"Angle Milling" heads

[tubman]

I have just gone through a couple of "Aluminum Foil ball" cycles on the Edmunds heads I want to run on my new 258" engine. The passenger side seems to be real close (it seems that I need to do a little clearancing on one chamber to get to .050" squish, and then all I have to do is fill the pits in the heads). I purchased some "JB Weld High Temperature putty" and started filling some of the pits. Although it is kinda hard to work with (kneading it with my old arthritic hands is tough) I think it's gonna work just fine.

My problem is with the drivers side head. I checked it two times (the first with about 2 foil balls on the valves and one ball on the top center of the piston, and a second time with 8 balls on each piston top) and both times it indicated that the front of the head has about .025" more clearance than the back. It looks like if I can have this head milled so it takes .030" off of the front chamber tapering to .005" at the back piston, it will bring everything back to where I can get my "squish" and compression right. Since it is a weekend, and I can't call the machinist, I decided to ask here. Is it possible to do this kind of (front to back) angle milling on this head? Should a regular automotive machine shop be able to do this, or is it a specialized operation that needs to be done by a high-end shop? I don't have any valve clearance problems (Isky Max-1 cam), so my only concern is the combustion chamber clearances.

[flatheadmurre]

Shouldn´t be a problem to set up the head for milling in an angle front to back or sideways.
If it´s a dedicated engine machineshop they probably have adjustable setup for just this aplication...or just shim it when setting it up on a milling machine.

[deuce_roadster]

That going to cause trouble with studs if holes aren't 90 degrees from the surface?

[tubman]

Originally Posted by deuce_roadster

That going to cause trouble with studs if holes aren't 90 degrees from the surface?

I never thought about that, but with the "slop" in the bolt holes that are common with these heads, I should be all right. When I get them back, I'll drill a couple of holes to 1/2" so I can use the 7/16" aluminum tubing spacers I have been using for keep the heads from moving. I guess I'll have to see. I don't know now if the taper across the head is a result of flawed production or a previous poor resurfacing. I do know my other set of Edmunds heads didn't have this problem. Plus, I am using bolts, which should make things a little easier.

[Big-Foot]

Are you certain that the issue is in the head?

I've seen a number of blocks where the crankshaft bore is not completely parallel to the top of the block deck.
Yes, the bores were perpendicular to the crank centerline so that was not a problem.
Measure your deck height of the pistons at TDC.

[deuce_roadster]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I do know of new heads that the combustion chambers were not machined equally and a couple at one end needed to be machined deeper about .025. I have a friend with a machine shop that made a cutter for those particular heads. Before you do any machining of the head surface check the depth of the combustion chambers.

[tubman]

Thanks for he suggestions guys. It looks like I have some more measuring to do.

[willowbilly3]

I know this doesn't help you but I've done business with machine shops that surface heads on a big belt sander. That's probably what happened to yours.

[3Dueces]

Also,keep in mind that not only the bolt holes become "un-square" with the head gasket surface, the spot face for the bolt heads become "non-parallel" as well resulting in torque problems and leakage.

[A bones]

Wow, I'm glad we aren't paying you by the hour.
No, really I understand how little bit here and little bit there adds up to a lot in the seat of the pants. Good Luck.
What was that trick Smokey Yunick pulled with a Hudson? Something like not being allowed to mill the head he found a paint that would stand up to combustion temps. Then He set about building up the chamber to get what he wanted.

[tubman]

Looks like I may have to do a little math after I get done measuring. I really suspect the heads, because they are an unknown quantity, while the short block was done by a guy with all of the proper tools who knows his stuff. I want to find the angle that will result from this amount of removal of material and how much it will effect the bolt holes and washer surfaces I used to know this stuff in the 10th grade. Let me see, is that the "Tangent" function? Maybe the "Sine" or "Cosine"? What was "Secant" for? Back to the books (or most likely Wikepedia).

[Floyd]

You are on the right track. first determine whether the problem is the block or the head. As mentioned, measure the piston height above the surface at the front cylinder and the last one. Do this for both banks while you are at it. Chances are you will find the block deck is OK. Then look closely at the underside of the at the size/shape of the combustion chamber major diameter where it meets the flat surface. If you can see the difference from front to back then you know that the head was surfaced incorrectly. At .025 difference, you should see a difference by visual inspection, (look closely or use calipers to measure the "diameter"). This will confirm that the problem is in the head (most likely) and you are good to go on surfacing the head at an angle to get it back to parallel. The stud holes will be back to correct perpendicular.
An ole timer showed me that with a little practice you can determine how much a head has been milled by just looking at the underside and be within a couple of thousandths. If it is milled crooked, the difference is really evident. Good luck. My money is on the fact that the head is angled.
My opinion

[Kerk]

Maybe it is the block ! I know when they were checking the heads at the track after a race we had the BLOCK ground to get what we wanted ! !!!!!!!!!!!!

