cranksfaft sleeves

[dropkick317]

I am have just taken my crankshaft out to have polished. I noticed that there are grooves cut into the front and back of the crank. The grooves were caused by the front and the rear main seal. I know a common fix for this a sleeve, they work well on daily driven cars but I would like to know if anyone has done this in a race application. The engine is a 94 1.6 vtec honda sohc. The engine was not leaking oil from either seal and I am a little worried about future problems.

[Joe Harlan]

I am have just taken my crankshaft out to have polished. I noticed that there are grooves cut into the front and back of the crank. The grooves were caused by the front and the rear main seal. I know a common fix for this a sleeve, they work well on daily driven cars but I would like to know if anyone has done this in a race application. The engine is a 94 1.6 vtec honda sohc. The engine was not leaking oil from either seal and I am a little worried about future problems.
[/b]
Speedy sleeves and yes they work fine for a race application.

[joeg]

Yes, I have used them. Sometimes called "micro sleeves".

[evanwebb]

Hey where do you get these sleeves? I have a groovy crank too :-)

[billf]

:wacko: I have no current intention of using them, but have attempted to use them in the past.

How do they get installed???

All of my attempts at heat differerential and press-on were to no avail. Due to the diffences in mass, the temperatures normalized too quickly to get the thing in position.

Anyone care to share methods so I can use them in the future?

Thanks,

Good racing.

Bill :024:

[T Broring]

Bill, if you do not have leakage I wouldn't worry. New seals can conform to a moderately worn crank. It takes many thousands of miles for the rubber to make those groves or to make them deeper. Often you can move the seal depth slightly forward or back so that the seal contact is in a fresh part of the crank. Different brands of seals may also move the contact spot slightly. The repair sleeves are a good product to fix deeply groved cranks that there is no hope of sealing with a fresh rubber seal.

[joeg]

How do they get installed???

All of my attempts at heat differerential and press-on were to no avail. Due to the diffences in mass, the temperatures normalized too quickly to get the thing in position.

Anyone care to share methods so I can use them in the future?



Very carefully and with the special tool they sell to install them.

Actually, for the best job you should chuck-up your crank in a lathe and slightly chamfer the end edge where the micro-sleeve is installed with the tool. You DO NOT HEAT anything.

You do not actually need the chamfer, but it sure helps. Theoretically, they are an on-car repair (yeah right!)

Do not try the job without the install tool.

This is a repair of last resort. You may be better off asking your crank grinder to take the seal surface down a few thou with the crank grinder to remove the ridges rather than resorting to the micro sleeve rpair. Also, if you can orientate your seal in or out a bit from the groove, you can effectively cure oil leaks--but that is tricky.

BTW, it is not the crank seal that causes the ridged grooves; it is dirt trapped in the seal that grinds the grooves.

[dropkick317]

I have decided to go with a sleeve my crank is worn about .015 so I don't have many options here. Now on my application micro-sleeve says to grind about .025 off the crank then install the sleeve. This will make sure the flywheel will fit back on properly. Ready sleeve (or redi-sleeve) fits on the crank with no grinding necessary, the sleeve is slightly shorter then the whole width of the flange so the flywheel will mount on the original part of the flange not on the sleeve.

I have the luxury of working part time at a machine shop that happens to grind cranks so I will buy my sleeves there. I was told that some parts stores sell them or you should be able to buy them at your local machine shop. Some brand names I've heard of are micro-sleeve, ready sleeve (redi-sleeve) speedi-sleeve or classic.

[Geo]

I'm not familiar with any rule making this legal. Have I missed something?

[Joe Harlan]

I'm not familiar with any rule making this legal. Have I missed something?
[/b]
Standard machining and repair practice, Geo

Why must every little thing be turned into a pile of crap on this site. I will bring 30 machinest's and 50 repair books that show this to be a standard repair. Are you trying to say I can't repair sparkplug threads?

