Quote:
Originally Posted by Synchro909
I'm in pretty much the same camp as Stingray70 and kawagumby. New engines these days are made to tolerances not possible when our cars were made and out of materials not available using techniques they couldn't dream of. An engine rebuilt by the best workshop today will only be to about the standard Ford attained in the day. I don't think it is reasonable to compare a new engine with a Model A engine, new or rebuilt.
The engineers of the day knew what they were on about and they were quite strong in their recommendations that an engine be run in properly. That's do me when dealing with one of their engines.
|
This is not really an accurate statement. As I mentioned above, technology has changed immensely, so people should not assume anything. Ford engineers were dealing with several differences between their technological timeframe and today's. Ford was dealing with unseasoned cast which today's machine shop typically has seasoned castings to work with. Second, Ford engineers did not have near the quality of engine oils like today. The machines that we use today in the rebuilding industry can hold tolerances that even OE production engines do not try to meet. (This is why performance shops offer 'blueprinted' engines)
As mentioned above, the abrasives used for machining in the day vs. today are hugely different. Today, most rebuild shops are using diamond and CBN stones where the tolerances can be held to tenths measurements. Additionally, parts such as the alloys in modern pistons, the modern ring compositions, and today's valve & guide materials allow for much tighter tolerances to be used. Therefore we can (-and should) be producing a product that is much better than original with respect to longevity. We do this in other areas of the restoration such as the quality of paints, fabrics, tires, glass, etc. So why do we accept less when it comes to engines?