[slowbird]

Originally Posted by b-man

You should be shooting for .040” no matter what, it makes a difference in power and efficiency.

No offense, but besides everyone saying that , is there any real world testing that shows that. On paper a lot of things look good, reality not so much sometimes.

[b-man]

Originally Posted by slowbird

No offense, but besides everyone saying that , is there any real world testing that shows that. On paper a lot of things look good, reality not so much sometimes.

No offense taken.

Yes there is.

There are so-so engine builds that have been improved by tightening the deck.

Believe whatever you want, but it does matter. There’s absolutely no reason not to optimize the quench distance when you’re spending the money and taking the time to do an expensive engine build.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by b-man

No offense taken.

Yes there is.

There are so-so engine builds that have been improved by tightening the deck.

Believe whatever you want, but it does matter.

I have search quite a bet I can't find a test that compares just quenched distances. Almost all the ones I find have other variables changed, like compression.

[scott70]

Its not good to have that .035 or whatever in the hole area acting as part of the combustion chamber? Easier to cause detonation? Mine ended up .005 in the hole with a .036 headgasket for a .041 . quench. Im asking because Im far from any type of expert.,,,just regurgitating stuff Ive got from here over the years