The liners were �140 per set including VAT, not �60 each. Your liners were very low in the block, and when examined with the pistons removed and following careful inspection they were found to be ovalised and scuffed on the thrust faces. That’s why I measured them carefully and also why they were scrapped. The oiling problem that the engine suffered with was probably a contributory factor.
Without having seen the liners and had them measured myself I can’t comment on their sizes, I do know that they had around 2 thou standproud where your existing ones were lower than the block surface, that is confirmed by the step height measurements taken. I don’t remember checking the fit in the block at the time since there was no merit in re-using them, I do remember that they could be removed with zero effort from a cold block.
The liners I fitted were from the same source as the ones I have had measured here (AE) and there is no material difference in dimensions between them and the Rover equivalents supplied at the same time. I am happy to have them measured elsewhere to confirm that.
If Simon has information on the source of the liners that conflicts with the information I have been given from AE then we will need to resolve that. The liners were supplied by AE not some backstreet pattern part manufacturer and you will find their identifying number on the outside.
I’m sorry Dave but we have very different recollections of my engine build. I do not recall any discussion of the need to replace the liners at the time for any reason other than standproud. No issues with damage to the liners, no issues with movement in the block. I accepted at the time that the “improved” liners offered a better chance of addressing the liner height issue. There were no other reasons for the change. If there was indeed problems with the original liners moving in the block then why would we fit replacement liners that moved even more. There is no doubt whatsoever that the liners you supplied wobble in the block. When compared with the Rover standard liners the replacements are defective. I’m afraid the rest of your version of events is just not an accurate reflection of the work carried out last year.
My memory isn’t what it was, but I’m sure I was at Daves when your car was being done Mark. I’m 100% sure Dave suggested the engine was removed for a proper rebuild, but you wanted it done in the car.
Analysis of liners/block in situ is not the easiest or most accurate thing.
In any case, you have a nice new engine now. Had it mapped yet ?
When I was at Dave Walkers on Monday he mentioned he was going to be putting your car/engine on the rolling road this week, what figures did you arrive at Mark ?
Like I said, the fit of the original liners in the block was not tested since we could not use them due to the height issue. A cursory look at the liners showed some wear on the thrust faces which I commented looked like a lot for a 4000 mile engine. At this time you were shell-shocked due to the condition of your big-end shells, most of your attention was focussed on examining the heights of the new liners, at NO time did we
i) examine the fit of the old liners
ii) measure the old liners
iii) examine the thrust faces in detail or measure them
Simply because there would be no point as we were not re-using them and because our time was better spent doing the extra work (polishing the crank etc.) caused by the condition of your big-ends.
With due respect Mark, I have probably seen just a few more liners than you have and am better placed to make a judgement on the suitability of your old liners for re-use. Since we didn’t re-use them as their heights were well below spec. the point is moot. The only reason I posted the measurements was for completeness, I certainly dont want to labour the point since clearly the original fit of the liners has absolutely nothing to do with me, you or Simon and they were obviously low.
If you are suggesting that my measurements and observations are distortions then just come out and say it, believe me I have no reason at all to give misleading information about the condition of the engine when I saw it, particulalrly the liners which were shown to be defective, the various things that we found and showed you had already categorised it as a Friday afternoon special.
FWIW there were two other people present when the work was done on your engine, their recollections are broadly similar to mine.
Brian, you are correct in that the liner height issue was not one that could be fully resolved with the engine in the car. The only way to solve the problem would have been to have the block skimmed. What is at issue is whether the problems with the engine went far beyond a liner heights as Dave has suggested.
As Dave says there was clear signs of oil starvation on the main bearings. I have previously posted photos of the shell bearings on the seloc site so this is totally public however a glance at these picture will make it clear that the damage in nowhere close to the picture of complete collapse that Dave has suggested. Also I do not accept the assertion that there was any sign of damage to the liners on the thrust face or that there was any liner movement in the block with the original Rover liners. The reason this is significant is that it was the movement of the replacement liners which caused the damage to the pistons and liners and contributed to the HGF within 1,000 miles of the rebuild.
I am not saying that sticking with the original liners would have given me 100,000 miles of trouble free motoring. I am saying that the replacement liners exacerbated the problem.
and, yes, the car has been to Emerald and I am very happy with the result. As promised a full, frank and honest write up will follow but as yet I have not even driven the re-mapped car so I would ask for a chance to do this before I post up my views.
I will take it to Bedford on Monday for the Easytrack day so anyone who is there and is interested in seeing what it is like should come and say hello and I’ll take you for a spin (probably litterally!).
You say that you do not accept that there was any movement of the liners in the block with the original liners.
