|
By panel driver - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Does anyone have any good number for a sonic test on an engine with cylinder liners in it. I have a 292 that has been bored to a 3.380. Two of the cylinders have liners in them. The liners are in cylinders 3 and 7. My machine shop says that one of the liners on the thrust side is a .69. The block has been pressure test and magnafluxed and all was good there. Cylinder wall taper is good. The other cylinders have also been checked but do not have all the numbers on the rest of the cylinders right now. I think this was the lowest number on the trust side. Not going to race this engine just want something dependable and not have it give me a headache 5000 miles down the road. Just hope someone may have been down this road before. Thanks for your help and ideas. Joe
|
|
By Ted - 5 Years Ago
|
|
With sleeves or cylinder liners that are installed in the block, a sonic test for thickness is expected to come up with values that are pretty much the same all the way around the cylinder. Assuming you have 0.069” for a reading, then that would be okay for a cylinder sleeve reading and being suitable for use. This is assuming that the sonic test reading is accurate. I would be concerned if the sleeve thicknesses varied more than 0.010" in the four measurements being taken in a circular line around the sleeved cylinder. Assuming there’s nothing weird or funky going on, then there is 'original' metal behind that sleeve but the sonic tester will only record a measurement to the point there is a break or interruption in the reading. Hence a sonic test reading that only shows the liner thickness and not the additional material behind it.
|
|
By panel driver - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks for the reply Ted. I will double check with the machine shop tomorrow and give them your suggestions about checking the cylinder in four different places and the .010 difference. He just was not sure what if anything was behind the liner. I am pretty sure the .069 reading was the lowest he found in any of the cylinders. Thanks again. Joe
|