[Geo]

Standard machining and repair practice, Geo

Why must every little thing be turned into a pile of crap on this site. I will bring 30 machinest's and 50 repair books that show this to be a standard repair. Are you trying to say I can't repair sparkplug threads?
[/b]

I personally couldn't care less either way. However, with all the discussions going on about rules literalists and all the horsepucky I find this humorous.

Technically however there is no allowance for it unless it's listed in the FSM, "standard" repair or not. Same with spark plug threads. Same with nitrogen in the tires and a whole lot of other things.

Relax Joe, I'm not looking for a fight, but I find it humorous that we all have things we are willing to accept that are not specifically in "the book."

[Joe Harlan]

I personally couldn't care less either way. However, with all the discussions going on about rules literalists and all the horsepucky I find this humorous.

Technically however there is no allowance for it unless it's listed in the FSM, "standard" repair or not. Same with spark plug threads. Same with nitrogen in the tires and a whole lot of other things.

Relax Joe, I'm not looking for a fight, but I find it humorous that we all have things we are willing to accept that are not specifically in "the book."[/b]

Maybe not but it sure looks like you enjoy the crap slinging from stupid little stuff like this. I pisses me off when we want to pick the corn out of the crap for no good reason. Yes this is a performance advantage because it keeps the oil in the crankcase instead of the the track surface. As a member of the ITAC I guess i would expect you to be looking at the big picture and steering people away from these stupid little issues instead of pushing them at them.

[joeg]

Scott--The "grinding" in the instructions is the "chamfering" I referred to.

Since all the brands of sleeve are the same design--probably from the same source and reboxed--I would say you should chamfer for all brands. If you do not you probably will run into that problem remounting the flywheel.

(Wow, I did not know we could not repair stuff like sparkplug holes and crankshafts)

Cheers

[Geo]

Maybe not but it sure looks like you enjoy the crap slinging from stupid little stuff like this. I pisses me off when we want to pick the corn out of the crap for no good reason. Yes this is a performance advantage because it keeps the oil in the crankcase instead of the the track surface. As a member of the ITAC I guess i would expect you to be looking at the big picture and steering people away from these stupid little issues instead of pushing them at them.
[/b]

Joe, who gets to decide what issue that is not specifically allowed is a stupid issue?

Personally I would NEVER have dreamed of sleeving a crank as there is no allowance for it.

There are folks who say SBs are not specifically allowed so they are illegal.

There are folks who say that welding a QR mechanism to the steering shaft is not specifically allowed so it's illegal.

The above are two examples of long conversations here where I believe a good case may be made that they are legal. Yet, here is something that I can't find anything even remotely allowing this (unless specifically called out in the FSM) and folks are willing to accept it? I don't see this as pushing crap. I see it as pointing out there is no allowance for this in the ITCS. Period. If you show me where it's allowed in the ITCS I will happily recant. Heck, if you can point to wording in the ITCS that can even be interpreted in some way to allow this I'll happily recant.

You keep poking at me about my position on the ITAC bothers you for some reason or another. You and I just seem to read the rule book differently I guess. Oh, and if you want to sleeve a crank, perhaps a letter to the CRB could clear up the issue.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, who gets to decide what issue that is not specifically allowed is a stupid issue?

Personally I would NEVER have dreamed of sleeving a crank as there is no allowance for it.

There are folks who say SBs are not specifically allowed so they are illegal.

There are folks who say that welding a QR mechanism to the steering shaft is not specifically allowed so it's illegal.

The above are two examples of long conversations here where I believe a good case may be made that they are legal. Yet, here is something that I can't find anything even remotely allowing this (unless specifically called out in the FSM) and folks are willing to accept it? I don't see this as pushing crap. I see it as pointing out there is no allowance for this in the ITCS. Period. If you show me where it's allowed in the ITCS I will happily recant. Heck, if you can point to wording in the ITCS that can even be interpreted in some way to allow this I'll happily recant.

