Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations SSS148 on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

0 @ MMC vs. 0 @ MMB 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

weavedreamer

Automotive
Aug 1, 2007
279
0_MMCvs0_MMB_yx7ntk.png
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

weavedreamer,
Does the part in question mates with anything from the outside?
 
It is sandwiched top and bottom; capping off zone A, and riding the niche around the outside of zone C. If it helps, consider two horizontal plates, one with a hole it.

 
Hmmm... Let me ask this way: what is the biggest player when it comes to orienting and locating this part in assembly? Two plates and the hole OR the plate with the hole only OR the piston OR the cover plate at the bottom?
 
The part would pilot on a large diameter concentric to the bore that the piston is in, sliding the zone c end into a hole until it rests on the mating side of the coverplate covering zone a.

The bigger issue is in the portion isolated and presented so far. It deals with the amount of rotation the piston can encounter. If you study the extended context, detail c[5], the piston has been rotated ccw. The challenge is keeping the smaller slip fit diameter concentric to the larger one.
 
So why did not you consider controlling position of the bore in zone C relative to the bore axis in zone A from the very beginning?
If centering is your main concern, what is the reason behind applying position tolerance at MMC/MMB rather than at RFS/RMB?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor