[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Mgs] another oil question? really?

To: MG List <>
Subject: Re: [Mgs] another oil question? really?
From: Max Heim <>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:53:44 -0700
Thread-index: Ac+Z/2Dmo28Snf2VSnKeLeDyhkinTwABKI7Z
Thread-topic: [Mgs] another oil question? really?
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
I don't buy that oval story. The whole idea is to keep the piston square in
the bore, so the rings seal. You oval out the bore, the rings are circular
-- the only way they can seal is to cock the piston, which can't happen
because there are 3 rings, not one.


Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Menlo Park, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires

on 7/7/14 9:20 AM, Clayton Kirkwood at wrote:

> Yes! Ok, I've had my 62 mga engine rebuilt 3 times by "experts". The current
> iteration seems solid - put a couple thousand miles on her. But she sips oil
> modestly. The guy who did the machine shop work for my 59 Land Rover told me
> that most machine shops and rebuilders machine the cylinder walls wrong.
> They make the cylinders round instead of slightly oval toward the bottom of
> the stroke which considers the pull and push rotation of the driveshaft and
> connector arm. Seems reasonable to me.
> So the question. Should I increase the viscosity of the oil to allow less
> oil burn, and/or, go to synthetic which won't burn off?
> Also by now, I'm figuring she has finished running in and plan to change
> oil/filter.
> "We live in the greatest nation in the history of the world," he pleaded. "I
> hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." Barrie Obama

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>