In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
He had contacts there.
He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
parts to fit into the block.
The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
he blew them all up eventually.
Can't do that these days, I suppose.

On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
> He had contacts there.
> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
> parts to fit into the block.
> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
> he blew them all up eventually.
> Can't do that these days, I suppose.

Why do you insist on posting attention seeking bullshit like this, Max?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:15:15 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
> Why do you insist on posting attention seeking bullshit like this, Max?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. What a buffoon you are Fraudster.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/12/2021 10:15 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
> Why do you insist on posting attention seeking bullshit like this, Max?
>
>
>

You are sooooo fucking *stupid* LOL :-)

On 8/12/21 1:15 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
> Why do you insist on posting attention seeking bullshit like this, Max?
>
Why do you have an issue with it Darren? It is *ON TOPIC*. Oh, that's
right, it's not *you* seeking attention. Someone is interfering on what
*you see* as *your turf*. Such a heinous crime! Yet you are most often
the perpetrator of the attention whore act.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/12/2021 10:46 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/12/21 1:15 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>
>> Why do you insist on posting attention seeking bullshit like this, Max?
>>
> Why do you have an issue with it Darren? It is *ON TOPIC*. Oh, that's
> right, it's not *you* seeking attention.

Derro won't get the irony of him giving attention to a question by him
asking why Peter is posting "attention seeking bullshit".

Someone is interfering on what
> *you see* as *your turf*. Such a heinous crime! Yet you are most often
> the perpetrator of the attention whore act.
>
>

Sheriff Dumber of the mesa isn't having any of it. There is only room
for one egotistical narcissistic, chestbeating, grandstanding,
compulsively lying and fraudulant attention whore in this group... and
he's it!

On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
> He had contacts there.
> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
> parts to fit into the block.
> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
> he blew them all up eventually.
> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>

Max!! how dare you!! don't you know by now you have to beg profusely for
noddy's permission to post anything here??! and especially anything car
related!  :)

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust
by the enormous weight of his lies" - Alvey on Derro

On 8/12/2021 5:03 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
>
> Max!! how dare you!! don't you know by now you have to beg profusely
> for noddy's permission to post anything here??! and especially
> anything car related!  :)
>

dammit! my apologies. for some reason I thought it was Max posting

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust
by the enormous weight of his lies" - Alvey on Derro

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:15:15 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

>On 8/12/2021 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
>Why do you insist on posting attention seeking bullshit like this, Max?

You're so rude, even for a troll. It's all true. Will anybody
frogmarch Noddles out of here?

On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
> He had contacts there.
> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.

A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.

> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
> parts to fit into the block.
> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
> he blew them all up eventually.
> Can't do that these days, I suppose.

Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
"olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.

--
Daryl

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
wrote:

>On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>
>A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
>was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
>and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
>that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.

Quite so. Yet optimal selecting and fitting all the parts had to be
an improvement.
....and then there's the "reconditioned" engine made up of sundry bits.
>
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
>Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>"olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.

No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.

On 8/12/21 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>
> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
> that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.

Car makers were making cars to a *tolerance*. They did care, up to a
point. As long as all components, when assembled, would neither bind nor
be too loose, all was well. Manufacturing has *always* been thus. The
only difference between then and now were the tolerances used. As
casting and machining improved, tolerances were reduced.
>
>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>> parts to fit into the block.
>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>> he blew them all up eventually.
>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>
> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.

You still can. The concept is called *blueprinting*. Ever heard of it?
The difference is that race engine builders use a different set of
tolerances and specifications to the OEM engine builder. The clearances
and tolerances of the OEM build suit an engine designed for extended
cruising, frequent cold starts, fuel economy, reliability and reduced
noise.
The clearances, tolerances and materials of an OEM engine are not well
suited for racing applications. For example, a typical OEM piston made
of cast aluminium alloy will have a known expansion coefficient and that
will require specific piston to bore clearances for normal day to day
use. Racing pistons, on the other hand, are either forged or machined
from a billet and, as such, will have different thermal behaviour. If
you use the same piston to bore clearances as an OEM cast piston, the
piston would likely seize the first time you ran the engine. This is
because the forged material will expand much more as it warms up. It
gets worse because an engine running at WOT in a racing environment will
generate more heat at the piston hence expand more. Again, seizure is
likely. Ergo race engines will run greater clearances than OEM engines
between certain components. The race engine builder isn't concerned
about a little extra noise when cold starting because of the extra
clearances nor is he concerned about the reduced longevity.

Hmmm, it's becoming clearer why Les' engine detonated under its *first*
hard WOT run. It's obvious you and Darren don't understand the concept I
detailed above.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/12/21 5:22 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
>> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
>> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
>> that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.
>
> Quite so. Yet optimal selecting and fitting all the parts had to be
> an improvement.

