heheheheee- he looks like he's trying to outrun the fire in that pic..

"yo, bozo- it's attached to you man, yo ain't outrunning it!"..

okay, it's late- I'm being goofy..

 

Hahaha :d

 

ok, things just got a little more interesting... quench = compressed gasket thickness+ deck clearance, having said that i interpreted the paper [which said dome was .010 above deck with quench at .060) to say that my deck clearance was -.010 (.010 out of the hole); which would point to a gasket thickness of .070 (.070-.010= .060)]

im now finding out that the dome is not an indicator of deck clearance, but rather piston height (which i dont know).

is this correct ^ ?

as far as checking gasket thickness with a mic, will the reading be a "compressed" reading, since its not being compressed between the head and deck?

using the following values i got -0.0019999999999989 deck clearance. would u call that zero decked, or is it too far out of the hole?
if thats correct deck clearance quench would equate to head gasket minus .002. it also gets tricky becuase the quench pad (or maybe what he was refering to as the dome) is .085 elevated. if this was what he referred to as the dome, that would put the rest of the piston .075 in the hole.



stroke- 4
rod length- 6.123
piston compression distance 1.465
deck height- 9.59 (subtracting .010 from 9.6, paper states deck was milled .010)

 

I think your best course of action here is going to be.... get the shortblock assembled, and then measure things out. See what the ACTUAL piston height is, and take it from there.

 

haha yea, good idea.

pistons shipped today

 

when measuring deck clearance in order to set quench, do you measure from the quench pad, which in my case is .085 elevated? or the lowest point in the piston or what?

 

ok nevermind, it makes no sense to measure deck clearance and set quench with the lowest point of the piston. if i was to set quench at .040, the quench pad would be .045 into the head. ill check it by the highest point (quench pad)

 

my rings came last week, but i have read some reviews on them, and many people dont seem to like them, mainly because for whatever reason they cause oil consumption for whatever reason.

i am definitely having second thoughts now... and may go with regular rings, anyone have any experience with them?

 

is it supposed that they allow excess blow-by and crank case pressure? Dang, that would be weird for a performance based ring set, no?

Is it ever advantageous to have more blow-by than what you'd expect from a standard build? I really don't know- and this is why I ask..