|
|
Post by MCS on Jan 24, 2010 10:10:13 GMT -5
I need a little help with part numbers ;D
I'm making up a piston ring chart and have it just about done but I'm missing IPLs for a few saws.
The XP 1000 and its cousins up to the 1130G are all 2 3/16" bore. The standard ring thickness for most Homelites is 1/16" so I'm good on these models.
The next group up is the 2000 to the 3100 and they are 2 1/4" bores.
I have an IPL for the Super 2100 and it shows a part number of 69193-A - don't know if the A is important. Do the 2100 and 3100 use this same part number? Seems to me someone mentioned awhile back that these may use a thin ring. Any truth to that?
Anyone have a 69193 in their parts cache and can measure the thickness?
If anyone has rings that are not 1/16" I'd like to know. What about the 350 to 750 family?
Also need ring part numbers for:
5-30 2 7/16" bore
900 to 995 2 5/16" bore
Thanks
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by lesorubcheek on Jan 24, 2010 10:31:46 GMT -5
69193-A is a thin ring. Its also the same ring used on 750s. According to IPLs, only the Super 2100 used the thin rings. The 2100 S (Special) used the conventional thickness rings. The 2100 (no super and no S after it) used the Dykes head-land ring, which was also used on the Super 2000. The 3100 used the same conventional rings like the 2100S, at least acocrding to the IPL.
As for the 350-750, all of 'em used thin rings. Ya might find a 450 that got fitted with a DM50 piston that used "normal" rings, but properly, the entire series used thin rings.
I think 330s could come either with thin or normal rings. XL-925 used thin rings. Believe the 240's rings were thin, but I don't have one to check for sure.
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by MCS on Jan 25, 2010 10:26:13 GMT -5
Just about done with my piston ring chart but need a few more numbers. | Model | Part # | style | | 2000 | | | | Super2000 | | "L" Dyke | | 2100 | | "L" Dyke | | 2100S | | 1/16" | | Super2100 | 69193 | Thin .024" | | 3100G | | 1/16" |
Can someone provide me the missing part numbers? If you see anything wrong in this table please let me know! Craig |
|
|
|
Post by sugarcreeksaws on Jan 26, 2010 8:41:44 GMT -5
Here you go, Craig. Model number, Part number and quantity used.
2000.....64968.....(2)
Super 2000.....67129.....(1)
2100.....67129.....(1)
2100S.....64968.....(2)
Super 2100.....69193-A.....(2)
3100G.....64968.....(2)
Talk to you soon!
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by MCS on Jan 28, 2010 21:45:15 GMT -5
In making up the piston ring chart I noticed that the XL-923 has a different part number than either the XL-903 or the SXL-925.
All of these saws are 2 1/16" bore.
The 903 uses the old 55537 cast iron ring and the 925 uses the 69452 thin ring. What is different about the 923's 68249? Can someone measure the thickness with a mic or caliper and post it here? Is the end gap cut square?
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarcreeksaws on Jan 29, 2010 23:56:40 GMT -5
Hi Craig,
Thickness is 0.062,...just like the 55537 rings I have,....depth(inside to out) is also similar to the 55537,...the ends are square. The only thing I can think is that it is slightly longer so that the gap is smaller. That would help to explain why the XL-923 had a higher compression than the older saws....just a thought.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by MCS on Feb 16, 2010 20:56:49 GMT -5
Two sets of 68249 popped up on ebay and I just couldn't resist grabbing both sets. The difference between the 55537 and the 68249 is  the face of the 55537 is flat and the face of the 68249 has an arc which is visible using a strong magnifying lens. Better seating? Less friction? Got me. |
|
|
|
Post by Eccentric on Jan 9, 2011 6:17:42 GMT -5
Hiya Craig, Glad to see you putting together a Homelite ring chart. A piston, cylinder, bearings/seals (with crossover numbers for common bearing/seal mfg's such as Chicago Rawhide and Timken), and points/condensor chart would be extremely usefull too (for feebay shoppin' especialy)...if you feel the need for another project...  The part number for the 900/909/990/995 series 2-5/16" rings is 56828. I could use a set of 'em, as well as a 57090 piston and a 58289 cylinder... |
|
|
|
Post by mooney on Jan 1, 2012 18:54:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Eccentric on Jan 26, 2012 19:22:51 GMT -5
Thanks for the chart. EXTREMELY handy! |
|
|
|
Post by mooney on Jan 27, 2012 17:22:50 GMT -5
I believe MCS is the man responsible for that chart. All hail MCS!
|
|
|
|
Post by sweepleader on Jan 18, 2019 12:13:44 GMT -5
|
|
