User Tag List

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 77
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    TX......somewhere?
    Posts
    6,953
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    473
    Likes (Given)
    183
    Likes (Received)
    1329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    two handed Stihl...........

  2. Likes OnPad liked this post
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    1,199
    Thanks (Given)
    103
    Thanks (Received)
    201
    Likes (Given)
    1946
    Likes (Received)
    553
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tlwjkw View Post
    two handed Stihl...........
    Two hands, and a foot for easier starting.

    The one lung engine is cheaper to learn porting/machining vs Merc v6. Modified a few saws, but that one has the most compression.

  4. Likes tlwjkw, David - WI liked this post
  5. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    TX......somewhere?
    Posts
    6,953
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    473
    Likes (Given)
    183
    Likes (Received)
    1329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    3/8ths two handed handle starter rope if little (use ta be) like me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Likes OnPad liked this post
  7. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    54
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What's the difference between 18787c4 and 18488c4? I got a pair of c5 I'm looking to swap for better compression

  8. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    1,199
    Thanks (Given)
    103
    Thanks (Received)
    201
    Likes (Given)
    1946
    Likes (Received)
    553
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2 litre/18787c4 has less chamber diameter, cc/volume, and a larger squish band than 2.5 litre/18488c4. Otherwise the chambers are the same shape.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20240831-141759_eBay.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	230.1 KB 
ID:	535820Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20240831-141845_eBay.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	204.9 KB 
ID:	535821

    On a side note. I was able to get 130lb compression reading out of the 2L heads after i removed the adapter off the end of the compression tester. Doh!!
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20240831_152517.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	392.4 KB 
ID:	535822
    Last edited by OnPad; 08-31-2024 at 05:32 PM.

  9. Likes LakeFever liked this post
  10. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    525
    Thanks (Given)
    37
    Thanks (Received)
    67
    Likes (Given)
    54
    Likes (Received)
    669
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's my workings on this.(in metric)
    2.5L engine
    Bore is 8.90cm
    Stroke above exhaust port is 3.9cm (some wriggle room on that)
    Swept volume is 242cm3.(242cc)
    Head chamber volume 30cc and squish volume is 6cm3 (6cc)
    Add all those together = 278.82cc
    Devide that by the chamber volume plus the squish volume.
    Squish is part of the chamber volume.
    278.22cc ÷ 36cc =9.27/1 ratio.
    If that's wrong then someone should pipe in and say so.
    9.27/1 is up there but ok for. Good gas and cool plugs/ piston imo
    This also assumes 100% volumetric efficiency and 0 leakage
    Last edited by NZ Sidewinder; 09-02-2024 at 04:12 PM.

  11. Thanks LakeFever, powerabout thanked for this post
    Likes OnPad liked this post
  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,938
    Thanks (Given)
    1721
    Thanks (Received)
    1343
    Likes (Given)
    12127
    Likes (Received)
    7813
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OnPad View Post
    On a side note. I was able to get 130lb compression reading out of the 2L heads after i removed the adapter off the end of the compression tester. Doh!!
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20240831_152517.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	392.4 KB 
ID:	535822
    Plus 8% – 9% for altitude?

    Also, you really need the SnapOn type gauge... (I think) you're giving up a couple cc because the end of your hose fitting is shorter than your actual spark plug. The void in the spark plug hole isn't there whe the spark plug is installed.

  13. Likes OnPad liked this post
  14. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    1,199
    Thanks (Given)
    103
    Thanks (Received)
    201
    Likes (Given)
    1946
    Likes (Received)
    553
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by David - WI View Post
    Plus 8% – 9% for altitude?

    Also, you really need the SnapOn type gauge... (I think) you're giving up a couple cc because the end of your hose fitting is shorter than your actual spark plug. The void in the spark plug hole isn't there whe the spark plug is installed.
    No compensation for altitude. All the guys at sea level could add 8-9% to my 130lbs. Your right there is some extra space under that Schrader valve that could account for a few more lbs. That puts it closer to the 150lbs at sea level that everyone else is claiming.

    Here I am trying to figure out a compression gauge while NZSidewinder is posting fancy corrected compression ratio calculations. What a show off.

  15. Likes David - WI, NICE PAIR liked this post
  16. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    525
    Thanks (Given)
    37
    Thanks (Received)
    67
    Likes (Given)
    54
    Likes (Received)
    669
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got the exact same pairs of heads in front of me right now.
    I'm aiming for 160psi.
    Here's the unknown.
    Squish protects the edge of the piston and probably the high point of the liner from the flame front during the period of piston travel where its moving much more slowly than mid stroke.
    So for 160psi, do I want to use the 2.0L head with a .040 cut or the big chamber 2.5L head with the narrower squish band and a .140 cut?
    If you draw a circle around a cross section view of this squish area, it will prove to be full of secrets.

    There was a comment here somewhere that people forget how long ago the 1980s were.
    This is correct
    I call the marine shops and automatically assume that the parts guy knows what a 2.5 merc is.
    I mean what other motors are there?
    But of course 2.5 mercs are almost extinct and the parts guy wasn't even born in the 80s.
    Last edited by NZ Sidewinder; 09-02-2024 at 06:23 PM.

  17. Likes LakeFever, OnPad, NICE PAIR, Baker343 liked this post
  18. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Floating around
    Posts
    5,093
    Thanks (Given)
    624
    Thanks (Received)
    662
    Likes (Given)
    4419
    Likes (Received)
    3346
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All I can add to that is a fast boat guy I ran into at the launch who had a Bridgeport on a Ventura said he ran these heads on a 2.5 FF like mine and it worked amazing. I’ll cc mine when I get around to this mod. Maybe tomorrow if I can squeak the time in to do this
    Hydrostream dreamin

  19. Likes OnPad liked this post
  20. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    1,199
    Thanks (Given)
    103
    Thanks (Received)
    201
    Likes (Given)
    1946
    Likes (Received)
    553
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Heres a link to a interesting article.
    http://www.powercdi.com/manual/combu...squish/en.html

  21. Thanks powerabout thanked for this post
  22. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    525
    Thanks (Given)
    37
    Thanks (Received)
    67
    Likes (Given)
    54
    Likes (Received)
    669
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just a point on cranking compression readings.
    There are two types of cylinder liners that affect compression readings at cranking speed.
    Standard and exhaust relief.
    The exhaust relief engine will have lower cranking compression compared to a similar engine without exhaust reliefs.
    This came up just today when a racing administrator suggested to me that a restricted race class could be subject to compression tests.
    I pointed out that an exhaust relief engine could have cut heads yet return low compression test numbersClick image for larger version. 

Name:	20240903_122606.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	402.4 KB 
ID:	535882

  23. Likes LakeFever, NICE PAIR liked this post
  24. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    TX......somewhere?
    Posts
    6,953
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    473
    Likes (Given)
    183
    Likes (Received)
    1329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thread: 2.0L 135 fatblock heads on 2.5L 200?

    how did we get this far off topic..... those have been around on tha 2.0, 2.4, 2.5 150/175's for a very long time.. its well known that crankin' comp is effected by a few lbs. with that liner...

    i'm still waitin' on someone ta take bone stock "fat block" 2.0 heads and bolt 'em on a 2.5 "fat block" and come up with this mystical number?????..............................

  25. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Floating around
    Posts
    5,093
    Thanks (Given)
    624
    Thanks (Received)
    662
    Likes (Given)
    4419
    Likes (Received)
    3346
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    i'm still waitin' on someone ta take bone stock "fat block" 2.0 heads and bolt 'em on a 2.5 "fat block" and come up with this mystical number?????..............................
    working on it
    Hydrostream dreamin

  26. Likes NICE PAIR liked this post
  27. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    TX......somewhere?
    Posts
    6,953
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    473
    Likes (Given)
    183
    Likes (Received)
    1329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LakeFever View Post
    working on it

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2.4 Fatblock which heads to cut? 2.4 or 2.5?
    By coffeeguy in forum Technical Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-30-2014, 11:31 PM
  2. 1991 2.4 Fatblock Cutting Heads and other cheap hp gains
    By coffeeguy in forum Technical Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2014, 01:54 PM
  3. Bridgeport, fatblock? what does this mean?
    By tfrizz80 in forum Technical Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-27-2012, 04:13 PM
  4. Fatblock
    By Jerry Millington in forum Technical Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-20-2006, 11:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Progression Boats