You might want to have at least an inkling of actual experience with the item & the issue being discussed here before going off on a tirade against the part &/or the vendors supplying it. I have 2 of these IMI 850 starters, & have had 3 others in the past, & they ALL fit just fine. The issue being noted (close proximity of the solenoid cable stud end to the block) does NOT prevent the starter from being mounted, & it does NOT prevent the starter from working as intended.
Could the manufacturer modify the starter further to help alleviate buyers' concerns in this area? Most definitely. Simply changing the thickness of the hardware used would go a long way. Axially re-clocking the 2 main starter body-to-base bolt holes (&/or the 3 stud holes) might help a little more, but may also introduce unwanted access/interference issues with the 3 starter mounting studs (mainly the upper right one). It's highly unlikely that the manufacturer gets much customer feedback on this starter motor, let alone any improvement suggestions. This may be an opportunity for us as 850 Owners to do both.
Hello Jeff,
You did a bunch-o-work for sure.
Thanks from me and behalf of others who may be fitting this one.
Like your core sampling approach in lieu of a sledged slab. One can assume
that the block was unusable. Scrap? Metal salvage worth. Perhaps an anchor
if you have a large enough winch on your ship (smile).
-The measurement of the available web in that local area. Non machined surface(s).
Sandcast. Surface characteristic RA/RHR, difference in tooling through time, degradation
on internal jacket through erosion, buildup on internal jacket through deposit.
-The measurment itself. Tooling calibration. Normal to measured surface.
- As you know, more variables are available when determining thickness.
I've listed an applicable few off from the top of my head.
All this random thought?
What I'm pointing to is the tolerance on the actual measurement.
What do you figure.........plus or minus 2mm perhaps?
On a used block, a 5.4mm measurement suggests a of 3.4 - 7.4mm thickness given a 2mm tolerance.
Unknown what a factory fresh minimum wall thickness requirement is there.
Originally, I was thinking of carving to relieve the interference. Knowing the available thickness now,
I don't think that would be an optimal approach for me. One caveat. Sample size. One block evaluated. Is it
representative ? Enough for me to make a decision (smile).
Attached are some pictures of what I am encountering. It differs from yours on measured
clearance. Differences due to trimming ? Block variance? Axial placement of mounting holes on starter ?
Variance in bellhousing mounts ?
Shown, are my flat washer and nut dimensions.
I have a three thread engagement.
Also shown are the clearance dimensions.
I still encounter compressive force on the supplied silicone protective cap.
So much so that it is decreasing the original nominal wall thickness of that cap.
Notice the slope of the block compared to the face of the hexnut?
Not parallel. Parallel would yield an even airgap.
It is much closer on the bottom than it is on top.
A slight rotation of the assembly would yield a parallel relationship
and increase the airgap of the lower face on this one.
(And) as you voiced earlier....rotating the assembly might create an even greater hardship
mounting that assembly onto its holding studs. The attach hexnuts will begin interferring with the
motor body. I still think there is some wiggle room here though (wink).
thoughts?