![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxZzCanr3kCFSMoygiH2Ra9beB3hEDUw-Af7CPAQtnjHg9Hz2VgnsAZL-lx5DbBPHC_WwTUV-IMwz_F4k0ts1xUNZMxs6lNzU_IqHpD-aQrAFB1z3OQzaBg3Og8-oJfcIRfpiGxYdMWZy/s320/relief+difference+3.jpg)
The "relieving" had also been done on Joe's cylinders well before I got to them. As with the stock size intake valve and grossly oversize exhaust valve, the relieving had been done favoring the exhaust. In other words, the relief had been made deeper between the exhaust valve and the bore than between the intake valve and the bore. There was not a lot that I could do about this, other than smoothing out the job that was already done and making the reliefs the same from cylinder to cylinder.
I was alarmed at one point that the top ring would be too close to the bottom of the exhaust relief, exposing it to too much heat. As it worked out, by the time I had fabricated a thin "stroker" plate to go under the cylinder base to adjust the squish, the top ring was a safe distance below the relief (barely).
Now...., the way I would have liked to have approached the matter of relieving is a little different. What I would have liked to have done is treated the area between the valves and the cylinder bore like a port. Consider the floor of the "port" to be the area between the valve and the cylinder bore, which would make the roof of the port to be combustion chamber in the head. My thought is that the floor would respond better to having each "end" radiused rather than the entire floor lowered. If the actual size of this passage between the valve and cylinder bore needed to be enlarged, it may be better to remove the material from the roof.
Alas, with the relief work that was already in place on these cylinders, there was little to be done in the way of research and development.
Another area that was an obvious problem area was in the valve pockets in the heads. In fact, during initial mock up, not all of the valves would even open completely with the heads in place. Opening up the heads to match the head gasket solved the clearance problem, as well as unshrouding the valve
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7mzjkefhU8CascS0hqaxkfWbkI0waK77NAeSyBcc_dRUOGd8cE6OJmqBn00mG_DyHlg140YCYA5v2axmN4xGZyvndf5LLx_5_gqBYppk8y_fpBvTH4NrXeSf1UheTJfruOaC5fgqYBB1L/s320/engine+048.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBR_aTHEWOw_eHc0nxvV9pkoUPm73uGgZxnkAH7QihEPHx_5DByIgAaw28CToGrwdL9xyRVpd5jhkvLt0vtGPTdDMobyTciHqaMAvb7rUPwk44JZj-UioRIgmYZxRilXJ6FiszjCXj7-bI/s320/manifold+014.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuy4_U4g0PSflosSdx17CzY-oAbLm-G1gqM5ZZSaFkRO1TyXGvwTiHXRJyZgL9iCV3krmrVIB7J2C8UADHM5ZrnoKtgnznjnBNCWTRB1WBRJrHgmmysliIR2SgMUiM-sAxRzu7EM9ZAcl1/s320/manifold+002.jpg)
One last note, the intake manifold also needed a bit of work. I already knew that a deep V in the manifold hurts flow from testing I had done on Shovel and Evo manifolds. Since this manifold had to be made slightly wider to make up for the stroker plates, and I also wanted to convert to a "rubber band" style seal in place of the "plumber style", it only made sense to fill in the V while I was welding. With the V filled in from the outside, I was able to open it up on the inside without grinding through. I fabricated a couple of sleeves to widen the manifold as well as increase the O.D. to the came size as the intake spigots.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt7kTq6_SPvn4i-LTc3FGqOWdMlD2JUQPZF5zIOn69JzQpslJHhzdnWFrqqk5cQ_Dz_9dNoASdItDhLignt1U0PLk9A4Y2VuHTtsZ7hU7uYpwLTZkmHXy8yZPE_u0rRF-YMMbyt15JxwaS/s320/flow+testing+010.jpg)
More than a few trips to the flow bench were involved to verify and provide future reference.
Have you considered a set of the Peek seals that Tom Cotten makes, for the 'plumber' manifolds? Makes for a great seal that is better than rubber. It has memory, so it returns to it's original size and reseals to any new surface. JMO.
ReplyDeleteJack