3.661 bore for sleeves/pistons

mike1157

Well-known member
I was looking at ring packages for pistons today. If you start with a std set for a finish bore of 3.861 you get crap for choices. But,........if you start at 3 .661 (Subaru WRX boxer engine) you get a plethora of choices from standard replacement stuff, all the way up to a 200.00 Total Seal gapless set. So using that ring set at .020 over will fit my engine if I have it sleeved back to a 3.681 finish bore.
What I want to know is, can I use the 3.661 finish bore and have the engine sleeved down to that size, and will it work with the canted valves , and smallish quench on the cross flow head? If I can, the benefit is obvious to me, as the sleeve will be that much less that has to be bored out of the existing cylinder to fit it.
 
The smaller you make the bore size, the more likely you are to start having valve shrouding issues. Put a couple of bolts in the head to hold it in place and flip the block(bare block) upside down, you can then see how close the valves are to the cylinder walls. Especially if you are installing larger valves in the head, its going to get closer to the cylinder walls. I'm putting large valves in mine and will likely have to notch the block deck on the intake side.
 
CNC-Dude":13dkxpa8 said:
The smaller you make the bore size, the more likely you are to start having valve shrouding issues. Put a couple of bolts in the head to hold it in place and flip the block(bare block) upside down, you can then see how close the valves are to the cylinder walls. Especially if you are installing larger valves in the head, its going to get closer to the cylinder walls. I'm putting large valves in mine and will likely have to notch the block deck on the intake side.

Ok then. If I get a 3.661 sleeve, and have it bored .020, that'll bring me to standard bore, and leave a .074 wall ( if I use the 3/32 wall sleeve). If the .125 wall sleeve will fit, that will leave .105 wall thickness after boring. But......will they be able to bore the block .230 w/o turning it into garbage?
 
You only lose 1/2 of the thickness of the overbore in the wall thickness. Example, boring a cylinder .030" only removes .015" from each side of the cylinder wall thickness.
 
CNC-Dude":2cv6ts04 said:
You only lose 1/2 of the thickness of the overbore in the wall thickness. Example, boring a cylinder .030" only removes .015" from each side of the cylinder wall thickness.
I understand, but if the sleeve is advertised at .125 wall, dosen't that add .250 to the inside bore of the sleeve? I.e. 3.661 sleeve I.d., .125 wall thickness, (.125 x 2 ) total diameter that has to be bored 3.911?
 
Yes, but I was answering your question about you having .074" of wall thickness left if you bored the 3/32" sleeve .020" over. You would actually have .083"-.084" wall thickness instead of .074", so it would be thicker by .010" once it was bored out.
And whether or not to use the thicker sleeve brings us back to a question a month or so back about the structural integrity of sleeving all 6 cylinders.
 
CNC-Dude":24f3phz9 said:
Yes, but I was answering your question about you having .074" of wall thickness left if you bored the 3/32" sleeve .020" over. You would actually have .083"-.084" wall thickness instead of .074", so it would be thicker by .010" once it was bored out.
And whether or not to use the thicker sleeve brings us back to a question a month or so back about the structural integrity of sleeving all 6 cylinders.

I get it. Thanks. Then based on that, the .094 wall sleeve should be more than adequate after boring it up to standard 3.681. Do you agree?
 
It should be, the only failures i've ever seen or experienced have been from a cylinder bore that was cracked previously to being sleeved in a race application. Stock block of course, not aftermarket block. Are you going to use a Darton sleeve or an OEM type stock replacement type?
 
Mike,

I assume you don't have a sonic tester. But if you take out your freeze plugs, you can stick a stack of feeler gauges between the bores. Then take calipers and measure the distance between the bores. That'll give you an idea of how thick the cylinder walls are. They are the thinnest between the bores. The bore spacing on these blocks are 4.080". I have cracked them twice between the cylinder bores with a .070 over bore 3.750 bore size. Bad tune-up didn't help. You'll also be able to see with a .125" wall sleeve there won't be much structure left. I like the idea of a thinner sleeve and maybe a slightly smaller bore. Any sleeve would be a lot better material than Ford's cast iron. I like CNC's idea of putting the cylinder head on and seeing exactly where you're at with bore size. Aren't these cylinder heads canted away from the cylinder and chamber?

If you search manufacturer's products, I'm sure you can come up with a combo to your satisfaction.

As always, double check everything - including my info. I'm starting to understand about what Xctasy says about losing posts and timing out. Had a more detailed post, but lost it.
 
CNC-Dude":3esavo7u said:
It should be, the only failures i've ever seen or experienced have been from a cylinder bore that was cracked previously to being sleeved in a race application. Stock block of course, not aftermarket block. Are you going to use a Darton sleeve or an OEM type stock replacement type?

A Melling CSL 626 looks to be a cast iron sleeve, 3/32 wall, 6.661 finish bore, and 5.5" long.
The Melling catalog listed high performance sleeves, but they were for more of the popular 4" and up bores.
Is Darton a brand, or an alloy?
 
Darton is a brand. http://www.darton-international.com/ They make replacement sleeves and liners for all the aftermarket blocks.

Dragstang, yes the Crossflow head is canted. I just thought it would be a good idea to know where the valves were in relation to the bore since this is a little different animal than the log head is and the valve were quite a bit larger.
 
CNC-Dude":3ma6otcv said:
Darton is a brand. http://www.darton-international.com/ They make replacement sleeves and liners for all the aftermarket blocks.

Dragstang, yes the Crossflow head is canted. I just thought it would be a good idea to know where the valves were in relation to the bore since this is a little different animal than the log head is and the valve were quite a bit larger.

Yeah, I just looked through their catalog immediately after I last replied to you. They offer nothing "off the shelf" that even comes close to the Melling pn I listed previously. I do know who they are now, mfg's of Dart blocks....as well as several sleeving solutions. I figure that the benefit to using one of their sleeves is the metallurgy, ductile iron as opposed to just straight cast iron. As expensive as the sleeving process is gonna be though, the 25.00 or so each sleeve costs from Melling may just have to be the path I have to walk.
 
mike1157":3g5wqf8a said:
But......will they be able to bore the block .230 w/o turning it into garbage?

Yes. I know for a fact that in a production block 250 with a liner, that will work fine. The Australian Geelong plants made there own versions of the US Cleveland engines, AND THEY categorically used to have liners attached from the factory at greater wall thickness than that. GM England's Vauxhall division used to have a recommendation with the four bearing L6 3.25" 2651 cc and 3.625" bore 3294 cc engine that a standard sized bore be used with a 3.375 or 3.875" overbore. This was a 125 thou wall thickness liner. That's 250 thou over.

You can certainly re-bore some of the older non siamese cast iron Ford and GM engines 230 thou without a cylinder liner, and get an engine to survive. The standard Detroit thinwall non linered rules have always been 60 thou over is the most, with 20 to 30 thou the suggested maximum if its a Cleveland 351, Windsor 5.0, or iron block Chevy 305/350. With a liner, Ford and Chev generally said take it back to stock bore, with a 125 thou thick liner the suggested minimum. Factory Cleveland 302 and 351 Aussie engines were partly linered from the factory from 1972 to 1979; the whole of those short deck 335 engines had way to much core shift in there production processes and failure in service ment Ford Australia had to recoup the scrapage rate, and so until a landmark case in 1979 which ruled the process unacceptable from a consumer perspective after Ford Australia got taken to court by a 1978 XC Fairmont V8 owner, you'll constantly find many reports of production RPO blocks reworked with liners in them.

A thin wall iron block Chevy V8 under a high load drag or circuit racing situation certainly won't cope with as much overbore as an iron blocked i4 or I6. Strongest thin wall engine ever made was the 180 thick cylinder walls of the early 3.875" 283 and then the better low core shift 350 Chev cylinder blocks. The early 283 ones could take a 125 thou over bore and survive in a hardfill drag race engine, but the later 350 blocks would break with just 60 thou over, but they were in 12:1 compression engines under extreme duty.

