TOPIC:

Thanks KB. Notched at bottom to prevent rotation? And there really are two o-rings at bottom?

Me thinks these will be going back in.. LA Sleeve be proud of their merchandise..

dcarver220b wrote:

Thanks KB. Notched at bottom to prevent rotation? And there really are two o-rings at bottom?
Notch on the bottom is connecting rod clearance.  2 Nitrile o rings in grooves in the cylinder block at the bottom.
Me thinks these will be going back in.. LA Sleeve be proud of their merchandise..
it ain't over till I find out the price and possibly look for 66mm wet sleeves that could be modified to fit. There are a ton of  wet sleeves on the market for $70-80 a piece.  Melling comes to mind. Most industrial diesels are wet sleeved

 

I started this exercise to see just what could be done to go "Big Bore". First I needed to measure up the "stock" liner and get my head wrapped around what kind of wall thickness a stock cylinder had, so after cleaning up the removed liner, I made a drawing of the liner and I'm sharing it with whomever cares to see. It's close enough to work with but, if you plan on having liners machined up, a few of the numbers would need to be jiggled. These measurements were taken with a vernier caliper, not outside mics. I also did a drawing and jigged the numbers to show what happens when you bore out for the 64mm pistons like either the Cruzin Image pistons available on EBay for $250 USD. I have some serious concerns about the wall thickness more so at the area where the lower seals are on the liner. I don't like how thin the cylinder liner is on the bottom .058" since this is where the support for the liner against the thrust of the piston takes place.

From what you’ve found, it casts doubt on Gert Roewer’s claims to have used 67mm pistons, if the block cannot accommodate larger liners.

biltonjim wrote:

From what you’ve found, it casts doubt on Gert Roewer’s claims to have used 67mm pistons, if the block cannot accommodate larger liners.

Never say never. I want to talk to a machine shop about oversize liners with no o ring on the top groove. I see lots of mods done where the web between the cylinders is removes and the sealing of the water jacket at the top is accomplished with the head gasket.
There's 2 - .103 thick Nitrile o rings at the bottom, and I wonder why 2. Were they thinking they needed one to seal the crankcase oil from the upper o ring that was sealing the coolant?
The O ring at the top was a .080" thick Nitrile or maybe NPR o ring and they were heat deformed and flat on the OD and round on the ID. The gasket kits come with silicone o rings for the top groove and silicone has a higher heat resistance (better)
Lots of pics on the Darton Sleeve website showing highly modified cylinder blocks where the cut out the cast in place liners and machined for big bore wet sleeve liners and it's obvious that there are no o rings at the top of the liner.

 

This is a small block Ford engine. Note that there's no web between the cylinder bores

 

This is the sleeve for the above engine. Note there are no o ring grooves on the sleeve at all. They must use some kind of liquid sealer at the bottom. RTV silicone?? Worth investigating.

Kawboy wrote:

biltonjim wrote:

From what you’ve found, it casts doubt on Gert Roewer’s claims to have used 67mm pistons, if the block cannot accommodate larger liners.

 
 

This is the sleeve for the above engine. Note there are no o ring grooves on the sleeve at all. They must use some kind of liquid sealer at the bottom. RTV silicone?? Worth investigating.

Oops !! Just found out that there are 3 very small diameter o rings at the bottom of the sleeve. (.070" dia. maybe??) Still investigating.