry-fit” Silverline STD/STD main bearings into the case (sans crank), torqued everything down, and got 0.003” in radial play (I used a cylinder bore dial gauge for the first time, and I think I did it correctly).

The spec-sheet says radial play should be between 0.06” - 0.10” (0.03” - 0.09” for #2); and I have 0.003." I'm a MINIMUM of 0.057" off, is that normal? What's my next step?

1. Stop pretending I know what I'm doing and take it to a machinist for test-fitting and honing (I'd like to keep cost down so this is my less preferred option)
2. DIY: hone 0.06" off all bearings (what's the right honing tool / approach here?)
3. Order different bearings (if so, which?)

[930cabman]

Did you get the rotating components balanced?

Not sure of "radial" are you meaning axial? crankshaft end float?

I generally assemble the case/bearings/crank/plasti gage, torque every down and disassemble and read the plasti gage

Are all the oil passages clean, really clean

Sounds like she will be a great build

[Superhawk996]

Hopefully this doesn’t come off as condescending - that is not my intent .

Slow down - you’re not ready to do that build yourself based on what you’ve written and the questions you’re asking.

I’m not saying you can’t do it. Just that you’re not ready.

Read Tom Wilson book. Watch Raby DVD. Keep asking questions.

1st - Don’t measure crank journals with a caliper. It doesn’t have the accuracy and repeatability for the job. A Micrometer is the proper tool, is repeatable, and is 10 times more accurate than a caliper. You shouldn’t be getting a variance of 0.002” when measuring journals. Not within a single journal nor .002” across all journals. If you had .002” of variance across journals - the crank would need to be reground in order to get proper bearing clearance.

Sanity check: rule of thumb for automotive main bearing clearance is 0.001” per inch of journal diameter. So about 0.0024” - 0.0025” would be the expected target clearance based on that rule of thumb.

Edit: a digital caliper is only accurate to about .001” which is almost 1/2 of the target clearance. Not accurate enough for the job. A micrometer is accurate to about 0.0001”. This is the “why” behind the need to use a micrometer for journal measurements.

2nd - you are confusing bearing clearance with some other radial play measurement.

3rd - no automotive engine bearings are run with 0.06” - 0.1” of clearance. Not sure what the “spec sheet” is that you are referring to. Are you confusing specs between inches and millimeters? Post details of where you are getting info from and make sure it is correct information before proceeding.

I would suggest having machinist confirm measurements if you don’t have proper tools.

4th - any talk of honing bearings and what tool to use is crazy talk.

Slow down - learn more. Props for coming here with the questions before doing anything rash. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

You’ll find help and lots of folks here willing to help you succeed. I’ll apologize in advance if it seems I’m being harsh and not trying to help.

[Montreal914]

To measure the crank, I would use a micrometer, not a caliper.

You will want to check the cylinder spigot on the case for flatness (they get hammered down). You want to check everything on that case and do the galley plugs. You will want to check your oil pump fit too, and the interference with the cam shaft, but you probably know that and aren't there yet. Be prepared to dry fit open and close that case many times.

With your case torqued on your bearings, check to make sure the case halves are actually closed using a back light. On my 2056 assembly, when I did that step, I could see light between the two halves. The bearing halves were in contact, but not the case.

I doubt you can do the line bore without the proper boring bar and the milling that will allow you this setup.

Obviously many more verification steps to come, but the case, line bore, spigot flatness, spigot distance to center line, etc...

Rod interference check is another important one. Rods to case depending which rod you are using. Also rod to cam.

Van Svenson has nice videos on his build including issues he had. There used to be a website with his step by step process but the link seems to be broken. If someone has it, please share it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This was it: http://www.ephotomotion.com/914engine/

Share your progress! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[vjb206]

Great responses! Thank you for the engagement.

@930cabman

• Balancing is next, as I'd like to know if I need to take material off of anything before taking it back to the machinist. I will not balance myself.
• I hope the oil passages are clean - I did have a machinist clean the case halves. They're not as clean as I've had done in the past because, evidently, the "good stuff" caustic solutions aren't allowed in NJ any more. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Superhawk996 :

• I have Jake's DVD and have watched it several times, he doesn't cover bearing play/tolerances.
• "Crank journal measurement should not have variance in the thousandths." Got it! I will re-measure with a mechanical outside micrometer. I just happen to have a digital caliper so I started there.
• "about 0.0024” - 0.0025” would be the expected target clearance." This is more like what I measured! Thank you for the gut-check there. Once I re-measure the crank mains with a micrometer, I'll re-measure the torqued case with the cylinder bore dial gauge to re-verify (Side-bar: that central groove in the middle of the bearings sure makes it hard to rock the bore dial gauge back-and-forth without catching).
• As for my spec-sheet, it's my fault for trusting the internet... It was from this thread a while back: http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=191442 You can see the "radial play" under the "crankshaft and connecting rods" section. The numbers are from there. I guess that image looked legit and I just assumed it was accurate. Thanks for setting me straight.

