• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Living with 10.8 compression on the street ??

You need a bigger cam.


This is a common belief.
I spoke with Ken at Hensley performance in Tennessee. He suggested using a .051 head gasket to bring the ratio down 3/10ths of a point AND a smaller cam with a 110 LSA. The existing 292/509 cam has a 108 LSA. While I agree that the drop in comp ratio should help, the idea of using a less aggressive cam sounds wrong. I respect the man but his advice is opposite of everything I have heard. I'm going to call Comp Cams directly tomorrow. I may end up sending the small cam back if the Comp guys suggest what the masses are saying.
What would be the effect of retarding the '509 cam? It would mean a later intake closing, right? During overlap, would this mean more bleed off of cylinder pressure?

- - - Updated - - -

Like Cranky said tight is good!! here's a ? r they open chamber heads saw u had eddys but did not see which ones....being outside the zone harder to achieve (tight Quench)

The heads are closed chamber.
I may have the heads worked while I have them off. A mild port job with some hogging out of the chambers may help.
Anyone know of a good head porter in the Sacramento area?
 
I have read several times about the .020 steel shim head gasket. Any idea why it is called a "shim"? Is it possible to use it along with a composition gasket to achieve a greater thickness? I'm having ideas of using one on the block, followed by a standard .039 Fel Pro gasket. This adds up to .059 for far less than using a Cometic .060 especially since I already have some Fel Pro gaskets here.
 
I have read several times about the .020 steel shim head gasket. Any idea why it is called a "shim"? Is it possible to use it along with a composition gasket to achieve a greater thickness? I'm having ideas of using one on the block, followed by a standard .039 Fel Pro gasket. This adds up to .059 for far less than using a Cometic .060 especially since I already have some Fel Pro gaskets here.
I dont think 2 gaskets stacked on top of each other is going to work. Seems more likely to fail like that. I have never tried it. I think Meep Meep would probably know for sure if that would work. As far as valve timing goes, the later intake valve closing tends to bleed off cyl pressure at lower RPM s. A retarded cam timing like say 4 degrees is going to help in that area, but is going to hurt low end torque.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not during valve over lap where cylinder pressure drops off. Its when the piston is coming up on the compression stroke, when the intake valve is still open, but on its way closed. As the pistons comes up, the valve is still open and this is where the pressure is bled off a little. The later the closing point, the more pressure is bled off at low RPM s. At higher RPMs this doesn't happen so much. Thats due to the high velocity of the air in the intake port and manifold runner.
 
Gary is right ^^^^^ And to say again, overlap does not bleed off cylinder pressure. That is a fixed dimension ground into the cam and is not user adjustable. In my opinion most street cars shouldn't be running around with anything more than about 50 degrees of overlap. I'm thinking in terms of preserving vacuum to make carbs work better and for general drivability and ease of tuning.

A steel shim head gasket is about .020" thick but is embossed with beads around openings that crush to make a seal. It's unlikely that those embossed features will line up with another manufactures gasket, plus they are likely to not crush properly because you don't have metal on both sides. Based on several wrong things potentially adding up to disaster, I say stay away from that idea. If you need a thicker gasket call Cometic and have some made for you. They are layered gaskets built to order and designed to seal.
 
This is a common belief.
I spoke with Ken at Hensley performance in Tennessee. He suggested using a .051 head gasket to bring the ratio down 3/10ths of a point AND a smaller cam with a 110 LSA. The existing 292/509 cam has a 108 LSA. While I agree that the drop in comp ratio should help, the idea of using a less aggressive cam sounds wrong. I respect the man but his advice is opposite of everything I have heard. I'm going to call Comp Cams directly tomorrow. I may end up sending the small cam back if the Comp guys suggest what the masses are saying.
What would be the effect of retarding the '509 cam? It would mean a later intake closing, right? During overlap, would this mean more bleed off of cylinder pressure?

- - - Updated - - -



The heads are closed chamber.
I may have the heads worked while I have them off. A mild port job with some hogging out of the chambers may help.
Anyone know of a good head porter in the Sacramento area?

A bigger cam, with a later intake vave closing event, will help with your problem.

It would be helpful to reduce the compression some, but you are not too far off right now. Our 451 stroker was 11.7:1 compression with RPM heads, running on 91 octane and made 500+ lb-ft of torque from 3500-7500+rpm without a hint of detonation. The 500 stroker used 91 octane, was 11.9:1 with 906 iron heads and ran the distributor locked at 38 degrees without detonation. I'm sure there is a compression/camshaft/distributor timing combination that would give you giggle-fits.

As to head porters. We're not in Sacramento, but in Challis, ID.
 
I happen to think Ken is going the wrong way. If you already have closed chamber heads, then you have "some" quench happening. If you reduce that with a thicker head gasket I believe you might make the detonation problem worse with the same parts otherwise. Even though you may drop compression somewhat, losing more quench I believe will add to your detonation problem. I think you need more quench and a larger cam like I said before and like IQ52 described, but then what do I know?

