Texasstar
Can't is a four letter dirty word
I wanted to put this up for scrutiny. Are our assumptions correct below? Will we have any squish or valve clearance issues and we plan on doing the putty test but it never hurts to ask. We are ordering a .127 mm cu base gasket and a .254 mm cu head gasket. My aftermarket base gasket measured .55 mm and my head gasket was 1.45. Compressed I am using .33mm and 1mm respectively for calculations leaving a decrease of .203 on the base and a .746 mm on the head for a total of .949 mm.
My volume of combustion is 12.735 cm cubed before gasket thickness reduction
41(56.25/2)^2 x pi +12735)/12735=9
The gasket size reduction reduces the volume of combustion by 2.35 cm cubed
.949(56.25/2)^2 x pi=2358.31/1000=2.35 cm cubed
The new volume of combustion will be 10.385 cm cubed
The new compression should be 10.8-1
41(56.25/2)^2 x pi + 10385)/10385=10.8
That being said for 60 dollars compression is raise by 1.5 with reusable copper gaskets...pretty good bank for the buck if my math is correct.
My volume of combustion is 12.735 cm cubed before gasket thickness reduction
41(56.25/2)^2 x pi +12735)/12735=9
The gasket size reduction reduces the volume of combustion by 2.35 cm cubed
.949(56.25/2)^2 x pi=2358.31/1000=2.35 cm cubed
The new volume of combustion will be 10.385 cm cubed
The new compression should be 10.8-1
41(56.25/2)^2 x pi + 10385)/10385=10.8
That being said for 60 dollars compression is raise by 1.5 with reusable copper gaskets...pretty good bank for the buck if my math is correct.