60K I'd be going the next size bore without a second thought if it's a performance build, if it's a low hp DD type thing I'd measure first before deciding on a course of action.
IJ.;1559930 said:60K I'd be going the next size bore without a second thought if it's a performance build, if it's a low hp DD type thing I'd measure first before deciding on a course of action.
4U2QUIK;1559943 said:and a note on that, don't just check in one place if you mic the bore. Check it several places both rotationally and vertically.
IJ.;1560076 said:<300 is a low HP 7M build.
IJ.;1560160 said:After 60K miles the holes won't be round or true, just because "motor ran great" doesn't mean it was in any condition to build on as a good reliable base.
I don't build dyno queens or one hit wonders, I run my cars exactly how they're dyno'd and expect them to live day in day out at those settings.
Typical dyno session for me is drive in hook up the Dyno WB, Knock sensor/ears and Map sensor do the tuning unhook it all and drive home, no micky mouse BS race fuel/special settings.
Having said that if anything isn't perfect you'll soon grenade it, there's a HUGE difference in an engine that see's a few passes down the strip each year set on kill to one that get's hammered at full boost and taken to redline each time it's driven on the street then can still blast across the country and make it back.
Even at your proposed "low HP level" you're more than doubling the engines output so things need to be right.
(SM is littered with grenades as people seem to have this idea that 400+rwhp is "easy" and just a matter of bolting on a big fuck off Turbo and cranking in the boost)
better said than I.IJ.;1560201 said:You need to measure each hole top/middle/bottom and 12 o'clock, 3 and 4.30 (with 12 being the front)
I just take it as a given that in a used performance engine 1 of the 36 measurements is going to be out of spec4U2QUIK;1560226 said:better said than I.