Hmm, actually, I would have thought that cam wear is irrelevant? The valve
is closed when it's closed, regardless of cam lift. For instance, my former
cam had 0.20" wear on the #2 lobe, but I could still set the valve
clearance.
I understand your point about meaningful levels of accuracy, in general, but
this particular measurement is not affected by wear -- in fact, it is
deliberately contrived to adjust for wear.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
on 5/26/09 11:15 AM, Rick Lindsay at rolindsay@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Max wrote,
>
>> So my contention is that setting them cold is equally accurate,
>> in theory, and more likely to be consistent, in practice (in
>> those cases where the factory has provided this figure, of course).
>
> Knowing all the while that the cam wear may be greater than the precision of
> either measurement technique. :-P This all feels to me like using a
> micrometer to select which pipe wrench to use. I have ALWAYS set valve
> clearances on dead-cold engines; all marques, all years.
>
> And yes, I have an LBC again - as was expected. I now own a 1962 Triumph
> TR3b. 72nd from the end of TR3 production. It is a superb specimen.
>
> Rick
> PS: My apologies for using the T-word in mixed company.
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Mgs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/mgs
http://www.team.net/archive
|