You keep poking at me about my position on the ITAC bothers you for some reason or another. You and I just seem to read the rule book differently I guess. Oh, and if you want to sleeve a crank, perhaps a letter to the CRB could clear up the issue.
[/b]


from the GCR: Repair (Verb) - To remove the effect(s) of accidental damage to a
component, returning it to original or legally modified dimensions and
function[/b]

No need for a letter that will waste more time....Protest me Geo and I will make you look silly over a repair. Oh I damaged the combustion chamber in one cylinder and repaired it also protest that to please.
You cannot define every little item in the book.
It is not your position on the ITAC it is the fact that you say things as fact and your position can make some falsely think you are speaking fact.

A crank sleeve does not need to be argued over any more than a valve guide yet you choose to make an issue out of it.

You guys need to figure it out. It is not rules creep that pushes people out nearly as much as the BS nitpicking crap like this and these websites. You start something over a method that does nothing more than stop an oil leak and people start to wander why the hell we do this.

[Geo]

It is not your position on the ITAC it is the fact that you say things as fact and your position can make some falsely think you are speaking fact. [/b]

Fair enough. Let's review:



I'm not familiar with any rule making this legal. Have I missed something?
[/b]

I don't see a statement of fact there.



Technically however there is no allowance for it unless it's listed in the FSM, "standard" repair or not. Same with spark plug threads. Same with nitrogen in the tires and a whole lot of other things.
[/b]

You got me. Stated as a fact when indeed it's my interpretation. Good point Joe.



Yet, here is something that I can't find anything even remotely allowing this (unless specifically called out in the FSM) and folks are willing to accept it? I don't see this as pushing crap. I see it as pointing out there is no allowance for this in the ITCS. Period.
[/b]

The first part is no statement of fact although the second is. Again, my interpretation. Good point.



If you show me where it's allowed in the ITCS I will happily recant. Heck, if you can point to wording in the ITCS that can even be interpreted in some way to allow this I'll happily recant.[/b]

And in that vein, I'll say this.... I think simply saying repairing a crank with a sleeve is OK because a repair is defined in the GRC is a pretty liberal interpretation, but I can see where you are coming from. I don't interpret it as being legal, although I'll certainly grant you that it's nit-picky and as such I personally wouldn't care if someone did it. I'm not sure I'd tell someone that it's perfectly legal. I know you have a different interpretation and I'm fine with that.

Just as a matter of course, I agree with you 100% that folks should not post opinions as facts. You're absolutely correct that I did so here and I shouldn't. I will have to be more careful about that. Just because I interpret a rule one way doesn't make it fact. I sincerely thank you for pointing this out because I don't like when others post opinions as facts and you're right to call me on it and I'm also glad you did.



You guys need to figure it out. It is not rules creep that pushes people out nearly as much as the BS nitpicking crap like this and these websites. You start something over a method that does nothing more than stop an oil leak and people start to wander why the hell we do this.
[/b]

Joe, I think you and I are more in agreement on this point than you may think. I think our interpretations of a number of matters may be opposite, but there certainly are matters of interpretation out there that simply go unresolved in IT. In national classes I think these probably get resolved much more often because of the Runoffs and the fact that people actually do protest more in national classes. The protests and appeals tend to resolve matters of interpretation. Wouldn't you agree with me on this point?

I think there are many nit-picky issuses that get argued here. It used to drive me crazy, but I'm realizing more and more it's because of unresolved interpretations.

I don't care (personally) about:

Sleeved crank repairs
Welded QR hex/splines
The allowance of SBs (as long as everyone is on the same page)
Nitrogen in tires
Removing speakers (although I think removing the wiring is going too far if the car never came w/o it)
Fasteners (someone argued they are not free)
0.040" overbore pistons for all
Several other minor issues that have been debated here that don't pop immediately to mind

[Matt Rowe]

I don't care (personally) about:

Removing speakers (although I think removing the wiring is going too far if the car never came w/o it)
[/b]
[Putting on my nit picking detail oriented hat]

Geo,

I'm curious why you think removing speakers is reasonable yet removing the wiring (in certain cases) isn't. From the other items on your list it looks like you are applying your own criteria of what is a performance advantage. From that standpoint dropping 4 or more speakers weighing 3 plus pounds each seems like more of a performance issue than a few strands of wire that don't affect performance in any way. Just curious as that position seems odd. Of course, I don't care about that whole list either but I must be missing something in your logic about wiring.