I maintain that it is not possible for you me or indeed anyone else to know that with any degree of certainty since we did not measure either the liners or the block on the day.
At the time there seemed little point in further investigating the liner conditon since we had alrwady decided not to use them on the basis of their low height.
Unless you know something about the liners that I do not then I don’t see how you can comment. The measurements I took from the original liners showed the lower ODs to be undersized by at least a thou which would indicate that they were a poor fit.
The big-end shells from your engine show signs of cavitation, I.E. missing bearing material exposing the underlying steel backing, by any definition the material had collapsed if parts of it were missing, even the slightest scuffing on a bearing will consign it to the graveyard. I showed you some bearings from an 80,000 mile engine which were pristine for comparison. Are you now telling me now that you don’t accept that your bearings were collapsing? We polished off a large amount of white metal that had been deposited on one of the crankpins. How would you describe a road surface with potholes? I would stake a large sum of money on those bearings not lasting another 500 miles in the condition they were in. Perhaps we should fit those bearings to your current engine and see how long they last.
Again I do not understand why you would want to query the bearing condition whic you can plainly see is awful, it is unequivocal that they were badly damaged and also quite clear that their condition had nothing to do with you, me or Simon.
Perhaps you could post a link to the pictures so that I can see how they compare with mine.
The problem I have Dave is that your description of my engine does not fit at all with my recollection of what we saw. Just to repeat what you have said: The OE Rover liners which came out of Mark’s engine were completely rogered too, heavy scuffing on thrust faces and heavy scratching, they were also on average 2 thou below the level of the block and an extremely loose fit in the cylinder bores, Mark knows this, he was present when they were removed. He had the option at the time to refit those liners together with ths stock pistons, or hone the orginal liners and refit with forged pistons or go with the new AE ones. Given the better fit and stand proud the decision seemed an easy one. The big-ends were not only run but were cavitated with large parts of the bearing material broken up and missing right through to the steel backing, the bearings also showed signs of turning in the big end eye. White metal shards were present in the sump and engine cavities. The fire ring on the head showed signs of darkening which is normally a warning of impending gasket failure There were also shards and spirals of aluminium in the voids in the head and several severaly gouged followers, all in an engine which had done only 4000 miles
This is my problem Dave, on the one hand you say that " I maintain that it is not possible for you me or indeed anyone else to know that with any degree of certainty since we did not measure either the liners or the block on the day. " and At the time there seemed little point in further investigating the liner conditon since we had alrwady decided not to use them on the basis of their low height". and on the other you say with absolute certainty that they were on average 2 thou below the block and an extremely loose fit in the block.
The fact is that the liners which you fitted are the ones that are an extremely loose fit in the block and although I am no expert I can feel how much they move around and how Rover OEM liners don’t when fitted to the same block. This is the issue. Irrespective of whether the original liners moved, the ones which you supplied are worse than the cheaper Rover parts. That was the original point Simon made and which you simply refuse to accept.
Secondly your description of the state of the shell bearings is an exageration, pure and simple. If the image hasn’t worked above it is also on the SELOC picture Library under “London miscellaneous”. The picture shows quite clearly that the bearing show evident signs of oil starvation and premature wear but not “large parts of the bearing material broken up and missing right through to the steel backing”.
I’m afraid that it looks to me that you are trying to paint a picture of an engine close to total meltdown as a justification for the fact that it failed to get past 1,000 miles before blowing a gasket and for the disasterous state of the liners, pistons and head when the engine was knocked down.
god i wish i understood engines, as i haven’t a clue what mh is going on about or whether poor old dave is winning the arguement and maintaining his reputation which i believe is a very good one from what i have read on this site.
i’m all for debate but is this going anywhere ?
My description of your old liners being a loose fit in the bore was based on the fact that they were easily removed from the block with any effort whatsoever. In my experience considerable effort is usually required to free the liners all the way from the block, the manual even suggest drifting them from the block. The susbequent measurement of the liners showed that the lower portions of the liners were significantly undersized, given those two pieces of information, one observed and one measured , the description that they were loose in the bore is sound. However I cannot prove that since the opportunity to do so has passed by.
Since the liners and pistons and rods and bearings were all replaced I dont see that it has any bearing on the fate of the engine. It simply illustrates that not all liners are a good fit in the block, not even Rover ones.
I have not refused to accept that the liners are a poor fit in the block, I have always said that I would like to see the liners in question and have them measured, so far I have not been afforded the ooportunity to to do that. When I have measured them if there is a problem with their dimensions then I will take it up with the manufacturer.