This is a common belief.
I spoke with Ken at Hensley performance in Tennessee. He suggested using a .051 head gasket to bring the ratio down 3/10ths of a point AND a smaller cam with a 110 LSA. The existing 292/509 cam has a 108 LSA. While I agree that the drop in comp ratio should help, the idea of using a less aggressive cam sounds wrong. I respect the man but his advice is opposite of everything I have heard. I'm going to call Comp Cams directly tomorrow. I may end up sending the small cam back if the Comp guys suggest what the masses are saying.
What would be the effect of retarding the '509 cam? It would mean a later intake closing, right? During overlap, would this mean more bleed off of cylinder pressure?

- - - Updated - - -



The heads are closed chamber.
I may have the heads worked while I have them off. A mild port job with some hogging out of the chambers may help.
Anyone know of a good head porter in the Sacramento area?
 
Today I spoke with William at the Comp Cams tech line. He feels that the smaller cam is the wrong direction to go. He likes the idea of a thicker head gasket and surprisingly suggested to keep the '509 cam in place. He didn't try to push me into buying a cam from him, so his words seemed genuine.
What is strange to me is that many people claim to run high compression ratios like this on 91 octane without having problems. I wish that I had their luck. for now I am leaning toward using the thicker gasket and having the heads ported. Thanks everyone, Greg
 
Try more cam and/or octane boost.

Though not a mopar, I run 11.2:1 in my 392 stroker Windsor in my '69 mustang. I run octane boost in every tank and live with it. The car is just not driven every day so the octane boost is not that big of an a$$ pain.
 
How does it actually run? I'd make sure your balancer isn't lying to you when you time the thing. I know it's common on small block Ford's and chebbie so maybe ur balancer is marked wrong or has spun on the 440
 
That's because they run camshafts with proper specs to run those compression ratios on pump gas. I think losing quench is not the way to go, but good luck. I hope it turns out.

Today I spoke with William at the Comp Cams tech line. He feels that the smaller cam is the wrong direction to go. He likes the idea of a thicker head gasket and surprisingly suggested to keep the '509 cam in place. He didn't try to push me into buying a cam from him, so his words seemed genuine.
What is strange to me is that many people claim to run high compression ratios like this on 91 octane without having problems. I wish that I had their luck. for now I am leaning toward using the thicker gasket and having the heads ported. Thanks everyone, Greg
 
Today I spoke with William at the Comp Cams tech line. He feels that the smaller cam is the wrong direction to go. He likes the idea of a thicker head gasket and surprisingly suggested to keep the '509 cam in place. He didn't try to push me into buying a cam from him, so his words seemed genuine.
What is strange to me is that many people claim to run high compression ratios like this on 91 octane without having problems. I wish that I had their luck. for now I am leaning toward using the thicker gasket and having the heads ported. Thanks everyone, Greg

Ahem. Excuse me. Luck? You think its LUCK? We've spent thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars learning what it takes! I sat in my dad's tool box when I was two years old and watched him work. I watched as my first engine on the dyno wiped out the $1000 roller camshaft, pushrods and lifters, because I forgot to check the pushrod clearance to the intake ports. I tried four different cams and four intake manifolds while paying $550/day to use the dyno. I bought aluminum cylinder heads just to destroy to see what we could do to port them. Darn straight I was LUCKY, lucky not to go broke while learning what I know. Now that I've bought my own dyno I plan to learn a great deal more and get REAL LUCKY.
 
Hi Gregory, if you are planning on having your heads ported, why not send them to Jim in Idaho? He really kows how to make them flow well, and I think he would be able to recommend the correct cam, and head gasket for your application. If he can get a 451 with 11.7 to 1 C/R to produce that kind of torque on 91 octane fuel, I would think he knows how to get your motor at 10.8 to 1, to run properly. I still believe a tighter quench clearance is going to help. Also a richer mixture may help. I've heard of cases where increasing quench distance actually increased pinging problems even though the C/R was lower. Having the correct combination here is the key.
 
I am running a 451, same 509 cam as you are, 292 duration, 14cc dome Ross pistons, ported 2.14 intake/1.81 exhaust 915 closed chamber heads, .020 head gasket, and with .017 deck clearance gives me .037 " quench distance. I haven't had any pre-ignition problems yet with these heads. My C/R is 13.3 to 1. But I run 100 Sunoco race gas, at 5200 feet elevation. Seems that I had more problems with the 906 heads at 12.5 to 1 C/R and a greater quench distance, Like .135". It started pinging alot one day last summer when the temp was above 100, and I was going up a long hill. I keep the motor real cool now, and have 72 primary (stock) and larger 80 main jets in my Holley 780. I plan to go to the stock 76 secondary jets and see how that works. Oh and by the way, I can fry the tires in first and 2nd gear. 3.91 ratio posi. Best running big block I've ever had.
 
