My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
- 3X00-Modified
- Administrator
- Posts: 10912
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:18 am
- Location: Brooklyn CT
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
harsh? no, Direct... Yes because there is no excuse for doing something like that with how much info is out there regarding proper rebuild steps.ifixalot wrote:Your comment is a bit harsh, don't you think?
We don't know until we learn, until then, we are all extremely stupid.
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
what i did was use a light grit sandpaper on the cylinders to break the glaze.
wish i had a honer, but i don't.
yes, i grounded off the damaged areas of the three pistons, but it was superficial.
this engine is not a high performance engine that runs at higher RPMs, maybe the inbalance
won't matter too much.
wish i had a honer, but i don't.
yes, i grounded off the damaged areas of the three pistons, but it was superficial.
this engine is not a high performance engine that runs at higher RPMs, maybe the inbalance
won't matter too much.
- Asylum
- Registered User
- Posts: 3050
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:36 am
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
NOW we know you have no idea what the hell you are doing!!Juro wrote:what i did was use a light grit sandpaper on the cylinders to break the glaze.
wish i had a honer, but i don't.
, maybe the inbalance
won't matter too much.
That thing won't last a frigging week, assuming of course you can create enough compression to make it start.
WHY ARE YOU SPENDING GOOD MONEY ON THIS CAR??
Eric
Asylum Motorsports
"Where we're not happy 'til YOU'RE not happy!
'91 California Quad (Gone with just a bit of "Seller's Remorse".)
'92 3500 GT gone and not really missed. It was fun. Documented 13.47 N/A.
Asylum Motorsports
"Where we're not happy 'til YOU'RE not happy!
'91 California Quad (Gone with just a bit of "Seller's Remorse".)
'92 3500 GT gone and not really missed. It was fun. Documented 13.47 N/A.
- whiteretta
- Registered User
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:40 pm
- Location: New Carlisle, Ohio
- Contact:
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
Before we go any further than this, what condition are the subframes, rear upper spring towers, and the rockers both inside the fender and inside the door?
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
The small amount of aluminum may not be that much percentage wise.
I don't think the factory balances that close anyway.
And like you said, this isn't a race engine spinning to 7800 rpm.
Since you didn't have a ridge on top, that would suggest the cylinders
didn't have that much wear. Cylinders wear out of round which effects
the new rings seating the most. I had a Chevy dealer replace one rod
on one of my cars under warranty. Which requires taking out the piston.
They just busted the glaze on the cylinder.
I fought with them, they didn't even want to replace the rings.
I never noticed anything different with the engine after I got it back.
You may be okay with your approach.
Back in the 70s engines had ridges of .015" per side on top after 70K miles.
Today, a 130k mile engine will have maybe .002" per side.
It may not be a top notch build but my first build wasn't either.
It ran but not well it was just practice for my next build.
One does the best they can do with what they have at the time.
Don't let some of the comments get to you.
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
― Albert Einstein
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
“We learn from failure, not from success!”
― Bram Stoker, Dracula
“Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.”
― Rita Mae Brown, Alma Mater
I don't think the factory balances that close anyway.
And like you said, this isn't a race engine spinning to 7800 rpm.
Since you didn't have a ridge on top, that would suggest the cylinders
didn't have that much wear. Cylinders wear out of round which effects
the new rings seating the most. I had a Chevy dealer replace one rod
on one of my cars under warranty. Which requires taking out the piston.
They just busted the glaze on the cylinder.
I fought with them, they didn't even want to replace the rings.
I never noticed anything different with the engine after I got it back.
You may be okay with your approach.
Back in the 70s engines had ridges of .015" per side on top after 70K miles.
Today, a 130k mile engine will have maybe .002" per side.
It may not be a top notch build but my first build wasn't either.
It ran but not well it was just practice for my next build.
One does the best they can do with what they have at the time.
Don't let some of the comments get to you.
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
― Albert Einstein
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
“We learn from failure, not from success!”
― Bram Stoker, Dracula
“Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.”
― Rita Mae Brown, Alma Mater
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
whiteretta wrote:Before we go any further than this, what condition are the subframes, rear upper spring towers, and the rockers both inside the fender and inside the door?
- whiteretta
- Registered User
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:40 pm
- Location: New Carlisle, Ohio
- Contact:
My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
Get underneath the vehicle, and take a photo of the top of the coil springs on the rear, both sides. Also, take photos of your front subframes where the lower controls arms connect to them, also both sides. Take out the plastic inside the fender wells in the front, and take a photo of where the rockers are at, from under the car, from the wheel well back.
These are common rust out areas, along with the two photos you posted of the rockers. The other photos don't really show the common rust out spots, but that rear shock tower is getting pretty rough. Never seen one in that shape before...
Those rockers are excessively rotted out as well. Until we see photos of the other three spots I listed, we won't really have any accurate idea of the structural integrity the car may have left.
These are common rust out areas, along with the two photos you posted of the rockers. The other photos don't really show the common rust out spots, but that rear shock tower is getting pretty rough. Never seen one in that shape before...
Those rockers are excessively rotted out as well. Until we see photos of the other three spots I listed, we won't really have any accurate idea of the structural integrity the car may have left.
- Asylum
- Registered User
- Posts: 3050
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:36 am
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
SCRAP IT!
The damage you see on top of the rockers is only 10% of what is going on underneath.
That car is almost unsafe to drive!
What are you like 15 years old and this is your first car?
You are just fooling yourself and wasting money on that thing!
Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts!
The damage you see on top of the rockers is only 10% of what is going on underneath.
That car is almost unsafe to drive!
