Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks again sir. With your guidance, the build, which had hit a snag, ended in a success. And just as importantly......I gained some tools!!
  2. Hello Sir. The build went well. The cylinders came out well and leak-down showed them to be good. The little engine is snappy and doing great. I sold the Jeep and have stayed in touch with the new owner. He is very happy with the Jeep and says it is running strong. I read the information you sent above. It sounds logical and practical. I will definitely take this extra step on my next build! As usual, thanks for the expert information!
  3. Hey Guys. I just wanted to start a discussion about diagnostics for the DIY'er or very small shop owner. I'm curious to see what people are doing in this arena. A driving force for most of my work has been, "Can I buy a tool and get enough use out of it to offset the costs involved, or possibly even be money ahead? [Can I sell it to the wife?😉] For DIY'ers the answer is usually YES! A $3000 scan tool might be perfect for a full-time mechanic or shop owner, but can a DIY'er justify this cost? Are there alternatives? I was raised working on tractors and old-school engines. As much as my old-school self has resisted, I have come to realize the way of the future is electronics. I believe most engines/mechanical work is now about 30% mechanical (the stuff we're all good at) and 70% electronic (the stuff we better get better at). I suspect there are a great many of us in the same boat. I'll fill-in my story/situation as we go, but I suspect there are a bunch of guys out there who did a couple years of Auto-Tech in high school, who are a little bewildered at the modern day electronics. I myself have had to fill in some of these gaps, which I'll get into. Hopefully we can help each other! If you have some unique or 'old-guy' ways of deciphering modern-day diagnostics, I'd love to hear your ideas! I'll throw some of mine in there as well. Modern diagnostics are dominated by proprietary and generic scan tools. But I suppose the question boils down to...Are there DIY-friendly alternatives?
  4. Hello Sir: Well my 'shop' was an accidental hobby that slowly became a bit more. I'll explain in the other forum. I am all about pragmatic approaches and making tools pay for themselves! I am really excited about your PICO! That is a heck of a find! I also believe you made the smart choice! I figure, cry once and buy the right tool for the job! You certainly did that. I too looked into the Autel a bit but all my research continued pointing me toward the PICO. If I were a "full-timer" it would have been a no-brainer. Now you'll never be looking over your shoulder wondering about that PICO! I have slowly evolved from old-school 'mechanical' to new-school "electronic". I too have an old scope. It's a SunScope II. Well. I as I write this, I realize I sold it a couple months ago. I'll throw a picture up in the other forum. I'll see you on the other side!
  5. Hello Sir: Sorry for the delay. I had a guy bring me a Jeep that he ran with no oil. Needless to say it was shot, and it's his daily driver so in the interest of speed, we found him a used motor, tore it down, did some quick checks, and installed the motor. I pulled-up that individual cylinder boring machine on Ebay. I didn't know such a tool existed. That thing is pretty cool. Processes have certainly changed since you first entered the industry. Some of the older technology is just genius. Now THAT is an expense that wouldn't escape the Mrs. Ha! I will get some pictures of the Scantool I'm using. I also have a DRBII for the older Jeeps. I'll include that tool in the discussion. I am currently using the PICO, but that was an evolution itself. Once I get the photos I'll open a post in the tools forum. I'm a new user to the PICO and Scantool, but they have helped me on a number of issues thus far. Once again, I really appreciate your help with this engine. I have learned a lot!
  6. Hello Sir. Thank you for the kind words. Your depth of knowledge is impressive. I have "lurked" on these forums for quite some time, gleaning valuable information and insight. I am not sure what happened to the pictures so I'll try to repost them here. Above is the setup I used to press the old pistons off the rods. (Piston in picture is a 'practice' piston) Below is the jig for setting the new press-fit pins. Below is a block I did with a ball hone earlier this year. And finally below is this engine done with the Lisle hone. The pictures don't capture it well, but the Lisle with medium stone is more course than the ball hone. The pictures did catch the fact that the ball hone follows the contour of the bores, where the Lisle does not. I did use the Lisle hone to actually help restore the bore itself where the ball hone simply gets the surface, but has no affect on out-of-round or taper. This was a great recommendation and I am excited to use it in the future. You are correct in that the spec outside factory tolerance was 2-5 ten thousandths. I may have been able to do more, but I didn't want to chance it. Reading how you guys used to basically do an engine rebuild with the engine in the car sounds very labor intensive! This is the first time I've done any honing with the engine in the bay, and that alone was a pain! Much respect. It is nice to see someone with your knowledge AND passion for the subject! Yes. I have several cool new tools! And they will continue to pay for themselves several times over! I suspect we both will see several new cam bearings in our future! I will move over to the Tools section and post on the scanner. I am very interested to see your upcoming info on your scope training! Thanks again! Wayne
  7. Hello Sir: Well. We're up and running (smoothly) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aW1LGzT4p8&feature=youtu.be The new hone and pistons did the job! I'll delineate some of the process below as well as answer the questions you posed. I have heat cycled the engine a few times and loaded it up on test drives. I did controlled but hard pulls between 30-50 mph to apply a bit of backpressure to the rings. It sounds great. The video above was the first start-up. In fact I was still filling it with coolant. Piston pins. I made a little jig with things I had lying around. It took about 25 minutes. I have a tendency to over-engineer most things and spend more time on the process than justified by the result, so I chose to keep this fairly simple. Once I set the little jig, it worked great. (pictures below) I also whipped-up a method to press the old pistons off the rods. I was confident the rods were fine, but I would not re-use pistons removed with this method (I would have a machine shop press them off if I intended to reuse the pistons). Prior to using this process on my real pistons and rods, I practiced with about five old sets. I set the new piston in the jig, heated the rod end to 480° F , brought the rod to the jig (pressed against the left side of the pin bore for indexing) and inserted the pin quickly. After a few seconds the rod 'shrunk' to the pin and was press-fit. I then used a bit of oil to pre-lube the assembly with the thought of drawing the oil into the bore. I don't think I needed the oil, but it reassured me knowing things moved freely with no binding. I wanted to use as little heat as possible (according to the infrared laser thermometer). 480° F allowed me to move the pins with ease. (The rod bores all measured within factory spec) https://youtu.be/CsFiXgt5sMk (above piston is a practice piston) (sorry about the ginormous pictures...I'm new at this) I must admit I swayed from your recommended piston-sorry. I used Engine Tech P3071 Hyperutectic pistons and Engine Tech S38814 Moly rings. My thought (other than cost) was I was going to re-use the rings I had in the engine since they were essentially new. These rings matched these particular pistons...so I thought that would be a good idea. This picture is a bore (from a different engine) I honed with a ball hone. The below picture is from this engine with the Lisle hone. In the photos they look similar, however the Lisle (medium stone) left a much more course surface. Based on your previous information, I think this finish is better than the ball hone. I was able to remove some taper and out-of-round from the bores. However, I stayed on the conservative side and was still a touch outside factory tolerance. I was nervous about making the bores too large. The pistons measured exactly the same so I didn't specify any particular placement. I think that's about it. If I missed anything please let me know. I'm happy to add info or answer any questions. This is my first time "posting/documenting" to a forum such as this, but I'm hoping others will find the information helpful with their issues. I didn't even mention the Goodson tools to my better half. I think I've used up my tool money allotment for this particular project. Moses, sir, I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to share your experience and walk me through this process. SEVERAL lesson were learned on this project. There are several, "I will never...again", moments here. I am much better equipped for the next one. This is an incredibly unique forum in that you share your vast knowledge freely and openly. I didn't mention this earlier, but I actually own two of your books. I counted on this being a member-to-member forum until I saw all of your expert responses. Thank you very much! - Wayne
