Diagnosing Noise in a 2000TC engine

chrisyork said:
Gosh! And we were all wittering on about timing chains!

Chris
Click to expand...

Strange thing is,the chains and tensioners seem to have been replaced recently,
The engine has obviously been apart before (judging by the amount of silicon sealant found )

Maybe you could provide the answer to something that has been puzzling me,

Did Rover use Vandervall bearings when new :?:
 
Pass on that one, but very likely. The bearing shells were certainly bought in and not made on site. Rover repackaged them into their own logo boxes as spares. I would expect they would come from multiple manufacturers of which Vandevell would be likely to be one. The name is sometimes used in a generic sense to describe this sort of bearing (like "Hoover" or "Land-Rover"). When the P6 was new people would still be familiar with white metal bearings in mains and big ends, I seem to think P2's had them. When I was young I was tought to scrape in white metal bearings, albeit on somewhat larger engines (12" bore by 12" stroke!).

Chris
 
DaveHerns said:
What did that broken piston do to the bore ?
Click to expand...

None,in fact i was rather surprised at the lack of bore wear on an engine that has done 90k+ miles,the new ring gap is about 4 thou,within manufacturers tolerances i beleive,...
 
To be honest that looks like straightforward old age to me. The failure is in the main area that is side loaded aginst the cylinder wall, and at least part of the failure is at a discontinuity - the ring pack - so I'd have that as a straightforward fatigue failure.

Chris
 
hermione149 said:
None,in fact i was rather surprised at the lack of bore wear on an engine that has done 90k+ miles,the new ring gap is about 4 thou,within manufacturers tolerances i believe,...
Click to expand...


My Rover 2000 workshop manual lists the correct ring gap to be 19 - 24 thou for the later type of piston ring.

Have you measured the cylinder bore for ovality and taper, with a bore gauge?

Does anyone have any numbers for the recommended taper and ovality limits for the 2000 motor? They are not listed in the Official Rover manual. Kenneth Ball's shop manual recommends that if there is more than 8 thou taper wear in the bore then re-bore the motor. The Haynes manual recommends 6 thou wear. These seem like large tolerances to me.

When I re ringed my 2000 motor, I found that there was 0.5 thou ovality and taper in the bores. Post honing they were about 2 thou to 4 thou oversize. So I fitted the rings, and adjusted the ring gaps with a proper ring file, put it all back together and the motor runs well. I used Hasting piston rings, 6777, and new pistons.

It has always bothered me that there are no official Rover numbers for taper and ovality. I have a Haynes manual for the Mini, and it states that Leyland did not publish tolerances for the mini motor, and suggests tolerances of 3 thou for both taper and ovality. I used these numbers to decide on re ringing over re boring.

Has anyone seen any official numbers for taper and ovality?

James.
 
When I dismantled my engine for the rebuild, I found ring lands cracked and broken on one piston. This was enough to convince me that replacing one piston would only put off the failure of the others to sometime soon. I assume the cracks were natural wear and old age, metal fatigue.
I chose to rebore 20 over and replace all the pistons to remove this from future concerns.
I also had the crank ground , and fitted oversize bearings. I think the additional cost is well worth it in terms of expected durability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top