mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Leak-Down Vs Compression

To: MG List <mgs@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Leak-Down Vs Compression
From: Max Heim <max_heim@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:45:17 -0700
Hmm, sounds like he's trying to scare you. Or scare up some business. 5
years is nothing. My father recently fired up a 1955 Chrysler Imperial that
had been sitting since '74 (OK, extreme case). Anyway, can't see how the
rings or the valvetrain would go bad just from sitting. Do you know how it
was running before the hibernation? Or the mileage history?


--

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


on 9/26/05 2:54 PM, RICHARD BOES at csrb7007@msn.com wrote:

> On our ongoing rehab of a '79 B which sat for 5 years,  compression tests-dry
> (155-170) & wet (175-195), we pulled the engine & gearbox in order to prep
> engine box for painting.  I talked with a restoration shop today and the owner
> asked why we weren't overhauling the engine.  I told him of the compression
> tests and he then told of the leak down test and engines, sitting for extended
> periods, have gone T/U shortly after steady operation.
> 
> I've performed leak-down tests on marine diesels but never a gas engine.  As
> another point is that we had the engine running before pulling it.
> 
> Anybody have any experience/advice with this situation?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dick Boes
> Stafford, VA
> '79 B




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