2.3 NF block with MC-1 head?

[Jason K Gray]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
One often overlooked consequense of using thicker head gasker/shim to reduc=
e compression ratio  is the reduced effectiveness of the cylinder quench ar=
ea. When you increase the distance between the cylinder at TDC and the over=
hanging "flat" area of the cylinder head, the "quench" or "squish" that pro=
duces an squirt of turbulance at TDC is largely lost. Cylinder head quench =
and the resulting turbulance geatly help to reduce detonation. By adding a =
gasket shim, you may actually produce a combustion chamber that is more pro=
ne to detonation, despite the lower compression ratio!
  I would suggest that a better way to slightly lower compression ratio wou=
ld be to smooth all sharp transitions around the valves and enlarge the com=
bustion chambers of the cylinder head with a die grinder, also use a chemis=
t burette and liquid to measure and then exactly equalize the volume of all=
 the head chambers, so that they are all at exactly the same volume when yo=
u are done.

Jason K  Gray
Anchorage Alaska


>So I am thinking copper headgasket....
>www.headgasket.com
>Probably go for 8.2-8.5:1 just to be over safe!!

Bad idea, we used to do these at New Dimensions with the turbo kits, they w=
=3D
ork fine for low boost applications where the options are slim, but that ju=
=3D
st isn't your case, good turbo bottom ends are litterally dime a dozen, you=
=3D
'll likely spend $100+ on a copper gasket and another $25 for a second gask=
=3D
et when you could have the right, strong, factory bottom end for around $10=
=3D
0=3D2E

>So to help me with my maths I need a good idea of the thickness of a
>standard head gasket compressed... any ideas?
>The copper gasket does have its pros and cons, but it is not much more
>expensive than a standard item, they reckon $75-90, although they do say it
>can leak.....

Yes, and they do leak, copper gaskets are hardly the solution...

--