[tubman]

Ok, I'm done with a couple of days of measuring and checking and I think I know what the problem is. I first measured the heads; the combustion chamber diameter and depth, as well as volume are quite similar, and what differences there are, are between random cylinders (do not increase from back to front). Next, I measured the height of the edges of the pistons below the block at TDC, and it decreased between adjacent cylinders by about the same amount that the clearance shown by the aluminum foil balls decreased. (The front cylinder had the piston down by .070 with clearances in the .080 range, while the back cylinder is down .040 with clearances in the .050 range.

Obviously, the deck is not exactly parallel to the crank shaft. As near as I can measure, there is about a .030 difference between the front cylinder and rear cylinder. After thinking it over, I believe the solution to this problem is still to angle mill the head from front to back to bring the chamber clearances back to a uniform number. Luckily, I have enough clearances at minimum that I still have good "squish" on the back cylinder and the angle milling should bring the other cylinders back in the ball park. I am sure I will have to massage the heads to get everything exactly right, but I've been through that before and am sure I can handle it. I don't think there will be any problem with non-perpendicular bolt holes or washer surfaces because the angles will cancel each other out. The block and lower head surface won't be exactly parallel to the crankshaft, but the top head surface will. In the end, I think I will have another good set of Edmunds heads that will perform well. It's a good thing 8BA heads don't interchange side to side.

I can't blame this on the machinist, because I gave him strict instructions NOT to deck the block unless it was absolutely necessary, and to call me even then. This problem either came from the factory, or was a result of an earlier imprecise rebuild. I'd rather try to correct this by working on a set of $300 used heads than a fresh $1500 short block. What do you experts think?

[Big-Foot]

I would bring the short block to the machinist and have him back up your measurements of block height, then have the block decked to the lowest point measured. IE if cylinder 1 has a deck height of -.020" and cylinder 4 has a deck height of -.050" - have the block decked to -.018 ...
presumably the other side is similar.
Either way, you want to make your block deck parallel to the crank centerline.
This is how to do it right.
---
To clamp a head to an angled block deck means that your head studs are not perpendicular to the block deck, the nuts will not provide a good seat on the heads.
Don't worry about quench / squish until you have a good foundation to work with.
---
My opinions only...

[Floyd]

I think you got it.
Too bad I lost all my money on betting on the head.
Measuring, measuring, visual inspection and measuring again and you have the problem sorted out and a solution. Good Job
My opinion

[tubman]

Originally Posted by Big-Foot

I would bring the short block to the machinist and have him back up your measurements of block height, then have the block decked to the lowest point measured. IE if cylinder 1 has a deck height of -.020" and cylinder 4 has a deck height of -.050" - have the block decked to -.018 ...
presumably the other side is similar.
Either way, you want to make your block deck parallel to the crank centerline.
This is how to do it right.
---
To clamp a head to an angled block deck means that your head studs are not perpendicular to the block deck, the nuts will not provide a good seat on the heads.
Don't worry about quench / squish until you have a good foundation to work with.
---
My opinions only...

I do not agree with this statement for the reasons I stated. If I had infinite money and infinite time I might consider getting the block right, but that would require complete disassembly of a completed and painted short block; valve train, crank and pistons, everything. I am talking about .039" over a span of 20". I don't think this is enough to be consequential. I would be willing to bet that thousands of flatheads left the factory or rebuilding shops with this much of an error if not more, and ran fine for many thousands of miles. Then we get into the question of deck thickness. There is a good chance that this block has been decked before (albeit rather poorly). Given the notorious thinness of flathead blocks, I would rather take a chance on he .039" than making an already thin deck thinner. If I'm right I'm right. If I'm wrong, what could go wrong? With the extent of the cut I'm talking about here, I doubt anything serious; a leaking head gasket maybe? If anything goes wrong, it would be time to re-think this.

[flatheadmurre]

So will it be apart thursday and i free up some space in the surfacer
Or what bore is the new block you bringing home going to have...ouch im being bad right now...
Seriously...if we´re talking blueprinting it´s both deckheight side to side and compared to the other bank that has to be done.

