So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the engine to 
take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half an hour or so, he comes 
in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " with a couple of halves of shell in 
his hand.

What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 1, which is 
where the initial rattle had been coming from. When it failed completely, a 
mile from home, the lower shell had slipped round a few degrees *inside* the 
upper shell, leading to the large amount of play that had given rise to the 
loud knocking.

Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has declared that 
there is no discernable damage to either so for the cost of a set of shells, 
seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go for it, and see 
if we can get a result. I guess it's got two chances, and as he is an 
experienced mechanic, I trust his judgement. If it works, then it's a cheap 
fix, and keeps the motor on the road for a while longer. I did query as to 
whether that set of shells had failed for a reason such as a blocked oilway, 
but he said that there was plenty of oil in the bearing, and he felt that it 
was just 'one of those things'.

He has checked the other sets of shells, and they just have the level of 
wear that you would expect on a 107k engine. I was interested to see the 
'cleaved off' bearing caps - apparently the con rod is cast in one piece, 
then line bored and then the cap is cleaved off. I don't know about 
'cleaved'. That seems too kind a word to me. Hacked / busted off looks more 
appropriate. It is actually on the piss in two planes. No wonder the book of 
words charges you with keeping the caps with the rods, and the right way 
round as they are "matched pairs" !! From what I saw, no two are ever going 
to be remotely similar ... I'll let you know if it works later in the week, 
when he's had a chance to get the new shells, and get back to put them in. 
:-)

Arfa

"Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the 
> engine to take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half 
> an hour or so, he comes in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " 
> with a couple of halves of shell in his hand.
>
> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 
> 1, which is where the initial rattle had been coming from. When 
> it failed completely, a mile from home, the lower shell had 
> slipped round a few degrees *inside* the upper shell, leading 
> to the large amount of play that had given rise to the loud 
> knocking.
>
> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has 
> declared that there is no discernable damage to either

I'd be very surprised if that really is the case.
The wear would have to be enormous, to allow a pair of shell 
bearings to overlap in the way described.
Has he actually measured the journal and big-end diameter for 
size and ovality?

so for the cost of a set of shells,
> seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go for 
> it, and see if we can get a result. I guess it's got two 
> chances, and as he is an experienced mechanic, I trust his 
> judgement. If it works, then it's a cheap fix, and keeps the 
> motor on the road for a while longer. I did query as to whether 
> that set of shells had failed for a reason such as a blocked 
> oilway, but he said that there was plenty of oil in the 
> bearing, and he felt that it was just 'one of those things'.

You have more faith in your mechanic than I would have. Just 
because there is no discernable damage doesn't mean there isn't 
any. It's easy enough to check, at least as far as sizes are 
concerned, and could tell you immediately if it's worth fitting a 
new set of shells.
Fitting new shells is an expensive way of checking whether the 
con-rod and/or crankshaft is too badly worn to be salvaged. Not 
to mention the time wasted in fitting them if it is.
Mike.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:25:48 +0100, Mike G  wrote:

> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message  
> news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
>> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the engine  
>> to take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half an hour or so,  
>> he comes in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " with a couple of halves  
>> of shell in his hand.
>>
>> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 1, which  
>> is where the initial rattle had been coming from. When it failed  
>> completely, a mile from home, the lower shell had slipped round a few  
>> degrees *inside* the upper shell, leading to the large amount of play  
>> that had given rise to the loud knocking.
>>
>> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has declared  
>> that there is no discernable damage to either
>
> I'd be very surprised if that really is the case.
> The wear would have to be enormous, to allow a pair of shell bearings to  
> overlap in the way described.
> Has he actually measured the journal and big-end diameter for size and  
> ovality?
>
> so for the cost of a set of shells,
>> seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go for it, and  
>> see if we can get a result. I guess it's got two chances, and as he is  
>> an experienced mechanic, I trust his judgement. If it works, then it's  
>> a cheap fix, and keeps the motor on the road for a while longer. I did  
>> query as to whether that set of shells had failed for a reason such as  
>> a blocked oilway, but he said that there was plenty of oil in the  
>> bearing, and he felt that it was just 'one of those things'.
>
> You have more faith in your mechanic than I would have. Just because  
> there is no discernable damage doesn't mean there isn't any. It's easy  
> enough to check, at least as far as sizes are concerned, and could tell  
> you immediately if it's worth fitting a new set of shells.
> Fitting new shells is an expensive way of checking whether the con-rod  
> and/or crankshaft is too badly worn to be salvaged. Not to mention the  
> time wasted in fitting them if it is.
> Mike.
>


http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=plastigage

But you'll still need the new shells.

