|
Re: Is it safe 2.19/1.88 on 452 iron heads ?
[Re: NachoRT74]
#968696
04/07/11 11:33 PM
04/07/11 11:33 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 36,041 Lincoln Nebraska
RapidRobert
Circle Track
|
Circle Track
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 36,041
Lincoln Nebraska
|
No actual exp. Just from the math it'd move the in/ex valve inside edges .125" closer (starting w 2.08/1.74). If that would work w no interference you could plunge cut the walls to unshroud the rest
live every 24 hour block of time like it's your last day on earth
|
|
|
Re: Is it safe 2.19/1.88 on 452 iron heads ?
[Re: Dodgem]
#968698
04/08/11 12:00 AM
04/08/11 12:00 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 36,041 Lincoln Nebraska
RapidRobert
Circle Track
|
Circle Track
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 36,041
Lincoln Nebraska
|
2.14/1.81 is the std oversize combo. Just wondering would 2.19/1.81 or 2.14/1.88 be better or worse
live every 24 hour block of time like it's your last day on earth
|
|
|
Re: Is it safe 2.19/1.88 on 452 iron heads ?
[Re: RapidRobert]
#968699
04/08/11 12:31 AM
04/08/11 12:31 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,096 Valencia, España
NachoRT74
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,096
Valencia, España
|
yes thats why I'm asking... I allways have known about 2.14/1.81 oversizes, but really suprised me when I saw the 2.19/1.88 option too even from MP
actually MP offers 2.20 not 2.19
I have though about a 2.14/1.88 combination too.
Not now, but in a future ( unless I screwed up porting my heads now LOL )
With a Charger born in Chrysler assembly plant in Valencia, Venezuela
|
|
|
|
|
|