We all know from various discussions on this forum that the original die-cast cylinder-muffs, introduced around 1954, were worse than useless being made from an inferior material that had a hardness little better than plasticine. Accordingly, they crushed and stretched inappropriately when in service causing liners to go out of round and oil to get between the two.
But I contend that there is nothing wrong with the process of 'die-casting' itself; how many of you have die-cast (Omega) pistons for example? It was an issue of poor material selection - and poor quality control thereof.
I note that some of our suppliers are offering only die-cast muffs (probably procured from Mr Holder). Does anyone have any evidence as to their suitability for purpose? In other words, are they manufactured from a tough material which does the job as well as sand-cast ones and almost as well as billet ones? Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence either way?
I only ask because I'll be in the market for a pair of new muffs and liners soon…
Peter B
Bristol, UK.
STILL WANTED: Series A Front Frame - even a twin would would suffice!
But I contend that there is nothing wrong with the process of 'die-casting' itself; how many of you have die-cast (Omega) pistons for example? It was an issue of poor material selection - and poor quality control thereof.
I note that some of our suppliers are offering only die-cast muffs (probably procured from Mr Holder). Does anyone have any evidence as to their suitability for purpose? In other words, are they manufactured from a tough material which does the job as well as sand-cast ones and almost as well as billet ones? Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence either way?
I only ask because I'll be in the market for a pair of new muffs and liners soon…
Peter B
Bristol, UK.
STILL WANTED: Series A Front Frame - even a twin would would suffice!