340 Ultrasonic Wall Measurement Sanity Check

JedIEG said
The cast date I have written down is 6/18/67 so it's an early block.

My problem is with the interbore measurements with both our blocks- they are not possible in some locations. For example on your 360, #5-#7 depth B is .246 on one cyl and .247 on the other. Together that's. 0.493 worth of metal not including any core thickness. The maximum wall thickness between the bores on a 360 is 0.46 [= 4.46 (bore centers) -(2* 1/2* 4.00 bore diameter)]. That's reading .033 more metal than possible and no waterjack thickness. Same with my measurements- the sum total of the interbores come out to a number with little to no waterjack thickness possible. That leads me to think the probes are over estimating thickness a bit.
Rusty- with your probe are you getting something less than we are in the interbores?

My comparison won't be the same, since all I've done with mine is a slant 6 block. I didn't even write any of it down. All I did was measure the calibration plate on the tester to make sure it was correct and took some measurements on one cylinder. All I remember was the thickest spot was over .370" and the thinnest was like .325. This was only on one cylinder. I think your comparison is off because you have to remember, you're talking about opposing sides of the cylinder.