Dave,
Did you take any pics of the new updated rod? Did you happen to note
the numbers stamped on it? I think the old ones have 60312 on them,
wondered what the new ones have.
dave walton wrote:
I did it at 180,000 miles. Just replaced the one rod. I now attribute
the bent rod to
I did it at 180,000 miles. Just replaced the one rod. I now attribute
the bent rod to hydrolock in that cylinder due to failure of the head
gasket that allowed oil to enter the cylinder (oil-lock?). Given that
the piston protrudes from the head when at the top of it's stroke and
compress
Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Bore measurements on 140 SD
I did it at 180,000 miles. Just replaced the one rod. I now attribute
the bent rod to hydrolock in that cylinder due to failure of the head
gasket that allowed oil to enter the cylinder (oil-lock?). Given that
the piston protrudes from
Greg Fiorentino wrote:
Not that I have any experience with this whatever, but why not weigh the
removed rod and try to match it with the new replacement? One could machine
off excess weight, but that would not work if the replacement rod is lighter
than the original.
I believe the
Sounds about like what I have going on. At one point I did have the
turbo fail rather spectacularly but in the end the head gasket was still
leaking oil. So the rod you got, was it the updated heavier version I
assume? Its sure tempting to replace all of them if you are going to
the trouble
Then you would end up with bent rods again.
Greg Fiorentino wrote:
Not that I have any experience with this whatever, but why not weigh the
removed rod and try to match it with the new replacement? One could machine
off excess weight, but that would not work if the replacement rod is lighter
Loren Faeth wrote:
IMHO, you have a problem with a bent rod on #1. It is bent enough so
that I predict a short life after the engine is running again , if you
don't address the #1 rod at least. Seems to me what you describe is in
the neighborhood of 0.010 inch or so, (maybe more) and that
Yes, i do see the cross marks, although the marks in #1 do seem slightly
fainter than the rest of the cylinders, at least to the naked eye.
Loren Faeth wrote:
If I am assessing your measurements correctly, you are getting
readings under the nominal bore size? (negative) that seems odd. If
If I wanted to replace that one rod, I would have to pull the crank and
everything wouldnt I?
Mitch Haley wrote:
Loren Faeth wrote:
IMHO, you have a problem with a bent rod on #1. It is bent enough so
that I predict a short life after the engine is running again , if
you don't address
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
If I wanted to replace that one rod, I would have to pull the crank and
everything wouldnt I?
You'd need to pull oil pan(s) until you could see the rod studs, take off the
rod bearing cap, put thin hoses over the studs to protect the crank journal, and
shove the rod
On the older Diesels, the smaall steel pan could be removed, engine
in car, to service #1 and the oil pump. I have never seen a 603/140
combination, so I don't know what you are up against. If it has a
one piece pan, you will have to pull the engine. At that time, you
may want to use your
I think its got the same pan as all the other 603's do, which is a 1
piece I believe.
Loren Faeth wrote:
On the older Diesels, the smaall steel pan could be removed, engine in
car, to service #1 and the oil pump. I have never seen a 603/140
combination, so I don't know what you are up
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:04:41 -0400 Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net wrote:
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
If I wanted to replace that one rod, I would have to pull the crank
and everything wouldnt I?
You'd need to pull oil pan(s) until you could see the rod studs, take
off the rod bearing cap,
Does anybody know if you can buy just 1 rod? Will have to check with
Rusty I guess.
Craig McCluskey wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:04:41 -0400 Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net wrote:
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
If I wanted to replace that one rod, I would have to pull the crank
and
Will it remove out the top? I figured it would have to come out the bottom.
Mitch Haley wrote:
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
If I wanted to replace that one rod, I would have to pull the crank
and everything wouldnt I?
You'd need to pull oil pan(s) until you could see the rod studs, take
off the
I did not see any way to drop the oil pan with the engine in the car.
The front frame is directly under where you want to get to and can't
be removed (without a torch or plasma cutter). If anyone knows how to
avoid pulling the engine, please speak up.
Once you get the oil pan off you can access
So far as I know, pistons/rods _always_ come out the top.
-- Jim
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
The replacement rod did not have tabs to allow easy weight adjustment.
It is significantly heaver than the original. I've since been told
that as long as #1 and #6 are balanced, it's okay if they are heaver
than the others. I'd want to very that somehow, but replacing the two
rods would save some
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:35:49 -0500 Kaleb C. Striplin
ka...@striplin.net wrote:
Does anybody know if you can buy just 1 rod? Will have to check with
Rusty I guess.
He's the man.
Craig
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:27:01 -0500 Kaleb C. Striplin
ka...@striplin.net wrote:
Will it remove out the top? I figured it would have to come out the
bottom.
If you don't have a ridge at the top of the cylinder, it should. You might
need to use a ridge-breaker.
Craig
Piston comes out the top. I used the blade from my utility knife to
remove the crust around the inner top lip of the cylinder. It flaked
off easily once you got underneath it.
