Milling L92 question's
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwest
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milling L92 question's
How much can you safely mill L92 heads for a ly6 for more compression b4 you have problems?
my local speed shop said around 20thou? sound about rite?
my cam is a 226/234/.602 and my pushrod length is 7.425
my local speed shop said around 20thou? sound about rite?
my cam is a 226/234/.602 and my pushrod length is 7.425
Trending Topics
#10
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwest
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i sent pat g a email on this subject here is his reply.
"Rick,
I wouldn't mill too much...maybe .010". P to V is tight with no valve
reliefs.
Geoff"
i have decided not to cut in the future i might do a 408 untill then there going to stay stock.
"Rick,
I wouldn't mill too much...maybe .010". P to V is tight with no valve
reliefs.
Geoff"
i have decided not to cut in the future i might do a 408 untill then there going to stay stock.
#11
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
I have always wondered this. I once considered a set of L92 heads but the vendors were reluctant to mill to anything less than 62cc saying the flow is disrupted and the chamber would need rebuilding. But, my thought is that a shallow chamber gets the valve into the larger cylinder area earlier where flow is unrestricted. Maybe it is a turbulence thing.
My LS6 style heads have 53cc chambers and I run like 12.2:1 static and 8.5 dynamic. In the past, the ET Heads people offered chambers as small as 35cc I believe.
With this I am not including the issue of deck thickness or warping because it was mentioned, but not considered a factor for a N/A engine without extreme compression. I have had no head gasket/sealing issues. P/V clearance and push rod length should also be ignored for argument. They are adjusted and fine.
I'm just throwing this in the mix for conversation.
Thanks!
My LS6 style heads have 53cc chambers and I run like 12.2:1 static and 8.5 dynamic. In the past, the ET Heads people offered chambers as small as 35cc I believe.
With this I am not including the issue of deck thickness or warping because it was mentioned, but not considered a factor for a N/A engine without extreme compression. I have had no head gasket/sealing issues. P/V clearance and push rod length should also be ignored for argument. They are adjusted and fine.
I'm just throwing this in the mix for conversation.
Thanks!
#15
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small bore
[QUOTE=Gregory;14948669]I have always wondered this. I once considered a set of L92 heads but the vendors were reluctant to mill to anything less than 62cc saying the flow is disrupted and the chamber would need rebuilding. But, my thought is that a shallow chamber gets the valve into the larger cylinder area earlier where flow is unrestricted. Maybe it is a turbulence thing.
I think the 'cylinder area' might be just the problem. On an L92 engine the bore is actually smaller than the chamber in the head. The bore itself shrouds the valve. Cutting the head makes things worse because the valve now goes deeper into the bore.
I think the 'cylinder area' might be just the problem. On an L92 engine the bore is actually smaller than the chamber in the head. The bore itself shrouds the valve. Cutting the head makes things worse because the valve now goes deeper into the bore.