New Build Trickflow 190 and quench

nm9stheham said

You have some 'outs' and aids as listed. Some have commented about 91 octane being more difficult to run detonation free than 93. I've accepted that as real based on their say-so. Where 92 falls???

I have not commented and have not opinion but is there an objective to push the cylinder pressures up? Just to keep the low RPM torque up with a bigger cam? (BTW, I like higher compression builds myself so no objections here.)

Click to expand...

I would say there are two reasons I wanted to run the compression on the higher side. One being as you said to keep the low rpm range quite strong and keep the engine as efficient as possible. The other being if I lowered the compression very much from the 11.2 with the .039 gasket and 0 deck along the outer edge of the pistons and the -13 chamber dish and valve reliefs I would also be diminishing the possible benefit I was getting toward more efficient/better burning combustion and the anti detonation benefits of quench. So I could go with quite a thick gasket or the piston more in the hole and lower it to 10.7 or even 10.5 I would also remove the benefit of quench and I don't think anyone could tell me for certain that a 10.7 engine without a quench effect would be less prone to detonation then an 11.2 engine with a quench effect assuming everything else being equal.

That and I see my dads 383 in his RR run detonation free with pretty much exactly that compression. He has heavily ported closed chamber heads (915) and an ultradyne solid roller with I believe 256@050. So coming out to the same compression and my combo also having a closed chamber head and a cam right around the same size gives me some confidence.