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ugrywnxhhaghkf@lucy...
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:25:48 +0100, Mike G 
>  wrote:
>
>> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
>> news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
>>> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off 
>>> the engine  to take a look at exactly what's happened. After 
>>> a half an hour or so,  he comes in muttering "you lucky 
>>> bastard ... " with a couple of halves  of shell in his hand.
>>>
>>> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 
>>> 1, which  is where the initial rattle had been coming from. 
>>> When it failed  completely, a mile from home, the lower shell 
>>> had slipped round a few  degrees *inside* the upper shell, 
>>> leading to the large amount of play  that had given rise to 
>>> the loud knocking.
>>>
>>> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has 
>>> declared  that there is no discernable damage to either
>>
>> I'd be very surprised if that really is the case.
>> The wear would have to be enormous, to allow a pair of shell 
>> bearings to  overlap in the way described.
>> Has he actually measured the journal and big-end diameter for 
>> size and  ovality?
>>
>> so for the cost of a set of shells,
>>> seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go 
>>> for it, and  see if we can get a result. I guess it's got two 
>>> chances, and as he is  an experienced mechanic, I trust his 
>>> judgement. If it works, then it's  a cheap fix, and keeps the 
>>> motor on the road for a while longer. I did  query as to 
>>> whether that set of shells had failed for a reason such as  a 
>>> blocked oilway, but he said that there was plenty of oil in 
>>> the  bearing, and he felt that it was just 'one of those 
>>> things'.
>>
>> You have more faith in your mechanic than I would have. Just 
>> because  there is no discernable damage doesn't mean there 
>> isn't any. It's easy  enough to check, at least as far as 
>> sizes are concerned, and could tell  you immediately if it's 
>> worth fitting a new set of shells.
>> Fitting new shells is an expensive way of checking whether the 
>> con-rod  and/or crankshaft is too badly worn to be salvaged. 
>> Not to mention the  time wasted in fitting them if it is.
>> Mike.
>>
>
>
> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=plastigage
>
> But you'll still need the new shells.

Any decent car mechanic should have, or have access to a 
micrometer, and a set of bore guages, if for no other reason than 
to check journals and bores etc.
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:6i0rbaFoaer0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
> news:op.ugrywnxhhaghkf@lucy...
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:25:48 +0100, Mike G  wrote:
>>
>>> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
>>> news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
>>>> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the engine 
>>>> to take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half an hour or so, 
>>>> he comes in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " with a couple of halves 
>>>> of shell in his hand.
>>>>
>>>> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 1, which 
>>>> is where the initial rattle had been coming from. When it failed 
>>>> completely, a mile from home, the lower shell had slipped round a few 
>>>> degrees *inside* the upper shell, leading to the large amount of play 
>>>> that had given rise to the loud knocking.
>>>>
>>>> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has declared 
>>>> that there is no discernable damage to either
>>>
>>> I'd be very surprised if that really is the case.
>>> The wear would have to be enormous, to allow a pair of shell bearings to 
>>> overlap in the way described.
>>> Has he actually measured the journal and big-end diameter for size and 
>>> ovality?
>>>
>>> so for the cost of a set of shells,
>>>> seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go for it, and 
>>>> see if we can get a result. I guess it's got two chances, and as he is 
>>>> an experienced mechanic, I trust his judgement. If it works, then it's 
>>>> a cheap fix, and keeps the motor on the road for a while longer. I did 
>>>> query as to whether that set of shells had failed for a reason such as 
>>>> a blocked oilway, but he said that there was plenty of oil in the 
>>>> bearing, and he felt that it was just 'one of those things'.
>>>
>>> You have more faith in your mechanic than I would have. Just because 
>>> there is no discernable damage doesn't mean there isn't any. It's easy 
>>> enough to check, at least as far as sizes are concerned, and could tell 
>>> you immediately if it's worth fitting a new set of shells.
>>> Fitting new shells is an expensive way of checking whether the con-rod 
>>> and/or crankshaft is too badly worn to be salvaged. Not to mention the 
>>> time wasted in fitting them if it is.
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=plastigage
>>
>> But you'll still need the new shells.
>
> Any decent car mechanic should have, or have access to a micrometer, and a 
> set of bore guages, if for no other reason than to check journals and 
> bores etc.
> Mike.

