<VV> Junkyard dog questions

[Mark Durham]

Kevin, if you have machine marks that match around the bearing and cam
journals, YOU DO NOT HAVE A MIS MATCHED CASE.  Ignore the fact that
the block halves may be from different cast molds. Each cast mold has
specific common spots they use to jig up the half to machine. Once the
cases are put in the jig and bored, milled, drilled, and matched, when
all that matches, the rest provides strenght and keeps the oil in, so
it doesn't really matter. So, if you put a 8409 crank in it, you only
have half as many reliefs to do!

Bearings. I just took my 62 102 apart last week, and the bearings had
standard numbers on them.  If they were oversize, it would be marked
.001. .002, .010, .020, .030,  etc. along with the bearing number.
Mark Durham


On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:22 AM, kevin nash <wrokit at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>  I bought a early spyder engine off of e-bay some time ago, so as to have a back-up junkyard dog engine to install
> in case I needed to do some work on my current engine. I've got the j/d engine all the way apart, and have some
> questions. The main bearings dont have any markings on them to tell if they are std. or oversize-did factory main
> bearings have any markings like that? also, the crankcase is a YR block, but one half has the cast in relief for a late
> crank, the other half does not. Interestingly enough, all of the parting lines at the cam journals appear to line up
> perfectly, as though the block was machined as a set, and the oil pan gasket surface has machining lines that match.
> The crank is a early turbo crank (has the correct number for a early turbo crank). The crank main bearings have NO
> scratches in them, the pistons have NO scratches on the skirts, the oil filter was orange with those kooky little slots
> along the bottom that required some sort of spline like tool to remove it, intead of a strap wrench. The heads are
> early turbo heads, and most (not all) of the rocker arm locknuts are the original style.
>
> I'm wanting to use this block, because the lifter bores appear to be in excellent shape (still have most of the machining
> lines on them) and the cam journals "look" really nice, but I'm a little spooked about the block halves being two different
> years. I know that I need to actually measure the relevant clearances first, and havent yet, but want to know if any of you have
> successfully run a corvair engine that had non-matched block halves.
> Thanks!
> Kevin Nash, early turbo, daily driver
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are the property
> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
> Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
>  _______________________________________________
>