Very wise to check bearing clearance , my car is still on white metal bearings , I gave them .002' clearance , I believe the number stamped on the early con-rod is the engine number. I have serious shed envy !!!
I have had to email the suppliers of the crank/rods to find out what it should be. I may also have got a speck of something in one of the shell bearings. How I don't know as I am trying to keep everything spotless but I might need to replace that one. The bearings turn out to be ones from a 1992 (or 3?) Ford Orion Zetec 1.8 SI 16V engine. Not sure how easy they are to get in NZ but they aren't too pricey overseas.
The makers replied with this: "The commonly accepted rule that most crankshaft manufacturers prefer for street and performance engines is 0.0010-inch for every 1-inch of journal diameter." Handy to know and that matches what I have measured so that's good.
I re ringed a Renault 16 in the drive way when I was about 18 years old - a life time ago. It had very narrow bores like the Riley and also had wet sleeves in an alloy block. The big ends were 2-3 mm larger than the bores. Not understanding this I tried to push a rod up through the bore. The piston rings emerged but the big end jammed in the bore . Thinking the piston was stuck and having little visibility, I taped the big end up with a bit of wood. This pushed the sleeve, piston and rod up but also cracked the sleeve. I was very annoyed with myself at the time. The only good thing was you could take the sleeve out and find second hand one at the wreckers. From memory I think Renault had intended you buy exchange piston/ring/sleeve assemblies - way too expensive for an 18 year old.
Yes, pistons where the big ends won't fit down the bore are annoying! I am glad I made the engine mounting bracket for the block and my engine stand so I can easily rotate it. Being able to tip it on it's side makes things much easier to manage. It's always annoying when you break or ruin something from lack of knowledge but if there is no other way, manuals or someone to help, I guess that's how you gain the knowledge - at some cost!
It seems odd to fit the gudgeon pin last as you outlined - would you be better fitting piston to rod and installing from bottom before crank is in, and fit piston rings last with the pistons sticking up past the deck? Then fit crank and install caps. Beautiful rods tho - will be good insurance against failure. 👍
Yes, that would be a better way but on this engine you can't fit the pistons in from the bottom with the engine mount tube in place. That gets in the way for fitting the number 1 and 2 pistons. There is also a cast web that goes between 2 and 3 which might be in the way too. I'll have a look when I am next out in the shed!
@@asciimation all good - just thought it may be easier than fitting the gudgeon clips or whatever it uses in place. It's coming along though, slowly but surely. 😁
No oil behind the shells. The turning force on the shell In the rod not the cap dictates witch way round the rod goes.(the notch on the shell to stop it turning)
Very wise to check bearing clearance , my car is still on white metal bearings , I gave them .002' clearance , I believe the number stamped on the early con-rod is the engine number. I have serious shed envy !!!
I have had to email the suppliers of the crank/rods to find out what it should be. I may also have got a speck of something in one of the shell bearings. How I don't know as I am trying to keep everything spotless but I might need to replace that one. The bearings turn out to be ones from a 1992 (or 3?) Ford Orion Zetec 1.8 SI 16V engine. Not sure how easy they are to get in NZ but they aren't too pricey overseas.
The makers replied with this: "The commonly accepted rule that most crankshaft manufacturers prefer for street and performance engines is 0.0010-inch for every 1-inch of journal diameter."
Handy to know and that matches what I have measured so that's good.
I re ringed a Renault 16 in the drive way when I was about 18 years old - a life time ago. It had very narrow bores like the Riley and also had wet sleeves in an alloy block. The big ends were 2-3 mm larger than the bores. Not understanding this I tried to push a rod up through the bore. The piston rings emerged but the big end jammed in the bore . Thinking the piston was stuck and having little visibility, I taped the big end up with a bit of wood. This pushed the sleeve, piston and rod up but also cracked the sleeve. I was very annoyed with myself at the time.
The only good thing was you could take the sleeve out and find second hand one at the wreckers. From memory I think Renault had intended you buy exchange piston/ring/sleeve assemblies - way too expensive for an 18 year old.
Yes, pistons where the big ends won't fit down the bore are annoying! I am glad I made the engine mounting bracket for the block and my engine stand so I can easily rotate it. Being able to tip it on it's side makes things much easier to manage. It's always annoying when you break or ruin something from lack of knowledge but if there is no other way, manuals or someone to help, I guess that's how you gain the knowledge - at some cost!
I hope the rainbow brings you good luck with the Riley.
It's a pity I didn't find the pot of gold at the end of it to help offset some of the costs!
It seems odd to fit the gudgeon pin last as you outlined - would you be better fitting piston to rod and installing from bottom before crank is in, and fit piston rings last with the pistons sticking up past the deck? Then fit crank and install caps. Beautiful rods tho - will be good insurance against failure. 👍
Yes, that would be a better way but on this engine you can't fit the pistons in from the bottom with the engine mount tube in place. That gets in the way for fitting the number 1 and 2 pistons. There is also a cast web that goes between 2 and 3 which might be in the way too. I'll have a look when I am next out in the shed!
@@asciimation all good - just thought it may be easier than fitting the gudgeon clips or whatever it uses in place. It's coming along though, slowly but surely. 😁
No oil behind the shells. The turning force on the shell In the rod not the cap dictates witch way round the rod goes.(the notch on the shell to stop it turning)
No oil behind the shells, they should never move so do not require lubrication and this would close the measured clearance