Oops, I was looking at the stroke of the 2.6, not the bore. The bore is
way smaller. Well my ring gap is .074. I didn't look in the bible to see
what it should be as I'm pretty sure that mine is a bit on the wide
side.
The cylinders don't seem very worn, just a few thousandths, so all I
need are rings. Luckily the bearings are .010, so no problems there. I
just wonder what my compression ratio will be after milling .080 off
the head with .060 pistons.
Erik Barr wrote:
>
> You might want to try
> http://www.deves.com/
>
> I bought a set of 2.6 rings last summer from them. They had them in
> stock and they may have .060 rings anyway- or may make them.
> Erik
>
> Jim Hall wrote:
> >
> > Anyone have 2.6l rings? They are the right size.
> >
> > Jim Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > Now I know why my rover ran so good. My block, which was bought from
> > > Rovers North in 1989, I would assume as reconditioned, has .060 over
> > > pistons!!! Assholes!! How is somebody supposed to rebuild such an
> > > engine.
> > > I don't imagine they can be bored to .080. At least it doesn't have much
> > > of a ridge, but I currently can't find .060 over rings. Guess it's time
> > > to think about what conversion I want to do next time. I'm afraid to
> > > check the bearings and see what size they are.
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
-- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 26 2001 - 23:04:35 EDT