Ball Hone Choices

testarossa wrote: Ok, here's my .02 on ball vs. stone hones. Are your cylinders round and cylindrical? Do you want to know? Do you want to build the motor right, or just feel like you did the right thing?

If you are going to measure the cylinders for size, roundness and cylindricity, then you already know the answers to the above questions and you are wanting to do the right thing. Stone hone, or ball hone will get you the same result if your cylinders are in spec for all three measurements.

If you haven't measured, aren't able to measure, or don't want to measure those three things, and want to make yourself feel good about the finished result, then get a ball hone.

The main difference is that the ball hone will follow any variance in a bore and put the cross hatch pattern on all surfaces. This doesn't tell you much about the condition of your bore. The stone hone won't follow dips, egg shaped bores, etc. If you make a few passes with a stone hone, and see places with the fresh cross hatch and others that haven't been touched, then you will know that your bore is not perfect. Some people don't want to know this and so choose a ball hone. Guess what? If the ball hone puts a cross hatch in a low spot, and the rings don't ever touch it, then it won't seal compression very well. Rings are round and they cope with taper fairly well, but cannot conform to variances in roundness. If your cylinder is out of round, they don't seal and that's it. If it's tapered, they flex too much and wear too fast, and if the cylinder is worn too big, then they simply don't have enough tension.

I used to work in a machine shop that supplied, direct ship replacement pistons to Endyne. We also made pistons, rods, piston and rod assemblies, and cylinder liners for GE for their Gemini Compressor line of modular, natural gas, pipeline compressors. We had a very large Sunnen power hone to finish the cylinder liners. Guess how many ball hones we ever used? ZERO!

Not saying that a ball hone won't put a good cross-hatch on a good cylinder, but it will put a good cross-hatch on an otherwise worn cylinder that a stone hone will not. If I were you, and I already had a 3 stone hone, I would use it.

nads.com wrote: cylindricity..:huh:

At that point I decide it was best just to use the Schwartz Modulator.

Don't play with your balls if you have 3 stones

Back in the old days (maybe 20 years or more) cylinder honing was done almost exclusively with rigid hones and honing stones which led to some problems such as rough cylinder surfaces. It used to be that the rings scrubbed or shaved off the peaks of rough material left by the rigid stones over time. You may have heard of breaking-in a cylinder. That's what this is.