  8. Yes sir. I give her a hard time, but she actually works in the shop with me. I too justify tools by examining labor charges. I will be happy to share the figures you provided! That hone is going to be money. That was a great recommendation--thanks. I will follow your tips above for usage. By the way, is there a 'hard' number I really need to stay under? I will work on those bores carefully. Apparently my pistons are a bit delayed. I will be measuring them when they get here. I will be hanging the pistons myself. I plan on heating the rods (using an infrared thermometer). I was planning on building a small jig to set the pins. Your advice would be most welcome. Machine shops in my area have so much business right now, they aren't very interested in small jobs without adding a few upsells. This makes most jobs cost prohibitive on this particular engine. The upside is my skillset is expanding (and I'm acquiring more tools )
  9. Well....I bought the Lisle 15000 with a set of course and medium stones. I'm pretty sure the wife is happy I found an excuse to buy another tool! I have used triple stone hones, but nothing like this one. This thing is going to come in pretty handy. I have not received my pistons yet (on order), but I did run the hone through lightly (both stones) once. Most measurements increased on average of one to two ten thousandths. Now that I have a feel for it, I'll run it again, taking a couple critical measurements along the way. Referring to the info I posted above, it seems measuring exactly where the manual says, vs. the ring wear pattern is giving me a discrepancy at the top measurement. Although I measured these with four measurements, I think I'm over-complicating things a bit. I'm confident the measurements are correct. I'm not so confident about my measurement location. I think my "top" measurement is too low in the bore, and my "bottom" might be too high. My measurements were top/middle/bottom of the visible wear pattern. But...after re-honing I realized this visual indicator is no good because it's no longer present. So...I'm going to measure with the three measurements described in the manual. 3/8 (10mm) from top and bottom; and use the 2 5/16" measurement (Since it's the center of the bore). Then I will use those measurements to determine my out-of-round and taper. On cyl #1 I got quite a different taper using their reference location vs. where I measured at the perceived ring wear pattern. I think doing it this way will be more precise. Then I'll go after it with the hone, being careful not to exceed limits, which brings me to a question. Cyl #1 in the X-axis, middle measurement is 3.8773. The Y-axis middle is 3.8761. This gives me an OOR of .0012. I'll work on this with the hone. The question is...for piston fitting would I use the 3.8761 or 3.8773 measurement? Secondarily, do I need to be careful not to enlarge that 3.8773 measurement? It's largely academic because I'm not "fitting" the pistons with the 'A-F' factory pistons. I just want to make sure I'm within tolerance for standard replacement pistons. Hopefully that makes sense. As always...thank-you! I should have the pistons tomorrow.
  10. Well. I measured all my bores. Some specs were slightly out. I re-measured cylinder #4 since I had a new "set-up"; for consistency. It measured the same so that made me feel good about the accuracy/repeatability of measurements. For reference I set my bore gauge at 3.9000" and subtracted from there. (i.e. 3.9000 minus .0234 equals 3.8766 etc.) I'm using a Shars 303-4737 for reference. I also found some conflicting info in the Service Manual vs Mopar Performance Parts' "Jeep Engines". Nothing major, but minor differences. (I attached a page). Specifically the depth of measurement for pistons and a new classification for coated pistons. These variations shouldn't affect what I found. Also, I added a measurement labelled "D" for "deep". I found a page specifying 3/8" from top, and 3/8" from bottom after finishing my measurements. As mentioned, I measured the top and bottom of the ring-wear-pattern. Next time I'll follow the manual more closely. For these measurements, I added the bottom measurement, however, I did not re-do the top at 3/8 from the deck. I used the top of the ring wear pattern. If this will invalidate my measurements, I will redo that measurement. I'm a bit concerned about cylinde r#1. .0013" out of round at the middle measurement. If I use my new measurement at the base on the bore, my taper also rises to .0014. Also cyl #2 .001" taper in both axes, and cyl# 3 Y-taper at .0011". I think it will be okay since these are right at max-spec with #1 OOR being .0003 over max-spec. I find it curious the #4 cylinder had the slap, but appears to be in the best condition as far as measurements go. Interesting.... It has been a learning experience!
