[Land-speed] Compression Height, Ford Small Block, Of course...

[Larry Mayfield]

Well, I don't think rod stretch in a turbo motor is an issue. That's 
because there is always residual pressure on the top of the piston. That 
prevents a majority of stretch IMHO, lol (my opinion being worth dog spit).

mayf

On 3/16/2011 10:00 AM, Neil Albaugh wrote:
> Larry;
>
> You need enough clearance to allow for rod stretch at high RPM. That 
> said, I don't know what it should be!  :)
>
> Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Larry Mayfield" <drmayf at mayfco.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:27 PM
> To: <land-speed at autox.team.net>
> Subject: [Land-speed] Compression Height, Ford Small Block, Of course...
>
>> Last week I asked about mixing and matching the cranks, pistons and 
>> rods between a 289 and  302 sized motors. The use of the shorter 302 
>> rod with a 289 crank was not deemed to be a good idea because it puts 
>> the piston down hole 0.065 inches. Seemingly small but apparently 
>> important in squish. But when I look at a combo made for a particular 
>> engine, say the 289, virtually everyone of the piston makers use 
>> something other than the zero deck height  compression height of 
>> 1.6135 inches.  Most sell their pistons at 1.60 inches which also 
>> puts the piston down hole by 0.0135 inches.  Is that a significant 
>> amount?  I did sample  a number of products and one was 1.608 which 
>> is closer.
>>
>> What's good?