Quote:

---

021 above the deck would be impossible to put heads on it....

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

021 above the deck would be impossible to put heads on it....

---

Not impossible with the open chamber heads used in 68 and 69.

---

Quote:

---

IIRC, according to information posted in a similar recent thread, compression height for a '69 383HP piston was 1.932. This would put the piston 0.0025" in the hole assuming a deck height of 9.980" and rod of 6.358" and stroke of 3.375".

---

Quote:

---

All head bolts are blind, no sealer required.
I don't rely on any of the factory ads or NHRA "spec" chamber size numbers because they are usually not what you will find when you measure the deck height/chamber volumes and compression ratio.

---

Quote:

---

Is this statement correct??

"The 68-69 383 4bbl. is the only 383 to have been built with positive deck height from the factory. The blueprinting manuals list it as +.020 to +.021"

?????

---

Quote:

---

IIRC, according to information posted in a similar recent thread, compression height for a '69 383HP piston was 1.932. This would put the piston 0.0025" in the hole assuming a deck height of 9.980" and rod of 6.358" and stroke of 3.375".

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

021 above the deck would be impossible to put heads on it....

---

Not impossible with the open chamber heads used in 68 and 69.

---

Or a very thick head gasket. The .021 spec is the NHRA spec, many people CONFUSE this as actual built factory spec.

it appears that at least one member has actually paid attentions to my maniacal

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Is this statement correct??

"The 68-69 383 4bbl. is the only 383 to have been built with positive deck height from the factory. The blueprinting manuals list it as +.020 to +.021"

?????

---

NO , totally INCORRECT .

Quote:

---

IIRC, according to information posted in a similar recent thread, compression height for a '69 383HP piston was 1.932. This would put the piston 0.0025" in the hole assuming a deck height of 9.980" and rod of 6.358" and stroke of 3.375".

---

This is correct and the 68 383 4bbl and 4bbl HP is the same as in 69. just an FYI the 68-69 383 2bbl has the same CH piston but it has a shallow round dish to lower the compression towards it's rated 9.2.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

021 above the deck would be impossible to put heads on it....

---

Not impossible with the open chamber heads used in 68 and 69.

---

Or a very thick head gasket. The .021 spec is the NHRA spec, many people CONFUSE this as actual built factory spec.

it appears that at least one member has actually paid attentions to my maniacal

---

Quote:

---

FWIW I know a couple of guys that put closed chamber heads on a 68/9 383 and had piston clearance problems because of the o/+ deck height of the engine. It isn't all BS. Some were + some were very close to deck.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

FWIW I know a couple of guys that put closed chamber heads on a 68/9 383 and had piston clearance problems because of the o/+ deck height of the engine. It isn't all BS. Some were + some were very close to deck.

---

Only 3 ways this could have happen, someone decked the blocks, the factory screwed up and the deck was way too short which means they would have had to cut the intake or head to get it bolted together or they had something that was very special that no one knew about. I have 2 69 383HP engines in my garage with the heads off, both are factory deck and both still have their factory rotating assemblies, neither have pistons above the deck. Now I know that 2 hardly makes a sample, but I have had others in the past and everything was the same.

There was a guy that I used to work with, he's dead now, that ordered a 68 Road Runner NEW that he CLAIMED was some special 365HP package to run against the Chevelle SS with the 375HP 396. I never could find anything out about this and he was known as somewhat of a BSer so I just took it as that.

Until someone SHOWS me one of these MYTHICAL positive deck 383's or some factory documentation they are nothing more than unicorns ....

---

Quote:

---

I'm told that early 340's have positive deck pistons , they use open chamber heads.

The 2 engines I have are about .002 - .003 BELOW the deck , one is in my 56k original mile 383 Dart GTS, the heads had NEVER been off it till I pulled them to freshen the heads. The other is an original 69 Superbee engine , I bought it as a backup , never ran it , it's got a .509 cam in it. My dart runs well for a 383 A body. I'm building a fresh 383 for it, the pistons are .002 in the hole, 80 CC 906's, true 10.2 compression on a .040 overbore. Eagle rods and Diamond pistons, hoping the car will run low 13's. I'm told hi 12's with the right cam and more gear .

---

Quote:

---

Yes it is , I have factory originals and a set that have been ported , I'm going to run them both on the engine if I get the chance to dyno it before I put it in, should be sometime next month. I'm also going to throw on a set of B body manifolds to see what the HP difference is with those.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

FWIW I know a couple of guys that put closed chamber heads on a 68/9 383 and had piston clearance problems because of the o/+ deck height of the engine. It isn't all BS. Some were + some were very close to deck.

---

Only 3 ways this could have happen, someone decked the blocks, the factory screwed up and the deck was way too short which means they would have had to cut the intake or head to get it bolted together or they had something that was very special that no one knew about. I have 2 69 383HP engines in my garage with the heads off, both are factory deck and both still have their factory rotating assemblies, neither have pistons above the deck. Now I know that 2 hardly makes a sample, but I have had others in the past and everything was the same.

There was a guy that I used to work with, he's dead now, that ordered a 68 Road Runner NEW that he CLAIMED was some special 365HP package to run against the Chevelle SS with the 375HP 396. I never could find anything out about this and he was known as somewhat of a BSer so I just took it as that.

Until someone SHOWS me one of these MYTHICAL positive deck 383's or some factory documentation they are nothing more than unicorns ....

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

FWIW I know a couple of guys that put closed chamber heads on a 68/9 383 and had piston clearance problems because of the o/+ deck height of the engine. It isn't all BS. Some were + some were very close to deck.

---

Only 3 ways this could have happen, someone decked the blocks, the factory screwed up and the deck was way too short which means they would have had to cut the intake or head to get it bolted together or they had something that was very special that no one knew about. I have 2 69 383HP engines in my garage with the heads off, both are factory deck and both still have their factory rotating assemblies, neither have pistons above the deck. Now I know that 2 hardly makes a sample, but I have had others in the past and everything was the same.

There was a guy that I used to work with, he's dead now, that ordered a 68 Road Runner NEW that he CLAIMED was some special 365HP package to run against the Chevelle SS with the 375HP 396. I never could find anything out about this and he was known as somewhat of a BSer so I just took it as that.

Until someone SHOWS me one of these MYTHICAL positive deck 383's or some factory documentation they are nothing more than unicorns ....

---

OK fine< >You guys seem to have all the answers whether you were there or not so according to you it and couldn't have happened. It happened and I WAS there. Don't remember seeing any of you around.
PS: one was a 68 383 RR with less then 3000 miles - other 383 runner with about 6000 miles.

---