Regrettable Engine strip down !!!! I think " Follow up". But it's not over.

 [attachment=13961 wrote: dial bore gauge.jpg[/attachment]z13phil post=34580 userid=1216"]OK Guys, Update. Pulled the cylinder, all looked at first to be normal. But closer inspection and about $150 later, started taking precision measurements. $150 decided to invest in a new digital vernier caliper, Japanese one and not a fake. What a difference this made, my old vernier was driving me mad. 
removed piston #1 top ring looked wafer thin only 0.81 at its thinnest point. Ring end gap 1.11 mm Fail
Second ring thickness Pass @ 0.96 mm  But end ring gap 1.38mm Big fail
Piston diameter 61.99 so a Pass
Bore diameter measured in three places as to workshop manual  61.97 mm within specification this includes side to side and front to back. A few micro lines up and down the bore, But very fine indeed. 
So time to get the other pistons out.
will keep you updated 






 

Something's goofy with the numbers. Piston diameter is .02mm larger than the bore????
Bore diameter is less than 62mm?? I would have expected a bore diameter of 62mm - 62.03mm on a new cylinder. Used cylinder in good shape - 62.05mm, cylinder in reasonable shape but well worn 62.1mm

When you checked the ring end gap, did you square the ring up to the bore by inserting the ring in the bore and then used the piston crown to push the ring square to the bore before measuring??
Never heard of rings wearing thin in the vertical plane, so that tells me someone else had a go at doing a ring job and fitted new rings that were not 1.00mm thick.

Did you use a dial bore gauge like this one to measure the cylinders and use a 2-3" mic to set up the dial bore gauge?? 


 

Kawboy post=34582 userid=599

 [attachment=13961 wrote: dial bore gauge.jpg[/attachment]z13phil post=34580 userid=1216"]OK Guys, Update. Pulled the cylinder, all looked at first to be normal. But closer inspection and about $150 later, started taking precision measurements. $150 decided to invest in a new digital vernier caliper, Japanese one and not a fake. What a difference this made, my old vernier was driving me mad. 
removed piston #1 top ring looked wafer thin only 0.81 at its thinnest point. Ring end gap 1.11 mm Fail
Second ring thickness Pass @ 0.96 mm  But end ring gap 1.38mm Big fail
Piston diameter 61.99 so a Pass
Bore diameter measured in three places as to workshop manual  61.97 mm within specification this includes side to side and front to back. A few micro lines up and down the bore, But very fine indeed. 
So time to get the other pistons out.
will keep you updated 








 

Something's goofy with the numbers. Piston diameter is .02mm larger than the bore????
Bore diameter is less than 62mm?? I would have expected a bore diameter of 62mm - 62.03mm on a new cylinder. Used cylinder in good shape - 62.05mm, cylinder in reasonable shape but well worn 62.1mm
Ok Kawboy, see where you are coming from . This maybe the instrument used, the new caliper is 100% I've tested it with gauge plates. But it could be the internal bore gauge. This is the T type with the spring loaded arm, that you lock at the specific diameter then measure out of the bore. ?

When you checked the ring end gap, did you square the ring up to the bore by inserting the ring in the bore and then used the piston crown to push the ring square to the bore before measuring??   Yes exactly as stated in the manual.
Never heard of rings wearing thin in the vertical plane, so that tells me someone else had a go at doing a ring job and fitted new rings that were not 1.00mm thick.
Also the Top ring was not marked with the way up indicator, and no chamfer on the ring edge either !! the inside of the ring where it fitted into the piston ring groove was thinner than the outer edge.  So much you can see it !

Did you use a dial bore gauge like this one to measure the cylinders and use a 2-3" mic to set up the dial bore gauge?? 
No Kawboy, I don't  have the use of this instrument . As stated above.