Don't know how old you are but most of us old farts remember the beginning of the end for our beloved big blocks when compression started dropping and the octane levels fell. How did mom lower compression? She lowered the piston height in the cylinder. What did this accomplish? It was supposed to help lower combustion temps in order to lower NoX emissions. Did it work? Not really. Those engines pinged and dieseled themselves to death. The 'lazy' combustion (no quench) made the flame front move slowly across the piston and the low grade gas would ignite on just about any hot spot within the chamber and would end up with another smaller but just as lazy flame front which collided with the first flame front and if it was severe enough, you could hear it in the sound of a ping. That doesn't work too well but that explanation is pretty much a simplification of what all that goes on inside the engine. There's lots of info on the net if you want to learn about too. I don't know if the engineers really knew what was going on back then or if they were just looking for a cheap way out in order to meet emissions for the given year at the time but anyways, even if you scratch the surface of the subject, it'll help you understand how to get an engine running great without the issues associated with lower gasoline grades and high performance engine builds.

On cams....I'm no cam guru but I do know that if your cam has a late intake opening event, then you don't want to use it in a high static compression engine. Don't know if you ever checked your cranking PSI, but that will help tell a lot about what's going on and yes, cam timing can affect your cranking PSI.

On quench. Increasing your quench distance (lowering the piston or increasing gasket thickness) will usually increase the pinging problem. As already been said, 10.8 isn't that high...but here's a link on the site that helps explain it. There are a lot of articles on the net that goes into detail about it but this one is one of the few that I found that helped me understand it better over how the others explained it. I'm no engineer or chemist so I need things 'splained to me to where I oversit it easily :D
http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?12581-Quench-explained
 
I forgot to mention that on the advice of Rick Ehrenberg from Mopar Action magazine, I am using vacuum advance. The vacuum can is cranked back to the point where it gets 16-18 vacuum for a total of around 49-50 degrees. It jumps a bit so it is hard to be specific. Rick states that even high performance engines can benefit from the vacuum advance because it promotes complete combustion.
I will admit that this car isn't a daily commuter, but I do like to take it on trips. Last weekend I drove 995 miles to Los Angeles and back. It is unlikely that I'd drag race it much, maybe once or twice a year. The vacuum advance made a 1.5 mpg increase the last time I did a tankful to tankful comparison. YES, I know that it sounds silly to expect reasonable fuel economy from a car like this, I was just trying to improve the efficiency. I didn't expect the economy increase to come at the expense of detonation. I'll plug the vacuum advance and run it on 91 octane to see what happens.


IQ52:

I meant no disrespect to you. My reference to other peoples "LUCK" was more about my run of tough "luck". You ask questions and take advice and some of it works. Some doesn't.

To all others:
I appreciate the suggestions about losing quench. I have heard the same point made by other smart people. In truth, I don't feel confident that anything is 100% right to lower compression except to run " D " shaped dished pistons that retain a flat top on the quench side. I am going to keep at it though. I'm not too keen on pulling the motor out or removing the heads just yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Last year I ran an ignition box that some here may have read about: The REV-N-NATOR. It was tested in Mopar Muscle last summer. The testing was performed by Dunnuck Racing. Kevin tested it against 3 other Mopar ECUs. The baseline was a replacement unit from Wells, then they used an orange box and a chrome unit. The Wells had a tendency to retard timing in the midrange, costing power. The Orange unit also had a pull back of timing, though less so. The Chrome box was the best of the first three. The Rev-n-nator unit has improved circuitry and has no hiccups in the curve. It made the most peak power and the most average power of all they tested.
I ran one of these Rev-n-nator units and was impressed with the gains, but as they stated, my timing had to be retarded even more to avoid detonation. I don't care what the timing numbers are if the engine runs right, but retarding the timing meant that my initial timing came down as well. The 17 degrees of initial helps the idle quality. dropping it to 12 to 13 degrees made it feel lazy from a stop. To take advantage of this unit, I'd need to dig into the distributor to limit the range of advance.
 
Nothing wrong with trying to make the engine efficient at all. Imo, that's part of hot rodding....trying to get great power and decent mileage. My old 71 340 Cuda surprised me with 17 mpg in town and yet ran a 14.0x at the track leaving the stock air cleaner on it. I know there's plenty of 340's out there that ran harder but how many got of them got good mileage in town and still knocked down a respectable 1/4 mile ET? Heck, my first car got 11 and only ran a 14.80!
 
Sounds to me like you need to put the magazines down. Comp Cams? Ebooger? I love the guy, really. He's a total wealth of knowledge, but he's not a professional engine builder. You have some on this thread who are.....and have been for a long time. I would listen.
 
You are dealing with a pinging problem and that starts with insufficient octane for the compression ratio. Plain and simple. Lots of other factors contribute to pinging, which have all been addressed, but you need to deal with the basics. Lower your compression or run higher octane gas. Anything else is just a band-aid.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top