I took my perkins ad3.152 block to the machinist today to have them check the top for trueness. I had not put the new cylinder sleeves in yet. They said I should put the sleeves in first then bring back to see if any sleeve is protuding out, so that if they need to "deck it" it will take a bit of any protuding sleeve flange off, making the surface flush. It made sense to me, but knowing how delicate those sleeves are, is there a risk of the sleeves getting cracked if they deck the top of the block with the sleeves in? The sleeves are supposed to be flush to 0.004" below the block top face. Any fast advise here would be great since I need to take it back to them tomorrow.
DavidP, South Wales
Well-known Member
Hi,
I wpuld agree with MPM1, I would not like to have the liners machined and I would be very reluctant to have them ground. It is extremely rare to have block face problems unless it is pitted through rust etc. The liner stand-down of zerp tp 004" is important. If your new liners exceed this figure shims are available to bring it back to spec. Why do you suspect problems in the block face?
DavidP
I wpuld agree with MPM1, I would not like to have the liners machined and I would be very reluctant to have them ground. It is extremely rare to have block face problems unless it is pitted through rust etc. The liner stand-down of zerp tp 004" is important. If your new liners exceed this figure shims are available to bring it back to spec. Why do you suspect problems in the block face?
DavidP
Masseynut(Australia)
Member
When I have rebuilt these early engines, I have always stipulated to the machine shop to deck the block first, (if necessary), then re-cut the recesses to give protrusion of .006" on the liners, before they are fitted. You will have less problems in the future with head-gaskets failing between the cylinders if you carry out this procedure.
The liners should then have a Loctite retainer smeared on the last 1" of the protruding liner, before it is pushed, or pressed home.
Re-tensioning the head after the engine has been run up to operating temperature initially, and again periodically at 25 hours after that, is recommended. When the head nuts will not tension down any further, can you assume the gasket has "settled", and should then be fail-safe. Always back off each nut by half a turn, before re-tensioning the nut down, taking note of it's original position, for reference.
My 2 cents worth,
Evan.
The liners should then have a Loctite retainer smeared on the last 1" of the protruding liner, before it is pushed, or pressed home.
Re-tensioning the head after the engine has been run up to operating temperature initially, and again periodically at 25 hours after that, is recommended. When the head nuts will not tension down any further, can you assume the gasket has "settled", and should then be fail-safe. Always back off each nut by half a turn, before re-tensioning the nut down, taking note of it's original position, for reference.
My 2 cents worth,
Evan.
I didn't...I was just following the manual and it said to check the block face for anything out of 0.003".
As I was prepping my liners last, I found a dent in the flange with one and had to order a new one due to shipping errors, so I took the block back in this morning without having put the liners in and had them check it with a straight edge. The guy put a straightedge on it only at one angle and looked for light to pass through (this was done outside with the sun) and they said they couldn't see any light, so they said they didn't think there was anything to be concerned about. They mentioned that this was not the best way to check for trueness, but the block should be put on a certain machine and tested for trueness in combination with the mains, and they showed me the machine.
I may take it back in and have them check it one more time as the guy that checked it was the number 2 guy, and the number 1 guy (owner) was recommended by a Napa owner I've known for 15 years, as well as his number 2 guy. Sometimes the number 2 guy is good, but is speaking for number 1 who really knows what needs to be done.
Maybe it's fine and I shouldn't worry about it...I was just following what the manual said...I'm doing a lot of learning here.
Masseynut(Australia)
Member
I don't use any type of "sealer" on the gasket as a rule, although Perkins recommend "Hylomar" sealant, on many head gasket applications. Copper faced gaskets are better fitted dry, and the protrusion I mentioned will give you a good outcome. Just remember to "re-torque" at 25 hour intervals.
Evan.
Evan.
Masseynut(Australia)
Member
Yes, the liner protrusion should be .006" after fitment.
I have had more success in rebuilding these early engines, using this method, than "sticking to the rules" as per the manual. Head gasket failure is reasonably is common with these engines,(between the cylinders), because the spacing between the centre studs in the area between each cylinder is too great. There is difficulty getting and maintaining "crush" on the gasket in this area, especially after a rebuild, unless retorquing is carried out periodically at 25 hour intervals. The "extra" protrusion gives a more positive seal between the liner and cylinder head.
Hope this makes sense,
Evan.
I have had more success in rebuilding these early engines, using this method, than "sticking to the rules" as per the manual. Head gasket failure is reasonably is common with these engines,(between the cylinders), because the spacing between the centre studs in the area between each cylinder is too great. There is difficulty getting and maintaining "crush" on the gasket in this area, especially after a rebuild, unless retorquing is carried out periodically at 25 hour intervals. The "extra" protrusion gives a more positive seal between the liner and cylinder head.
Hope this makes sense,
Evan.
Yes, that makes sense...thanks.
I think I'll have my machine shop check the block face one more time real good for anything 0.003" or greater. If they find the block face to be OK, then perhaps I should get those shims DavidP mentioned above to bring the liner flange up about 0.006" above the block face as you mentioned.
I wonder how one determines how many shims are needed, becuase it's not like you can easily put the liner in and out and take a lot of measurements due to the procedure of freezing the liner and dropping it in, then when it warms you have to use a puller.
I have a Starret outside micrometer, a caliper too, and also a depth micrometer. I've used them on the new flanges and cylinder recess to estimate how much clearance I will most likely end up with once I drop the frozen liners in. What I found was the flanges and recesses were not a continuous number around the circumferance. The thicknesses or depth would change based upon where I measured around the circle.
Any thoughts on these issues? Thanks again.
I think I'll have my machine shop check the block face one more time real good for anything 0.003" or greater. If they find the block face to be OK, then perhaps I should get those shims DavidP mentioned above to bring the liner flange up about 0.006" above the block face as you mentioned.
I wonder how one determines how many shims are needed, becuase it's not like you can easily put the liner in and out and take a lot of measurements due to the procedure of freezing the liner and dropping it in, then when it warms you have to use a puller.
I have a Starret outside micrometer, a caliper too, and also a depth micrometer. I've used them on the new flanges and cylinder recess to estimate how much clearance I will most likely end up with once I drop the frozen liners in. What I found was the flanges and recesses were not a continuous number around the circumferance. The thicknesses or depth would change based upon where I measured around the circle.
Any thoughts on these issues? Thanks again.
This is a bit disconcerting - I can see the recesses being somewhat variable due to rust or debris in them, but the flanges on new liners [b:1c3e5977d2]should[/b:1c3e5977d2] be consistent within half a thou (.0005 in), or less. If not, I'd return them, be looking for a refund, and ordering quality liners.
If the recesses in the block truly are variable by more than +/- .001, either within themselves or each other, I would have the machine shop re-cut them, then deck the head to .004 - .005 below the seated flange height, depending on how variable the flange dimensions really are - if in doubt, you can have the machine shop check to make sure the flanges are not only "flat" enough, but perfectly perpendicular to the bore. Yes, it matters.
And I wouldn't be too put off by the #2 machinist using a straight edge in the sunlight - believe it or not, it works - a .003 gap is visible, and it's a quick way to determine whether it's worth the time to mount it and indicate it for other problems.
Keep us posted on the progress.
Well Worn
OK, I went back and measured everything again, more slowly and carefully. I found some interesting stuff.
First, this image shows the three cylinders in the block, where the cam is, and each cyl is numbered in the center with front being 1, then 2, 3.
I also took a flat read and my depth mic is off by 0.00025".
I measured the recess from the block face to the bottom flange recess at the different points shown. Each of these measurements are in EXCESS of 0.150" which is the flange thickness. So 0.0005 plus 0.150 would be 0.1505" depth from block face. I basically used .150 as zero...also we need to account for the inaccurate flat read somehow.
As you can see my recesses vary more than +/- .001". You can also see that I have low spots on the lower right quadrants of each cyl. Also, some of the measurements would increase in depth as I moved the depth mic toward the center of the cylinder, without moving off the flange ledge...this shows a taper or slant in the ledge.
But the question is, is the difference in the block face or the flange depth? If the flange ledge is correct but the block face varies than that would be causing the difference. Or it could be the flange ledge varying. I guess the only way to know would be to deck the block which would give us a flat block face removing the block face from the equation...then measure depth again and see where we stand with the flange recess.
First, this image shows the three cylinders in the block, where the cam is, and each cyl is numbered in the center with front being 1, then 2, 3.
I also took a flat read and my depth mic is off by 0.00025".
I measured the recess from the block face to the bottom flange recess at the different points shown. Each of these measurements are in EXCESS of 0.150" which is the flange thickness. So 0.0005 plus 0.150 would be 0.1505" depth from block face. I basically used .150 as zero...also we need to account for the inaccurate flat read somehow.
As you can see my recesses vary more than +/- .001". You can also see that I have low spots on the lower right quadrants of each cyl. Also, some of the measurements would increase in depth as I moved the depth mic toward the center of the cylinder, without moving off the flange ledge...this shows a taper or slant in the ledge.
But the question is, is the difference in the block face or the flange depth? If the flange ledge is correct but the block face varies than that would be causing the difference. Or it could be the flange ledge varying. I guess the only way to know would be to deck the block which would give us a flat block face removing the block face from the equation...then measure depth again and see where we stand with the flange recess.
OK, here is the other thing I found which requires a bit of background. When I first ordered the Overhaul kit from A&I everything came in one large box, but two of the cylinder sleeves had exited there smaller boxes and were allowed to bounce around inside the larger box. The sleeves were shipped with the pistons inside them which made them more heavy. I inspected them and sure enough one was cracked and one was bent at the flange. I mic'd the inside top of the bent one and found it off by 0.014" and you could feel the bend as you moved your fingers around the cirumferance using a rag...the bend felt flat.
So they replaced the two damaged sleeves, but I noticed they felt a bit lighter or felt a bit thinner than the last original sleeve that survived in the kit. The two replaced sleeves also fell into the cylinders about half way under their own weight much easier than the one left from the kit, eventhough the cylinders are within inside bore spec. The one from the kit wouldn't go into the cylinder very much at all. This was done as a test, I didn't freeze them yet. I figured they were just a bit thinner but would still work.
The kit sleeve weighs 18.50 oz, the two repacements weigh 17.85 oz. and 17.65 oz. so there was a difference.
I mic'd them and they met spec as far as roundness went, so I didn't bother anymore. I figured they would be OK.
Until I mic'd the flange...this is where I found an issue which caused the difference in measurement number I mentioned in one of my previous posts.
Let me splain:
In the above image in Fig 4 refers to the two replacement sleeves. As I would mic them, I put the mic against the wall of the sleeve and would tighten the mic. This is where I saw differnce in numbers becuase of the fillet corner in only the two replacement sleeves. The original sleeve as in fig. 3 has a square corner and I can keep the mic against the wall as I tighten the mic...giving me an acurate measurement of 0.150 all the way around the flange...no variations beyond 0.0005".
But the two replacement sleeves measured different because when I put the mic against the wall and would tighten, the mic would stop depending on where it would ride on the curve...that is why I saw differences in numbers. At the bottom of the curve the mic reads 0.155-0.156" and at the end of the curve if I let the mic ride it out would in fact read 0.150" all the way around the flange. So there is a difference with the replacement sleeves.
Here is my concern. If I freeze the sleeves and drop them in (see fig 1 and fig 2) will the replacement sleeves not go down all the way becuase the recess ledge's edge (which is square) inhibits them because of the fillet corner. Well, no big deal because they may protude out above the block face a bit which is what MasseyNut and WellWorn recommended anyway.
The concern is when these sleeve heat up and expand. What will happen then...will this push the sleeve up? or will it crack the flange off the sleeve wall?
When I pulled out my old sleeves from the engine, two showed cracked sleeves up around the flange. Was this caused by the recess being off like in the first picture, or because they were so old they began to wear down? Maybe they were original equipement. If you look at the first photo of the recess measurments, there is a logo on the old sleeves that read "WVY" but the W and V were connected...so it could be WVY, or VWY, or VVVY. I tried to google this to see if these were aftermarket sleeves or OE, and I couldn't find any info. There was also a logo drawing and patent number on these old sleeves.
So what do you all think about this? Sorry for the long post, but I'd like to get this right since it is a good deal of work and cost and I'd like the engine rebuilt properly.
If this all is overkill and I am overthinking it...please let me know...at least I will feel better about knowing I don't need to address these issues.
So they replaced the two damaged sleeves, but I noticed they felt a bit lighter or felt a bit thinner than the last original sleeve that survived in the kit. The two replaced sleeves also fell into the cylinders about half way under their own weight much easier than the one left from the kit, eventhough the cylinders are within inside bore spec. The one from the kit wouldn't go into the cylinder very much at all. This was done as a test, I didn't freeze them yet. I figured they were just a bit thinner but would still work.
The kit sleeve weighs 18.50 oz, the two repacements weigh 17.85 oz. and 17.65 oz. so there was a difference.
I mic'd them and they met spec as far as roundness went, so I didn't bother anymore. I figured they would be OK.
Until I mic'd the flange...this is where I found an issue which caused the difference in measurement number I mentioned in one of my previous posts.
Let me splain:
In the above image in Fig 4 refers to the two replacement sleeves. As I would mic them, I put the mic against the wall of the sleeve and would tighten the mic. This is where I saw differnce in numbers becuase of the fillet corner in only the two replacement sleeves. The original sleeve as in fig. 3 has a square corner and I can keep the mic against the wall as I tighten the mic...giving me an acurate measurement of 0.150 all the way around the flange...no variations beyond 0.0005".
But the two replacement sleeves measured different because when I put the mic against the wall and would tighten, the mic would stop depending on where it would ride on the curve...that is why I saw differences in numbers. At the bottom of the curve the mic reads 0.155-0.156" and at the end of the curve if I let the mic ride it out would in fact read 0.150" all the way around the flange. So there is a difference with the replacement sleeves.
Here is my concern. If I freeze the sleeves and drop them in (see fig 1 and fig 2) will the replacement sleeves not go down all the way becuase the recess ledge's edge (which is square) inhibits them because of the fillet corner. Well, no big deal because they may protude out above the block face a bit which is what MasseyNut and WellWorn recommended anyway.
The concern is when these sleeve heat up and expand. What will happen then...will this push the sleeve up? or will it crack the flange off the sleeve wall?
When I pulled out my old sleeves from the engine, two showed cracked sleeves up around the flange. Was this caused by the recess being off like in the first picture, or because they were so old they began to wear down? Maybe they were original equipement. If you look at the first photo of the recess measurments, there is a logo on the old sleeves that read "WVY" but the W and V were connected...so it could be WVY, or VWY, or VVVY. I tried to google this to see if these were aftermarket sleeves or OE, and I couldn't find any info. There was also a logo drawing and patent number on these old sleeves.
So what do you all think about this? Sorry for the long post, but I'd like to get this right since it is a good deal of work and cost and I'd like the engine rebuilt properly.
If this all is overkill and I am overthinking it...please let me know...at least I will feel better about knowing I don't need to address these issues.
Southtowns27
Member
That fillet is bad news. It won't allow the sleeve to seat properly. The sharp corner of the block pushing on just one point of the sleeve will cause a stress point and probably break the flange off the sleeve. I'd be on the phone with the company you got them from and demand that they send you the correct parts.
Thanks, I got the guys number at A&I today, called and left a message. If he doesn't return my call tomorrow, I'll call again and ask for his manager. Thanks for your confirmation.
One other thing, I talked to another machinist today and he said that the flange ledge (he called it the counter bore) is there to provide support for the reinforced (thicker) area of the copper head gasket when the head is torqued down. He said if it isn't past 0.002" then it should be OK. As you can see from my measurements I don't exceed 0.002".
Does anyone agree or disagree with this statement?
One other thing, I talked to another machinist today and he said that the flange ledge (he called it the counter bore) is there to provide support for the reinforced (thicker) area of the copper head gasket when the head is torqued down. He said if it isn't past 0.002" then it should be OK. As you can see from my measurements I don't exceed 0.002".
Does anyone agree or disagree with this statement?
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2025 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy