quench vs. zero deck

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Invasivecoyote
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:40 am
Location:

quench vs. zero deck

Post by Invasivecoyote »

how badly is the quench affected with a zero deck or .005 down the hole? How much stress is then put on the head gasket when that becomes the effective quench.
I'm thinking of .021 compressed thickness. keep in mind i'm ruing a Windsor motor and theirs 4 head bolts per hole.
KnightEngines
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2694
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by KnightEngines »

Zero deck with a .021" gasket is way too close - you'll smack those heads with the pistons guaranteed.

.035" minimum piston to head, preferably around .040-.050", so with zero deck run a .040" gasket, .005" down the hole you can run a .037" gasket.
user-612937456

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by user-612937456 »

There is negligible improvement in quench effect below .050 so in most cases .035-.050 is idea. I have seen it as tight as .027 in a low rpm engine but you will likely kiss the head with the piston with that low of a clearance.
In-Tech
Vendor
Posts: 2823
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by In-Tech »

Agreed and after ~.100" it doesn't seem to induce preignition nor detonation that would otherwise happen anyway due to bad tuning.
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl
novadude
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Shippensburg, PA

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by novadude »

In-Tech wrote:Agreed and after ~.100" it doesn't seem to induce preignition nor detonation that would otherwise happen anyway due to bad tuning.
That's good to know, as I've always heard that anything over ~.050" would tend to increase the chances of detonation. I'd imagine chamber shape, piston dome, etc also plays a pretty big role in what quench is/isn't OK too.
User avatar
panic
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Ecbatana
Contact:

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by panic »

Jenkins wrote 40 years ago that tighter quench than needed to suppress knock = pumping loss.
How to find how much suppression you need is a much more difficult question.
User avatar
900HP
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:56 pm
Location: Fargo, North Dakota

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by 900HP »

The other thing to think about here is crevice volume.... the head gasket bore is always slightly larger than the cylinder bore. Keeping the piston down .010" and using a thinner gasket reduces crevice volume...... I also feel a thinner gasket doesn't allow the head to move around as much. With your 4-bolts per hole use a Cometic MLS gasket, they work very well.
Throttle's Performance
(701)893-5010
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Throttle ... 1996281602
dfarr67
Expert
Expert
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:14 pm
Location:

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by dfarr67 »

If you zero deck and later do another rebuild, piston, rod, crank combo may push crown out of the hole. Better to give some leeway and there are many gaskets to choose from.
Dan Timberlake
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:10 pm
Location:

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by Dan Timberlake »

"How much stress is then put on the head gasket when that becomes the effective quench."

Just sitting here in my slippers I think the head gasket is always subjected to pretty much the full range of pressure during the compression and power strokes.
ctk30
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:58 am
Location: Fl

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by ctk30 »

Is there any downfall to having a gasket thats only a few thousandths in diameter larger than the bore?
k1ob.com
pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9841
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by pdq67 »

ctk30 wrote:Is there any downfall to having a gasket thats only a few thousandths in diameter larger than the bore?
As I see it you need to mock it up and then torque the gasket you want to use to be sure that it doesn't "expand" and overhang the bore is all. And it might be better to do this AFTER you heat cycle the engine several times until everything takes a set...

If it doesn't overhang the bore, the smaller the hole the better. Less creavas(Sp?) volume.

pdq67
ctk30
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:58 am
Location: Fl

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by ctk30 »

Stock bore is 3.898 and the repalcement gaskets are 3.910 and I'm having it honed out a few thousandths
k1ob.com
Invasivecoyote
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:40 am
Location:

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by Invasivecoyote »

Is there only speculation as to how far (length wise ) the vavle expands with heat? In relation to piston to vavle clearance
User avatar
MadBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 15024
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by MadBill »

The only information I'm aware of re valve expansion is a valve burning problem GM was having with their road race Corvettes ~ 60 years back. They changed alloys without curing it and finally realized that thermal expansion was reducing the lash to negative numbers, thus preventing the valve from conducting heat into the seat. Maybe one of our historians can say what the old and new lash specs were...
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.

Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.
User avatar
modok
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3325
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:50 am
Location:

Re: quench vs. zero deck

Post by modok »

Assume .004" for exhaust valve expansion.

Closing lag is a much larger factor.
Post Reply