-----
> Robert wrote:
> I'd be a little careful about changing deck heights and milling down
> heads as the readings you are getting are at room temps and don't take into
> account the effects of 9500 rpm pulling the clearances around.
> I'd be a little careful about changing deck heights and milling down
> heads as the readings you are getting are at room temps and don't take into
> account the effects of 9500 rpm pulling the clearances around.
> All I'm saying is do a little change at a
time and see what happens.
> When I was building CART engines for Toyota a couple of years back we were
> banging valves all the time till we checked clearances with the engines at
> high temps. Lots of things are happening at the same time so looking at one
> thing only can lead to wrong assumptions some times.
>I agree. Seems to me that there is plenty of data on what is a decent valve/piston clearance on a cold or a hot motor. What minimum clearance did you finally reach with the Toyota motors? How did you measure clearance on a hot motor? Obviously, my primitive clay method would not work. Also, what deck height, cold measurement, did you finally decide was optimum (I am assuming that you were dealing with a typical quench-type combustion chamber)?
Regards,
> When I was building CART engines for Toyota a couple of years back we were
> banging valves all the time till we checked clearances with the engines at
> high temps. Lots of things are happening at the same time so looking at one
> thing only can lead to wrong assumptions some times.
>I agree. Seems to me that there is plenty of data on what is a decent valve/piston clearance on a cold or a hot motor. What minimum clearance did you finally reach with the Toyota motors? How did you measure clearance on a hot motor? Obviously, my primitive clay method would not work. Also, what deck height, cold measurement, did you finally decide was optimum (I am assuming that you were dealing with a typical quench-type combustion chamber)?
Regards,
Rey
