Forced Induction Supercharger/Turbocharger

quench and turbo?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 16, 2009 | 02:01 PM
  #1  
jay_rich's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 811
From: Windsor, ON Canada
quench and turbo?

I was wondering if the quench is really a huge deal on turbo cars?

Now the heads im thinking of getting are a 58CC

here are the following CR's I can get with these

8.9:1-.062 Gasket
9.07:1-.052 Gasket
9.25:1-.042 Gasket

I was wondering if running a .062 copper will hurt me?

My block is oringed also so I am stuck with a 4.06 bore gasket to seal proper.

Jay
Old Sep 16, 2009 | 03:07 PM
  #2  
boosted-lt1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 657
From: Farmington Hills, MI
There is a thread on the Advance Tech forum covering this. I believe the consensus is to let the quench fall where ever it falls. Some claims of turbo OEM cars with 0.250 (yes, a quarter inch).

-Scott.
Old Sep 16, 2009 | 03:32 PM
  #3  
MikeGyver's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,497
From: Orem, UT
Keep in mind, a turbo is rarely in boost.
Old Sep 16, 2009 | 03:43 PM
  #4  
jay_rich's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 811
From: Windsor, ON Canada
Originally Posted by MikeGyver
Keep in mind, a turbo is rarely in boost.
Maybe when ur driving :P haha jk. It is a summer car and i drive it mayeb 2000km a year lol, mainly race track/closed road

Jay
Old Sep 16, 2009 | 09:53 PM
  #5  
MikeGyver's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,497
From: Orem, UT
Originally Posted by jay_rich
Maybe when ur driving :P haha jk. It is a summer car and i drive it mayeb 2000km a year lol, mainly race track/closed road

Jay
Then why does it even matter anyway?
Old Sep 17, 2009 | 05:46 AM
  #6  
jay_rich's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 811
From: Windsor, ON Canada
well i just have heard differences both ways. Some say thicker gaskets are more **** to detonation etc

Jay
Old Sep 17, 2009 | 09:10 AM
  #7  
jsetzer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,182
From: Moore OK
Whats your deck height? Even if its stock you won't be that far off with the .062. Everything I have ever read says don't worry about it as much on a boosted car. Sure your not in boost all the time, but it only really matters when the engine is under load.

I wound not do a .250 on a 13-1 compression motor trying to run pump gas.

I am on a .040 gasket with pretty much no extra left on the deck. So I still manage to be close to ideal.
Old Sep 17, 2009 | 11:22 AM
  #8  
jay_rich's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 811
From: Windsor, ON Canada
Zero deck...scratch this Patriot will make me the heads with a 58-64CC combustion chamber. Sold! My LS buddies run patriots and love them. So im gonna go that route and port them a bit so they flow like an LE2. The said there casting has a bit more stock then a stock one.

Jay
Old Sep 17, 2009 | 11:31 AM
  #9  
jsetzer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,182
From: Moore OK
Cool beans.
Stock heads for life - Who needs porting? MORE BOOST!
Poor little masterpower.
Old Sep 18, 2009 | 09:30 PM
  #10  
engineermike's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,743
From: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
I believe the turbo Neon SRT4 runs something like .340" quench.
Old Sep 20, 2009 | 01:58 AM
  #11  
blown94's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,228
From: Florida
but an srt-4 is a turd! so keep that in mind. Do you really wanna be like a neon?
Old Sep 20, 2009 | 09:37 AM
  #12  
engineermike's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,743
From: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Originally Posted by blown94
but an srt-4 is a turd! so keep that in mind. Do you really wanna be like a neon?
Stock for stock, they run almost identical times to an LT1. Mod for mod, they are faster, so I wouldn't discount them.

Last edited by engineermike; Sep 20, 2009 at 07:23 PM.
Old Sep 20, 2009 | 06:36 PM
  #13  
MikeGyver's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,497
From: Orem, UT
Um isn't that absolutely irrelevant? You can't just compare motors of different design like that.
Old Sep 20, 2009 | 08:12 PM
  #14  
94zgreenmachine's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,309
From: Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Originally Posted by engineermike
Stock for stock, they run almost identical times to an LT1. Mod for mod, they are faster, so I wouldn't discount them.
Every one I have ever seen does nothing but spin tires, bounce off of rev limiters and miss shifts. That makes them slow as hell...........
Old Sep 21, 2009 | 06:07 AM
  #15  
engineermike's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,743
From: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Originally Posted by 94zgreenmachine
Every one I have ever seen does nothing but spin tires, bounce off of rev limiters and miss shifts. That makes them slow as hell...........
Stock, they run 14.0-14.2 at 100-102, which puts the et right in line with a stock LT1, but higher mph. Modified, you name it, with the quickest running high 7's at 190 mph.

Yea, I think we could learn something from them.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 PM.