[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by mysticmissle

Porosity in the piston? Highly unlikely it's definately a forging. Does it line up with spark plug hole? Looks like effects of a piston stop from degreeing cam. Not sure why other side would have sanding marks. Is that what it is?

My mistake, I think you're right about the cause of the marks, not sure why there are 4 of them though. Those are sanding marks. I would have expected this done on #1, not #2.

[Tom Vaught]

"Casting Porosity" on a Forged Piston? I do not think that should be the case with any quality Forged Piston. I guarantee that you would not see that deal on a CP Forged Piston.

Tom Vaught

[73 TRANSAM]

It looks like a piston stop mark but why would you use a set screw that is pointy to dig a hole in the piston two holes instead of one? You figure one is a Goof but two!To all the money you spent on that engine build, everything should be spotless. It looks like you are finding stuff that is usually fine turns out bad. I hope this is the last bad thing you will find on it. I would remove the rods, crank and inspect the bearings if I were you. I would strip that block and inspect everything before putting it in your car. Goodluck on your build, looking forward of a happy ending.

[RAIV-Z]

More disassembly pics.

[RAIV-Z]

...

[Tom Vaught]

Looks to me like the ARP L19 fastener does not sit flat on the connecting rod pad.

Diameter of the fastener is larger vs the rod pad surface diameter.

Tom Vaught

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Looks to me like the ARP L19 fastener does not sit flat on the connecting rod pad.

Diameter of the fastener is larger vs the rod pad surface diameter.

Tom Vaught

All the rod bolts looked ok, that might just be the angle of the picture. All the rod bearing look great to.

[Tom Vaught]

Camera Angle deal, looked like the bolts were touching the pocket closest to the beam of the rod.

Tom Vaught

[johnta1]

What rods are those?
Is that cap all the way down?
(tight?)

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by johnta1

What rods are those?
Is that cap all the way down?
(tight?)

They are callies ultra. The caps were all tight.

Here is a better picture. The other one was a little dark.

[Tom Vaught]

I looked at the better picture, How much side clearance do you have with the rods right now? Put a feeler gage between the 2 caps and give me a number, please.

Tom Vaught

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

I looked at the better picture, How much side clearance do you have with the rods right now? Put a feeler gage between the 2 caps and give me a number, please.

Tom Vaught

All rod clearances matched the build sheet .018 to .020.

Hint: The front of the engine is to the right.

[Travis Q]

#2 rod's in the #1 hole.

[johnta1]

Was the piston installed with the correct orientation to be #1?

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Travis Q

#2 rod's in the #1 hole.

You got it.

1,2,3, and 4 were in the wrong holes.

5-6-7-8 were correct.

[rodneybutler]

I see a few engines come through the shop labeled that way done by chevy builders. Label the front rod as no 1. It shouldn't matter if they are all the same size.

[Tom Vaught]

If we go thru each rod, step by step, Ed.

On a Chebby the Front Cylinder on the driver's side bank is closest to the front bumper of the car (or Crank Snout/Balancer for reference point). This cylinder is called #1

On a Pontiac, the Front Cylinder on the passenger side bank is closest to the front bumper of the car (or Crank Snout/Balancer for reference point). Pontiac guys call this cylinder #2 but the rod closest to the snout/balancer is normally called the #1 cylinder.
Pontiac followed the spark plug wiring cylinder numbering but not the actual front most cylinder "naming convention".

So the guy initially numbered the rods and installed them like a Chebby.

Big Chamfer in the rod to the front on the #1 rod and Big Chamfer to the rear on the #2 Rod. So in order for the rods to be in the right spots for the chamfers on the Pontiac crank the Chebby #1 rod (Chamfer to the front) was moved to the Pontiac #2 cylinder. The #2 Chebby rod (chamfer to the rear) was moved to the Pontiac #1 cylinder.

So that takes care of the first two cylinders.

Same deal happens with the #3 and #4 Cylinders (they had to be swapped side for side to be in the right locations on the Pontiac crank (chamfer wise).

So about half way thru installing the rods and pistons apparently the guy noticed that the rods were not right and puts #6 & #8 in correctly and puts #5 & #7 in correctly in the block in relation to the chamfers on the crank and the rod location on the crank (front or rear position on each rod journal).

Hope that makes sense.

Tom Vaught

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

If we go thru each rod, step by step, Ed.

On a Chebby the Front Cylinder on the driver's side bank is closest to the front bumper of the car (or Crank Snout/Balancer for reference point). This cylinder is called #1

On a Pontiac, the Front Cylinder on the passenger side bank is closest to the front bumper of the car (or Crank Snout/Balancer for reference point). Pontiac guys call this cylinder #2 but the rod closest to the snout/balancer is normally called the #1 cylinder.
Pontiac followed the spark plug wiring cylinder numbering but not the actual front most cylinder "naming convention".

So the guy initially numbered the rods and installed them like a Chebby.

Big Chamfer in the rod to the front on the #1 rod and Big Chamfer to the rear on the #2 Rod. So in order for the rods to be in the right spots for the chamfers on the Pontiac crank the Chebby #1 rod (Chamfer to the front) was moved to the Pontiac #2 cylinder. The #2 Chebby rod (chamfer to the rear) was moved to the Pontiac #1 cylinder.

So that takes care of the first two cylinders.

Same deal happens with the #3 and #4 Cylinders (they had to be swapped side for side to be in the right locations on the Pontiac crank (chamfer wise).

So about half way thru installing the rods and pistons apparently the guy noticed that the rods were not right and puts #6 & #8 in correctly and puts #5 & #7 in correctly in the block in relation to the chamfers on the crank and the rod location on the crank (front or rear position on each rod journal).

Hope that makes sense.

Tom Vaught

Makes sense, although I would have expected a little more attention to detail from a shop like BES regardless of what the engine cost to build. I’ve had a few milder engines built locally and have never run into issues like this. What makes issues like this look worse than what they might really be is when someone screws up and doesn’t mention anything. A simple note on the blueprint sheet indicating rods numbering/placement in the block would have sufficed.

[RAIV-Z]

Just curious to see if anyone else has had this done to their block and what the results were or if there are any other mods which should be considered while the engine is apart.

[blueghoast]

I have seen that done before, You have to drill some
holes in the slot of the bearings too to get any advantage
from the slot in the block under the bearing.

GT.