Brian, I absolutely agree that the bearings are in a shocking state for a 4,000 mile engine. However the condition of the bearings is not consistent with Dave’s description: “large parts of the bearing material broken up and missing right through to the steel backing, the bearings also showed signs of turning in the big end eye. White metal shards were present in the sump and engine cavities.”
There is absolutely nothing here that would support the suggestion that the bearings had broken up to the point where bearing material was circulating in the engine and causing the damage which Dave alleges existed in the engine at that time.
You have the benefit of the bearings in front of you Mark, I was pretty sure from my memories of them that at least one was torn/cavitated to the backing material and the photos I have here confirm that. It seems from your photos that I was mistaken on that detail, however they were in an awful state as witnessed by the pictures and certainly not far from complete failure. The fact that they were starting to turn in the big-end also shows that they were a short walk from disastrous failure. The photos I have here which show some heavily cavitated bearings are clearly not the same as yours so they are not your bearings…
Where have I suggested that bearing material was circulating in the engine and causing damage? I remarked that we found white metal in the sump (hardly surprising) and in the engine cavities (again hardly surprising). Most of the debris will find a place to sit and generally stay there until disturbed by gravity or centripedal forces. The oil filter will ensure that no shards of significant size will enter the oiling system (other than the pump and pickup). The odd bit of material might end up on the unerside of the piston but the chances are it will be rapdily removed by the piston as it descends.
The oil starvation which the engine had clearly suffered from can cause all sorts of problems in an engine, not just in the bearings, without suffucient oil there are many surfaces which will suffer from accelerated wear, scuffing, partial siezure, the list goes on.
I’ve just spent some happy time with 12 Rover liners and 4 AE ones together with 2 Rover blocks from known running engines. All of the Rover liners and all of the AE liners can easily be made to ‘wobble’ freely in the block when fitted dry to a cold block. Is this conclusive… probably not, does it prove anything… probably not. It just illustrates that correctly sized liners (measured and approved with dimensions stated above) from both Rover and AE cannot be guaranteed to be tight or a ‘non-wobbly’ fit in the block.
Where does this all end… in a Scholar conversion I expect.
So if I understand you correctly you have some pictures of some bearings which you believed to be my bearings. However, as I was there when we removed the bearings and you handed them to me to show to Dave Walker I know that no pictures were taken of my bearings at the time. The pictures I subsequently posted on Seloc of the bearings (over 1 year ago)are not in the condition which you thought they were ergo they were not responsible for “the white metal in the engine cavities and sump” which you suggested was present (and which again I do not recall being present).
The only reason I want this cleared up is that it seems to me you are suggesting the condition of the bearings was somehow a contributory factor in the subsequent failure of the engine 1,000 miles later (after we had replaced the bearings, liners, pistons and rods).
Where do you think the white metal from the bearings went if not into the oil/engine cavity/sump?
Where have I suggested that the bearing condition contributed in any way to the head gasket failure?
I do not remember whether I took pictures of your bearings or not, I ususally make a point of a photo diary of all rebuilds to ensure that any suspect components or any decisions made have evidence to back them up. It is unusual for me not to do this, that is why I have 000’s of photos here on my PC. It is probable that there wasnt the time on the day due to the massively increased workload we undertook.
Then at least we can agree on a couple of things! Firstly the condition of the bearings had no material influence on the subsequent failure of the head gasket or the present condition of the replacement liners.
Secondly That the condition of the bearings was not as bad as you initially thought as the pictures you have of some failed bearings are not mine.
The outstanding issues which we need to sort out at some point is whether the supplied liners were substandard and significantly out of tolerance and whether they were a major factor in the engine’s failure. As we have previously discussed I will bring these up to you when we can agree a date so we can hopefully establish the validity of the issue.
Just one last point, I’m not sure what the “massively increased workload” was. I was booked in for a replacement ported head with a new exhaust cam plus new pistons and con rods (which would have required new bearings anyway) so the only additional work was slipping the old liners out and new ones back in. As you said this was an easy task.
I’m glad that we are now agreed at least on some things.
The massively increased workload relates to the 4 times the sump had to come off to fit the windage plate, the decommisioning of the second oil/water intercooler and subsequent modification of the oil filter housing, the fitting of the remote oil temperature (or was it pressure sender), the fettling of the sump internal ribbing to clear the windage plate, the fettling of the windage plate to fit the engine cavity…
I am happy to have a dialogue about the failure of the engine and to confirm the contributing factors, following that I am happy to talk frankly about compensating you fairly for the bits of the conversion which were sub-standard. But I would like to see and test the various parts for myself so that I may remonstrate with the suppliers/ machine shop responsible.
