Piston recommendation for higher compression

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old April 20th, 2011, 12:16 PM
  #1  
Where were you in '72?
Thread Starter
 
boondocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ont
Posts: 262
Piston recommendation for higher compression

I'm in the process of rebuilding my '72 350, will be reboring 30 over and wanted to go with a smaller dish piston to boost my compression high enough to run regular octane while increasing performance. Any spec/manuf suggestions?

...also have a XE262H, heads are done (3 angle etc...)
boondocker is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 01:13 PM
  #2  
Where were you in '72?
Thread Starter
 
boondocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ont
Posts: 262
I found a cast iron piston from Mondello 11.9cc with 7a heads should be 9:14:1...is this regular octane friendly?

http://www.mondellotwister.com/PisPinRingBrng.htm
boondocker is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 02:01 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
cutlassefi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,831
Originally Posted by boondocker
I found a cast iron piston from Mondello 11.9cc with 7a heads should be 9:14:1...is this regular octane friendly?

http://www.mondellotwister.com/PisPinRingBrng.htm
Cast iron?
9.14 is pump gas friendly.
cutlassefi is online now  
Old April 20th, 2011, 02:26 PM
  #4  
Where were you in '72?
Thread Starter
 
boondocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ont
Posts: 262
Thanks, 87 octane?
"Cast Iron" is what Mondello refers too...is this the rings?
boondocker is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 05:41 PM
  #5  
Registered User
 
cutlassefi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,831
Originally Posted by boondocker
Thanks, 87 octane?
"Cast Iron" is what Mondello refers too...is this the rings?
Should be Cast Aluminum pistons with Cast iron rings.
Imo you can do better for not a lot more money
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...istons&ct=clnk
Use a moly ring if possible, not that much more.

Jmo.

Btw 89 octane, maybe, depending on the cam and gear.
cutlassefi is online now  
Old April 22nd, 2011, 08:57 AM
  #6  
Where were you in '72?
Thread Starter
 
boondocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ont
Posts: 262
I'm looking at a TRW piston set (NOS) with the following specs;

TRW L 2389F .040 OVERSIZE FORGED PISTONS AND ONE SET OF TRW T 8190X OVERSIZE CAST PISTON RINGS
2.932" X .235" DEEP CUP,1.610" COMPRESSION DISTANCE AND A .980" DIAMETER PIN.RINGLANDS ARE FOR 5/64",5/64",3/16" RINGS

Are these slightly higher compression than stock (stock 2.920/0.215 dish and compression distance is 1.595)?
.040 is mentioned is this non standard (.030)?

Thanks for all the advice
boondocker is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2011, 10:11 AM
  #7  
Connoisseur d'Junque
 
MDchanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
2.932" x 0.235" looks to be 26cc, which is quite deep.

- Eric
MDchanic is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2011, 11:49 AM
  #8  
Where were you in '72?
Thread Starter
 
boondocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ont
Posts: 262
I'm not sure if the larger compression distance (between wrist center and piston top) would bring it closer to the head giving more compression. It looks to be a pretty low compression piston in any case...
boondocker is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2011, 12:47 PM
  #9  
Connoisseur d'Junque
 
MDchanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
Originally Posted by boondocker
I'm not sure if the larger compression distance (between wrist center and piston top) would bring it closer to the head giving more compression.
If you calculate the volume displaced by the 41.49 square cm of the "ring" around the dish and the 0.015" higher that the crown should sit with the different height, you get a 1.58cc decrease in combustion chamber volume, which seems insignificant in comparison to the 12cc increase in combustion chamber volume due to the increase in dish volume from 14cc to 22cc.

- Eric

Last edited by MDchanic; April 22nd, 2011 at 01:41 PM. Reason: Recalculated for 0.040" additional piston diameter.
MDchanic is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
72cuttys
Transmission
12
March 30th, 2014 07:43 PM
skubydobdo
Transmission
12
February 3rd, 2014 03:25 PM
jfb
General Discussion
8
February 15th, 2013 10:00 AM
dirtydynamic
Transmission
3
December 27th, 2011 08:34 AM
69Rman
Parts Wanted
1
March 27th, 2010 10:22 AM



Quick Reply: Piston recommendation for higher compression



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 AM.