Reproduction Parts for 1916-1964 Chevrolet Passenger Cars & 1918-1987 Chevrolet & GMC Trucks
SHOP ONLINE | ONLINE CATALOG | ABOUT US
Over the years I've read many times in this and the old forum to not use plasti-gauge. This month's G&D has an article by David Sylvain where he recommends it. Who is wrong? Based on prior readings, I recently advised a user to ditch the plasti-gauge. I don't want to give bad advice. Thoughts?
7046 old site posts
Save a life, adopt a senior shelter pet
There are many good people. If you can't find one, be one.
1938 Master Business Coupe
1953 210 Sedan
I found this AI post and it pretty well sums up my opinion.
-
Interpreting the Scale:Reading the squashed plastic strip against the calibrated scale requires practice to achieve the best accuracy.
-
Contaminants:Excess oil or dirt on the parts can interfere with an accurate measurement.
-
Room Temperature:The product's performance is best within room temperature, around 65-75°F.
-
When Precision Tools Are Unavailable:It serves as a better-than-nothing solution to rule out assembler errors when proper measuring tools are not accessible.
-
Checking Used Engines:It can provide a good indication of clearance in a used engine without needing to disassemble it for more detailed measurements.
-
Doesn't Show High Spots:It measures the available lubricant space and reveals wear variations but doesn't show the exact high spots as accurately as other tools.
-
Doesn't Verify Bores:It cannot reveal if a crankshaft is bent or if the cylinder bore is straight.
7472 old site post
First, I have not yet read the G&D article.
Second, I have used plasti-gauge but only a few times.
My thinking is that the stuff does give a quick indication of clearance, and is better than nothing if you don't have micrometers and telescoping gauges (which I do).
BUT... that applies to cases where harder bearing materials are used, and does NOT necessarily work well where softer bearing materials are used.
The old Chevrolet sixes used a softer bearing material than you see today.
They used a higher lead babbit (and advertised it) for "embeddability".
They compensated for this by designing in large bearing areas.
This was done because back when oil filters were a dealer installed accessory, and open unfiltered slots for crankcase ventilation inlets were the way things were done, grit getting into the engine was expected.
When a piece of grit made it's way to a bearing, it embedded into the bearing babbit instead of scoring the journal.
For this reason, I'm with Tiny.
My opinion is that the old method of setting bearings in old Chev sixes is still the best for those engines.
Ole S Olson
Saskatoon, Sask, Canada
1946 DR 3/4 ton stake
1139 old site posts
I have been rebuilding thick babbit bearing engines for 50+ years. I wholeheartedly agree with Stovblt Steve Dalphonse
How sweet the roar of a Chevy four
Participant on Chatter since 11/22/2001
19758 posts on the former Chatter site
Latest Post: Engine question Our newest member: Donald Shank Recent Posts Unread Posts