[Geo]

[Putting on my nit picking detail oriented hat]

Geo,

I'm curious why you think removing speakers is reasonable yet removing the wiring (in certain cases) isn't. From the other items on your list it looks like you are applying your own criteria of what is a performance advantage. From that standpoint dropping 4 or more speakers weighing 3 plus pounds each seems like more of a performance issue than a few strands of wire that don't affect performance in any way. Just curious as that position seems odd. Of course, I don't care about that whole list either but I must be missing something in your logic about wiring.
[/b]

Good question Matt.

For what it's worth, I'm very much against any changes to the wiring harness. I know a lot of people have a lot of good reasons for wanting to do relatively insignificant things to a wiring harness and most of them I generally couldn't care less about. However, IMHO once we start allowing modifications to the wiring harness we are openning a door that will never be shut again and more and more mods will creep in until we have custom wiring harnesses and from there we will allow additional modifications because "hey, it's simple now."

That is my reasoning. I have NO doubt many will think my view of what will happen is over the top. However I think that the pressures will be too great and we will start down that path. You see, one person will have one innocent change they would like to make and it won't matter. Another person will have another innocent change they would like to make and it won't matter. Eventually we will get to things that do matter. Eventually someone will start installing $5,000 mil-spec custom harnesses (I know people laugh at this, but I guarantee it will happen). So, to me a stock wiring harness is a threshhold for IT. It's one IMHO we don't want to cross. This is PURELY my opinion.

Now, all that said, I would love to have a custom harness in my 22 year old car, but just because I would like it, doesn't mean I think it's right. I also don't have a problem with the harness being unmolested, but not all components actually connected. It increases reliability while still not crossing the threshhold of retaining a stock harness.

So, that's pretty much it. Now that I've spelled it out, I'm sure some folks will attack my reasoning. That's fine by me. I think there are certain threshholds that shouldn't be crossed for IT and this is one.

[Conover]

If you asked me, and you didn't, oh well. . Alot of the wiring modificattions that I hear people talking about are counterproductive. Mainly on newer OBD cars especially OBDII, you can't stick a resistor in a harness to tell the computer that the temp is only 80*F, because the computer will see that as impossible, and just start ignoring it. I say go ahead, if you think you are smarter that the engineers that built the car, and can outwit a computer, that is trying to help you, go ahead. Plus the wiring harness in a MK3 golf only wieghs 25lbs. I just don't think that there is any real advantage to be had by modifying the wiring in a car built in the last decade. Older cars, maybe. . .

[Renaultfool]

You will never be able to convince me that there is any performance advantage in wire, only what it is hooked up to. The biggest performance advantage you could get from wire would be if you tied it between your car and the back of an ASedan.

As for a possible rule that could be bent to allow the sleeves (that I think are a repair anyway) would be the rule that allows alternate bushings. It is just a really thin bushing.
Carl

[joeg]

Good point, Carl.

This forum gets strange at times...

[JohnRW]

This forum gets strange at times...
[/b]

You are the master of 'understatement'.

[64oeg]

Okay, I don't resond on these boards often. Certainly not to these nit picking hair slitting rules interpretaion threads. However, this thread has gone beyond the silly, and into the obsolutly inane rehlm.

GEO, et al, I understand your reasoning that IIDSYCYC means you can't sleeve a crank. However, as an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician, who has been earning a living turning wrenches since 1977, I'm telling you it is an accecpted repair practice. Not in the FSM? Of course not. Guess what a FSM is really for. To act as a guide/tool for the factory authorized technicians who are going to work on these cars when they are fairly new, and most likely still under warrenty. Well guess what, while under warrenty, this issue isn't going to crop up, therfore it is never addressed in a FSM.

