Milwaukee Midget

[4-barrel Mike]

Is there a possibility of threading the pass-through holes in the block to a full-threaded size top and bottom for two sets of studs?

What kind of hp/rpm are they making with larger displacements using the ARP bolts?



Mike

[Milwaukee Midget]

Is there a possibility of threading the pass-through holes in the block to a full-threaded size top and bottom for two sets of studs?

What kind of hp/rpm are they making with larger displacements using the ARP bolts?



Mike

No - I understand that the passages that house the long bolts are also the oil return passages for the head to the pan.  That's another reason why a larger diameter bolt can't be used.

There are turbo applications using the ARP studs in the 1.8 configuration making big numbers, but I have no idea how they're holding the bottom end together.

I'll continue to research - I've got 94 weeks to figure it out.  

[lsrjunkie]

Well, I'm pulling for ya! You have a different engine, with a far superior cylinder head. If the 'kettle' receives the same kind of attention that the little 'grenade' did... How does that old saying go?

You'll be in tall cotton. 

I'm hoping to learn a few things myself, this go around.

[Milwaukee Midget]

Class is in session - a work study course with lab credits.

The preliminary syllabus reads . . .

British Studies 110 - Post Cold War Stock Block Racing Engine Development *  

1. Rise of the Die Cast(e)
2. International Cooperation and Competition - Return of the Axis Powers
3. Turning Inward - Political and Engineering Reasons to Ignore America
4. Cooler Heads Prevail - Core Shifts and Lost Water Resources
5. Internal Stability - Blending of the New and Old
6. Tension - Are Bolts Really the Answer?

Reading list and lab schedule to follow.


*Due to limited office space for this pilot program, appointments can be made through the Irish-American Cultural Center,
McBob's, 4919 W. North Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53208.

Office hours, 8:00 PM until close.

    

[WOODY@DDLLC]

This should let the oil return OK! 

[Jack Gifford]

... Aluminum expands at about twice the rate of steel, and if these were two abutted 12 inch solid billets of both metals, you could expect the difference between the two at 220 degrees to be about .020 [inch]...

I figure closer to about .012" (if "matched" @ 60` F, raised to 220` F). Or were you planning to do the build at 0` F?

[fordboy628]

midget,

The potential issues with the 'K', as I see them:

A)   Compression seal/water seal @ the head/gasket/cylinder block interface.   This engine type has a history of this type of failure.   And my experience with diecast Renault engines bears this out.

2)   'Effective' oil/water seal at the base of the 'wet/damp' liner/barrel, COUPLED WITH, adequate structural strength of the liner/barrel itself.   Again based on my experience primarily with Renault engines, but also based on failure analysis of Volkswagen and Chevy Corvair engines.   (Separate barrel engines.)

d)   'Insanely' long F/1 style rod/stroke ratio, dictated by other structural/construction issues; Vs airflow capability that would "prefer" a shorter rod/stroke ratio.

I suspect that 'clamp load' WILL NOT be an issue and that the bottom ladder will be adequate, either as is, or with 'modest' modifications.

I have some strategies to deal with these issues, which I will post shortly.   Pressed for time this morning.

Granted, I am taking the long view on some of these issues, but I also suggest that you do not 'buy' trouble, that you address it when it appears.  Also, I'm pretty good at "sorting wheat from chaff" as a development engineer, and I'm not too worried.

 
Fordboy

[fordboy628]

Also:

See if you can dig up the tensile strength of the 'stock' assembly bolt.   Then the potential increase in clamp load can be calculated.

Keep in mind, blindly increasing clamp load can induce distortion in light alloy diecastings . . . . .

I suspect that the increase will ease your fears, well, after Halloween anyway . . . . . . .

 
Ichabodcraneboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Also:

See if you can dig up the tensile strength of the 'stock' assembly bolt.   Then the potential increase in clamp load can be calculated.

Keep in mind, blindly increasing clamp load can induce distortion in light alloy diecastings . . . . .

I suspect that the increase will ease your fears, well, after Halloween anyway . . . . . . .

 
Ichabodcraneboy

Sent off a query to the manufacturer.

. . . I also suggest that you do not 'buy' trouble, that you address it when it appears. 

Actually, I suspect the trouble arrived last March on a Fed Ex pallet from Birmingham . . .

Fine and well - just as long as it doesn't rear its ugly head in Wendover. 

Woody - while I like the economy of free shipping - 10 of those would qualify me for that - I'm still left scrambling for screen door hardware to make the entire "system" work. 

[Interested Observer]

Midget, while the parts are away for cleaning...

