MinnesotaEric
Super Member
I'm baffled by people complaining about manufacturing efficiency, and those with nostalgic eyes waxing for the "craftsmanship of yesteryear."
Things are cost prohibitive to rebuild these days for a number of reasons:
1) Efficiency of manufacturing obsoletes manual refurbishing.
2) Speed of improvements and design change makes parts warehousing cost-probitive since NOS parts are unlikely to be purchased.
Engines of yesteryear in comparison to the state-of-the-art engines of today are crap. Those old engines could be rebuilt because their design replacement only happened once a decade and new engines were so expensive that refurbishing an old engine made good money sense. Old engines were designed to be rebuildable because they also wore out faster. 0.60 over pistons on a six-over bore job because the engine wore out the five previous sets. These days metallurgy is so much better that short shirt pistons are used in diesel designs to limit parasitic loss of power and chrome-lined cylinder bores outperform any hardened surface from yesteryear!
Really want to see how far a new engine can go? Do a valve job every 3,000 hours and refresh the rings and pistons at 6,000 hours and diamond hone the chrome bore. At 12,000 rebuild the bottom-end. With regular oil changes, new engines should outlast any engine of yesteryear simply because they are better engines to begin with!
But wait, doing rebuild work is cost prohibitive because of manufacturing efficiency and because there are less and less mechanics in the world.
And the lower cost of buying a whole new engine is a bad thing?
As I said, I'm baffled by a line of thought in this thread.
Things are cost prohibitive to rebuild these days for a number of reasons:
1) Efficiency of manufacturing obsoletes manual refurbishing.
2) Speed of improvements and design change makes parts warehousing cost-probitive since NOS parts are unlikely to be purchased.
Engines of yesteryear in comparison to the state-of-the-art engines of today are crap. Those old engines could be rebuilt because their design replacement only happened once a decade and new engines were so expensive that refurbishing an old engine made good money sense. Old engines were designed to be rebuildable because they also wore out faster. 0.60 over pistons on a six-over bore job because the engine wore out the five previous sets. These days metallurgy is so much better that short shirt pistons are used in diesel designs to limit parasitic loss of power and chrome-lined cylinder bores outperform any hardened surface from yesteryear!
Really want to see how far a new engine can go? Do a valve job every 3,000 hours and refresh the rings and pistons at 6,000 hours and diamond hone the chrome bore. At 12,000 rebuild the bottom-end. With regular oil changes, new engines should outlast any engine of yesteryear simply because they are better engines to begin with!
But wait, doing rebuild work is cost prohibitive because of manufacturing efficiency and because there are less and less mechanics in the world.
And the lower cost of buying a whole new engine is a bad thing?
As I said, I'm baffled by a line of thought in this thread.
Last edited: