Piston to valve clearance question?

Smitty · 07-16-2011, 03:47 PM

Thanks for the advice guys, pretty much what I was told before. The small cam is installed at 4 degree's advance so it's 104/111 and the the Lunati was installed my old engine at 100.5 degrees, not sure where the Ultra Dyne was installed.

I really didn't want to remove the engine but I guess I should have wrote better notes while building this engine. It runs good for what it is, I just wanted a little more umph. Altitude is pretty high out here in West Texas so if I was back home on the east coast it should run a little quicker. On the night the car had it's best pass here we were at around 4400 ft on the barometer.

Pretty nasty sounding hydraulic though, really suprised me with how it performs. I ran this same combo before with a Crane Solid that was about .050 bigger on intake and .070 on the exhaust and the difference in et was only .35 hundrenths. This engine does have more compression (first engine had same heads but they were 66cc chambers versus being 61cc chamber now) and it has a C-4 instead of a C-6. I think if I change the gear ratio it will help it out (5.67 from a 4.86). I will probably save the two solids for my new engine.

Once again, thanks for the inputs.

07-16-2011, 03:47 PM	#5
Smitty Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Gibsonton, FL Posts: 267 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Piston to valve clearance question? Thanks for the advice guys, pretty much what I was told before. The small cam is installed at 4 degree's advance so it's 104/111 and the the Lunati was installed my old engine at 100.5 degrees, not sure where the Ultra Dyne was installed. I really didn't want to remove the engine but I guess I should have wrote better notes while building this engine. It runs good for what it is, I just wanted a little more umph. Altitude is pretty high out here in West Texas so if I was back home on the east coast it should run a little quicker. On the night the car had it's best pass here we were at around 4400 ft on the barometer. Pretty nasty sounding hydraulic though, really suprised me with how it performs. I ran this same combo before with a Crane Solid that was about .050 bigger on intake and .070 on the exhaust and the difference in et was only .35 hundrenths. This engine does have more compression (first engine had same heads but they were 66cc chambers versus being 61cc chamber now) and it has a C-4 instead of a C-6. I think if I change the gear ratio it will help it out (5.67 from a 4.86). I will probably save the two solids for my new engine. Once again, thanks for the inputs.