Besides which, how would you ever catch such a "modification". Because someone told they had??? Certainly not because someone beat you on the track, (because it isn't a performance enhancement it is simply an accepted repair procedure). So, how would you even know to protest someone on such an issue??

And yes, I've worked in a Dealership for 5 yrs in the past, so I'm not just blowing smoke out of my buttocks. It's all well and good to be a rules nerd. Heck, as a Comp Board member and CSOM at WHRRI I'm practically required to be one. Still, isn't it time to stop some of these asinine hair splitting threads???

Okay, enough posturing on my part. Hope I haven't offended anyone personally. Not my intent. Flame away B)

George H.

[Geo]

Okay, I don't resond on these boards often. Certainly not to these nit picking hair slitting rules interpretaion threads. However, this thread has gone beyond the silly, and into the obsolutly inane rehlm.

GEO, et al, I understand your reasoning that IIDSYCYC means you can't sleeve a crank. However, as an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician, who has been earning a living turning wrenches since 1977, I'm telling you it is an accecpted repair practice. Not in the FSM? Of course not. Guess what a FSM is really for. To act as a guide/tool for the factory authorized technicians who are going to work on these cars when they are fairly new, and most likely still under warrenty. Well guess what, while under warrenty, this issue isn't going to crop up, therfore it is never addressed in a FSM.

Besides which, how would you ever catch such a "modification". Because someone told they had??? Certainly not because someone beat you on the track, (because it isn't a performance enhancement it is simply an accepted repair procedure). So, how would you even know to protest someone on such an issue??

And yes, I've worked in a Dealership for 5 yrs in the past, so I'm not just blowing smoke out of my buttocks. It's all well and good to be a rules nerd. Heck, as a Comp Board member and CSOM at WHRRI I'm practically required to be one. Still, isn't it time to stop some of these asinine hair splitting threads???

Okay, enough posturing on my part. Hope I haven't offended anyone personally. Not my intent. Flame away B)

George H.
[/b]

George, I understand and appreciate your comments. As a competitor I couldn't care less if someone sleeved their crank. My point is that I wouldn't go telling somoene it's legal. It's not IMHO based upon my reading of the rules. Take this a step further to hypothetically say to someone "I would do this to my car despite not being specifically legal."

I appreciate your comments of why it would not be included in an FSM, although I will disagree with it. I have Nissan and Porsche FSMs and they all cover repairs and refurbishment for wear. I submit, if sleeving is not included in the factory authorized/recommended (or choose some other word) repair, it simply is not legal. Again, I personally would never protest someone over something like this. It would be a weenie protest for sure. But I would not tell someone it's legal.

I understand this might be a common repair in the real world. I understand folks are doing it. That does NOT make it legal for IT. Even if nobody will protest it, that doesn't make it legal. I just would not tell someone it's legal. If y'all can find someplace in the ITCS that makes it legal, I'm all for it. Remember, I personally don't care either way. But telling someone that something is legal that isn't is not a good idea IMHO. Let folks draw their own lines they will cross or not cross.

So now the question becomes where the line is drawn. Do you allow the E36 drivers to weld in rear suspension reinforcements because it's a known problem and it's the way the dealerships repair the problem of these mounting points tearing? If not, why is this different?

Lastly, I will absolutely agree that there is a lot of bickering over small issue like this including whether steering wheel quick relaases are lega or not, or even if method of attachment of the QR or even the wheel affects legality. Or we can discuss what the 0.040" overbore rule really means. Or we can discuss exactly what you can remove when the ITCS says you can remove the radio. Or we can disuss whether one can remove the heater. Some are more petty than others, but how does one make the distinction of what it petty and who gets to choose? God, one can look at this board for a week and come up with a half dozen such discussions.

I personally think IT prone to more of these conversations because we don't have races where cars are torn down and people just don't protest. And that's not to say I'd like to see protests written all over in IT. I'm just saying that the lack of it causes different interpretations all the time that just don't get resolved.