As I grow older I find that my mind sometimes plays tricks on me. Hope
that doesn't happen to anyone else on the list!
When I read the note to which I was responding below, for some reason I
assumed Henry was asking about the 'low port head' rather than an early
high port head. After I sent my response, I re-read the original note and
realized my error. I went home for lunch and pulled out the 'Kastner
Bible', which was of great help in restoring my memory. TeriAnn is right
(see below) it was the first version of the high port head which had some
limitations as far as how much it could be milled.
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused!
-----Original Message-----
From: TeriAnn Wakeman [SMTP:twakeman@cruzers.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 12:55 PM
To: fot mail list
Subject: RE: Early High Port Heads & Figure 8's
>If you have a high port head, you should be OK with the milling you
>propose.
I belive that the high port heads with the rounded lower thermostat
housing cast into the head do not have enough space between the bottom
surface and the water jacket to be reliable for more than small
resurfacing mills.
I believe the heads that have a diagonal flat on the underside of the
lower thermostat housing have more metal between the head bottom and the
bottom of the water jacket.
TeriAnn Wakeman If you send me direct mail, please
Santa Cruz, California start the subject line with TW -
twakeman@cruzers.com I will be sure to read the message
http://www.shadow-catcher.net <- Photography for sale
http://www.overlander.net <- Web directory for Land Rover
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman <- My personal web site
"How can life grant us the boon of living..unless we dare"
Amelia Earhart 1898-1937
|