Wally-T
64 Signet
Now that waguy told me where to buy a sleeve, who knows the max bore out for the 225? The sleeves come in 3/16 or 1/8th wall thickness.
Max bore out size for a 225?
- Thread starter Wally-T
- Start date
-
That is a block by block dependent question/answer. I had the '68 block in the 'Killer6' bored .060" over, one cylinder showed porosity/occluded sand & had to be sleeved, some take a .100" overbore. What is the goal in mind?
Most will take .100" and not breath hard. I have a couple that sonic test almost 3/8" cylinders. They are not a lightweight casting. But as mentioned, best to have it sonic tested.
What's the goal
I prefer to bore any engine the least needed to "square up" and bring clearances into spec, by which oversized parts are readily available.
My last /6 only took 0.020. That way if something happens down the road it can be bored again.
In the future I can go 0.030, 0.040, 0.060 if needed without a sleeve job.
I prefer to bore any engine the least needed to "square up" and bring clearances into spec, by which oversized parts are readily available.
My last /6 only took 0.020. That way if something happens down the road it can be bored again.
In the future I can go 0.030, 0.040, 0.060 if needed without a sleeve job.
I have a short block sitting as a spare that's .060 over, and the guy I got it from said there was plenty of meat left. My racing buddy has two that are .100 over but he agrees with those above, this is somewhat block-specific.
slantsixdan
=..=
And then there's the Argentinian '906' big Slant-6 block (3.6" factory), which at stock bore and with stock 225 stroke of 4.125" will get you a 252 cubic inch engine. Bore that block to 3.66" and you're a bit over 260 cubes.
Me, I've always thought it would be fun to arrange bores and strokes so as to arrive at 273 cubic inches, then build it up with a 4-barrel, finned aluminum valve cover painted crackle-black with the fins polished, etc, and dress it up with readily-available 273 Commando decals to mess with people.
But saying "It's a 252" and letting 'em wear themselves out knowitallsplaining how it's really a 225 and then showing the receipts could be fun, too.
Me, I've always thought it would be fun to arrange bores and strokes so as to arrive at 273 cubic inches, then build it up with a 4-barrel, finned aluminum valve cover painted crackle-black with the fins polished, etc, and dress it up with readily-available 273 Commando decals to mess with people.
But saying "It's a 252" and letting 'em wear themselves out knowitallsplaining how it's really a 225 and then showing the receipts could be fun, too.
Yeah, I worked that combo out on paper,...it'd be great to do it offset-sleeving it, but it introduces balance complications when the bore axis is offset from the crankshaft axis. I'd like to see the crankcase where the bores are adjacent to the cam tunnel.
Badvert65
Long Time Mopar Nut
Would be nice if we could get some Argentine 906 blocks here in the US.
Run down there and get us some! lol
Wally-T
64 Signet
Ok folks. Thanks for all the replies!
But I should have given more info, it seems, lol.
The engine came out of an early 80's D150 that I bought to do some upgrades to my 63 Savoy. It hadn't run for years, and was still in the truck until about a week before I bought it, so I decided to start it on the floor before I installed it. Well, it ran soooo good that I did a little jig haha. Smooth idle, and just a little bit of black smoke from me pouring far too much fuel down the carb to get it started. So I decided that it deserved a new head and pan gasket before I stab it into the car. Imagine my surprise when I found a 1/4 inch wide groove running all the way down one bore that's about 4 thou deep, and no crazy oil smoke! Rats I say!!! Anyway, the other bores are totally acceptable (to me, anyway, lol.)' and so I'm just going to ball hone them and re ring the old pistons. If the crank is good, I'll just give it a little spit and polish, and some new bearings.
So if I,m going to sleeve the one bore, and I am, would I be better off with the thicker sleeve, or the thinner one? I could have made a long story short (like my first post), but I rather enjoyed this
Thanks folks.
Wally.
But I should have given more info, it seems, lol.
The engine came out of an early 80's D150 that I bought to do some upgrades to my 63 Savoy. It hadn't run for years, and was still in the truck until about a week before I bought it, so I decided to start it on the floor before I installed it. Well, it ran soooo good that I did a little jig haha. Smooth idle, and just a little bit of black smoke from me pouring far too much fuel down the carb to get it started. So I decided that it deserved a new head and pan gasket before I stab it into the car. Imagine my surprise when I found a 1/4 inch wide groove running all the way down one bore that's about 4 thou deep, and no crazy oil smoke! Rats I say!!! Anyway, the other bores are totally acceptable (to me, anyway, lol.)' and so I'm just going to ball hone them and re ring the old pistons. If the crank is good, I'll just give it a little spit and polish, and some new bearings.
So if I,m going to sleeve the one bore, and I am, would I be better off with the thicker sleeve, or the thinner one? I could have made a long story short (like my first post), but I rather enjoyed this
Thanks folks.Wally.
Wally-T
64 Signet
Thanks, just looking to save money by not buying pistons, unless I can get away with 20 thou over rings on the old pistons, then I would consider it. Is that feasible ?
Charrlie_S
Well-Known Member
Compare pricing of 6 pistons, and over bore of 6 cylinders to the cost of the sleeve, and machine work. That will give you your answer. You need to buy new rings either way. I would not put .020 rings on std pistons.
-
Similar threads