-Dave Walton
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Craig McCluskey
diese...@pisquared.net wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009
Jim Cathey wrote:
So far as I know, pistons/rods _always_ come out the top.
Except on motorcycles and chain saws.
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To
://www.merchantreferralsolutions.com/A365706
--
From: Mitch Haley m...@voyager.net
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:30 AM
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Bore measurements on 140 SD
Loren Faeth wrote:
IMHO, you have a problem
McCluskey diese...@pisquared.net
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 11:03 AM
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Bore measurements on 140 SD
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:27:01 -0500 Kaleb C. Striplin
ka...@striplin.net wrote:
Will it remove out the top? I figured it would have
@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Bore measurements on 140 SD
So far as I know, pistons/rods _always_ come out the top.
-- Jim
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive
--
From: dave walton walton.d...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:41 AM
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Bore measurements on 140 SD
I did not see any way to drop the oil pan with the engine in the car
Did you just replace one rod on your car? I do not remember this story,
so what were the details?
dave walton wrote:
I did not see any way to drop the oil pan with the engine in the car.
The front frame is directly under where you want to get to and can't
be removed (without a torch or plasma
Did you replace number one and number 6? Or just 1? Were your
cylinders ovalled at all? How many miles were on the engine? Maybe I
caught mine in time before it really trashed the bottom end.
dave walton wrote:
The replacement rod did not have tabs to allow easy weight adjustment.
It is
got ya
dave walton wrote:
Piston comes out the top. I used the blade from my utility knife to
remove the crust around the inner top lip of the cylinder. It flaked
off easily once you got underneath it.
-Dave Walton
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Craig McCluskey
diese...@pisquared.net
I probably need to have one anyway.
LarryT wrote:
I've got a ridge reamer if you'd like to borrow it -
LarryT
--
Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK
95 E300, 92 500SEL, 92 300SD, 92 300E 4Matic, 91 300D, 91 300E,
89 560SEL, 87 300SDL x2, 85 380SE 5.0 Euro, 85 190D, 84 190D,
84 300D euro
You always pull the engine/trans together, at least in any MB I have
ever worked on. I can have that engine out in about an hour or less
probably, so that is not THAT big of a deal, but I really dont want to
mess with it. Guess I will have to though.
LarryT wrote:
Hi Dave,
I've sen MB
the proper tool is a ridge reamer. If you can see the crosshatching,
you really don't need a ridge reamer though. In that case, cleaning
off the carbon with a knife should work, but don't scrape below the
carbon ring into the travelled part of the bore.
At 06:21 PM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
I did RR the pan in the 126 300SDL - in the car. It would not be possible
without removing the drag link and steering shock combo though. SInce mine
were crushed in the fall with the oil pan, they were coming out anyway. I
beleive that you could RR the #1 rod, from what I remember, once the pan is
Have have less torque?
Anyway, did you have to lift up the engine any to get the pan out?
OK Don wrote:
I did RR the pan in the 126 300SDL - in the car. It would not be possible
without removing the drag link and steering shock combo though. SInce mine
were crushed in the fall with the oil
Yes I did, but not a lot. I think I loosened the upper engine mount bolts,
but didn't remove them.
Less torque, but more HP - don't know if you'd notice the diffence though
without a stop watch? Then again, as heavy as the 140 is, you'd do better
with the starship engine in it
On Mon, Oct
Ok, so I measured to bores today with my HF electronic bore gauge. Keep
in mind I have never done this before, and not sure if I even did it
right. Here is what I did. I set my HF digital caliper to the spec of
the bore, approx 89.01. With it set there bore gauge gives a base
reading of -
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:31:42 -0500 Kaleb C. Striplin
ka...@striplin.net wrote:
#1 .418.410 .416 .410
.422 .398
#2 .426.416 .422 .418
.420 .418
#3 .426.422 .422
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
.422 .398
So, your bore gage reads in mm, and it does two point measuring so you can
measure along the crank and across the crank?
And the above is the worst you have, with across the crank being .024mm wider?
If that were .024, you'd have junk. .024mm is just
No, have not put a depth guage on the piston tops, or inspected the
rod. I do not have a depth gauge, where would you get such an item?
About the most I have checked on the deck height is when #1 is at the
top, if you run your fingernail for example from piston to block, it
will catch, on
BTW, yes, the gauge will read in inches or mm, and I took the across
crank and with crank separately.
Mitch Haley wrote:
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
.422 .398
So, your bore gage reads in mm, and it does two point measuring so you
can measure along the crank and across the crank?
And the
If I am assessing your measurements correctly, you are getting
readings under the nominal bore size? (negative) that seems
odd. If your numbers are in thousandths of a MM, then i think Mitch
is right. Probably not much to get worried about. Can you see
crosshatching on the cylinder walls?
41 matches
Mail list logo