All I can say is that the wear on the shell set for that particular con rod 
*was* enormous. He did say that he had mic'd the journal in question, and 
that the ovality was "minimal". He was more concerned that there was surface 
damage, but there was none he could see, given of course, that the crank is 
still in situ, as is the engine as a whole. I have seen the actual bearing 
cap, and there is no signs that any surface damage has occured in there. I 
can't say the same for the corresponding area at the bottom of the con rod, 
as I haven't seen it, but again, he says that there is no discernable 
damage. I have known this guy as a personal friend for many years, and he 
has been at this for a long time. He has nothing to gain by leading me 
astray on this, which is why I trust what he says.

At the end of the day, this is a 10 year old car. What would you suggest is 
a cheaper way to resolve this problem, if you believe that trying a set of 
shells is an expensive way to check ? It certainly wouldn't be worth 
attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really don't think that 
it is worth bothering with a replacement engine even from a scrapper, as you 
still don't know what you are getting. It only took him thirty or forty 
minutes to pull the bottom end down, so I guess it's not going to take much 
if any longer to reassemble it with a new set of shells. If it doesn't work, 
I am a favour, a few litres of oil and a filter, and a few quids worth of 
shells down. If it does work, then I have a cheap result ...

Arfa

"Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
news:x0Huk.393631$JM.229684@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:6i0rbaFoaer0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
>> news:op.ugrywnxhhaghkf@lucy...
>>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:25:48 +0100, Mike G 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
>>>>> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off 
>>>>> the engine to take a look at exactly what's happened. After 
>>>>> a half an hour or so, he comes in muttering "you lucky 
>>>>> bastard ... " with a couple of halves of shell in his hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on 
>>>>> number 1, which is where the initial rattle had been coming 
>>>>> from. When it failed completely, a mile from home, the 
>>>>> lower shell had slipped round a few degrees *inside* the 
>>>>> upper shell, leading to the large amount of play that had 
>>>>> given rise to the loud knocking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he 
>>>>> has declared that there is no discernable damage to either
>>>>
>>>> I'd be very surprised if that really is the case.
>>>> The wear would have to be enormous, to allow a pair of shell 
>>>> bearings to overlap in the way described.
>>>> Has he actually measured the journal and big-end diameter 
>>>> for size and ovality?
>>>>
>>>> so for the cost of a set of shells,
>>>>> seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go 
>>>>> for it, and see if we can get a result. I guess it's got 
>>>>> two chances, and as he is an experienced mechanic, I trust 
>>>>> his judgement. If it works, then it's a cheap fix, and 
>>>>> keeps the motor on the road for a while longer. I did query 
>>>>> as to whether that set of shells had failed for a reason 
>>>>> such as a blocked oilway, but he said that there was plenty 
>>>>> of oil in the bearing, and he felt that it was just 'one of 
>>>>> those things'.
>>>>
>>>> You have more faith in your mechanic than I would have. Just 
>>>> because there is no discernable damage doesn't mean there 
>>>> isn't any. It's easy enough to check, at least as far as 
>>>> sizes are concerned, and could tell you immediately if it's 
>>>> worth fitting a new set of shells.
>>>> Fitting new shells is an expensive way of checking whether 
>>>> the con-rod and/or crankshaft is too badly worn to be 
>>>> salvaged. Not to mention the time wasted in fitting them if 
>>>> it is.
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=plastigage
>>>
>>> But you'll still need the new shells.
>>
>> Any decent car mechanic should have, or have access to a 
>> micrometer, and a set of bore guages, if for no other reason 
>> than to check journals and bores etc.
>> Mike.
>
> All I can say is that the wear on the shell set for that 
> particular con rod *was* enormous. He did say that he had mic'd 
> the journal in question, and that the ovality was "minimal". He 
> was more concerned that there was surface damage, but there was 
> none he could see, given of course, that the crank is still in 
> situ, as is the engine as a whole. I have seen the actual 
> bearing cap, and there is no signs that any surface damage has 
> occured in there. I can't say the same for the corresponding 
> area at the bottom of the con rod, as I haven't seen it, but 
> again, he says that there is no discernable damage. I have 
> known this guy as a personal friend for many years, and he has 
> been at this for a long time. He has nothing to gain by leading 
> me astray on this, which is why I trust what he says.
>
> At the end of the day, this is a 10 year old car. What would 
> you suggest is a cheaper way to resolve this problem, if you 
> believe that trying a set of shells is an expensive way to 
> check ?