  11. Hello Sir: I included a photo of the cylinder currently. You can see where some scuffing is going to happen. There is nothing that can be felt (yet), but with a good light you can see some scuffing that will develop. I also included a photo of the bore and piston measurements. As expected, there is too much clearance (listed). You are correct! Over .006" toward the top of the cylinder. For reference, the measurements were taken just below the top ring wear, 2 5/16" down the bore (per service manual), and at the bottom wear pattern. The piston measurements were directly beneath the rings, centerline with the wrist pin, and at the base of the piston (not at the end of the tabs, but where they 'meet' the piston 2 5/16" from the top). In looking back at my measurements, it seems a more accurate "clearance" measurement would be the "M"iddle bore measurement against the "B"ase measurement of the piston. I used 2 5/16" as the 'M' measurement for the bore. The 'B' piston measurement is also 2 5/16" down the bore. If I use this apples to apples measurement I would need to add .0002" to my 'M' clearance making it .0039. Hopefully that makes sense. Based on my measurements, it looks like a "C" piston would be the best fit per the service manual. However, for this engine I was planning on using a set of Enginetech #P3071 pistons. I'm hoping those will provide proper clearances. I'd rather not go to a dealership for the fitted pistons ($$$). My plan is to replace all four as a set. Luckily, it appears the bore is well within spec for out of round, taper, and bore size. I will pull the rest of the pistons, measure the bores, order the new pistons (and a new head gasket), measure them prior to installation to verify fit, install them, and see how we do. Thanks again for all of your help! Wayne
  12. Hello Sir: I was able to get back to this Jeep. I dropped the pan and followed the advice you gave. I found the #4 piston-to-bore clearance to be .004. I decided to check for wrist-pin movement also, and found none. I attached a video. The video shows me rocking the piston from side to side. It takes a decent amount of force, but I was able to get it to "knock". I believe this is where my problem is. I tried to video the movement but visually it is imperceptible. However, it can certainly be heard. I decided a relative comparison would be in order. I tried to get the rest of the pistons to "knock" using this method. #1 and #2 were rock solid--no movement or sound at all. #3 had slight movement. #4 is in the video. #4 clearance was .004". #3 clearance was .002". Based on this data, I was planning on removing the #4 piston and obtaining measurements of that piston and the bore. I would make comprehensive measurements to include "out of round" and taper measurements. This will give me some precision to work with. https://youtu.be/MQjSokXCvGE Thanks again! Wayne
  13. Hello Sir: Thanks again for all the input. That's quite a comprehensive analysis. I have been working on another couple Jeeps with more pressing time constraints so this is a bit delayed. I thought I'd update on some progress. I pulled a lifter out and measured hydraulic piston travel (plunger). For the lifters I installed, they have .198 total travel. My preload (although high) looks like it is within the range the lifter can handle. From here, I will likely get the Jeep back on a lift, drop the pan, and check for piston slap again. What you've said makes sense and gives me a more accurate way to check. If it looks good, I will re-assemble the top side (valve cover, etc.) and run the PICO tests you've described. If the piston is indeed is the issue, I will pull the head and examine the bore for piston fit (I recently obtained a dial bore gauge). I will definitely stay tuned and am looking forward to your videos on the PICO! Thanks, Wayne
  14. Sorry for the delay...holidays. I hope your Christmas went well! I received the pushrod length checker. I used the EOIC method to make sure I was on the base and it worked well. I was able to obtain precise, repeatable measurements. Each pushrod (with minor variances in a couple) measured right at 9.400. That is zero-lash (no preload). The pushrods I have are Melling and each measure 9.481. Easy math...this gives .081 preload. My initial thought was, "Perfect. This is very high and I found my problem". However, it is my understanding too much preload would likely cause valves to be held open. Since my running ignition secondary patterns were good, I don't believe this to be the case. So in a nutshell, I am not seeing any symptoms indicating this extra preload is causing issues. I do not know how much travel the lifter plunger has total, so I'm not sure how close I am to its limits. On another note, a compression check showed 145 psi at #1,2,4 and 125 at #3. (5300' Elevation) It should be noted this was not a 'proper' compression check (the engine was cold) but it gave me a reference point for relativity between the cylinders. If this is unrelated I will look into it later. For now, I am focusing on the knocking noise. What do you think about that preload? Thanks!! Wayne
  15. Ahh. I just found your response to a similar question in July 2020 on your forum. Thank-you. I'll get this checked and report back.
  • Create New...