Welded combustion chambers?

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrett Ellison said:
While on the topic,what is the maximum safe shave for a 360 iron head? I have forgotten somewhere along the way...
Click to expand...
I do believe someone here has reported shaving enough to take all the flat area out of the chamber.....that would be in the .100" range, + or -. The remaining chamber size would be in the low 50's of cc's.
 
nm9stheham said:
I do believe someone here has reported shaving enough to take all the flat area out of the chamber.....that would be in the .100" range, + or -. The remaining chamber size would be in the low 50's of cc's.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of material. Don't forget the .090 off the intake surface. Might as well get a different pair of heads or use those open chamber heads with some zero deck flat tops. What would the compression be then?
 
Pistons do the exact same thing, and don't shroud the valves.

Not trying to be rude, but this is old hat.
 
on my 340 I added stroke to 3.48", custom pistons .050" above decked block, cut 1 head .015" and 1 .020", did not cut intake side of heads, did the math with the 1008 fel pros for .045" quench with the unshrouded open chamber 340heads
 
nm9stheham said:
I do believe someone here has reported shaving enough to take all the flat area out of the chamber.....that would be in the .100" range, + or -. The remaining chamber size would be in the low 50's of cc's.
Click to expand...

To get to 60cc with a 2.02 valved 360 head... it usually only takes about .060-.080 , some cases a hair less. The heads can be anywhere from 69-74 cc as cast with part of that due to valve size and the amount of chamber they take up... just like tulip 2.02 int port measure 155cc while 1.88 versions measure 160cc..
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
To get to 60cc with a 2.02 valved 360 head... it usually only takes about .060-.080 , some cases a hair less. The heads can be anywhere from 69-74 cc as cast with part of that due to valve size and the amount of chamber they take up... just like tulip 2.02 int port measure 155cc while 1.88 versions measure 160cc..
Click to expand...
Roger..... I was running with approx .005" cut for each cc, and starting with a 72-73 cc chamber, and getting to the low 50's IF you took all of the open area out to get to a 'closed' chamber. Taking off .060" would get to right at 60 cc's, but more milling would indeed be needed with a tulip valve head shape.
 
jos51700 said:
Pistons do the exact same thing, and don't shroud the valves.

Not trying to be rude, but this is old hat.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Everyone always trying to reinvent the wheel .

and good GAWD. Don't we argue enough around here that we don't need to drag up ANCIENT threads to do it on?
 
Thanks much on the whole outlook of pistons vs chamber re-engineering! I appreciate everyone’s patience Very Much here, I really value everyone’s experience based knowledge. I am still in the planning stages of some further upgrades and hope not to inspire anyone to get their grouch on, I got more than enough of that on my own bad self, Lolol! but only to pre plan as carefully as possible. I am presently about to score a set of 360 high swirl heads of some fashion to develop the 318 build a little farther, and trying to do it with the best power/dollar return. I’ll be taking a break here to review the and porting forum. A MAF flowbench is something I have been wanting to build since 1994, thanks for the forum PittsburghRacer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top