Further to Icabod’s request on the stock bolt--in the photos it appears that the bolt has a tapered or stepped body.  It would be useful if you could document the diameters and lengths of the body section(s).

Based on the stated 2-1/4 turn make-up, that much strain would put the bolt over 200,000 psi stress, discounting any gasket crush or head/block/girdle deflection, of which the gasket and head would be the larger players.  What was the nature of the gasket you removed, how thick was it in the fire-ring area, did it appear to be “squishy” material or quite solid?  Did your assembly have the so-called “shim” for protecting the head material, and if so, what was its material, condition, thickness, and (qualitative) stiffness?

[Milwaukee Midget]

Mornin', IO -

Yes the bolt is stepped.  I'll mic it up when I get home.

And I should clarify - that should have read two (quantity) 1/4 (90 degree) turns, not 2 1/4 turns.

 

Yeah, what would have been left wouldn't be right, but the remains might be correct. 

Speaking of remains, the gasket - what remains of it - is at Fordboy's.  About all that's left of any significance is the stainless shim.

Foggy in Milwaukee today . . .

[4-barrel Mike]

The latest advance in craft brewing: http://www.oregonlive.com/beer/index.ssf/2014/10/oregon_beer_to_go_growlerwerks.html#incart_m-rpt-1

You do have growlers there, don't you?

    

Mike

[Milwaukee Midget]

The latest advance in craft brewing: http://www.oregonlive.com/beer/index.ssf/2014/10/oregon_beer_to_go_growlerwerks.html#incart_m-rpt-1

You do have growlers there, don't you?

    

Mike

Of course, we have growlers.

It's just that here in Milwaukee, they're referred to as "Individual Servings", and they're usually consumed before necessitating re-carbonation.

 

[Milwaukee Midget]

Further to Icabod’s request on the stock bolt--in the photos it appears that the bolt has a tapered or stepped body.  It would be useful if you could document the diameters and lengths of the body section(s).

IO, Icabod Cranium -

Stepped under the bolt head -

.345 x 1.95

Main shaft to top of threads

.318 x 11.5

Threads

9 mm x 1 13/16

Tapered tip

 ~.20

Overall  16 7/16

Parts may be ready to retreive tomorrow - if not, Monday.

They are having problems getting all of the rust out from around the sleeves.  Combine that with the condition of the gasket, it tells me that this block was likely a leaker.

Putting myself in some poor Pommy's shoes, if I were trying to milk along an engine that had a habit of spitting antifreeze, I certainly wouldn't pay for anti corrosion additives or coolant every week. 

[Milwaukee Midget]

... Aluminum expands at about twice the rate of steel, and if these were two abutted 12 inch solid billets of both metals, you could expect the difference between the two at 220 degrees to be about .020 [inch]...

I figure closer to about .012" (if "matched" @ 60` F, raised to 220` F). Or were you planning to do the build at 0` F?

Well, this is the calculator I pulled up -

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansion-d_1379.html

I figured 70 to 220 and subtracted to come up with the difference.  If I assembled this in the garage in January, 0 degrees is a possibility, but I try to do the assembly in the house - it keeps my beer from freezing.  

I guess the question is - given that neither is a solid bar, that the pieces would be clamped around the perimeter, and if the steel piece were cut as Rex suggested, would the rate of expansion between the steel and the aluminum create more problems than the stock piece?  

My thought is that the steel - growing less and at a slower rate - would constrain the aluminum pieces secured to it, but would such constraint adversely effect the bearings, which are secured in the aluminum?  I don't know.

So here's a couple of questions that all this poses - let's start with this tidbit, which I posted up earlier -

"According to the Land Rover service bulletin that covers the new MLS gasket, the new oil rail MUST be fitted at the same time as the replacement gasket . . ."

This is with regard to the stock bolts, but it raises a question - Is it because of the wear on the threads that the oil rail needs to be replaced, or because of the tension put upon the ladder?  If I go with the ARP studs, and the threads are not removed from the oil ladder, will this piece - at 50 ft/lbs - survive multiple disassembles?

Once again, I'll be right up against the limit of the "I" engine class, and while we may be able to pump it for displacement - provided I make impound.  With the studs, will I need to tear the bottom end off as well and replace the ladder after inspection?  Is the instability a result of the ladder being deformed, or is it a case of the threads in the ladder deforming?  If it's the threads that are being deformed, will the use of studs rather than bolts diminish the problem?  

The studs would go in once - Bolts would wear the threads in the ladder every time you replaced them.

So is it the wear of the threads in the ladder that is the concern, or is it the clamping pressure on the oil ladder that has led to the issue of poor clamping in the kettle?