Bob -
I have 0.40 over and never have had a problem, even in overheating
situations. Not 0.60 over... but not too far off. FYI.... the 0.40
over was a standard works modification to take the car to just under
three liters for racing in class....
Cheers,
Alan
'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 09:29:02 -0800, Bob Spidell <bspidell@comcast.net> wrote:
> re:
>
> "Wall thickness at 0.060 and it was a little too thin for my comfort zone as
> I was a bit scared of overheating and of the cyls becoming barrel shape from
>being
> so thin. "
>
> I'd like to hear from anybody running 0.060 over pistons regarding any
>problems
> (I'm considering them myself). And, from the pros on the List, do you
>recommend
> for or against running 0.060 over.
>
> TIA,
>
> bs
> ********************************************
> Bob Spidell San Jose, CA bspidell@comcast.net
> '67 Austin-Healey 3000 '56 Austin-Healey 100M
> ********************************************
>
> Subject: RE: Piston Set
>
> > Carlos, I bought a set (for my 3000 engine) as you described from
> > British Parts Northwest in Salem, Oregon a few years back. Try them at
> > www.bpnorthwest.com. However, I opted to sleeve the engine back to std.
> > bore. I sent the 0.060 set back to them and they were happy to swap for
> > a std. bore set. Nice guys here.... I checked the cyl. Wall thickness
> > at 0.060 and it was a little too thin for my comfort zone as I was a bit
> > scared of overheating and of the cyls becoming barrel shape from being
> > so thin. Anyway, I am very happy with the sleeve job back to std. bore.
> > Lotsa Luck,
> > Jack
|