@Montreal914 :

• Case halves were rubber-mallet-hammered and through-bolts torqued to 25 ft. lbs. No daylight, so I think I'm good there.
• I'm not checking line bore yet. I'm just making sure my clearances are correct. One I assemble with the crank I'll check for binding on the rotation to indicate the need for a line bore.
• Thanks for the link! Doesn't work for me but I'll check back.

To all: THANK YOU SO MUCH. I've been reading this forum for a while trying to self-educate, but there's nothing like posting and receiving several responses within minutes. You all rock.

[Montreal914]

Van Svenson still has his YouTube videos on his channel though. But the written document was nice to follow. Tried reaching him on Hackracing.com but the mail bounced back… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
I’d like to have that written reference blog/text.

[Superhawk996]

Regarding info in the link you provided - all those measurements are in millimeters


.06 mm x .0394”/mm = .002364”. Suspiciously close to our rule of thumb target clearance.

[vjb206]

Measurements are in MM. Excuse me while I––––

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/media4.giphy.com-23760-1702315305.1.gif)

[Superhawk996]

Measurements are in MM. Excuse me while I––––

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/media4.giphy.com-23760-1702315305.1.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif) Trust me I've done that too. Just gotta' be sure you know what the spec is and how its measured.

Here's a tip: If the measurement is only two significant digits (.06) it's probably in metric. Three or Four significant digits (.024 or .02364) is probably inches. This is because a miilimeter is such a small fraction of an inch, it only takes two significant digits to get you into very small numbers with high precision.

[930cabman]

hate to ask, but have you built engines in the past?

There are many things going on with the guts and it's easy to make a mess, especially with all the cool parts you have.

[rhodyguy]

I did not note this in the intro. Remove, tap and replace galley plugs (excellent op to get clean passage ways ultra clean), ensure align bore is not required, ensure the case halves don't need decking. What is the plan to feed this engine?

[rhodyguy]

Admin delete please.

[914sgofast2]

I would suggest you read the post named "Cheap, Junk rebuild" over on the Samba.com in the 411/412 forum or over on the Type4Forum websites, if you haven't done so already. He goes through the entire rebuild on a budget process in great detail and tells you where to save money and where to spend money when rebuilding a Type 4 engine. He has an excellent tutorial on how to properly clean your engine case with commonly available soaps and degreasing agents, as well as how to clean all the oil galleries and install new oil gallery plugs. It sounds like you are building a high performance engine and you need to do the best job you can. I just saw on the "4th Dimension Type 4 Porsche/VW Performance" Facebook page for high performance Type 4 engines that Jake Raby is going to be giving several classes online on how to build a high performance Type 4 engine using his tips and tricks at a very affordable price next year.

[technicalninja]

I would suggest you read the post named "Cheap, Junk rebuild" over on the Samba.com in the 411/412 forum or over on the Type4Forum websites, if you haven't done so already. He goes through the entire rebuild on a budget process in great detail and tells you where to save money and where to spend money when rebuilding a Type 4 engine. He has an excellent tutorial on how to properly clean your engine case with commonly available soaps and degreasing agents, as well as how to clean all the oil galleries and install new oil gallery plugs. It sounds like you are building a high performance engine and you need to do the best job you can. I just saw on the "4th Dimension Type 4 Porsche/VW Performance" Facebook page for high performance Type 4 engines that Jake Raby is going to be giving several classes online on how to build a high performance Type 4 engine using his tips and tricks at a very affordable price next year.

That is the type of information that makes looking at ALL the posts worth it...

To the OP.
I know what I'm doing...
I've been building standard and high-performance motors all of my professional life.
I'll be wrenching a week before I die...

That's GOLD!

I'll be looking into that.

Thanks for posting that tidbit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/first.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/first.gif)

[vjb206]

Measurements are in MM. Excuse me while I––––

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/media4.giphy.com-23760-1702315305.1.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif) Trust me I've done that too. Just gotta' be sure you know what the spec is and how its measured.

Here's a tip: If the measurement is only two significant digits (.06) it's probably in metric. Three or Four significant digits (.024 or .02364) is probably inches. This is because a miilimeter is such a small fraction of an inch, it only takes two significant digits to get you into very small numbers with high precision.

