Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Excessive Deck Height

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine: Excessive Deck Height

    Were any Studebaker V/8's, other than the 259, engineered with an excessive amount of clearance between the top of the piston ( at top dead center ) and the top of the block deck ? Thanks, Dan

  • #2
    Been talked about.
    All Stude V-8's had excessive deck heights.

    Custom pistons will fix it.
    Custom rods will fix it.
    Block decking will fix it.

    Do a search on the subject, lotsa reading.

    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CarCrosswordDan View Post
      Were any Studebaker V/8's, other than the 259, engineered with an excessive amount of clearance between the top of the piston ( at top dead center ) and the top of the block deck ? Thanks, Dan
      Factory specs for the 259 is .082"

      Ted

      Comment


      • #4
        Gee, I really don't understand that kind of engineering concept. Incredible. Dan

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know why this is considered excessive. Many years ago when I was studying to be an aircraft mechanic I remember being told that a deck height of .050" or greater was the preferred deck height on a gasoline engine.
          Last edited by irish; 01-05-2012, 08:45 PM.
          sigpic

          1962 Daytona
          1964 Cruiser
          And a few others

          Comment


          • #6
            This is more question than answer.

            Aren't we also discussing Quench here. I realize deck height is not quench but if I recall correctly (deck height + gasket thickness = Quench) to put it simply.

            That presented, I've generally been led to believe that in SBC's and other performance engines that about 0.040 quench gives a reasonable amount of turbulence to the fuel mix and above 0.050-0.060 is considered the upper limit for performance engines. For older lower compression engines the Quench was considered to be of less importance as overall performance is less affected.

            As I said, this is more question than answer but I'd like to see what the forum folks think as reference.

            Bob

            Comment


            • #7
              Okay, refresh my memory. Would then a standard 289 be less than the 259's .082"? (I suppose it would be, but I can't place my hands on the info. Silly old brain) What was the 289 factory spec?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jim B PEI View Post
                Okay, refresh my memory. Would then a standard 289 be less than the 259's .082"? (I suppose it would be, but I can't place my hands on the info. Silly old brain) What was the 289 factory spec?
                So they can use the same heads on the 259 and 289 and end up with the same compression ratio is my guess. The 289 deck is .031"

                Bob, I think you are correct in that lower compression engines are not so critical to deck for performance. For what it's worth, the little 232 engine deck is .109" and being only 7.0 compression that little motor runs awfully good as small as it is as does the 259.

                Ted

                Comment


                • #9
                  Don't forget the difference in the pistons, as in Dished 289's and flat top 259.
                  All of this with the deck height results in the CR reamaining the same for the 2 different engine sizes , while
                  using the same head/combustion chamber ?
                  Bill H
                  Daytona Beach
                  SDC member since 1970
                  Owner of The Skeeter Hawk .

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X