<VV> 61 Loadside update and questions

[corvairs]

Oh come on now Bob.   I believe I have substantially more real world 
experience with Corvairs than yourself. That's not you fault, it's just 
how the past 35 years have gone. This is going to get more difficult but 
I'll try -

BobHelt at aol.com wrote:
> Hello Lon,
> We haven't hear much from you lately. Nice to kinow that you're still around 
> and kicking. Well, you certainly entitled to your opinions, but much of what 
> you are referencing just isn't backed up by the facts (as opposed to opinions). 
>
>
> Please see below for more on this subject.
> Regards,
> Bob Helt
>
>
> In a message dated 11/24/08 2:05:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> corvairs at pacifier.com writes:
>
>   
>> But we also know that most head gasket problems were actually 
>> caused by lack of understanding regarding torque patterns and ratings.
>>
>>
>>     
>
> No we don't know this. How did you come to this belief? What facts do you 
> have to support this? What we do know is that because of problems with the head 
> gaskets on early production, Chev went from a copper gasket to a folded steel 
> gasket in order to get a handle on the poor gasketing area on these EMs. We 
> know that it was a design fault which was, as I said, corrected in 1965 with a 
> larger gasketing surface.
>   
So then Lon must reply - Facts? The problem with early head gaskets was 
1) The 3 piece design with composition copper/asbestos/copper. 2) Non-GM 
mechanics (and some who were) that did not follow torque patterns. My 
facts? Again, this was stated by numerous knowledgeable people back in 
the 1970's including Dr, Benzinger. Or are you trying to say that 
Underground, Clark's, Blake Swofford's Otto Parts, etc etc etc are 
(were) selling people bad head gaskets when we sell copper? (And "large 
bore" copper head gaskets at that!)

Where are your "facts" that state that the folded steel head gasket 
design is better than copper?
>
>   
>>
>>     
>>> Jugs bored 40 
>>> over are already  marginal in sealing surface and to even consider going 
>>>       
>> larger 
>>     
>>> is a major mistake in my opinion.
>>>
>>> In addition, I would be very concerned about the roundness of these jugs. 
>>>       
>> Any 
>>     
>>> jug already overbored and subjected to this kind of heat has got to be 
>>> distorted.
>>>       
>> I have advised that people, looking for more hp in early motors (also 
>> 1964) go to a full .060 over. I have never seen nor have I ever 
>> experienced unusual head gasket or distortion problems with .040 or .060 
>> over in these motors.
>>     
> suspect components anyhow?
>   
So Lon says again -  A "knife edge"? Come on again Bob. And you ask, 
"why did GM..." again? I explained that in the part you didn't quote 
here. Are you just having a bad night?
>
>
>
>
>   
>>> Why would you want to even consider reusing these jugs?
>>>  
>>>       
>> Now, that's another matter, as the engine in question had obviously been 
>> severely overheated. I wouldn't reuse much of any of the engine.
>>     
>>> If I were you I would toss all of these jugs and set an 0.030 overbore 
>>>       
>> limit 
>>     
>>> on any EM engine.
>>>       
>
>
>
> Since you still are not convinced, please perform this simple bench 
> experiment. Take a newly bored cylinder and place it on the work bench. Then place an 
> inside micrometer across the bore, opening the micrometer until it just 
> supports itself across the bore.
>
> Now, without disturbing the micrometer, place your hands outside the cylinder 
> 90 degrees  from the direction of the micrometer and squeeze the cylinder 
> between your hands. You will find out that the little pressure from your hands 
> will distort the cylinder and allow the micrometer to fall out of the cylinder 
> where you placed it.
>   
So Lon says - I just tried that - it does it with late model barrels 
too. I'm not sure what the point is here? Are you trying to say that 
even late model barells shouldn't be bored to .040 or .060 based on this 
test? better let Cal   know about  that one.
> So you see that overbored cylinders can easily distort. Ray Sedman has stated 
> that cylinders are often at 0.002 in out of round after reboring on his 
> excellent equipment and that it is necessary to use a torque plate to insure 
> roundness. Even then with a perfectly round cylinder it is impossible to know what 
> happens when the engine comes up to temperature.
>   
So Lon says - How did Ray Sedman get into this discussion anyway? Ray is 
a very good machinist and what he says is totally correct. Are you 
implying that ours are not this done way? You should pay more attention 
to our catalog, website, Corvair News etc and you would have known that 
we have always used torque plates. In fact when our state-of-the-art 
diamond head Rottler was built for us new we had a special Corvair-only 
torque fixture made for it.

Is it impossible to know exactly what happens when the cylinder is under 
stress inside an operating engine? Well, not impossible, but beyond the 
normal range of what you, I, Ray or (probably even now) the near 
bankrupt GM!  So what is the point here?  You asked for "facts" - you 
have no more "facts" than I do. What you mostly seem to have is 
theoretical fear. THAT is a value judgement. What I have is 42 years of 
Corvair ownership (still my exclusive daily drivers) , 35 years in the 
Corvair parts business (second largest in the world - ever), personal 
experience in  rebuilding more than 20 of my own engines and 
professional experiance in overseeing the rebuilding (and warranty work) 
over several hundred others. I have feedback on a daily basis from my 
20,000+ customers on these products. I'm not sure how you can so 
flippantly dismiss these facts.

While in the strictest sense those are not the "facts" that you seem to 
want, but I don't think it's chopped liver either. Are you trying to 
tell me that you have been operating a multi-million dollar test lab and 
have double blind testing on these issues that prove me wrong?
>
> As for the rest of your comments, it sounds like you are trying to justify 
> your business and processes. Maybe you turn out error free products, and maybe 
> not. But even if you do, you are operating in a very risky area overboring EM 
> cylinders so much in my opinion. Maybe your success has mostly been just luck.
>   
And again Lon says - That comment was beneath you Bob. If I never sold 
another 1960-64 .040 or .060 overbored barrel it would not make a dimes 
worth of difference. In fact I predominatly sell .020 and .030 anyway 
(and make a slightly better profit on them because they take less time). 
I have made and sell .020 and .030 as well as larger pistons. I also 
sell original design steel head gaskets AND copper gaskets. If the past 
35 years have  been "mostly luck" then I'm one lucky guy. Come on.
> I still would recommend to everyone concerned that they limit their EM 
> overboring to 0.030 in. And for Jamie, that he NOT reuse these cylinder. Maybe they 
> will work just great. But if they don't, then it's another rebuild. Why take a 
> chance? 600 degrees he said!!!!
>   
And again Lon says - And I agreed too - In fact I went even further and 
suggested that he not use much of anything off an engine core that had 
clearly been overheated that badly.
>
>   
>>>  
>>>       
>> 2) We see no correlation between year and overbore size and distortion 
>> rate. 
>>     
>
>
> So you are saying that despite thinner cylinder walls from boring, the 
> cylinders remain just as rugged and distortion free as before!  Bull-ony. Do you 
> expect anyone to believe that?
>   
Lon says again - What I said was, in our 35 years of dealing with these 
barrels on a very personal basis those were my observations. 
Theoretically the thinner walls SHOULD be weaker, but that does not 
translate into that they ARE weaker enough to guarrantee distortion 
problems at any signifigantly greater rate than smaller bores.. The real 
world experiences don't seem to bear that out.

Do I expect anyone to believe that? What on earth is that supposed to 
mean? "Conventional wisdom has always been that the 1960-early 1961 full 
fin barrels were less prone to distortion. yet, some of the aircraft 
people have lately been posting that the exact opposite is the case - 
and they seem to have some actual science to support that. Do we expect 
"anyone to actually believe that?"

Other than being a wisenheimer, what seriously do you think my motives 
here are other than to simply dissagree with some statements you made? I 
didn't think your comments were stupid, self motivated or capricious - I 
just thought that they were overly cautious. All I did was say that my 
considerable experience showed me that I wasn't as paranoid about it. 
That's all.

No one argues that you know a great deal about Corvairs. You are also a 
published author of some of the finest current books on Corvairs - Books 
where I agree with 99% of your opinions. But that doesn't make you all 
knowing and infalliable - any more than my considerable experience makes 
me the same.

I should think that two people who have as much knowledge on this 
subject as you and I do ought to be able to question each other's 
opinions, when needed, without making odd accusations about the others 
motives.
>   
>> Lon
>> www.corvairunderground.com
>>
>>