Hey folks - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I'm back at measuring and have some more accurate figures (see below on method). Bottom-line is that for all of the bearings I have either zero clearance (like literally 0.00mm radial play), or at most I have 0.03mm.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/media.giphy.com-23760-1703704167.1.gif)

Bearings as follows:

• #1: 0.01mm radial play
• #2: 0.03mm radial play
• #3: 0.00mm radial play
• #4: 0.00mm radial play

@Superhawk996 , @Montreal914 , @930cabman : Assuming this is normal, my next step will be to call my friendly neighborhood machinist to take the required amount of material off each bearing so that the tolerance sits on the low end of the radial play spec. Does this sound right to you?

Thanks for everyone's input so far, I truly appreciate it.

///// Process /////

1. Measure main journals. They all came in on-spec: #1=59.98mm, #2=59.99mm, #3=59.98mm, #4=39.95mm. Call this A
2. Set bore dial gauge to nearest constant. Mine worked out to be 61.13mm. Call this C
3. Dry fit bearings and torque case
4. Measure how far "in" the dial bore gauge measured for each of the bearings. Call this D
5. Radial play for each was (C-D)-A
6. Note: For #4 my dial bore gauge didn't fit (was too big even at its smallest setting), so I didn't get torqued figures, but it all came out to 0.00mm play so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[technicalninja]

I'm a big believer when making a "comparison" measurement try to keep all of the readings on a single tool.

here's how to do bearing to journal comparisons the normal way.

Bearings installed in block dry, torqued up.
Use "snap expanding" gauge set to find inner diameter. You have to be stupid centered and straight. Lock gauge. Measure with micrometer. Measure crank journal with same micrometer.

Even if you have a low-quality tool the difference between the two readings on that singular tool will be more accurate than using both a dial indicator and a micrometer together any day.

How to do it with a floating bore gauge: Mic crank, lock mic. carefully affix in vice and zero dial indicator to the micrometer. You have now zeroed your dial indicator to the crank journal and what you read inside the bearings bores is your actual clearance.

Both methods are using a single tool to actually take the measurement.

Hope this helps.

Never in my life have I had to have a set of main/rod bearings honed to size.
I've used specific +/- .00025 stuff to blueprint.
I'm hunting tenths at that point. PIA!

You're way off IMO. Too far off for a bearing screw up.

Try different techniques.

I wouldn't take that to the machine shop yet...

[mepstein]

“: Assuming this is normal, my next step will be to call my friendly neighborhood machinist to take the required amount of material off each bearing so that the tolerance sits on the low end of the radial play spec. Does this sound right to you?“

Hell No

[technicalninja]

I'd also convert everything to US standard instead of metric.

You might create chaos with a machine shop here in the USA.

Automotive Machine, a shop I use, specialized in air-cooled VW stuff first, has NEVER given me a reading back in metric...

They're making oil field equipment out of Type1s now...


https://www.automotivemachine.com/

[Superhawk996]

Yeah - hit pause. Something is wacko - probably measurements.

Technicalninja’s technique suggestion is good to minimize error swapping back and forth between devices.

There is also an aspect of these methods (snap gauges, dial indicator bore gage) that is overkill. The main reason to use gauges like you are is to determine roundness of the main bearing bore.

At this stage in the game - let’s just focus on bearing clearance.

Since you have all parts, you can use Plastigage. Plastigauge is a more direct measurement and avoids the math and multiple gage use issues.This method will give you a good rationality check on the math you’ve done. Plastigage will measure clearance very precisely but won’t tell you much about roundness. For now, that’s fine.

I’m not going to spell out the whole process to plastigage parts here. Google and YouTube will fill in the details. Get a couple strips each of Plastigage in red and green from your local flaps. The only trick to using Plastigage is to make sure the crank doesn’t move while you’re tightening the case or re-splitting the case. If the crank moves, it will smear the Plastigage and you’ll get an erroneous measurement. Overall, a much simpler, direct way of measuring bearing clearance.

Green =.001” - .003”
Red = .002” - .006”

This will cover any plausible range of clearances you should be playing with. If you truly have zero clearance, you’ll squish out the green to a width way wider than the .001” marking on the paper package / gage.

Under no circumstance will you ever hone a T4 bearing to size.

[Superhawk996]

Also I want to take a second and commend you for learning how to do this. Don’t want these posts to come off as any sort of chastisement.

Learning to use micrometers and snap gages takes time to use them accurately and repeatably. There is a great deal of “feel” to it. You have to have the same feel for each measurement. Otherwise, you can easily be off 0.0005” when using micrometers. Snap gauges even more so. As Ninja said, the snap gage has to be held perpendicular to the bore and can’t be bumped while you lock it or while you remove it from the bore.

Dial bore gages seem easy to use but again as Ninja outlined, you have to have a solid process to “master” to otherwise you’re just adding measurement error.

You are playing in the deep end of the pool and maybe just treading water at the moment. Don’t give up. Keep measuring, learning, and compare results against Plastigage. You’ll be swimming soon!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)