6 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHCylinder bore clearance.
Reported or suspected cause
bore(s)
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
Then you examine your measurements to identify suspect bore(s).
Leading evidence: 'bore(s)' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'bore(s)' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Use rings and pin them' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Are you planning to re-use the old rings and pin them?
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
6 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T152433Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Before we go further - you have the tools to measure ovality and taper at 3 levels of the bore and 3 positions at each level to a tolerance of less than 1/10th of 1 thousandth of an inch ? And the skills to use those tools ?
I ask because few of us(me too!!) have both. This is FAA master tech level of precision and technique.
I mention this because it is a daunting task to complete with meaningful accuracy.
Are you planning to re-use the old rings and pin them?
We just covered the method of doing this in my most recent M96 Hi Performance class... Schnell brings up good points. Out of 15 techs in the class, only 3 of them had ever made this measurement before.
The difference in measurements with this can come from something as minute as how you hold the bore gauge.
And you have to record all the measurements on a chart and do each one x2 or x3 and keep doing it until you consistently get the same measurement and at the same(crankcase not ambient) temperature. I could go on.It takes ages to do correctly.
Then you examine your measurements to identify suspect bore(s). Then you re-measure them in more detail so you can draw to full scale the exact extreme taper &/or ovality.By the time you are done, you will have taken hundreds of measurements.
Then you need an expert to interpret your measurements.
Yes this seems excessive but how else can you know how bad the problem is? Get it wrong and you have a very mediocre $10K rebuild.
Based on my observations of others doing this, the average Machinist has neither the patience nor budget to do this task adequately. You loose most of us (me too)consistently measuring to 1/10th of 1 thou ".
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
