Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0

Thread: "Name That Outboard"

  1. #211
    John (Taylor) Gabrowski
    Guest

    Default Piston Grade Aluminum for casting or Thermoplastic?

    Tim:

    That amount of aluminum shrinkage is why some casting molders like my Father became/was used aluminum alloys to create objects where shrinkage and on the other side, expansion when the product was put into use was a factor from aluminums he called piston grade aluminum where their alloys shrank so little under the various conditions where heat or vibration was involved so castings could me made tighter fitting than others resulting in less machining to fit objects that could be mated to. Similarly when the product was put in use expansion was so little leakage and alignments were not problematic.

    It was at nearing his retirement when great interest was being shown in an offshoot of casting, plastic injection molding where high heat resistent thermoplastics were being used in automotive and other fields where of all things, carbon fiber was being looked at as an alternative for many metals for coverings and different structural purposes where light weight and rigidity aspects were part of the desires. Similarly great strides were made in very light weight catalyst cured epoxy plastics that would be combined with different fillers to form structural properties similar to what thermoplastics could exhibit but with less capital intensive machinery to make objects that rivaled metal castings for the purposes they were made.

    My father taught me the basics of so many aspects of good basic casting practices and basic methods and know how it was as if it was one gift he gave as a reminder of who he was and what he did to be as a part of his life he wanted to be remembered for. It is only in these recent times like with what your doing is calling up those teachings for thought and use. Projects like your efforts and results provoke innovation most would not venture to. What your doing is great and at the same time very educational for those so motivated.

  2. #212
    John (Taylor) Gabrowski
    Guest

    Default My neighbour and his racing Merc KG9

    When my neighbor obtained his first Mercury racing engine, a used Merc KG9 it came in a crate not only mounted on a H type racing tower, it also came with the stock fishing type gearcase, tower and clamps complete and the bolt up tiller handle assembly that allowed you to remove the racing cable mount and use it for fishing use. It also came with corresponding props so it was plain the engine was dual purpose and that is what Ted Coates did do with the engine, dual purpose and used it just that way.

    Here I am all fired up about a Merc 8 - 88 and I have a near complete Merc Twister I that has not only the lower unit that can handle a V-8, a Speedmaster MC1 "biggy" but also a super heavy duty tower to hold that 250+ pound OPC engine on the raceboat. It seems to me that such a situation lends itself to dual purposes in particular make the coupled Merc 8 - 88 engine that with a suitable edapter plate, driveshaft coupler and cooling water distribution lines could result in a Merc Twister I complete powerhead that can be set aside and substituted with the Merc 8 - 88 and used and presented as such as a unit very strong in all to do the job. It is an interesting option that would result in not selling the Twister I but keeping it and using it no different than Ted Coates was able to use his dual purpose Merc KG9. Still, if some one finally takes the Twister I that same idea could be transfered into getting similar components of the Merc racing kind to do the same job all heavy duty and then virtually all Mercury maybe a little lighter as the Speedmaster MC1 is almost as heavy as a Merc 20H class B engine in comparisson all by itself so a ligher Speedmaster like that found on other Merc racing engines with tower would have to be a to find objective.

    Right now I have a super duty steel tower that has mounting adapters for Konig D-F and Mercury D but other adapters are easily made for differing units in any case so there is a lot of flexability here to get to the Merc 8 - 88 engine or smaller but then Mark 30s and Mark 55s are few and far between these days even up here to make a smaller displacement Merc 8 "? cuber". As of this morning 2 complete Bayer all aluminum exhausts systems have also turned up being offered to assist in this 8 - 88 project, but they are not the Quincy aluminum systems yearned for so the wait and find is on.

  3. #213
    Team Member Sam La Banco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northbrook Il.
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Pattern shrink factor

    At OMC all engines were protoyped as sand castings, there were different alloys poured for different reasons, but in general the pattern shop used:

    .011 inch per inch as the shrink factor allowance.

  4. #214
    John (Taylor) Gabrowski
    Guest

    Default That smacks of high grade piston type aluminum alloy

    Sam LaBanco:

    That small shrinkage reminds me of the properties of piston grade aluminum with a high silicon content. You can make notoriously thin walled strong castings with that stuff and from a pound for pound cost it is quite expensive and much desirable when it comes to metal recylcers these days.