As I intimated in my original post. A micrometer can be used to 
check the journal, and the conrod bore could be simply checked 
with something like a telescopic bore guage and micrometer. None 
of which are expensive to buy, which is why I said I would have 
expected an auto engineer to have the tools to do both.
It's easy enough to bolt the cap back and check the bore dia.
TBH that is where I would expect the most damage, if any, to have 
occurred. Quite honestly I can't see how one shell can overide 
the other without distorting the conrod bore.

It certainly wouldn't be worth
> attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really don't 
> think that it is worth bothering with a replacement engine even 
> from a scrapper, as you still don't know what you are getting. 
> It only took him thirty or forty minutes to pull the bottom end 
> down, so I guess it's not going to take much if any longer to 
> reassemble it with a new set of shells. If it doesn't work, I 
> am a favour, a few litres of oil and a filter, and a few quids 
> worth of shells down. If it does work, then I have a cheap 
> result ...

I hope for your sake that it all goes well. I'd be interested in 
hearing the results.
Mike.

"Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the engine to 
> take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half an hour or so, he 
> comes in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " with a couple of halves of 
> shell in his hand.
>
> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 1, which is 
> where the initial rattle had been coming from. When it failed completely, 
> a mile from home, the lower shell had slipped round a few degrees *inside* 
> the upper shell, leading to the large amount of play that had given rise 
> to the loud knocking.
>
> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has declared that 
> there is no discernable damage to either so for the cost of a set of 
> shells, seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go for 
> it, and see if we can get a result.

Shells don't wear so badly that they slip round inside each other without 
the crank and/or rod both being worn beyond reuse or at least remachining. I 
don't trust your mate's opinion as far as I could spit a rat. Go for it 
though and we'll see how long it lasts before it starts knocking again. 
That's not even going into why the failure occured in the first place and 
how to resolve that.
-- 
Dave Baker

