My guess is that the spec gives you a range of .005, and the range of #1 at
the bottom is .008 and .006 in the middle, but only .004 at the top. The
bottom and middle are out of spec, regardless of what the absolute
measurement is.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Kaleb C. Striplin <ka...@striplin.net>wrote:

> Yea, I have an electronic bore guage but I dont think I am using it
> properly. I did measure everything before I pulled the engine out and posted
> the results I got, but I am not sure if I am reading it correctly or what I
> am even seeing.  Here is that email with the results
>
> Ok, so I measured to bores today with my HF electronic bore gauge.  Keep in
> mind I have never done this before, and not sure if I even did it right.
>  Here is what I did.  I set my HF digital caliper to the spec of the bore,
> approx 89.01.  With it set there bore gauge gives a base reading of -
> .424mm.  Below are the measuring points I took
>
> 1=bottom of cyl
> 2=middle of cyl
> 3=top of cyl
> a=longitudinal
> b=lateral
>
> This is what I got for measurements.  On some of these, I took the same
> measurement SEVERAL times till I was able to somewhat repeat the results,
> all numbers are actually -(negative).
> Cylinder              #1                          #2
>  #3
>                   a             b             a              b         a
>          b
>
> #1               .418        .410       .416          .410     .422
> .398
> #2               .426        .416       .422          .418     .420
> .418
> #3               .426        .422       .422          .420     .420
> .412
> #4               .428   (not record) .420          .424     .412       .412
> #5               .424        .418       .420          .420     .420
> .420
> #6               .426        .426       .426          .428     .414
> .422
>
> So, thats what I got.  Trying to figure out if any of this tells me if I
> have ovaled cylinders or not.  Basically the spec is 89.007-89.012, so we
> will say that the base setting of -.424 is 89.01, then the numbers listed
> above, such as the first one -.418, that measurement would be about .006
> more than the base measurement of 89.01, correct?  Or is my math all wrong
> here.  Given the numbers above, and the fact that I am no expert, does it
> seem like I might have a problem?
>
>
>
> --
> OK Don
> CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
> distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with
> others.
> The Devil's Dictionary
> Ambrose Bierce
>
>
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Reply via email to