Eg 1. X Flow Ford Kent 4 cylinder found in early Pintos, Cortinas, rear drive Escorts and Fiestas could be taken out to +153.5 with 80% reliability in stock 711M blocks to +212 thou with 80 % reliability in an South African AX blocks from a stock 1500 or 1600 cc 3.19" bore size. They used to furnace braze old Ford production iron blocks for BDA racing engines before the HART blocks.
Eg 2. The 3 liter 60 degree Ford Dagenham 'Essex' engines could be taken out to 330 thou to 4" from a stock 3.672" bore size with 80% of blocks so bored becoming scrap. They used those in 450 hp quad cam GAA racing engines.
Eg 3. The thick wall 1948 to 1958 and Holden 132.5 cubic inch I6 Grey Motors . +187.5 thou from an un-rusted early 3.00" bore block without bore distortion, and +247.5 with quite a lot of distortion.

Eg 4. Linered iron Nissan 1985 to 1996 RB24, 26, and 30 blocks converted to Skyline GTR spec can make 900 to 1000 hp turbo charged, and can cope with 103 thick liners from a stock 85 mm bore with perfect reliability.

As soon as you add a liner with a bare minimum of interference fit, you get a great deal of strength back.
 
xctasy":20q33t3m said:
mike1157":20q33t3m said:
But......will they be able to bore the block .230 w/o turning it into garbage?

Yes. I know for a fact that in a production block 250 with a liner, that will work fine. The Australian Geelong plants made there own versions of the US Cleveland engines, AND THEY categorically used to have liners attached from the factory at greater wall thickness than that. GM England's Vauxhall division used to have a recommendation with the four bearing L6 3.25" 2651 cc and 3.625" bore 3294 cc engine that a standard sized bore be used with a 3.375 or 3.875" overbore. This was a 125 thou wall thickness liner. That's 250 thou over.

You can certainly re-bore some of the older non siamese cast iron Ford and GM engines 230 thou without a cylinder liner, and get an engine to survive. The standard Detroit thinwall non linered rules have always been 60 thou over is the most, with 20 to 30 thou the suggested maximum if its a Cleveland 351, Windsor 5.0, or iron block Chevy 305/350. With a liner, Ford and Chev generally said take it back to stock bore, with a 125 thou thick liner the suggested minimum. Factory Cleveland 302 and 351 Aussie engines were partly linered from the factory from 1972 to 1979; the whole of those short deck 335 engines had way to much core shift in there production processes and failure in service ment Ford Australia had to recoup the scrapage rate, and so until a landmark case in 1979 which ruled the process unacceptable from a consumer perspective after Ford Australia got taken to court by a 1978 XC Fairmont V8 owner, you'll constantly find many reports of production RPO blocks reworked with liners in them.

A thin wall iron block Chevy V8 under a high load drag or circuit racing situation certainly won't cope with as much overbore as an iron blocked i4 or I6. Strongest thin wall engine ever made was the 180 thick cylinder walls of the early 3.875" 283 and then the better low core shift 350 Chev cylinder blocks. The early 283 ones could take a 125 thou over bore and survive in a hardfill drag race engine, but the later 350 blocks would break with just 60 thou over, but they were in 12:1 compression engines under extreme duty.

Eg 1. X Flow Ford Kent 4 cylinder found in early Pintos, Cortinas, rear drive Escorts and Fiestas could be taken out to +153.5 with 80% reliability in stock 711M blocks to +212 thou with 80 % reliability in an South African AX blocks from a stock 1500 or 1600 cc 3.19" bore size. They used to furnace braze old Ford production iron blocks for BDA racing engines before the HART blocks.
Eg 2. The 3 liter 60 degree Ford Dagenham 'Essex' engines could be taken out to 330 thou to 4" from a stock 3.672" bore size with 80% of blocks so bored becoming scrap. They used those in 450 hp quad cam GAA racing engines.
Eg 3. The thick wall 1948 to 1958 and Holden 132.5 cubic inch I6 Grey Motors . +187.5 thou from an un-rusted early 3.00" bore block without bore distortion, and +247.5 with quite a lot of distortion.

Eg 4. Linered iron Nissan 1985 to 1996 RB24, 26, and 30 blocks converted to Skyline GTR spec can make 900 to 1000 hp turbo charged, and can cope with 103 thick liners from a stock 85 mm bore with perfect reliability.

