View Full Version : Dr. Lee: 82 block metallurgical analysis
83Blzr62
08-03-2006, 10:38
I read a while back that you could run tests to see what the differences were between the 82 block and later year blocks if you had a sample. I have an 82 block that I am rebuilding and will send some of it to you if I can take some off without harming the block. I would like to know if there really is that much of a difference. I also have the heads if they were made from the same metal, so I could send you more metal from them. Could I take some metal off the block with out harming it for these testing purposes?
CleviteKid
08-04-2006, 16:23
Just find a corner somewhere that is not doing anything, and cut it off with a hacksaw. If you can, use a new blade. I only need about 10 grams for an analysis.
I am not sure the heads were actually made from the same metal, so if you can find a useless corner on a head, send one of those, too. And label them so I know which is which.
Email me at clevitekid at y a h o o dot c o m when you have the samples so I can give you my mailing address.
Dr. Lee, aka The Clevite Kid
john8662
08-04-2006, 18:12
Doc,
I've got some cylinder wall cuttings out of an '82 block, would that be of use for this particular experiment?
CleviteKid
08-05-2006, 10:11
Yes, they can be dissolved and analyzed by ICP. Email me at clevitekid at y a h o o dot c o m.
Chevrolet4x4s
08-10-2006, 18:04
Not to thread jack......but let me get this straight CleviteKid and DrLee are the same person:confused: :confused: :confused:
Shane
Not to thread jack......but let me get this straight CleviteKid and DrLee are the same person:confused: :confused: :confused:
Shane
They share the same body, but beyond that no one is very sure.
dieseldummy
08-10-2006, 21:50
John also has some cuttings from my '93 599 block that could be used to compare with the '82 stuff.
Clevite
Now I know there is little logic that would seem reasonable to folks outside of the engineering circles and bean counters of the large corporations, but why would a company such as GM change the formulation of there block castings if the early 6.2's and the 599 6.5 blocks were so good?
Seems to me that if it works good and lasts you have done your job right.
Maybe I am confused as to the goal??
Seems that the big companies design a product, work all the bugs out over 5-10 years then after its real good then the scrap it and start over with a new POS and do it all over again.
The small block chevy ruled supreme from 1955 untill into the 90's without much real change.
This has to be some sort of a milestone in engineering achievement.
The 5.7 Olds went from 77/78 right in there to 85 then they had it all figured out fairly well and then off to the scrap heap.
The chevy rat 1965 untill the late 90's in basically the same form.
These large Corporations have got to be brain dead.
Well it seems maybe they are as we see them losing $$$$$ by the billions.
I think the crew here at the diesel page should be runing a car company, we could make it right me thinks!!
Sorry to ramble but the idea that a company would deliberately change the formulation of their block castings from something good to otherwise makes me wonder. Both my 599 blocks have 250+K on them and are good. The engine in my 84 Blazer is a red transplant engine and who knows how many miles is on that critter????????
This will be interesting to see what you find in the analysis.
Robyn
Currious sort that rambles and questions everything. ;0)
Robyn,
If memory serves right, a Bean counter took over GM in the 80's. I don't remember him name but Ross Perot get into an argument with the philosophy of the company at the time and was kicked off the board of directors.
I think GM does much better when run by an engineer.
Kevin
I do believe you may be right.
GM has slid a lot in recent years for sure.
DmaxMaverick
08-11-2006, 18:45
New millenium technology with late 70's quality. 'Fraid o' that?? You should be....
you got that right.
I went to a car show in my little home town here a couple weeks ago.
There were some home built rigs there that were absolutely marvelous.
I do believe that corporate America has imploded totally.
Nobody any more can build anything that is worth squat.
I started my career in the automotive world in 1970 when I graduated from high school.
I worked for a Mopar dealer at that time. OMG what stuff we had in the early 70's. I owned a 70 Plymouth Super Bird. (Hemi 4 spd)
By 79-80 there was some real junk rolling out of detroit for sure.
Ford totaly went out to lunch with their F series untill about 88-89
GM was not too bad through the 80's in the trucks. Dodge, well they were just Dodge.
Anyway straying from the thread here a tad.
I agree new tech with junk quality
Chevrolet4x4s
08-12-2006, 20:28
They share the same body, but beyond that no one is very sure.
Skitso????? LOL
Wonder if the myth couldn't be attributed to the relatively few numbers of 190hp turbocharged turned-up-fuel 6.2L engines produced in 1982?
And equally few in '83, '84, '85, '86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91 and '92?
Most folks would point out that 'you never saw a 'XX 6.2 with broken mains, or broken crankshaft'.
Imo, it really boils down to a problem with the metallurgy - it occured when they poured that metallurgy into a casting-mold that was small enough to fit into a pickup engine bay, but smaller than required to support the crank at any but minimal power levels.
And, that 1982 6.2 was the poster child for minimal power levels............
Wonder if the myth couldn't be attributed to the relatively few numbers of 190hp turbocharged turned-up-fuel 6.2L engines produced in 1982?
And equally few in '83, '84, '85, '86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91 and '92?
Most folks would point out that 'you never saw a 'XX 6.2 with broken mains, or broken crankshaft'.
Imo, it really boils down to a problem with the metallurgy - it occured when they poured that metallurgy into a casting-mold that was small enough to fit into a pickup engine bay, but smaller than required to support the crank at any but minimal power levels.
And, that 1982 6.2 was the poster child for minimal power levels............
They could have made a casting mold the size of the IH 6.9l and fit it in the engine compartment. This would have almost guaranteed it could STAY in the engine compartment, too. What the 6.2/6.5 needed to run with the big boys was another 100lb of metal in the block, 25lb more in each head, 6 head bolts around each cylinder, and a forged crank.
Precisely - for proof of that, lay a 6.2-5L block on the rear PTO flange, then lay a 6.9\7.3 block immediately adjacent, noting the disparity in heighth.
If that's not proof enough, stand a 6.9\7.3 crank next to a 6.5 crank, again noting the difference in heighth.
Should have designed in more length to prevent the extreme undercutting of the mains webbing required by the cylinder bore diameter.
I jest cain't figger out whether the blocks that do survive are the M-W-F jobs, or the Tue-Thur ones...............
Btw, no intent intended of nay-saying Dr. Lee's offer of metallurgical analysis, which has long been needing definitive resolution - inquiring minds need to know.
83Blzr62
09-18-2006, 13:15
I sent out the piece about a week ago and tracking said Dr. Lee recieved it. How long will it take to get the results for the test?
tommac95
10-02-2006, 12:17
Well, he's got to dissolve the pieces, and will probably wait until he's doing another test which will require running similar calibration standards on the chemical analysis ICP machine. Then , it'll only consume a couple minutes to perform the extra test for you.
So, it depends on the schedule ... and maybe he's got to 'influence' somebody else to do these tests !
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.