What are you like 15 years old and this is your first car?
You are just fooling yourself and wasting money on that thing!
Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts!
Eric
Asylum Motorsports
"Where we're not happy 'til YOU'RE not happy!
'91 California Quad (Gone with just a bit of "Seller's Remorse".)
'92 3500 GT gone and not really missed. It was fun. Documented 13.47 N/A.
Asylum Motorsports
"Where we're not happy 'til YOU'RE not happy!
'91 California Quad (Gone with just a bit of "Seller's Remorse".)
'92 3500 GT gone and not really missed. It was fun. Documented 13.47 N/A.
- 3X00-Modified
- Administrator
- Posts: 10912
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:18 am
- Location: Brooklyn CT
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
ifixalot If you know anything about engine building you would realize that an out of balance rotating assembly will hurt any engine, Not just a high reving one.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11 ... ease-life/
Nice quotes BUT there is so much information out there regarding this, and how it will be bad no matter how you slice it. That's also known as failing to learn from others experiences... If he was breaking new ground then yes I can understand trying something new, but we are trying to prevent him from failing since we know it wont be good in the long run.
Beyond all of that the condition of the car I feel will stop this build quicker than the lack of attention building the engine.
That is a DANGEROUS vehicle to be using with that rust on the unibody, dangerous for those around you as well as yourself.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11 ... ease-life/
Nice quotes BUT there is so much information out there regarding this, and how it will be bad no matter how you slice it. That's also known as failing to learn from others experiences... If he was breaking new ground then yes I can understand trying something new, but we are trying to prevent him from failing since we know it wont be good in the long run.
Beyond all of that the condition of the car I feel will stop this build quicker than the lack of attention building the engine.
That is a DANGEROUS vehicle to be using with that rust on the unibody, dangerous for those around you as well as yourself.
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
Those rear strut towers sketch me out ...I've seen them rebuilt and the rockers Could easily be replaced ....but...if they are that rusty...what's the rest of the subframes and everything else look like underneath ...I'd say she's done...mine had a little rocker rust and wheel well rust ..but the shock towers and subframes on mine are rust free...which is why I put the effort into fixing the rockers and wheel well..I'd find something in better shape and start with that ...sorry dude ...also engine wise ...those 3.1s are everywhere at the scrappers ...probs just be cheaper to pick up a low km one in better shape...good luck!
93 retta gt quasar
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
I'm not that worried about the shock towers, hell I removed the upped layer of sheet metal from mine completely with no issues, there is another thicker one under it in the wheel well that actually does all the job.
How ever, that rocker rot is extreme and this car would wrap up in accident like tinfoil, unsafe.
How ever, that rocker rot is extreme and this car would wrap up in accident like tinfoil, unsafe.
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
3X00-Modified wrote:ifixalot If you know anything about engine building you would realize that an out of balance rotating assembly will hurt any engine, Not just a high reving one.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11 ... ease-life/
Nice quotes BUT there is so much information out there regarding this, and how it will be bad no matter how you slice it. That's also known as failing to learn from others experiences... If he was breaking new ground then yes I can understand trying something new, but we are trying to prevent him from failing since we know it wont be good in the long run.
Beyond all of that the condition of the car I feel will stop this build quicker than the lack of attention building the engine.
That is a DANGEROUS vehicle to be using with that rust on the unibody, dangerous for those around you as well as yourself.
Good link, I looked at that link. Then I went out to my shop and found a piece of aluminum .100 thick x 3/4 x 1.900, it weighs 5.5 grams. I'm too lazy to try and figure
out the area that he ground down on the pistons. But by my seat of the pants estimation, I doubt he even took that much off the top of the pistons.
That link said Ford only balances to 4.5 grams which is old school "racing" specs.
Old school factory engines were balanced to 56 grams, wow!
Anyway, that is why my opinion was that it probably won't make much difference.
In the other post about transmissions, I added my concern about the rust on car by saying maybe he could find an early Beretta to put his engine into.
It seemed to me some were being pretty hard and pessimistic toward him.
I was once a kid on a limited budget trying to build an engine the best I could with what I had to work with.
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
Today i removed two pistons, one good and one damaged. Then I
measured them both on my jeweler's scales, which always give
comparable results.
The greatest difference was 973.4 grams less 971.0 grams = 2.4 grams.
One ounce = 28.3495231 grams. So with three pistons off by 2.4 grams
each, that is 7.2 grams, or about a fourth of one ounce total.
Here is a close-up of the damaged piston, showing off my grinding job here: Here i measured the damaged piston:
Then, one of the good pistons was measured:
measured them both on my jeweler's scales, which always give
comparable results.
The greatest difference was 973.4 grams less 971.0 grams = 2.4 grams.
One ounce = 28.3495231 grams. So with three pistons off by 2.4 grams
each, that is 7.2 grams, or about a fourth of one ounce total.
Here is a close-up of the damaged piston, showing off my grinding job here: Here i measured the damaged piston:
Then, one of the good pistons was measured:
- 3X00-Modified
- Administrator
- Posts: 10912
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:18 am
- Location: Brooklyn CT
Re: My 1992 Beretta 3.1L
Any way you slice it what you did is back yard hack and would never be recommend to fix that specific issue... Whatever may result from it could be really bad or you'll just have a poor running engine overall and make this rebuild a wasted effort when you actually could improve your situation.
The weights would never match 100% either but with how much yours varies all over it could be worse and exaggerate an out of balance vibration.
The weights would never match 100% either but with how much yours varies all over it could be worse and exaggerate an out of balance vibration.