Thans Greg for putin out our previus conversation, I had too much to do
at work at that time to do it myself.
Hi David,
As far as I know it works fine to align-bore the 3,5 block. At least my
mechanic have ordered a firm to do it for us. Before doing the fine bore
(align) we did a corse bore with a cylinder-bore machine. it was down to
a size a little smaller than the size of the 300 crank bearings. That
was to be abel to try the machined down 350 crank in the block and se
how it worked.
After testin that we have send the block away for align-bore.
Unfortunatly my friend the mechanic is out on a freigtship working for
one month more, so I can't give you all details right now. When he comes
back I will put him in touch with you/the list. He is the mastermind
when it comes to engines, I'm just a novice in engine-building. I just
try to ceep my Range Rovers fit for off-roading, they are falling apart
for me to often.
regards, Micke
David Kernberger skrev:
>
> Micke,
>
> I don't know your e-mail address but you touched on a subject I
> very much want to get an answer to. Does it work well to align-bore a 3.5
> block to the larger 2.5 inch main bearing size when adapting a 300
> crankshaft??? Baker says to grind the crank journals down to 2.3 inches,
> but I would be afraid of weakening the crankshaft that way. It already has
> considerably less journal overlap than a stock 2.8 stroke crank. David
> Hardcastle's book mentions some special cranks made for the 3.5 which have
> 2.5" journals but does not make any definite statements whether
> align-boring is the way to go. I have found out that 300 main bearing caps
> will bolt right on to the 3.5 block, and they are definitely meatier. It
> should be no problem for a machine shop to face them off a bit and use them
> for the align-bored block. Maybe this would the best of both worlds????
>
> I would love to hear from anyone else on this matter also.
>
> Cheers, Dave Kernberger
|