Thanks Lelo. I did measure all 4 chambers. They all were close enuf with my redneck measuring. Call them all 0.080".
For pistons I only measured #1 and #3. Both measured with dial indicator (redneck style). Both stuck out close enuf to call them 0.034" out.
Plugging in these values with a hg thickness of 0.038"
0.038-0.034+0.080=0.084"
If my math is correct.
That link you posted is a good read, thanks.
UEM has pretty cool stuff/calculators on their site.
Doing some reading, I revived an old "quench" thread and have found some good info.
Frustrating as to why optimal quench wasn't designed into the 340 to begin with? The benefits were known way back
Steve... emissions related ,cheapo way out. Revealed ,quenching therory,s was known 10p years[,ago Check out " Ricard5's theyoy , of combustion...:)/QUOTE]Thanks Lelo. I did measure all 4 chambers. They all were close enuf with my redneck measuring. Call them all 0.080".
For pistons I only measured #1 and #3. Both measured with dial indicator (redneck style). Both stuck out close enuf to call them 0.034" out.
Plugging in these values with a hg thickness of 0.038"
0.038-0.034+0.080=0.084"
If my math is correct.
That link you posted is a good read, thanks.
UEM has pretty cool stuff/calculators on their site.
Doing some reading, I revived an old "quench" thread and have found some good info.
Frustrating as to why optimal quench wasn't designed into the 340 to begin with? The benefits were known way back then.
Is it fuel related?
Link
Quench Vs Piston To Head Clearance
