LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

383 le2 h/c/i numbers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 03:08 PM
  #16  
Elysian's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 180
From: MI
I believe the Impala SS gaskets are 0.027". I've heard that optimal quench in around .040". So he should be able to go a little thicker on the gaskets (?). Still, the real question is whether or not 12.3:1 is doable with the cam he's running ???
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 03:23 PM
  #17  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by Elysian
I've heard that optimal quench in around .040".
where did you hear that?
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 09:01 PM
  #18  
sheikss's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 32
From: Columbus, GA
Ya I'm going to put a thicker gasket on it. I think I'll get alittle more out of it by fixing this.
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 09:20 PM
  #19  
Elysian's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 180
From: MI
Originally Posted by SS MPSTR
where did you hear that?
Like many other pieces of random knowledge, I forget the source. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 11:25 PM
  #20  
SStrokerAce's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Depends on the setup but under .030" can be done but up to about .045" quench is all I would want to see.
Old Sep 29, 2007 | 09:13 AM
  #21  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
I've seen it as tight as 0.027", but everything needs to be spot-on. My new engine is right at 0.033" and similar to what was mentioned above, I've also been told by others that 0.040" is the upper limit you should shoot for.
Old Sep 29, 2007 | 09:29 AM
  #22  
mrz28 73/97's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 776
I have a question why tear the motor down to replace the head gasket if Ed Wright already tuned the current setup to run on pump gas? Even if it is at 13:1 or whatever the dyno numbers were done with what 91 octane correct? Now unless you were getting detonation or something or he wasn't able to tune it to run on pump gas then I could see changing the head gaskets.
Old Sep 29, 2007 | 01:03 PM
  #23  
Elysian's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 180
From: MI
Question: is it the case that, in an ideal world, quench area would be zero? i.e., in the same sense that, according to the physics, it would be ideal to have an infinitely long connecting rod . . .
Old Sep 29, 2007 | 01:05 PM
  #24  
Elysian's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 180
From: MI
. . . perhaps that question would better belong in the "advanced" tech section. Getting a little off-topic.
Old Sep 29, 2007 | 01:37 PM
  #25  
SStrokerAce's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally Posted by Elysian
Question: is it the case that, in an ideal world, quench area would be zero? i.e., in the same sense that, according to the physics, it would be ideal to have an infinitely long connecting rod . . .
Well there are instances when the quench is zero. The rod stretches, the piston expands the block expands due to heat etc...

And no it's not ideal to have and infinitely long rod
Old Sep 30, 2007 | 07:32 PM
  #26  
sheikss's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 32
From: Columbus, GA
I wish there was a way to know my compression for sure without tearing the heads off. SStrokerAce what would you do? Ed said on the last run everything was fine. I believe that lowering the compression would improve my quench therefore resulting in more power. I was also lead to believe that the compression being as high as it is for the cam size is to high and lowering it would help. I need a defanant answer as what to do. I figured a gallon or two of some 100 octane in some premium would be a good bet and to leave things as they are. You know the cam specs what compression should I run. I believe there is more in it help me out.
Old Sep 30, 2007 | 11:19 PM
  #27  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
dropping SCR by increasing gasket thickness and improving quench? Did I miss something?
Old Oct 1, 2007 | 12:22 AM
  #28  
'94 Bad A Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,905
From: Orlando,Fl
Originally Posted by Gripenfelter
I would have it tuned for 91 octane. Not higher than that.



What is this 91 octane that you speak of?! 87 / 89 / 93 / 100(unleaded) is what we have here... Unless you find a gas station with 5 fuel lines, then there is 87 / 89 / 90 / 92 / 93 something stupid like that.
Old Oct 1, 2007 | 09:17 AM
  #29  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by '94 Bad A Z28
What is this 91 octane that you speak of?! 87 / 89 / 93 / 100(unleaded) is what we have here... Unless you find a gas station with 5 fuel lines, then there is 87 / 89 / 90 / 92 / 93 something stupid like that.
Some states (like Kalifornia) only have as high as 91 octane at the pump - that's our supreme unleaded.
Old Oct 1, 2007 | 11:07 AM
  #30  
Colin91Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 968
From: Wichita, KS
Originally Posted by SS MPSTR
Some states (like Kalifornia) only have as high as 91 octane at the pump - that's our supreme unleaded.
Yep, 91 is all we have here in Kansas

However, so far so good with my 11.8 to 1 motor

Last edited by Colin91Z; Oct 1, 2007 at 11:09 AM.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
tnorm077
Parts For Sale
3
May 23, 2015 09:10 PM
Bignasty85
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
12
Mar 3, 2015 04:05 PM
kaoticcamaross
LT1 Based Engine Tech
1
Feb 17, 2015 03:13 PM
MadMav
Parts For Sale
8
Feb 6, 2015 11:02 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 AM.