Worse case annual.

Yes, before the PCV valve and aggravated by the available oils of the time, the only way to keep a crankcase clean was to change oil OFTEN and when changing, get the engine to operating temperature, pull the drain plug and let it drain overnight. If you didn't do this and stay with it, they would gunk up FAST.
 
Henning said:
First I would check and make sure my crankcase breather and PCV systems were functioning properly and the hoses aren't rotted on the bottoms.
Click to expand...

Already done, replaced all that crap and still burns oil
 
dell30rb said:
Anyone ever use Seafoam for preventing / getting sludge out?
Click to expand...

Add a quart of Diesel fuel or Kerosene and a quart of transmission fluid to your oil when hot. Run in your driveway idle-1500 rpm for 20-30 minutes and drain, pull the filter. Now if you really want it clean, put on a cheap filter and dump in a 1/2 gallon of Diesel/kero (you can also use MMO), a pint of GM X-66, a quart of cheap oil and a quart of tranny fluid and run at idle for 5 minutes, let sit over night or until cool, drain and refill with fresh oil and put on a new filter. I've cleaned out some pretty damned nasty engines like that as well as clearing noisy lifters.
 
Henning said:
Add a quart of Diesel fuel or Kerosene and a quart of transmission fluid to your oil when hot. Run in your driveway idle-1500 rpm for 20-30 minutes and drain, pull the filter. Now if you really want it clean, put on a cheap filter and dump in a 1/2 gallon of Diesel/kero (you can also use MMO), a pint of GM X-66, a quart of cheap oil and a quart of tranny fluid and run at idle for 5 minutes, let sit over night or until cool, drain and refill with fresh oil and put on a new filter. I've cleaned out some pretty damned nasty engines like that as well as clearing noisy lifters.
Click to expand...

Any issues doing this with my VW 2.0L non turbo?
 
Henning said:
Nope, I use the same method on all. If you have a particularly nasty motor you may want to change the oil again after a few hundred miles.
Click to expand...

I only got the car in January, just changed the oil for the first time last week...wasn't that bad. I have noticed a tick from what I believe to be in the top end, it got a little better with the oil change. Maybe I'll give this a shot.
 
I've seen all sorts of degunking methods similar to Hennings used with success. I've also seen a few that got a little too aggressive with the solvents. REMEMBER, they are NOT lubricants. BE CAREFUL!

With today's engines it is rare for them to get so gunked up as to require such aggressive use of solvents. The safest approach is to use your favorite premium motor oil and do frequent, HOT, overnight oil drains.

One of the keys to cleaning a gunked up crankcase is to do the drains with it HOT and preferably let it drain overnight. Those last drops are the gunkiest. Draining it hot allows more of the contaminants to remain churned up in the oil so that they come out with it, plus the oil is a little thinner and comes out more readily.

Just be glad that you no longer have to use Amalie or Havoline oil from the sixties.
 
My grandfather (1889-1975) changed the oil by doing a hot drain (not overnight) followed by 1-2 quarts of kerosene in the engine, a quick crank and then shut right off. Let that drain, then change the filter and put in new oil. Top off with 1 can (maybe 4 oz?) of something called "Pyroil" pronounced "Power-oil". That car died a premature death due to my sister driving it without coolant until the engine froze. It ran for a year or two after that, but not well. I have no idea how the oil changing regimen affected it's longevity.

John
 
jsstevens said:
My grandfather (1889-1975) changed the oil by doing a hot drain (not overnight) followed by 1-2 quarts of kerosene in the engine, a quick crank and then shut right off. Let that drain, then change the filter and put in new oil. Top off with 1 can (maybe 4 oz?) of something called "Pyroil" pronounced "Power-oil". That car died a premature death due to my sister driving it without coolant until the engine froze. It ran for a year or two after that, but not well. I have no idea how the oil changing regimen affected it's longevity.

John
Click to expand...

Back in those days, not much. The state of metallurgy pretty much guaranteed that your rings or valve guides would go first around 100-120k (the only thing that has changed in that is now you typically go 250k before it craps out).Bottom ends didn't fail except through severe abuse. When you did the rings and valve job, you just polished and measured the crank, put a grind on it if required and slip in new bearings and you were good for another 100-120k by which time there wasn't enough steel left to call it a car. Even today oil changes make no difference in longevity. Keep oil and coolant in it, change the filter on a scedule dpendant on your environment and it will run as long as a car that sees oil changes every 3000 miles.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Keep oil and coolant in it, change the filter on a scedule dpendant on your environment and it will run as long as a car that sees oil changes every 3000 miles.
Click to expand...

Pretty much true. My last 2 pickups were bought new and sold running in good condition at 172k and 181k respectively, and my current one has 242k and still going strong. I change oil/filter every 10k miles, which is about every 60 days for me.
 
There's hardly anything you can buy new today that isn't good for at LEAST 200,000 miles if properly maintained. In the distant past I was a believer in frequent oil chages. With today's engines and oils a frequent oil change can be as much as 10,000 miles for a highway driven car using synthetic oil.

The cars up through most of the fifties were designed for in frame overhaul access. Now, FORGET IT! Except for very unusual circumstances, the vast majority of cars today will live their whole life with no major engine work. In some cases you might pull the heads for a valve job or due to head gasket problems, but doing anything to the bottom is most unusual.
 
The cylinders from the 0-300-A with low compression.

see what's wrong?
 

Attachments

  • DSCN2530.JPG
    DSCN2530.JPG
    220.9 KB · Views: 47
  • DSCN2531.JPG
    DSCN2531.JPG
    210.9 KB · Views: 52
  • DSCN2532.JPG
    DSCN2532.JPG
    210.8 KB · Views: 48
  • DSCN2533.JPG
    DSCN2533.JPG
    225.5 KB · Views: 46
  • DSCN2534.JPG
    DSCN2534.JPG
    216.2 KB · Views: 45
  • DSCN2535.JPG
    DSCN2535.JPG
    220.5 KB · Views: 47
  • DSCN2536.JPG
    DSCN2536.JPG
    218.3 KB · Views: 41
  • DSCN2537.JPG
    DSCN2537.JPG
    219.8 KB · Views: 43
I'm not intimately familiar with aircraft engines, but it appears that a valve is burned in the last couple of pictures. It looks like it's probably an exhaust valve.
 
Tom-D said:
The cylinders from the 0-300-A with low compression.

see what's wrong?
Click to expand...


Yep, nothing dangerous though, touch up a couple valves and you could keep running them without undue risk, however it'll be a little heavy on oil; I believe you have said 'you can buy a lot of oil for the price of cylinders' before. This is somewhat of what Continental was talking about with their whole "Don't worry so much about the number, worry about where it's coming from".
 
Thumbnails looked like badly pitted barrels, blow them up,

Nope, chrome (don't see that too often)
 
I will get lots of heat for saying this but:

I've had quite a number of engines over the years with pitted cylinders, mostly from rusting from sitting up, either in storage or worst cases while apart. As long as the bores mic okay, you can put them together with fresh rings and they'll seat and seal great. Lots of experience with this in cars and trucks, not airplanes, but I fully expect they would seal fine. REMEMBER, the cylinders have to mic good.
 
Henning said:
Yep, nothing dangerous though, touch up a couple valves and you could keep running them without undue risk, however it'll be a little heavy on oil; I believe you have said 'you can buy a lot of oil for the price of cylinders' before. This is somewhat of what Continental was talking about with their whole "Don't worry so much about the number, worry about where it's coming from".
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'd want to see the surfaces before grinding them, but if they aren't too bad, grind the valves and seats and it's back in business if the bores mic good.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I will get lots of heat for saying this but:

I've had quite a number of engines over the years with pitted cylinders, mostly from rusting from sitting up, either in storage or worst cases while apart. As long as the bores mic okay, you can put them together with fresh rings and they'll seat and seal great. Lots of experience with this in cars and trucks, not airplanes, but I fully expect they would seal fine. REMEMBER, the cylinders have to mic good.
Click to expand...


Standard size is 4.062" these are 4.067"

they are Chrome and have 512 hours on them.

the ring end gap was better then 5/16"

#5 had a broken ring, but the old soft iron ring didn't even scratch the wall.

What's wrong with them? nothing really, they will get a new set of rings, valves lapped, and go back on.
 
Tom-D said:
Standard size is 4.062" these are 4.067"
.
Click to expand...

Picture #1 shows where you wrote. 005 in magic marker... Also for the curious,, all those tiny looking cracks is a normal look for a chrome cylinder.

they are Chrome and have 512 hours on them.

.005 is alot of wear for a chrome cyl for that low of hours.. the plane must have been flown is a dusty area.

the ring end gap was better then 5/16"

Sure sign of the fact cast rings will wear out long before the cylinders
#5 had a broken ring, but the old soft iron ring didn't even scratch the
wall.

Pic #6 clearly shows the impression of a broken ring.

What's wrong with them? nothing really, they will get a new set of rings, valves lapped, and go back on.

That is what I would do too.



.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Picture #1 shows where you wrote. 005 in magic marker... Also for the curious,, all those tiny looking cracks is a normal look for a chrome cylinder.

Yes

they are Chrome and have 512 hours on them.

.005 is alot of wear for a chrome cyl for that low of hours.. the plane must have been flown is a dusty area.

It's not wear, they were +.005" when they went on. the pistons are +.005 too, so we buy .005 over rings.

the ring end gap was better then 5/16"

Sure sign of the fact cast rings will wear out long before the clyinders

yep that is the advantage of re-chroming cylinders, back when we couldn't get new.

#5 had a broken ring, but the old soft iron ring didn't even scratch the
wall.

Pic #6 clearly shows the impression of a broken ring.

but it doesn't show any wear in that spot. You can see it, but you can't feel it, and the bore gauge doesn't see it either.

What's wrong with them? nothing really, they will get a new set of rings, valves lapped, and go back on.

That is what I would do too..
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Parts are on order, I'll do the valve grind today.
Chrome cylinders have a reputation of requiring a new set of rings every 500 hours.

I hope they do not require new valve guides, because I no longer have the tools to do them.
 
Tom-D said:
Standard size is 4.062" these are 4.067"

they are Chrome and have 512 hours on them.

the ring end gap was better then 5/16"

#5 had a broken ring, but the old soft iron ring didn't even scratch the wall.

What's wrong with them? nothing really, they will get a new set of rings, valves lapped, and go back on.
Click to expand...

Right, change the broke ring ( might as well do the set since it's apart) deal with the valves and back in service.
 
FWIW on the cracking, on chrome that is what holds the oil film as upposed to the crosshatch on other cylinder types.
 

Parts are on order, I'll do the valve grind today.
Chrome cylinders have a reputation of requiring a new set of rings every 500 hours.

I hope they do not require new valve guides, because I no longer have the tools to do them.[/QUOTE]

There are better 'unapproved' ring materials that are between iron and chrome that wok better. The chances of that substitution being spotted would require an NTSB investigation.
 
Henning said:
There are better 'unapproved' ring materials that are between iron and chrome that wok better. The chances of that substitution being spotted would require an NTSB investigation.
Click to expand...

I have a place in Seattle that will build rings for almost all sizes, they will make rings from a Ni-Chrome pipe that's a 9% chrome steel.
But this engine won't last that long. It will be overhauled long before that. So why spend $500 for a set of rings when a $50 set will do.
 
Put some rod bearings in, do the oil pump, and there's no reason I can think of that it's going to need an overhaul particularly soon. How old is the guy, his engine only needs to out live him by a minute or so and he got his best value.
 
Henning said:
Put some rod bearings in, do the oil pump, and there's no reason I can think of that it's going to need an overhaul particularly soon. How old is the guy, his engine only needs to out live him by a minute or so and he got his best value.
Click to expand...
we are not pulling this engine due to low compression, when we can fix it. this engine has good oil pressure, the interior has been inspected and it does not have crank problems.

plus the oil pump in a 0-300 is bullet proof.

I did the valve job this morning and it's good to go, there are a couple pitted seats but they aren't that bad. it will make good compression again.

This old 300 only has 4000 hours TT and no overhauls yet.
It has had the cylinders off twice, before this.
 
Last edited:
What are you seeing that makes you think it will need an overhaul soon? I'm not seeing it yet.
 
Henning said:
There are better 'unapproved' ring materials that are between iron and chrome that wok better. The chances of that substitution being spotted would require an NTSB investigation.
Click to expand...
Do you do this sort of thing often? This is why I wouldn't purchase a plane from you!
 
Skylane81E said:
FWIW on the cracking, on chrome that is what holds the oil film as upposed to the crosshatch on other cylinder types.
Click to expand...

Another old wives tale.. notice the smooth area, it does get oil too.

the crazing that is shown is caused by the shrinking and swelling of the cylinder, the steel at 1 rate the chrome a different rate, when fresh the crazing will fill with hard carbon, and buff smooth by the passing rings, as it wears it becomes smooth as any other cylinder, it takes about 3 sets of rings to get this done, but by the time 2 sets of rings have worn out the cylinder will fail for another reason.
 
Skylane81E said:
FWIW on the cracking, on chrome that is what holds the oil film as upposed to the crosshatch on other cylinder types.
Click to expand...

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182902-1.html
Chrome Plating

Moving a notch up the cylinder rework food chain is chrome plating. Here, the worn barrel is ground oversize, and then a layer of chrome is deposited via electroplating to bring the cylinder back to new dimensions. (A good chrome plating job is about .015" thick. A bargain basement one might be a lot thinner.) Standard pistons can then be used, but chrome cylinders require special cast iron rings (instead of the chrome-plated rings used with steel cylinders). An often-overlooked disadvantage of chrome cylinders is that the relatively soft cast iron rings wear out faster than ordinary chrome rings do.
Chrome is a very hard and durable wear surface—even more so than nitrided steel—and has the additional advantage of being almost immune from corrosion. However, a smooth shiny chrome surface is not oil-wettable, so something must be done to the chrome to allow an oil film to adhere to it.
The traditional solution to this dilemma, used successfully for decades, is channel chrome. In this process, when chrome has been electroplated to the desired thickness, the current flow in the plating tank is reversed for a short (and critical) period of time. This results in a chrome surface that isn't smooth but has numerous microscopic fissures (called channels) that provide a "foothold" for oil to adhere.
There are a couple of problems with channel chrome. The channelling process is apparently more black art than precise science, and it's difficult for even the best plating firms (such as ECI in San Antonio) to get consistent results. If the channels are too shallow, the cylinder won't make TBO. If they are too deep, oil consumption will be high. Even the very best channel chrome cylinders tend to burn a lot more oil than steel.
Lots of folks love chrome. They believe that its durability and corrosion resistance are worth the tradeoff in oil consumption. Chrome is a particularly good choice for operators with extreme vulnerability to corrosion, such as salt water floatplanes and highly seasonal operations.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182902-1.html
Chrome Plating

Moving a notch up the cylinder rework food chain is chrome plating. Here, the worn barrel is ground oversize, and then a layer of chrome is deposited via electroplating to bring the cylinder back to new dimensions. (A good chrome plating job is about .015" thick. A bargain basement one might be a lot thinner.) Standard pistons can then be used, but chrome cylinders require special cast iron rings (instead of the chrome-plated rings used with steel cylinders). An often-overlooked disadvantage of chrome cylinders is that the relatively soft cast iron rings wear out faster than ordinary chrome rings do.
Chrome is a very hard and durable wear surface—even more so than nitrided steel—and has the additional advantage of being almost immune from corrosion. However, a smooth shiny chrome surface is not oil-wettable, so something must be done to the chrome to allow an oil film to adhere to it.
The traditional solution to this dilemma, used successfully for decades, is channel chrome. In this process, when chrome has been electroplated to the desired thickness, the current flow in the plating tank is reversed for a short (and critical) period of time. This results in a chrome surface that isn't smooth but has numerous microscopic fissures (called channels) that provide a "foothold" for oil to adhere.
There are a couple of problems with channel chrome. The channelling process is apparently more black art than precise science, and it's difficult for even the best plating firms (such as ECI in San Antonio) to get consistent results. If the channels are too shallow, the cylinder won't make TBO. If they are too deep, oil consumption will be high. Even the very best channel chrome cylinders tend to burn a lot more oil than steel.
Lots of folks love chrome. They believe that its durability and corrosion resistance are worth the tradeoff in oil consumption. Chrome is a particularly good choice for operators with extreme vulnerability to corrosion, such as salt water floatplanes and highly seasonal operations.
Click to expand...
easily refutable when you simply look at a used chrome cylinder, and it is as smooth as it gets. and still running great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top