Ross pistons vs combustion chamber shape
 

I'm leaning towards the Ross units for a 59AB based 276 project. How does their dome shape compare to the chamber shape of the Ford 81A heads and the new Edelbrocks? I'd rather run iron but if the chamber shape is a gross mismatch and I'm going to have some time spent re-shaping I'd rather reshape aluminum. Also like John Lawson's thoughts on angle milling the heads to set clearances and keep area over the valves. This might be easier using AL than FE...Any thoughts? Never seen this group fail to have an opinion!!!

Re: Ross pistons vs combustion chamber shape
 

I am running Ross's in my 276 with Edelbrock heads. The engine assembled with no clearance issues. I have all the compression I want as the starter is not happy on 6V. It runs great.

Re: Ross pistons vs combustion chamber shape
 

The method I use is to mill the heads for .050" clearance over the center of the piston. This makes the edges much closer to the piston. Now using a marker and gasket mark the edge of the cylinder. Now using a die grinder and a fine carbide bure you can blend the edge of the head dome to the edg of the gasket. This takes only a few minutes as your not moving much metal. On my Bville engine I used a 3 3/4 stroke piston on a 4 inch crank and made a doming tool for the Ross piston. However for street I don't think this is as important as WOT, so I set the piston clearance for.050" near the edge, and anglr milling can take advantage of thes. Using alum balls instead of clay makes this faster and more accurate. At least for me I did all this on my stock 280 econo engine had have 160 cranking pressure and the engine doesn't have any time on it yet.
It's the journey, not the destination

Re: Ross pistons vs combustion chamber shape
 

Thanks