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:6i128nFof1crU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
> news:x0Huk.393631$JM.229684@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
>> news:6i0rbaFoaer0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
>>> news:op.ugrywnxhhaghkf@lucy...
>>>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:25:48 +0100, Mike G  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
>>>>>> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the engine 
>>>>>> to take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half an hour or 
>>>>>> so, he comes in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " with a couple of 
>>>>>> halves of shell in his hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 1, 
>>>>>> which is where the initial rattle had been coming from. When it 
>>>>>> failed completely, a mile from home, the lower shell had slipped 
>>>>>> round a few degrees *inside* the upper shell, leading to the large 
>>>>>> amount of play that had given rise to the loud knocking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has declared 
>>>>>> that there is no discernable damage to either
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be very surprised if that really is the case.
>>>>> The wear would have to be enormous, to allow a pair of shell bearings 
>>>>> to overlap in the way described.
>>>>> Has he actually measured the journal and big-end diameter for size and 
>>>>> ovality?
>>>>>
>>>>> so for the cost of a set of shells,
>>>>>> seeing as the bottom is already now in bits, we're gonna go for it, 
>>>>>> and see if we can get a result. I guess it's got two chances, and as 
>>>>>> he is an experienced mechanic, I trust his judgement. If it works, 
>>>>>> then it's a cheap fix, and keeps the motor on the road for a while 
>>>>>> longer. I did query as to whether that set of shells had failed for a 
>>>>>> reason such as a blocked oilway, but he said that there was plenty of 
>>>>>> oil in the bearing, and he felt that it was just 'one of those 
>>>>>> things'.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have more faith in your mechanic than I would have. Just because 
>>>>> there is no discernable damage doesn't mean there isn't any. It's easy 
>>>>> enough to check, at least as far as sizes are concerned, and could 
>>>>> tell you immediately if it's worth fitting a new set of shells.
>>>>> Fitting new shells is an expensive way of checking whether the con-rod 
>>>>> and/or crankshaft is too badly worn to be salvaged. Not to mention the 
>>>>> time wasted in fitting them if it is.
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=plastigage
>>>>
>>>> But you'll still need the new shells.
>>>
>>> Any decent car mechanic should have, or have access to a micrometer, and 
>>> a set of bore guages, if for no other reason than to check journals and 
>>> bores etc.
>>> Mike.
>>
>> All I can say is that the wear on the shell set for that particular con 
>> rod *was* enormous. He did say that he had mic'd the journal in question, 
>> and that the ovality was "minimal". He was more concerned that there was 
>> surface damage, but there was none he could see, given of course, that 
>> the crank is still in situ, as is the engine as a whole. I have seen the 
>> actual bearing cap, and there is no signs that any surface damage has 
>> occured in there. I can't say the same for the corresponding area at the 
>> bottom of the con rod, as I haven't seen it, but again, he says that 
>> there is no discernable damage. I have known this guy as a personal 
>> friend for many years, and he has been at this for a long time. He has 
>> nothing to gain by leading me astray on this, which is why I trust what 
>> he says.
>>
>> At the end of the day, this is a 10 year old car. What would you suggest 
>> is a cheaper way to resolve this problem, if you believe that trying a 
>> set of shells is an expensive way to check ?
>
> As I intimated in my original post. A micrometer can be used to check the 
> journal, and the conrod bore could be simply checked with something like a 
> telescopic bore guage and micrometer. None of which are expensive to buy, 
> which is why I said I would have expected an auto engineer to have the 
> tools to do both.
> It's easy enough to bolt the cap back and check the bore dia.
> TBH that is where I would expect the most damage, if any, to have 
> occurred. Quite honestly I can't see how one shell can overide the other 
> without distorting the conrod bore.

As I said, he did mic the journal ...
The edge of the shells had been 'thinned' like a penny on a railway track - 
presumably by them getting a pounding in the 'wrong' place. On this engine, 
they apparantly hold in place courtesy of the fact that they butt against 
one another, and are pinched by the cap and con rod. There are no locating 
tabs to help stop them turning.

>
> It certainly wouldn't be worth
>> attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really don't think 
>> that it is worth bothering with a replacement engine even from a 
>> scrapper, as you still don't know what you are getting. It only took him 
>> thirty or forty minutes to pull the bottom end down, so I guess it's not 
>> going to take much if any longer to reassemble it with a new set of 
>> shells. If it doesn't work, I am a favour, a few litres of oil and a 
>> filter, and a few quids worth of shells down. If it does work, then I 
>> have a cheap result ...
>
> I hope for your sake that it all goes well. I'd be interested in hearing 
> the results.
> Mike.
>

And, good or bad, so you shall, Mike, so you shall ...

Arfa

> As I intimated in my original post. A micrometer can be used to check  
> the journal, and the conrod bore could be simply checked with something  
> like a telescopic bore guage and micrometer. None of which are expensive  
> to buy, which is why I said I would have expected an auto engineer to  
> have the tools to do both.
> It's easy enough to bolt the cap back and check the bore dia.
> TBH that is where I would expect the most damage, if any, to have  
> occurred. Quite honestly I can't see how one shell can overide the other  
> without distorting the conrod bore.
>
> It certainly wouldn't be worth
>> attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really don't think  
>> that it is worth bothering with a replacement engine even from a  
>> scrapper, as you still don't know what you are getting. It only took  
>> him thirty or forty minutes to pull the bottom end down, so I guess  
>> it's not going to take much if any longer to reassemble it with a new  
>> set of shells. If it doesn't work, I am a favour, a few litres of oil  
>> and a filter, and a few quids worth of shells down. If it does work,  
>> then I have a cheap result ...
>
> I hope for your sake that it all goes well. I'd be interested in hearing  
> the results.
> Mike.
>


BUt at that point you have to take the head off or the entire crank out.  
And if it's knackered you're not going to repair it, so given that'll cost  
as much as new shells & you'll still need the new shells if it is good you  
might as well try the shells and a new set of conrod bolts.