[Big-Foot]

If you're going to proceed with angle milling the heads, at least have the machine shop spot-face the head nut seats.
--
Sorry if I ticked you off - I build engines and I find it difficult to take short cuts and expect a quality job that will last.
--
Good luck!

[tubman]

You haven't "ticked me off"; far from it; I came here looking for advice. But... Think about it. The deck is not parallel with the crank. It is at a certain angle to it. If the bottom of the head is milled to the same angle, but in the opposite direction, everything mates together with the top surface of the head coming back into parallel with the crankshaft.

Here's a rough sketch of what I'm talking about. Nothing is even close to scale, but I think you should be able to get an idea of what I'm proposing. If I'm wrong, please show me where.

[Big-Foot]

Your drawings help illustrate your intentions very well.
Only the top of the head should be parallel to the bottom of the head (now) and when the head is bolted to the block, the head is no longer parallel to the crank.
Which means -
The head nut seats are not perfectly perpendicular to the crank the way they shoukd be.
So your proposed angle milling of the head "should" actually fix that problem.
---
I'm wondering if your studs have all been tweeked by this problem since the engine was new?

[PeteVS]

Forgive me for not having read all of the posts here, but have you tried swapping heads side to side for measuring only? See if the "taper" still exists with the particular head or if it remains with the side of the block.

[Mart]

I'm surprised a block can have the head face out by .030". Surely it couldn't have come from the Factory like that.

Strange indeed.

Mart.

[tubman]

Just a couple of things that should be noted. There are no studs involved because this is an 8BA; just bolts. Swapping the heads side for side won't help, even for measuring, , because it would put the back chamber over the front cylinder. Besides, I have spent a lot of time measuring both heads (on and off the engine), and I am convinced the problem lies with the block (which I have also spent a lot of time measuring).

"Mart" - As I alluded to in an earlier post, I attribute this problem to an earlier, inferior rebuild with a poor deck job. Given this situation, I am loathe to deck the block even more and believe it is the more prudent approach to try to correct this situation by working with the head rather than the block. Given all of this, I really don't think the .030" difference over 20" would have prevented the engine from being assembled or running properly.

If I can get the chambers equal (and I expect I can) I don't see what the problem would be. The only thing I can think of would be with gasket leaks. I will be using my "tubing method" to positively locate the head and gasket to minimize the chances of this.

(I wish I could have "GOSFAST" install his locating pins on this setup, but I am to far down the road on this project (and too darn far away as well).

[Mart]

I'm not really an engine expert, but I am thinking you do not want the chambers equal. Well, sort of, but not. If you have the chambers in the heads equal, the cylinder with the piston highest relative to the head face will have the highest compression. the compression will be reducing as you go along to the piston at the other end of the block.

Your original proposal to angle mill the heads to equal things up may be the best option, but the chambers heed to be different volumes to allow for the different piston heights above the deck.

To be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. It will never be right, but I suppose your proposal will make it less wrong than it is at the moment.

If you could cc the chambers taking into account the piston heights, it might work well, but to be honest, in my opinion, it's probably not worth the effort. (I wouldn't even know how to start working it out).

It depends how fussy you are and what is your intended use for the engine and vehicle. It can be made to run as well as you can without resurfacing the block, or you can bite the bullet and rebuild the motor into another block.

One requires a hell of a lot more work and $$$ than the other, and I suspect the end result may be imperceptable.

Lets face it, most people would have just bolted the head on, completely oblivious of the deck problem. the motor would have run and may not have even given any symptoms of anything being wrong.

An interesting conundrum for sure.

Mart.

[willowbilly3]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by 3Dueces

Also,keep in mind that not only the bolt holes become "un-square" with the head gasket surface, the spot face for the bolt heads become "non-parallel" as well resulting in torque problems and leakage.

Exactly, if they are intentionally angle milled for compression. We had a set that came on a roundy round car, sbc. They had taken so much off we had to use 2 spark plug washers and never could get the coolant to not leak around some of the head bolts.

[d.j. moordigian]

Originally Posted by Big-Foot

I would bring the short block to the machinist and have him back up your measurements of block height, then have the block decked to the lowest point measured. IE if cylinder 1 has a deck height of -.020" and cylinder 4 has a deck height of -.050" - have the block decked to -.018 ...
presumably the other side is similar.
Either way, you want to make your block deck parallel to the crank centerline.
This is how to do it right.
---
To clamp a head to an angled block deck means that your head studs are not perpendicular to the block deck, the nuts will not provide a good seat on the heads.
Don't worry about quench / squish until you have a good foundation to work with.
---
My opinions only...

I know what you'r saying,..and I agree.
I have "bars" for the main saddles to check deck height,...you need a starting point..

[Floyd]

You should not CC the heads (before or after milling) because of the angle of the head will make the numbers useless unless you take into account the piston popup variation from front to back.
The drawing is correct.
After the milling procedure the bolt holes will be correct and perpendicular to the crankshaft as they should be and the bolt head surfaces will be parallel to the bottom of the bolt head. If the surface of the bolt hole at the top of the head is scarred from the previous out of parallel situation, you may have them cleaned up when the angle milling operation is done. (skin first, then angle mill.) The next test will be back to the aluminum foil test to confirm you work. If the balls all turn out the same , then the combustion chambers are all equal and you will have satisfied Ol' Ron on his quench dimension. It will run great.
The angled block-angled head situation will be similar to a 409 or a VW VR6, instead of side to side, it is front to back.
My opinion

[Mart]

^^ Good points made there, Floyd. the bolt angles will be more correct after angle milling than they are now. Hadn't thought of that.

Mart.

[tubman]

The chamber volumes in the driver head are about equal now. After the angle milling, they won't be. Combined with the extra volume in the cylinders themselves (because of the pistons being lower in the bores), the total volume at TDC above the pistons should be close to the same.

[tubman]

OK, I was finally able to find someone to mill my head to my specifications. I went to five shops who either said they couldn't do it, or wanted an exorbitant amount. I finally found a retired guy running a shop in his backyard (ain't that always the way) who said "No problem". I got the head back and started working with it today. All of the measuring and checking I did before having it worked on paid off, because the results were better than I would have expected. I installed the head with a used gasket and put foil balls on the valves and on the pistons. I only put 3 balls on each piston (at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock) because this was a preliminary check. The first thing I found is that I have plenty of clearance over the valves, so there is no problem there. Next I checked the balls on the pistons. They were remarkably consistent for each cylinder, and the averages per cylinder were quite close. I could bore you with the details, but for brevity, here are the average clearance by cylinder :

#5 - .046
#6 - .050
#7 - .050
#8 - .052

This is about where I like to start when fitting heads to an engine. I will now remove the gaskets, bolt the heads back on, and use the "grease method" (I got from "CharlieNY") to finalize the chambers. Given the numbers I have, I don't think I'll have to remove over .005 of material from any area. It's always a tedious job, but the results are worth it.

In the final analysis, I believe that this was the proper way to solve this problem. Tearing the whole engine down and decking the block even more did not appeal to me. I will end up with good squish and consistent combustion chamber volume. Also, I am now sure that the head bolts are parallel with the bolt holes in the head. How I determined this is a little beyond the scope of this post. Anyone who wants the details can PM me.

In the final analysis, I am completely satisfied with the results of the process and I am sure I will end up with a fine running engine.

[Ol' Ron]

I really appreciate the work you've done to BUILD an engine. Planing ahead leads to not only a fine running engine but one that will last for a long time. My 280 is one of the strongest engines I;ve ever built and has only one modified part in the engine .145 over pistons, along with .045 piston to head clearance a Gm dist by richard and a 2GC carb. The torque is un real. It was also the least expensive one.

[tubman]

Thanks for the kind words, Ron. They mean a lot coming from you.

[Big-Foot]

Two thumbs up Tub!

[tubman]

In case anyone is interested in how this turned out, I have completed the assembly and have gotten the engine running. I am extremely happy with the way it runs. Granted, I have only break-in time on my engine stand, but everything works so well, that I can't help but think I found the proper solution. See for yourselves : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deAgpVmvjhU

[Ol' Ron]

An engine stand is the worst thing you can use for a new engine, because: It allows you to run the engine without a load. THis could glaze the cylinder walls and prevent ring seating. Put the darn thing in a car/truck and drive it like you stole it. Best engine stand is an old tire, and an oil pressure gauge..

[flatjack9]

I run all the engines I build in an engine stand after they are built. I run them enough to be sure there are no problems and I don't let them sit and idle. I have never had nor heard of a problem with any of these engines.

[tubman]

I was browsing "YouTube" and came across a video of a very high-end shop that was building a V12 Packard from scratch. You know the kind of place : white walls, tile floor, not a tool lying around, high ceilings, commercial lighting etc, etc., etc. The kind of place I couldn't afford to even walk in the front door. They finished the engine, and I must say, it was a work of art. The guy narrating the video said they then ran the engine (at varying speeds) on the stand for twenty hours for break in. