Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide!



Go Back   Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide! > Technical Forums > Performance Talk

Click here to search for Mopar cars and parts for sale.


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 03-18-2005, 02:17 AM
Username: Username: is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Destin, FL
Posts: 15
Default 318/5.2 Magnum deck clearance (quench height calculations)

I've now read a couple stating theie pistons were .050" in the hole. With a .047" gasket (supposed OEM size), that's a .097" quench height (which would explain why these engines have terrible economy and knock so blasted much). But, I have some contradicting info...

With block deck height: 9.058-9.060, stroke: 3.31, rod length: 6.123, and piston compression height: 1.81, I come up with -.006-.008 deck clearance. The piston tops would be .006-.008" out of the hole @ TDC. With a .047 gasket, that would leave .039-.041" deck clearance, which is about where it should be. What am I missing here? We know the block deck height, rod length, and stroke are all correct, but I'm not 100% on OEM piston compression height. I'd very much appreciate some light on the subject.
Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Deck height on magnum v10 pokeytemplar Ram Truck Chat 1 09-29-2007 11:37 PM
Need help with 440 deck height dusterrcr Performance Talk 1 05-11-2006 06:10 PM
Deck Height Even Or Below DIRT DODGE Performance Talk 2 11-05-2003 08:30 AM
360 Deck height I8URACING Circle Track Chat 2 11-27-2001 07:32 PM
Deck height Duster440 Performance Talk 7 03-17-2000 07:41 AM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
. . . . .