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ugsrvwz5haghkf@lucy...
>> As I intimated in my original post. A micrometer can be used to check 
>> the journal, and the conrod bore could be simply checked with something 
>> like a telescopic bore guage and micrometer. None of which are expensive 
>> to buy, which is why I said I would have expected an auto engineer to 
>> have the tools to do both.
>> It's easy enough to bolt the cap back and check the bore dia.
>> TBH that is where I would expect the most damage, if any, to have 
>> occurred. Quite honestly I can't see how one shell can overide the other 
>> without distorting the conrod bore.
>>
>> It certainly wouldn't be worth
>>> attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really don't think 
>>> that it is worth bothering with a replacement engine even from a 
>>> scrapper, as you still don't know what you are getting. It only took 
>>> him thirty or forty minutes to pull the bottom end down, so I guess 
>>> it's not going to take much if any longer to reassemble it with a new 
>>> set of shells. If it doesn't work, I am a favour, a few litres of oil 
>>> and a filter, and a few quids worth of shells down. If it does work, 
>>> then I have a cheap result ...
>>
>> I hope for your sake that it all goes well. I'd be interested in hearing 
>> the results.
>> Mike.
>>
>
>
> BUt at that point you have to take the head off or the entire crank out. 
> And if it's knackered you're not going to repair it, so given that'll cost 
> as much as new shells & you'll still need the new shells if it is good you 
> might as well try the shells and a new set of conrod bolts.


Yes, that was my thought Duncan

Arfa

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ugsrvwz5haghkf@lucy...
>> As I intimated in my original post. A micrometer can be used 
>> to check  the journal, and the conrod bore could be simply 
>> checked with something  like a telescopic bore guage and 
>> micrometer. None of which are expensive  to buy, which is why 
>> I said I would have expected an auto engineer to  have the 
>> tools to do both.
>> It's easy enough to bolt the cap back and check the bore dia.
>> TBH that is where I would expect the most damage, if any, to 
>> have  occurred. Quite honestly I can't see how one shell can 
>> overide the other  without distorting the conrod bore.
>>
>> It certainly wouldn't be worth
>>> attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really 
>>> don't think  that it is worth bothering with a replacement 
>>> engine even from a  scrapper, as you still don't know what 
>>> you are getting. It only took  him thirty or forty minutes to 
>>> pull the bottom end down, so I guess  it's not going to take 
>>> much if any longer to reassemble it with a new  set of 
>>> shells. If it doesn't work, I am a favour, a few litres of 
>>> oil  and a filter, and a few quids worth of shells down. If 
>>> it does work,  then I have a cheap result ...
>>
>> I hope for your sake that it all goes well. I'd be interested 
>> in hearing  the results.
>> Mike.
>>
>
>
> BUt at that point you have to take the head off or the entire 
> crank out.

How many engines have you worked on?
Since when has it been necessary to remove the c/s or the head to 
check a conrod big-end? That's what this is about, not the bore 
for a main c/s journal.

> And if it's knackered you're not going to repair it, so given 
> that'll cost  as much as new shells & you'll still need the new 
> shells if it is good you  might as well try the shells and a 
> new set of conrod bolts.

Poor advice given my previous posts.
Mike.

"Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
news:VVQuk.195109$LU4.144459@newsfe24.ams2...
>
> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
> news:op.ugsrvwz5haghkf@lucy...
>>> As I intimated in my original post. A micrometer can be used 
>>> to check the journal, and the conrod bore could be simply 
>>> checked with something like a telescopic bore guage and 
>>> micrometer. None of which are expensive to buy, which is why 
>>> I said I would have expected an auto engineer to have the 
>>> tools to do both.
>>> It's easy enough to bolt the cap back and check the bore dia.
>>> TBH that is where I would expect the most damage, if any, to 
>>> have occurred. Quite honestly I can't see how one shell can 
>>> overide the other without distorting the conrod bore.
>>>
>>> It certainly wouldn't be worth
>>>> attempting to replace piston / con rod sets, and I really 
>>>> don't think that it is worth bothering with a replacement 
>>>> engine even from a scrapper, as you still don't know what 
>>>> you are getting. It only took him thirty or forty minutes to 
>>>> pull the bottom end down, so I guess it's not going to take 
>>>> much if any longer to reassemble it with a new set of 
>>>> shells. If it doesn't work, I am a favour, a few litres of 
>>>> oil and a filter, and a few quids worth of shells down. If 
>>>> it does work, then I have a cheap result ...
>>>
>>> I hope for your sake that it all goes well. I'd be interested 
>>> in hearing the results.
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>>
>> BUt at that point you have to take the head off or the entire 
>> crank out. And if it's knackered you're not going to repair 
>> it, so given that'll cost as much as new shells & you'll still 
>> need the new shells if it is good you might as well try the 
>> shells and a new set of conrod bolts.
>
>
> Yes, that was my thought Duncan

