All depends on the condition of the lower end. It used to be common
practice to do at least one head job and sometimes even two or three, before
you had to do the lower end. If the ridge in the cylinder is not too bad,
the cylinders aren't too ovalized, and it wasn't burning oil before the
recent head problem, you'd probably be okay in just doing the head. After
all, unless you mill the head, you are just putting it back to the way it
was before the valve problem.
If the engine has somewhere near a 100,000 miles or was otherwise showing
signs of wear, a complete rebuild might be in order. Changine the rod
bearings and replacing the rings is not a lot of work if you want to keep
the cost and labor to a minimum, however. If you decide to go for a total
rebuild, its a whole bunch of work and expense, BTDT. Ship Fitters disease
is an insideous affliction. It often has you in its clutches before you
figure out why your garage floor is strewn with engine internals.
Aloha
Peter.
>From: "Jim Hall" <jimfoo@qwest.net>
>Reply-To: lro@works.team.net
>To: "lro" <lro@Works.Team.Net>
>Subject: LRO: head vs engine rebuild
>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:54:44 -0600
>
>I have heard that if you rebuild a head, you also want to do the lower
>half or you will blowout the rings(not sure if that is the exact term).
>I have heard this from many sources, but have never actually heard of
>anyone having problems from doing just a head. Is this just a machine
>shop rumor to spend more money? I plan on doing the rest of the engine
>in the not too far future, so I see no harm in doing just the head now.
>--
>Jim Hall
>1966 88" Elephant Chaser
>http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
>"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling
>with Jim." Mitch Stockdale
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Apr 14 2001 - 17:24:00 EDT