On the bore gage is the fixed anvil opposite the indicator head? Also the weight of the head can cause the gage not to center in the bore when used horizontally. Can you provide some support with the free hand under the gauge head and see what you get? Or, rotate the block 90 degrees and check.

 

Fixed anvil points away from the indicator.

I thought of that on the way home... I'll rotating the block tomorrow and see if that impacts the horizontal readings. That being said I think if that was effecting things the readings would be more inconsistent, and when I measured the T444E block the horizontal readings were consistently just a couple tenths off from the vertical readings. Plus the caliper is echoing the bore gage too.

The centralizer springs are quite strong and the plungers move silky smooth. Definitely works a lot better than the mitutoyo bore gage I used to use.

 

Same findings

Took the block back to the shop. The owner measured with his Sunnen gage and it read similarly to mine. He struggled for a while to understand how this was possible... We both looked over one of his reference books on auto machining and evidently the shoes on the hone being too loose can cause this type of out of round.

A contracted employee did the work and told him it checked out... he's going to have words with them later. The whole time he offered apologies and said this will be made right. Doesn't want his name on bad work.

Basically I got compensated for the price of my block, and when I bring him another one he'll redo the machine work on it himself with 1-2 week turnaround.

To those thinking about building their own engine, a big takeaway is that unless you have a machinist you totally trust and has a bullet proof reputation, get your own measuring equipment and measure everything.

 

If you didn't have bad luck, you'd have no luck at all.

Been focused on the main bores....but what about the cylinder sizing?

 

Dang! Rotten luck once again. I feel for you.

They can resize the crank bores but it will move the crank up in the block.

Broke a cap on my 289 and had this done with a new cap to save the block. It required a special shorter timing chain after this. Not sure how that would play in with the gear configuration of the 7.3.

Sounds like your machinist is solid but he has trouble finding good help. 🫤 Maybe he needs to start reviewing his employees’ work before sending it out. At least until he knows who he can trust. I’m so glad I don’t own a business!

This is a new shop correct? Not the original one that botched the first block?

 

You have a lot more patience than 99% of the population on this planet. If... If the next shot at your hot rod engine goes silly like the rest of them have, maybe it is time to sell off what you won't need after going with a remanufactured engine and calling it done.

Sometimes we need to adjust our hopes and aspirations in order for them to be realized.

Reference link: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...l#post20750408

 

To lower the main cap seat in the block enough to "get back" the .0044....I'd wager a vast sum of money that the crank/cam gear would bind, and will change the piston height. So the pistons would need to be cut or the center to center distance of the connecting rods be changed.

 

@PriusLover , I think you should cut your losses with this machine shop and find a more reputable shop. This seems like the umpteenth time they have messed up and they do not seem to learn from their mistakes.

 

Seems like CNC Fabrication and Diesel would be a great choice. It may have cost more and the hassle of freight shipping would be involved, but this "adventure" may have been over months ago.

 

I think I measured it but I don't think I put much effort in to measuring accurately. I recall it being a little bigger than I wanted, but I think the machinist was trying to accommodate for the piston coating. He said for this do-over to give him a number and he'll hit it. I think I need to call up the coater and see if they recommend accommodating the extra width in the bore.

Yeah this is the new shop. That's an extremely common refrain I hear when talking with machinists, though usually in the context of younger hires who are inexperienced. Owner said the guy who did the honing has several decades under his belt, hence the surprise that he screwed up.

This is the second, more reputable machine shop. I went with them because the owner took a bore gage to the valve guides to show me the OG shop work was bad.

Yeah that probably would have been the best option from the get go.




Got the crank back from the balancing shop. The Brian Crower rods are 200grams each lighter than the stock rods, so they had to take a ton off the counterweights. All the journals are in spec and within a tenth or two of eachother.

Started measuring rod bores... the crank bearing bores look good, the pin bushing end were a bit odd; I initially set the gauge to the International spec and they seemed somewhat large. Looked at the Ford book and the large end of the spec is a few tenths larger than IH. The tolerance is a thousanth and the rods are all at or slightly over the large end, so that's annoying. Would expect something a little tighter from billet rods.



This setting fixture finally arrived and has so far make checking bores extremely fast. Sunnen uses a similar fixture for setting their gauges... now I know why every auto machine shop has one of their gauge sets.

 

Found a notepad with the one cylinder I measured. The Ford book says 4.12425" bore size for 0.020" over pistons, so that's what I set the gauge to. The gauge read ~6 thou over that. Just saw the label on the Mahle pistons box says "4.130 bore size", so it appears the machinist was on target with their intended bore size for the cylinder I measured, and the Ford manual I got has a misprint.

 

Brought another crank case to the machine shop and we went over the main bearing bores. IIRC on the vertical they were either at minimum spec or a few tenths under. On the horizontal near/at the parting line 5-8 tenths above minimum. We then torqued up the cap we were measuring with the ARP studs, and the dimension changed to 2.1 thousands below minimum diameter on the vertical (expected), and 1.5 thou above minimum on the horizontal at the parting line (book tolerance for the bore is one thou)... so it's egg shaped.

Area circled in read is roughly where it goes above tolerance with the ARP studs.



The machinist thinks the hone operator was chasing the vertical diameter and just didn't expect the horizontal diameter to be opened up so much by the ARP studs, and therefore didn't realize the hone was taking so much off.

It seems like a line bore is the only option. But if that's done, the area near the parting line would still be over sized by half a thousandth. The machinist says that some clients just run their engines line that in situations where the caps can't be cut anymore or what have you.

Here's an example he showed me (blue circle is where the boring head didn't touch the material).


The big question is how to proceed. Cutting the caps means there's a possibility the cam gear won't mesh correctly, but that seems to be the only way bring the horizontal diameter back in to tolerance. How is it that some people just get away with a line hone after studding the bottom end?

 

Sometimes ignorance is bliss?

 

If you had, as you drew the red box around, that area being .0005 big....I'd run it. Isn't there a bit of crush on the bearing shells when torqued?

 

That's what I was thinking. Torquing those bolts will distort the cap, block and then the bearing a tiny bit.

I'd run it and change oil after 500 miles.