Still poor advice IMO especially as it based on the mistaken 
belief that further stripping down is required to check the 
conrod bigend diameter.
It would probably take me10 minutes or less, to bolt the cap on 
and check the bore size.
Certainly worth it, if the alternative is the cost of a new set 
of shells, and the labour to fit them, with the strong 
possibility that it will all be a waste of time and money. If not 
immediately at some time in the near future.

You may not believe me, but you should believe Dave Baker. He 
works on engines for a living.
Mike.

"Dave Baker"  wrote in message 
news:g9g27l$ut7$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Arfa Daily"  wrote in message 
> news:e8Buk.190506$LU4.36343@newsfe24.ams2...
>> So, today, my mate comes round, and whizzes the bottom off the 
>> engine to take a look at exactly what's happened. After a half 
>> an hour or so, he comes in muttering "you lucky bastard ... " 
>> with a couple of halves of shell in his hand.
>>
>> What had happened is that the shells had worn badly on number 
>> 1, which is where the initial rattle had been coming from. 
>> When it failed completely, a mile from home, the lower shell 
>> had slipped round a few degrees *inside* the upper shell, 
>> leading to the large amount of play that had given rise to the 
>> loud knocking.
>>
>> Having examined the crank and the cap very carefully, he has 
>> declared that there is no discernable damage to either so for 
>> the cost of a set of shells, seeing as the bottom is already 
>> now in bits, we're gonna go for it, and see if we can get a 
>> result.
>
> Shells don't wear so badly that they slip round inside each 
> other without the crank and/or rod both being worn beyond reuse 
> or at least remachining. I don't trust your mate's opinion as 
> far as I could spit a rat.

You have such a graphic turn of phrase. :-)
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:6i2i0tFocdqkU2@mid.individual.net...

>
> You may not believe me, but you should believe Dave Baker. He works on 
> engines for a living.
> Mike.

As my CNC engineer mate is fond of saying, "you can't educate pork." Anyone 
who thinks it's a sensible idea to just put new shells in an engine that's 
worn so badly the shells have slipped round without measuring the big end 
journal and rod bore properly first deserves all they get. They can do it 
properly second time round when it's started knocking again.

Against my advice a mate tried the same trick with a 2 litre Zetec a couple 
of years ago after the owner let it run out of oil. Here's the pics of the 
crank and rods. They actually miked up within specs I'm told but the 
surfaces were clearly knackered. They did polish them down with strips of 
fine emery before fitting the new shells.

http://www.quantums.info/pictures/nooil/pictureview.aspx

Surprisingly it lasted for a holiday trip round Wales and a track day event 
before starting to knock again. I wouldn't have given it that long based on 
the damage. The only certainty was that at some point it was going to fail 
again.

Still, I'm only one the most successful race engine builders in the UK for 
over 20 years so WTF do I know.
-- 
Dave Baker

"Dave Baker"  wrote in message 
news:g9h6hf$8sf$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:6i2i0tFocdqkU2@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> You may not believe me, but you should believe Dave Baker. He 
>> works on engines for a living.
>> Mike.
>
> As my CNC engineer mate is fond of saying, "you can't educate 
> pork." Anyone who thinks it's a sensible idea to just put new 
> shells in an engine that's worn so badly the shells have 
> slipped round without measuring the big end journal and rod 
> bore properly first deserves all they get. They can do it 
> properly second time round when it's started knocking again.
>
> Against my advice a mate tried the same trick with a 2 litre 
> Zetec a couple of years ago after the owner let it run out of 
> oil. Here's the pics of the crank and rods. They actually miked 
> up within specs I'm told but the surfaces were clearly 
> knackered. They did polish them down with strips of fine emery 
> before fitting the new shells.
>
> http://www.quantums.info/pictures/nooil/pictureview.aspx

Looks like the shells siezed on the c/s and then were spun in the 
conrod bore. Not surprising that fitting new shells was not 
successful.

