AMEN. I'm still waiting for Al to get back too. Sounds like an interesting guy.

Other than that I cannot find ANY more relevant information worth posting along with my retorts, so I am done with this thread. Come to our rescue Al, we're counting on you.

_________________
I've been calling it as i see it for my entire life and that's not about to change. Take it or leave it.

Actually, come to think of it, I suppose a method could be devised to spray weld the inside of a cylinder bore with a more resilient metal, god knows how much metallurgical engineering would be involved, but I would think it would be much easier to bore to a crazy diameter and press a chrome sleeve into the bore. Maybe one fashioned with a jig boring machine. Sleeving is done on regular blocks at reman shops all the time...

_________________
I've been calling it as i see it for my entire life and that's not about to change. Take it or leave it.

Doc I am sorry that the post went to the extremes it did, I was only trying to state my point that Morrow has no clue about automotive machining procedures, only industrial/prototype machining procedures, like steponmebbbboom has said. Industrial machining, while in operations are similar to automotive machining, are in fact at 2 completely opposite poles and have their own preferred methods for certain jobs. Since most of the other posters seem to agree with the common methods traditionally used for automotive engine machine work, I would have to say Morrow's ideas for machining an engine are a little on the outside extreme of the norm, and he would be far from expert on the subject. This was not supposed to be about "politics" in anyway, just getting the correct information out there to the users of this board....sharing correct info, wasn't that what this was supposed to be all about?

And as far as I'm concerned this is my last contribution to this particular post, as it seems to have played itself out with nothing more to do with the original subject.

_________________
"That thing gotta HEMI in it??"

Agreed.
Overall, this has been a good discussion, covered everything from the shade tree re-ring hone job all the way up to state-of-art jig boring equipment.
As for my "opinions and politics" statement, it was not directed at anyone, I just wanted to point us back to the origional topic.
Truth is that I have pretty "thick skin". (it must come from running Slants for all these years) This type of message board "banter" does not bother me but we do want to keep the site friendly.
DD

Well, fellows. It is an interesting topic. Since I am just a simple minded country boy, I believe if I ever rering an engine I will try it without glaze breaking! It can't be any worse than the fiascos my last two engine rebuilds turned into. Rhetorical question; "Why can't a man get some decent machine shop service?"

The GE /GM locomotives (not Detroit Diesel) origninaly called for chrome liners with cast piston rings. The theory was that this created lower cost overhauls because most initial overhaul cycles would just require new rings, not cylinder removal and reconditioning.
A chrome surface was the medium of choice because when hard chrome is plated (not decorative chrome) the chromium 6 (yes of Erin Brockovich (sp?) fame) is laid down at very high current densities. This produces high molecular stresses in the deposit being laid down. This stress builds up until it creates a small fracture in the chrome deposit. Under a microscope, the surface looks like a dried up mud puddle. The lining is build up with layers of cracks upon layers of cracks. These micro cracks effectively create the porous surface which retains oil. Being chrome, the surface gradually wears but rather than becoming completely smooth, removal of chrome keeps on exposing more micro voids which keeps on creating the beneficial oil retention pockets. Once the chrome had been applied, the surface was honed using diamond surfaced stones and the diameter was expanded slightly (called a Mae West) around the ports to supposedly reduce ring pressure due to reduced supporting area.



The problem ended up being the eviromental concerns around hard chrome plating. (3000 gal tanks of chromic acid at 130'F with sulphuric and hydrofluoric acid as catalysts) Between emissions controls, spent solution disposal challenges and employee health concerns, an alternative solution had to be found and thats when the shift was made to cast liner/chrome rings. unfortunetly, when a cast surface wears, the beneficial oil retaining nature of the cross hatch lessens and lessens, thereby accelerating wear rates.

We also used spray welding to build up worn external location surfaces but we never achieved the bond strength we were really looking for.

see above

_________________
Cheers!
Al T

Not me. I hate this kind of stuff. If we disagree, we can do so in a considerate way. slantsix.org is one of the few "nice" boards I visit and I'd like it to stay that way.

Everybody shake hands and kum bah yah. It's Christmas.

_________________
It's a Slant thing. Even I don't understand.

1974 Duster, EFI /6 soon to be turbo...

Get that Monkay! Get that nasty thing!!