As soon as you add a liner with a bare minimum of interference fit, you get a great deal of strength back.
Great. I have to say at this juncture, I have absolutely NO choice other than to sleeve it. The 3.681 Melling sleeve comes in a .094, and a.125 wall. Using that sleeve instead of the smaller 3.661 sleeve and boring it an additional .020 leaves me at a much thicker final wall either way.
I'm almost finished with the side cover for the lifter galley. The block will go to machining after that .

Thanks Dean.
 
That's fine. GM and Ford have proven that linering works.

Ford really made efforts to pull metal out of its cylinder walls with egg shell castings in the Lima, Cleveland and Windsor plant engines in the late 60's. It was primarily an extension of the thin wall process which absolutely killed tha alloy Chrysler Slant and BOP 215 engines. Ford then pushed the process harder on the Cleveland, and produced more scrapped small block race engines than any other car maker. In sedan racing, Ford gave a great supply of thin wall Clevelands, and when team owners used them for too long, they always blew up, split bores or oiled up the rocker galleries and ran main bearings. They became successful because Ford had a cheap source of production Aussie and American blocks which they could throw at the builders... the Aussie NASCAR block was just a really poorly cast block with a little more metal.

I've heard a lot of smack talk on what a liner can and cannot do, but lets face it, after 30 years of service, a rusted bore with 90 thou of wall thickness in a thin wall Henry isn't going to cope with much. Fords early short deck Cleveland engines were the worlds worst for cracking under race conditions, and when the factory started resleeving blocks, the worst production Clevelands started looking a lot like Iron versions of 215 Bucks, LS Chevys and Modular Alloy engines. Or a resleeved Vega block!

The aftermarket builders in Aussie looked at the cost of sleeving an old Pilow block Cleveland verses maching a new World or SVO block, and suddenly a junked Cleveland looks economic. Melling has done more to bring the technology forward, and it makes economic sense. Look at the sleeves for Vega 2300's, GM 4200's and Caddy V8's. Great parts at a good price, which make certain an alloy block engine will last for ever.

For a 250 in the US, though they aren't exactly rare, they sure have the same bore quality problems as the 3.5" stroke 351c engines.


So sleeving is the only economic option, and reducing the bore makes it even more economical because of the insanely cheap cost of Japanese small bore, shallow compression height components.Ford Australia noticed the same thing in 1985, and that's why the Ford 250 got a revised 68 and 48 thou underbore to become the 3939 and 3984 cc engines. It made such economic sense!

Really cheap, low deck, small bore pistons.
 
After being spanked for wanting to resleeve a 300 ford six, I did a lot of research on performance engines and resleeving them and I am convinced it is not a good thing in a very high performance engine, the sleeve is no longer an integral part of the block, it weakens the block and allows more block movement under load and temperature because it is no longer structurally part of the block, but a separate piece, also from this research I found there are so many different sleeves and that installing them properly is very very important just in a daily driver which you will never notice a properly installed sleeve.
 
At max performance one would be scared all the time if we knew how things stretch, twist, pull, expand and contract all the time, some of the articles made me realize I probably don't have the money to build a truly reliable high performance engine.
 
Broncitis, you'd be surprised how much a normal thick unsleeved cylinder wall flexes under heavy load and RPM. I agree with you, in my experiences with them in thin block castings such as these, your better off looking for another block if you plan to do anything other than build a grandpa cruiser.
 
Re-read the Melling Sleeve Chart, my good men.

http://www.mellingcylindersleeves.com/P ... atalog.pdf

Your concerns are duly noted, but years of development by proper US companies like Federal-Mogul, Darton, Melling, EZ-Slider Cylinder Liners et al make all these matters non issues. This 250 aint no broken block. If its good enough for diesels and small , medium and big block race engines, its good enough for me. It's not a case of don't believe the hype, its a case of understanding what a terrible mess a thinwall Ford block is, and trying something that won't reduce the tensile strength of the block. There are three Melling sleeve types, High Performance, Universals, Finished Sleeves. The first is a special kind of low carbon, high scuff resistance high Brinell Hardness Number sleeve. The Universals are the run of mill spun sleeve, not anywhere near as hard. The Finished sleeves are replacements, which are to Chevy, Cadillac and Ford spec

In any case, it used to be done, and it was done with the 1600 hp XR6 turbo NIZPRO.

Others have challenging debates

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324139
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324109
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20716
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2010/06 ... nd-liners/
 
Back
Top