CR problem

I'm building a pontiac 68 400 and looking to put after market heads on.
With the goal of maintaining the ability to run 90 octane pump gas, I am torn between some info
given to me.
The head manufacturer is recommending going with the 74cc heads. I am looking at 270-290 cfm flow to put on top of stock flat tops with a RA IV cam.
My gut is telling me to stay with 85cc heads, but that is all I have to go on.
Does anyone have any experience with a similiar set up?
Thanks and all the best.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Okay, I'm curious. I'm no Pontiac expert but build Chevy engines and am up for the compression expression. Are you aiming for a stock-type engine build or are you shooting for performance with available components? I ask because you state the common street performance desire to "run on pump gas" but I'm unfamiliar with the "RA IV cam". What's the cam data, vehicle weight, gearing and application (towing, mileage, racing or mid-life crisis hot rod:) Really interested in what the compression ratio is with your current configuration too. There's a lot that goes into avoiding preignition & detonation, which sounds like your basic concern. But, the simple static compression increase that comes with reduced head volume might not be a problem at all if the dynamic compression if affected appropriately by altered valve timing and combustion chamber shape. But, there are definitely things that you can do to help, like cylinder-to-head clearance. Drink

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First I'm not too familiar with that cam either but like James says cam timing has a lot to do with it. You can use a cam to make compression or take away some by the valve timing. We are currently building a high torque engine and when I talked to the cam place we use he asked what compression ratio we were using. He said he can make the cam to match the pistons to get the compression to where we want it to make high torque... Also You are better to use smaller cc heads than using a domed piston to make compression. I have read that a flat top can take higher compression without detonation than a domed piston due to flame travel over the dome causes more heat on one side and uneven flame travel. Hopefully someone in here knows that cam and what you can get away with on it... Hope some of this helps you a little...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
He says the cam specs are as follows. " The RA IV cam is .516 lift with 230/240 duration (GM #9794041). It was run in the Ram Air IV motors during the '68 thru '71 heyday." Yeah. All things being equal, I Think, raising the compression with smaller heads is preferable to domed pistons. The domes inhibit the flame front (= lost power to a certain extent). It may even help with detonation through better quench (But, now I'm just thinking out loud). It does make sense to not have a piston crown up there to pimp-slap the head, though:) A race engine makes tradeoffs that we don't need to approach which is where domes might be the right choice. Now that we have the cam, need to do the math to find out the static compression. LET's GET IT OONN!!! Drink P.S. I'm jealous. Wish I still had my '69...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We still need valve timing to figure it out, don't we ? Need to know when the intake closes in degrees to figure out along with head gasket thickness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Found 2 different specs for the cam... one says intake closes at 43 deg ABDC other says 48 deg... I took 45 as a point to go by and my calculations are as follows... if someone comes up with a different answer please correct me... I did this by using 45 degrees and using trig to come up with position of the piston as approx .375" ABDC therefore the 3.75" stroke now becomes 3.375" anyway here is what I came up with ... P.S. cam spec was @ .050" which should be ok if anything using 0" it would lower the ratio even more.
using a .030" thick head gasket 74 cc should give you approx. 10.12 to 1 85 cc should give you approx. 9.03 to 1
using a .060" thick 74 cc should give you approx. 9.441 to 1 85 cc should give you approx. 8.473 to 1
Anyone else come up with any ratios ???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

P.S. this is considering the pistons being at TDC right at the top of the cylinder not below or above the deck. Also not counting the distance from top of piston to rings, and also I figured it out using 6" rod (couldn't find a spec on rod length). It's funny how you can buy a flattop that'll give you a .5 difference from another flattop... I'm more use to doing these calculations for motorcycle 2 stroke engines which is easy to measure how far up in the bore the port timing is and the dome is easily measured...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Looks reasonable and it agrees with our gut feeling, as expected. I'd definitely agree with the recommendation for smaller heads. Pump gas shouldn't be a problem in that neighborhood. Depending how close you want to get to a magic compression ratio, you can do some extra math (there are free downloadable calculators or I can volunteer via e-mail) and consider some tweaks to your plan, i.e. shave the heads, various gasket thicknesses, block decking, etc. Mornin', Drink

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do they have a calculator that figures all that out for you ? If so give me a link I would like to try it. We always did it the old fashioned way using calculus, algebra and normal math... the only part is the metric conversion. (ci to cc) if you do have a calc to do that how close were we to what it came up with ?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sure. There's plenty of 'em out there. I don't have all the engine specs, so, I didn't run the calculator. Google "compression calculator" and it'll give you a slew of 'em. Here's a good link; http://www.race-cars.net/calculators/compression_calculator.html There are plenty other calculators and a search should be able to include a link to a site that has many of them. Some are more thorough than others (ex. this one accounts for gasket thickness but not gasket bore size like a 4.125 bore head gasket that sits in a 4in bore small block) but it's plenty good enough. There is some outstanding software out there depending on your wallet and need to push the limits of math for that razor's edge. He says that the stock engine lists 8-something:1 (I forget). Using some generic specs, I came up with 9.3 in stock form. I figured he'll come in at around 10.4:1. That might seem like it's pushing the limits for "pump gas" but, even if it's the true static compression, his cam should make that just right IMHO. I think my numbers were conservative and they're either correct (good) or actual compression will be just a little lower (still good).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.