<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/2/2019 8:25 PM, Paul Dorsey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFU8DPs79VTKzTLNXJHOs7d_mkgb+9ZkPfwp+KnF71WUxmo9gg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Why don't more cars have wet sleeve engines? What
was the weekness of this idea?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Remember that the wet-sleeve engine in your car was first
introduced with the Standard Vanguard in something like 1937-38.
It was expensive to remove an engine for machining the bores, and
with wet sleeves, the bores could be removed and replaced with the
block in the car, or, in a pinch, machined on a lathe. And, there
was good heat transfer from the bores to the coolant, so it made
sense at the time. The other consideration was that the material
that made really long-lasting cylinder bore material wasn't that
easy to cast in big lumps, like engine blocks, without defects.
And, an engine block with all that open space without
cast-in-place bores was simpler to design and cast, and was more
tolerant of commonplace errors in casting such as core shifts.<br>
</p>
<p>Over time, casting science improved, cylinder blocks were
improved, materials science produced iron alloys that flowed well
<i>and</i> had good bore-wear characteristics, so wet-sleeve
engines became pretty rare (except for really huge stationary
engines which can't just be yanked and sent to the machine shop).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Cheers.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Michael Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....</pre>
</body>
</html>