> Surprisingly it lasted for a holiday trip round Wales and a 
> track day event before starting to knock again. I wouldn't have 
> given it that long based on the damage. The only certainty was 
> that at some point it was going to fail again.
>
> Still, I'm only one the most successful race engine builders in 
> the UK for over 20 years so WTF do I know.

I'm only a precision engineer and toolmaker who has reconditioned 
and rebuilt a few engines, but even that is enough to be virtully 
certain that the OP is wasting time and money, especially when it 
can so easily be avoided by some simple checks.
Mike.

"Dave Baker"  wrote in message 
news:g9h6hf$8sf$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:6i2i0tFocdqkU2@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> You may not believe me, but you should believe Dave Baker. He works on 
>> engines for a living.
>> Mike.
>
> As my CNC engineer mate is fond of saying, "you can't educate pork." 
> Anyone who thinks it's a sensible idea to just put new shells in an engine 
> that's worn so badly the shells have slipped round without measuring the 
> big end journal and rod bore properly first deserves all they get. They 
> can do it properly second time round when it's started knocking again.
>
> Against my advice a mate tried the same trick with a 2 litre Zetec a 
> couple of years ago after the owner let it run out of oil. Here's the pics 
> of the crank and rods. They actually miked up within specs I'm told but 
> the surfaces were clearly knackered. They did polish them down with strips 
> of fine emery before fitting the new shells.
>
> http://www.quantums.info/pictures/nooil/pictureview.aspx
>
> Surprisingly it lasted for a holiday trip round Wales and a track day 
> event before starting to knock again. I wouldn't have given it that long 
> based on the damage. The only certainty was that at some point it was 
> going to fail again.
>
> Still, I'm only one the most successful race engine builders in the UK for 
> over 20 years so WTF do I know.
> -- 
> Dave Baker
>

I wouldn't dispute that you know a lot more than me, or my mate, and I don't 
think that I have said - or even implied - anything to the contrary in 
either this or allied threads, have I ? The whole purpose of posting here, 
was to get good advice and opinions. Based on what you say about the 
journals and con rod bores on your friend's 2 litre Zetec being within spec, 
then finding the same with mine is basically meaningless, as I am just as 
likely to find myself in the same situation. Looking at those pictures 
though, even with my limited experience of rebuilding engines 30 years ago, 
when I was just a kid, and did it for fun and lack of wonga, I would not 
have expected that particular rebuild to last for long. The surfaces of the 
journals and con rods/caps clearly look compromised. There is no such 
appearance on either item in my engine. To the naked eye, they *look* 
perfect and completely undamaged, but I of course bow to your experience, 
and accept that they may well not be. Incidentally, my engine did not run 
out of oil.

I also accept that this represents a risk that it will not last long once 
done, but it will at least give me the chance to look around to find 
something else that's going to suit me for a few years again, rather than 
being 'panicked' into buying another pile of crap, because I need to get 
mobile again. I don't do more than a hundred or so miles a week, so if I can 
get another six months at that level from it, it will be a result.

Just as a matter of interest, as you are clearly a person of great 
understanding on these matters, what is it about a modern engine, that seems 
to dictate that renewing the end shells is not an accepted repair procedure 
? Going back the 30 years again, it was common to get a big end knocking, 
and if the journals mic'd within spec for wear and ovality, and there was no 
sign of the hardening at the journal surface breaking up, then most people 
just used to slip a set of shells in, and that was an end to it. If I 
understand the principal correctly, the white metal lining of the shells is 
very soft in comparison to the hardened surfaces of the crank journals, and 
is thus the area that is 'designed' and intended to wear. Am I wrong on this 
?

Arfa

In article , Mike G says...

> How many engines have you worked on?

Obviously not very many.

> Since when has it been necessary to remove the c/s or the head to 
> check a conrod big-end? That's what this is about, not the bore 
> for a main c/s journal.
> 
Exactly. 


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams