Jump to content
Email logins are now active ×

IGNORED

Ring fitment question


siteunseen

Recommended Posts

Turns out I was dead WRONG. Bought a 240 that came with these parts to build another motor, 2.8 with an E31 head and some triple Webers. I was so excited to get the car I wasn't paying much attention to the parts that were part of the deal, car ran great as it was.

So now I've measured and am pretty sure he bought .750mm over sized cast piston cups. The block was bored .030".

Here's the numbers as best I could get, block bore is 3.410". Pistons measure 3.390". Top ring in the hole has a gap of .026" with a feeler gauge. Piston with top ring, in the bore looks pretty darn close, very little wiggle.

I'm going to put it together with an E88 head that will have the bigger valves put in. It's an early E88 so it should have good enough compression with the dished pistons.

Sound OK?

post-24724-14150830584006_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never been that far in to an engine myself, but all of those numbers are in the Engine Mechanical chapter. Nissan was very thorough, they even have the .50 and 1.0 mm oversize numbers. Bores, pistons, ring gaps, the works. No 0.750 though, you'll have to split the difference.

Looks pretty good from a words and numbers perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably is an 86.5mm but there's a "0.75" stamped on the piston tops and I can't figure what else that could be???

I know I could load it all up and got to a machine shop and know for sure but that'll be later. I'm trying, with the help of the members like you, to know as much as I can about this motor. I like the dished pistons for pump gas and it's going to be temporary until I get the original 2.4 built up nice and shiny with the E31 head I'm gonna sink some dough ray me into, $$$. Just getting ready for the cold weather projects I've been putting off until it cools off, and it finally has down here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't actual measured clearance what matters? Actually I missed a zero and you might be too loose. 10 thousandths versus 1 - 1.8 thousandths spec. My mistake.

(3.410" - 3.390") /2 = 0.010"

The ring gap looks okay though.

post-20342-1415083058559_thumb.png

Edited by Zed Head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.