It is and the concept even has a name - *Selective Assembly* - and it is
what manufacturers use when tight manufacturing tolerances cannot be
cost effectively achieved.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470802

> ...and then there's the "reconditioned" engine made up of sundry bits.

It has long been possible to selective fit bores to pistons when
reconditioning an engine.
>>
>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>
>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>
> No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/12/2021 3:51 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/12/21 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one
>> that was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you
>> would want and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse
>> is that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.
>
> Car makers were making cars to a *tolerance*. They did care, up to a
> point. As long as all components, when assembled, would neither bind nor
> be too loose, all was well. Manufacturing has *always* been thus. The
> only difference between then and now were the tolerances used. As
> casting and machining improved, tolerances were reduced.
>>
>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>
>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control
>> and the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made
>> in the "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>
> You still can. The concept is called *blueprinting*. Ever heard of it?
> The difference is that race engine builders use a different set of
> tolerances and specifications to the OEM engine builder. The clearances
> and tolerances of the OEM build suit an engine designed for extended
> cruising, frequent cold starts, fuel economy, reliability and reduced
> noise.
> The clearances, tolerances and materials of an OEM engine are not well
> suited for racing applications. For example, a typical OEM piston made
> of cast aluminium alloy will have a known expansion coefficient and that
> will require specific piston to bore clearances for normal day to day
> use. Racing pistons, on the other hand, are either forged or machined
> from a billet and, as such, will have different thermal behaviour. If
> you use the same piston to bore clearances as an OEM cast piston, the
> piston would likely seize the first time you ran the engine. This is
> because the forged material will expand much more as it warms up. It
> gets worse because an engine running at WOT in a racing environment will
> generate more heat at the piston hence expand more. Again, seizure is
> likely. Ergo race engines will run greater clearances than OEM engines
> between certain components. The race engine builder isn't concerned
> about a little extra noise when cold starting because of the extra
> clearances nor is he concerned about the reduced longevity.
>
> Hmmm, it's becoming clearer why Les' engine detonated under its *first*
> hard WOT run. It's obvious you and Darren don't understand the concept I
> detailed above.
>
>

Isn't it ever. Neither the fraud or his dunny cleaner have any idea!

On 8/12/21 7:30 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 3:51 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 8/12/21 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>>> He had contacts there.
>>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>>
>>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one
>>> that was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you
>>> would want and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>>> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>>> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse
>>> is that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.
>>
>> Car makers were making cars to a *tolerance*. They did care, up to a
>> point. As long as all components, when assembled, would neither bind
>> nor be too loose, all was well. Manufacturing has *always* been thus.
>> The only difference between then and now were the tolerances used. As
>> casting and machining improved, tolerances were reduced.
>>>
>>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>>
>>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control
>>> and the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made
>>> in the "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>>
>> You still can. The concept is called *blueprinting*. Ever heard of it?
>> The difference is that race engine builders use a different set of
>> tolerances and specifications to the OEM engine builder. The
>> clearances and tolerances of the OEM build suit an engine designed for
>> extended cruising, frequent cold starts, fuel economy, reliability and
>> reduced noise.
>> The clearances, tolerances and materials of an OEM engine are not well
>> suited for racing applications. For example, a typical OEM piston made
>> of cast aluminium alloy will have a known expansion coefficient and
>> that will require specific piston to bore clearances for normal day to
>> day use. Racing pistons, on the other hand, are either forged or
>> machined from a billet and, as such, will have different thermal
>> behaviour. If you use the same piston to bore clearances as an OEM
>> cast piston, the piston would likely seize the first time you ran the
>> engine. This is because the forged material will expand much more as
>> it warms up. It gets worse because an engine running at WOT in a
>> racing environment will generate more heat at the piston hence expand
>> more. Again, seizure is likely. Ergo race engines will run greater
>> clearances than OEM engines between certain components. The race
>> engine builder isn't concerned about a little extra noise when cold
>> starting because of the extra clearances nor is he concerned about the
>> reduced longevity.
>>
>> Hmmm, it's becoming clearer why Les' engine detonated under its
>> *first* hard WOT run. It's obvious you and Darren don't understand the
>> concept I detailed above.
>>
>>
>
>
> Isn't it ever. Neither the fraud or his dunny cleaner have any idea!

It is patently obvious, isn't it?

Sadly, I would have expected Daryl, a qualified mechanic, to have a clue
about this sort of stuff. Apparently not. Given he spent much of his
working career as a dunny cleaner, I guess he didn't get the necessary
*working experience* nor, seemingly, did he ever expand on his basic
apprentice training.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/12/2021 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>> He had contacts there.
>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>
> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.

His story is a load of trolling bullshit. As if Holden would let people
just waltz into the foundry and go through all their parts to help
themselves to whatever bits they liked.

This idiot thinks people are as stupid as he is.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/12/2021 5:22 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>

>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>
> No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.

Hate to burst your delusional bubble here pal, but even back in the
early 1960's when the Holden Red Motor first emerged the manufacturing
process was pretty automated. There wasn't a whole lot of hand operation
going on, and the tolerances didn't vary much.

You're story is a load of rubbish.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/12/21 9:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one
>> that was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you
>> would want and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>
> His story is a load of trolling bullshit. As if Holden would let people
> just waltz into the foundry and go through all their parts to help
> themselves to whatever bits they liked.

Ever been in the engine foundry Darren? No? Well I have. Got the grand
tour, learnt a shitload about engine casting. I reckon if you worked
there, they'd give a pretender like you the worst job in the place. Know
what that job is Darren? Chisel and hammer knocking the casting flash
off the green castings Darren, perfect job for a pretender like you.
>
> This idiot thinks people are as stupid as he is.....

If you haven't been in the foundry, you cannot comment on the goings on
in there.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/12/21 9:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 5:22 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>
>>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>>
>> No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.
>
> Hate to burst your delusional bubble here pal, but even back in the
> early 1960's when the Holden Red Motor first emerged the manufacturing
> process was pretty automated. There wasn't a whole lot of hand operation
> going on, and the tolerances didn't vary much.
>
> You're story is a load of rubbish.
>
Now I know you didn't do a tour of the engine foundry. I was there in
the early 80s and it *still* looked like *Dante's Inferno*. Not a lot of
automation in that place, that much is for sure. You want automation,
you needed to do a tour of the Toyota plant at Altona. You know, the one
you lived near but never got to see the inside of.

As always, your Googling is letting you down.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/12/21 9:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one
>> that was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you
>> would want and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>
> His story is a load of trolling bullshit. As if Holden would let people
> just waltz into the foundry and go through all their parts to help
> themselves to whatever bits they liked.
>
> This idiot thinks people are as stupid as he is.....
>
>

Not impossible but the "had contacts there" would have to be very senior
management so not very likely.
Back in the day at Ford the factory race team people might have been
able to "select" their own parts and I have heard stories with no way of
confirming them of senior management getting directly involved if they
wanted something special but very unlikely that an outsider could have
access.

--
Daryl

On 8/12/21 5:22 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
>> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
>> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
>> that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.
>
> Quite so. Yet optimal selecting and fitting all the parts had to be
> an improvement.

That's called blueprinting, depending on the engine it can make a lot of
difference or not much at all.

> ...and then there's the "reconditioned" engine made up of sundry bits.
>>
>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>
>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>
> No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.
>

More likely better materials, engine designs plus better systems and
processes.
Don't know when Holden first had robots and computers in their engine
plant but my youngest brother in law worked for Holden almost all of his
working life including a stint doing QC in the engine plant starting in
the late 70's and I remember him telling me about some of the processes
being computerized.

--
Daryl

On 8/12/21 11:17 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/12/21 5:22 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>>> He had contacts there.
>>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>>
>>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
>>> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
>>> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>>> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>>> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
>>> that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.
>>
>> Quite so.  Yet optimal selecting and fitting all the parts had to be
>> an improvement.
>
> That's called blueprinting, depending on the engine it can make a lot of
> difference or not much at all.

Err, no it is not. That process is called selective assembly. It is not
blueprinting as such. Blueprinting an engine, for the purpose of
performance, involves speccing an engines components to specifications
and tolerances *other than OEM*. If you are going to use an engine for
racing, you don't use OEM specs and tolerances. If OEM specs and
tolerances were all you wanted, you may as well just go out and buy a
*crate engine*. Hey, guess what, they are assembled to OEM specs and
tolerances. As a race engine builder, you want something more. Why else
would you go through the arduous process of blueprinting - and it is an
arduous process.
Blueprinting, therefore, is the process of preparing, specifying and
documenting all of the engine's tolerances, clearances and materials
according to a set standard. With any given engine, the *only* standard
you will find are those specifications you will find in the factory
engine service manual. If you are running non standard bits and pieces,
the *OEM standard* is of no use to you because, as mentioned earlier,
you will be running the engine under different operating conditions,
typically a race environment. An example, if you are running a 2618
billet type piston, you will require a different different cold
clearance (more) and a different hone finish on the cylinder walls.

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2019/08/piston-faceoff-2618-vs-4032-aluminum-alloys/

http://blog.wiseco.com/piston-to-wall-clearance-myths-mysteries-and-misconceptions-explained

Blueprinting is the process of determining these necessary spec
variations based on the materials used and the intended use of the
engine, then *documenting* everything.
>
>> ...and then there's the "reconditioned" engine made up of sundry bits.
>>>
>>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>>
>>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>>
>> No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.
>>
>
> More likely better materials, engine designs plus better systems and
> processes.

So you don't know and you're only guessing.

> Don't know when Holden first had robots and computers in their engine
> plant but my youngest brother in law worked for Holden almost all of his
> working life including a stint doing QC in the engine plant starting in
> the late 70's and I remember him telling me about some of the processes
> being computerized.
>
Car manufacturing in this country was being computerised in the *70's*.
You really don't know what you're talking about.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 21:35:34 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

>On 8/12/2021 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
>> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
>> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>
>His story is a load of trolling bullshit. As if Holden would let people
>just waltz into the foundry and go through all their parts to help
>themselves to whatever bits they liked.
>
>This idiot thinks people are as stupid as he is.....

Yawnnnnn, being stooopid is like being dead; it's someone else's
problem.
The bosses & foremen used to drink at my old uncle's pub and no doubt
that was a factor.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 21:38:34 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

>On 8/12/2021 5:22 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>
>>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>>
>> No doubt due to computers, robots and machine tools.
>
>Hate to burst your delusional bubble here pal, but even back in the
>early 1960's when the Holden Red Motor first emerged the manufacturing
>process was pretty automated. There wasn't a whole lot of hand operation
>going on, and the tolerances didn't vary much.

It was the 1950s, and I don't know the engine colour.
Please drag your knuckles outta here!
>
>You're story is a load of rubbish.
>
>
>
>--
>--

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 18:51:33 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>On 8/12/21 5:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/12/21 12:48 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> In the 1950s my uncle now long dead and gone to his deserts would
>>> build his own holden engine with parts directly from General Motors in
>>> Fisherman's Bend Melbourne.
>>> He had contacts there.
>>> He and some friends would front up with an armful of measuring
>>> instruments and select an flawless engine block from the stack.
>>
>> A Holden "flawless engine block" sounds like a fantasy, finding one that
>> was as close to blueprint spec as possible would be what you would want
>> and that would most likely happen when the tooling was new.
>> The fact that anyone felt the need to search for a "flawless engine
>> block" shows how inconsistent quality most engines were, what's worse is
>> that the car makers knew they were making junk and they didn't care.
>
I've heard statisticians were involved in manufacturing decisions,
just like the Yanks taught the Japanese car makers.

>Car makers were making cars to a *tolerance*. They did care, up to a
>point. As long as all components, when assembled, would neither bind nor
>be too loose, all was well. Manufacturing has *always* been thus. The
>only difference between then and now were the tolerances used. As
>casting and machining improved, tolerances were reduced.
>>
>>> Then from the bins pick out parts, pistons camshafts, con rods etc and
>>> with the micrometers, calipers and such get as close a fit for all
>>> parts to fit into the block.
>>> The result gave an engine more tolerant to abuse and thrashing, though
>>> he blew them all up eventually.
>>> Can't do that these days, I suppose.
>>
>> Can't do it and don't need to, tooling, measurement, quality control and
>> the materials used in engines is vastly superior to anything made in the
>> "olden days", engine quality is much more consistent.
>
>You still can. The concept is called *blueprinting*. Ever heard of it?
>The difference is that race engine builders use a different set of
>tolerances and specifications to the OEM engine builder. The clearances
>and tolerances of the OEM build suit an engine designed for extended
>cruising, frequent cold starts, fuel economy, reliability and reduced
>noise.
>The clearances, tolerances and materials of an OEM engine are not well
>suited for racing applications. For example, a typical OEM piston made
>of cast aluminium alloy will have a known expansion coefficient and that
>will require specific piston to bore clearances for normal day to day
>use. Racing pistons, on the other hand, are either forged or machined
>from a billet and, as such, will have different thermal behaviour. If
>you use the same piston to bore clearances as an OEM cast piston, the
>piston would likely seize the first time you ran the engine. This is
>because the forged material will expand much more as it warms up. It
>gets worse because an engine running at WOT in a racing environment will
>generate more heat at the piston hence expand more. Again, seizure is
>likely. Ergo race engines will run greater clearances than OEM engines
>between certain components. The race engine builder isn't concerned
>about a little extra noise when cold starting because of the extra
>clearances nor is he concerned about the reduced longevity.
>
>Hmmm, it's becoming clearer why Les' engine detonated under its *first*
>hard WOT run. It's obvious you and Darren don't understand the concept I
>detailed above.