    *Where can one find some of your designed and cast exhaust systems these days. (Question) I had 2 sets complete to do 2 Merc 4 cylinder engines, I used one but sold the other! (you are hearing weeping now and gnashing of teeth).

  5. #215
    Team Member Sam La Banco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northbrook Il.
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi John,

    The .011 inch per inch figure for a shrink factor for sand cast aluminum was for almost all general purpose Aluminum alloys. The shrink factor for high SIL. content alloys like A-132 that is used on pistons is .008 inch per inch.

    As far as the exhaust systems go, the last set I know of, is under my work bench where we build our SST 60 motors.

    Who knows maybe I'll buy one of those new Hot Rod motors and use it there.
    I'm sure it will work even better on that motor.

  6. #216
    YARD BIRD
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Napa, California
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Q:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam La Banco View Post
    Hi John,

    The .011 inch per inch figure for a shrink factor for sand cast aluminum was for almost all general purpose Aluminum alloys. The shrink factor for high SIL. content alloys like A-132 that is used on pistons is .008 inch per inch.

    As far as the exhaust systems go, the last set I know of, is under my work bench where we build our SST 60 motors.

    Who knows maybe I'll buy one of those new Hot Rod motors and use it there.
    I'm sure it will work even better on that motor
    .................................................. ..................
    .................................................. .................................................. ..................................
    Sam; Maybe ONLY you can answer this ; why did OMC never build a 3 cylinder version of the 44 cube -2cylinder 60 horse motor ? With tuned exhaust ,like the 75 stinger, it would put out a good 100 horsepower, or more , w/2 barrel carbs . the 66 cubic inches and long stroke , long rods , what an engine !
    Last edited by Mark75H; 01-21-2009 at 05:41 PM. Reason: mistake

  7. #217
    Team Member Sam La Banco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northbrook Il.
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There was not to much thinking of race engines at OMC, and the directive from Strang was that they must be based on production engines.

    Other than the race group, there was not much interest in racing in the engine section there,.........other than a few people, most were just regular working guys that would have worked on anything as long as it was a job.

    It took me about 3 years there before I believed that, but its the truth.
    I'm sure it's the same at Mercury.

    You should believe that it's much, much harder to design and produce a fishing motor.
    When thousands and thousands of motors have to go out the door that work,
    first time every time, now thats tough, believe it.

  8. #218
    YARD BIRD
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Napa, California
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Production motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam La Banco View Post
    There was not to much thinking of race engines at OMC, and the directive from Strang was that they must be based on production engines.

    Other than the race group, there was not much interest in racing in the engine section there,.........other than a few people, most were just regular working guys that would have worked on anything as long as it was a job.

    It took me about 3 years there before I believed that, but its the truth.
    I'm sure it's the same at Mercury.

    You should believe that it's much, much harder to design and produce a fishing motor.
    When thousands and thousands of motors have to go out the door that work,
    first time every time, now thats tough, believe it.
    .................................................. ........ I DO believe what you say ; 100%. I just think that , making a 3 cylinder version of the 60 horse 2 cylinder (44) it would have been AT LEAST 90 h.p. and cheaper to build , with less parts , and more economical on fuel , than the cross flow 85 &100 h.p. V-4's .
    not to mention a lighter weight motor. And as for Mercury , you have to be correct! NOBODY can pinch a penny like Brunswick, and make it look like they are high roller spendthrifts.
    Last edited by Mark75H; 01-21-2009 at 05:43 PM.

  9. #219
    John (Taylor) Gabrowski
    Guest

    Default There must have been some Scotts there?

    Both Merc and OMC must have recruitted a bunch of expatraite Scottish engineers, mechanics and production workers locally and from the UK. They are so cheap and so thrifty they "re-use air" to play their fur bearing bagpipes! Now that is cheap!

  10. #220
    Team Member Sam La Banco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northbrook Il.
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Production Motor

    Roy,

    A few years ago, Evinrude introduced a new engine model, which is as good (actually far better) than what your suggesting.

    The 3-cylinder, 79 ci , direct injected 2-stroke, Evinrude E-tec, is sold as a 75hp model and a 90hp model.

    It's a great engine. Very good power, great fuel economy, durable, very quiet, lightweight, and good lookin' and you can buy one today.

    The cross flow v-4's have been out of production for over 10 years.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •