Block is fresh align honed and the crank was machined 10/10.
I have installed the crank and mains and I took some red plast-gauge readings:
5- .004"
4-.004"
3-.003"
2- .003"
1- .003"

From what I have seen these clearances may be a bit big. I am using ARP studs and I torqued them to 55# to avoid stressing them to perform the test.

Could i be doing the test wrong, is there a better way?
Are these clearance to far out of spec?

 

I thought you should be using green plasitgage but I may be wrong. It's been some time since I needed any.
You should torque them to spec. to check them. With Plastigage, be sure there is no oil on the surface.

Factory says on 94 - 95
#1 .0010 - .0015
#2,3,4 .0010 - .0025
#5 .0025 - .0035


In 96 it changed to
#1 .0010 - .0020
#2,3,4 .0010 - .0025
#5 .0015 - .0030

Only other way to measure the clearance is mic the crank and inside mic the journal and subtract the difference. Your method is fine. You need different bearings.

 

if there was oil on the bearings or the crank it would give you a clearance thats less than what you actually have

since you had the crank groun 10, i'm going to assume you got .010" under bearings to match, in which case i would go back to the machine shop that ground your crank

 

I have only used plastigauge once in my life, on my first motor build at 16, so I cannot make a comparison about it's accuracy. That said, if those numbers are withen a few tenths even of what a true reading would give you - they are still too loose. For performance stuff look for clearances around .0025 1-4, .003" #5, .002" rods

 

I'm not a fan of plastiguage either...

But YOU NEED TO TQ THE BOLTS/STUDS TO THE FULL SPEC TO MEASURE THEM!!!!! Otherwise the readings could be way off.

Now that we have that out of the way, if you test them correctly and they are that off you need to get a -11 under bearing. It's a Clevite MS-909H11, that will tighten the clearance up to where you need it. You can mix and match shell haves to get the clearance you need.

Bret

 

I did oil the bearings when checking, maybe that caused a problem.
I will wipe the oil off and torque to spec and check again.

I am currently using .010" under. So if I need to tighten things up do I get the .011 or the .009". I am thinking the .011".

 

TQ the caps down all the way and check them first.... that's probably your problem.

 

Well I checked again with torqued to spec and minus the oil on the bearing and the results were the same. Looks like I need that slightly tighter bearing.

 

Plastigauge doesn't work right if you have oil on the assembly. Also, I have done the measurements both methods at the same time - mics and plastigauge - at my last build and they didn't come out the same no matter how careful I tried. I think there were differences of up to a half thou or so, and I used two different ranges of brand new plastigauge.

 

I am using red plastigage (.002" - .006"). Could I be using the wrong one. I think the green is (.001" - .003").

I assume that all measurements need to bedone with a micrometer and not a caliper, is that correct?

 

Try it with the green AND red and torque it all the way with no oil on the place that you put the plastigauge. See what you get.

And, yeah, you need a bore gauge, mics, and a ball attachment, not a caliper if you want to do it that way.

 

What is better for the bore, the dial or the telescoping t-bars? What are the ball attachments for?

 

Shops use a dial bore gauge that reads to .0001 (fairly expensive for the average guy to have for one engine build). I suppose you could use telescoping gauges for mains, rods, cylinders, but I never have. There are also inside mics. Not sure what the engine builders think of that - it's slower for one thing. Ball anvil attaches to a micrometer to read a concave surface like the inside of a bearing (cheap).