To: | Vic Whitmore <vicwhit@rogers.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: head thickness |
From: | Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net> |
Date: | Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:18:12 -0700 |
Cc: | ptegler@gouldfo.com, triumphs-owner@autox.team.net, triumphs@autox.team.net, spitfires@autox.team.net, spitfire-enthusiast@egroups.com, SPIT6CGT6@yahoogroups.com, nass@egroups.com |
References: | <001501c1c082$e2722f20$3d64a8c0@gould> <3C803754.37EE4B87@rogers.com> |
Rather than measuring the head thickness, you should really be measuring the thickness from the surface that mates with the block to the top of the combustion chamber. That is the important part! There is a possibility that the upper part of heads from various suppliers may be different and therefore lead to erroneous assumptions. Joe Vic Whitmore wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I dug through my old emails to find this one I sent to Bob Harris in March of > last year. > > "I've been practicing my port and polishing on a 1500 head marked RKC0589. >AFAIK > it is a replacement head. It measures out to 3.052". I have no reason to >suspect > that it has been shaved." |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: British vs. American Grammar, Rosspemlee |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: British vs. American Grammar, Trevor Jordan |
Previous by Thread: | Re: head thickness, James V Laviana III |
Next by Thread: | Baking a Head?, ebk |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |