TSP 200CC heads/Fast 90/90 question
12-04-2006, 09:43 AM
#21
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
The valley cover doesnt touch or come in contact with the intake and won't effect the height....If this engine was a Gen II you could have doubled the gaskets or used a thicker .120 gasket but even that wouldn't have moved it enough to be an effective solution. You could fabricate a spacer but that is a PITA to say the least and I dont know how much fabricating backround you have.
Seems to me the intake interface may have been machined incorrectly or the ports may have been located in the wrong place to begin with.
Your only choices are to epoxy the intake to match or simply give TSP a call in the morning which should be your first course of action. They usually go out of there way to make things right and I'm sure you guys will figure something out to get it resolved.
Good luck...
Tony
Seems to me the intake interface may have been machined incorrectly or the ports may have been located in the wrong place to begin with.
Your only choices are to epoxy the intake to match or simply give TSP a call in the morning which should be your first course of action. They usually go out of there way to make things right and I'm sure you guys will figure something out to get it resolved.
Good luck...
Tony
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by a "spacer" ? One of our local shops Arizona Power and Sound has an extremely talented fabricator.
12-04-2006, 11:19 AM
#23
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JakeFusion™
He has valve reliefs in the pistons, so he's not going to be close anywhere near 11.5:1 as it stands right now, especially with 4 or 6cc reliefs. Mill the heads down to 58cc for 11.5:1 if 4cc or 56cc if those are 6cc reliefs.
12-04-2006, 11:38 AM
#25
Originally Posted by lilbuddy1587
After using a DCR/SCR calculator, it shows my SCR is 11.7xx and my DCR is a little over 8.6. So yea, I wouldn't be doing myself any favors here.
12-04-2006, 11:49 AM
#26
Guys...
Forget about the mill....You couldn't even begin to come close.
Knocking 6 cc's out of those heads would raise the CR significantly and only help his situation by a whopping .036 of an inch. That would barely make a dent in the mismatch by the looks of the pic.
He needs to get with TSP and get it handled....custom spacers are more time consuming and a last resort.
Tony
Forget about the mill....You couldn't even begin to come close.
Knocking 6 cc's out of those heads would raise the CR significantly and only help his situation by a whopping .036 of an inch. That would barely make a dent in the mismatch by the looks of the pic.
He needs to get with TSP and get it handled....custom spacers are more time consuming and a last resort.
Tony
12-04-2006, 11:52 AM
#27
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JakeFusion™
He has valve reliefs in the pistons, so he's not going to be close anywhere near 11.5:1 as it stands right now, especially with 4 or 6cc reliefs. Mill the heads down to 58cc for 11.5:1 if 4cc or 56cc if those are 6cc reliefs.
Like Tony said contact TSP and see what they have to say.
12-04-2006, 07:50 PM
#29
Originally Posted by Mcduffys
It would help if you knew he was running a 384 stroker and a fairly large cam. Sorry for the confusion.
Like Tony said contact TSP and see what they have to say.
Like Tony said contact TSP and see what they have to say.
*edit* just saw I misspelled threw.. ahha.
Last edited by JakeFusion; 12-05-2006 at 09:25 AM.
12-04-2006, 09:31 PM
#31
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JakeFusion™
Yeah, I sorta figured that after I posted, but the 200cc heads through me off on a stroker.
Anyways, TSP is going to contact the designer of the port and figure out if this is going to be a problem or not. They(TSP) said it shouldn't be a problem but they want to be sure and to call them tomorrow for an answer. If there is a problem, they said they'd take the necessary action and fix whatever the issue is.
12-05-2006, 12:30 AM
#33
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by N4cer
Ask if it's going to be an issue? You have a major restriction. How could it not be a problem? You're the customer. You are the one who decides if it's a problem. Not some 3rd party with no responsibility in the matter.
12-05-2006, 05:33 AM
#34
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rochester,Ny
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
come on guys look at those pictures,if anyone tells you its not going to be a problem then they shouldnt be designing cylinder heads..I sure as hell know they would perform better if there wasnt a huge step up into the port,because you get turbulence and crap airflow.Your powerband will suffer somwhere because of it,thats for sure..It might make good power,but somewhere they will fall behind.For what you pay,its just not worth it..
12-05-2006, 09:16 AM
#35
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by redtail2426
come on guys look at those pictures,if anyone tells you its not going to be a problem then they shouldnt be designing cylinder heads..I sure as hell know they would perform better if there wasnt a huge step up into the port,because you get turbulence and crap airflow.Your powerband will suffer somwhere because of it,thats for sure..It might make good power,but somewhere they will fall behind.For what you pay,its just not worth it..
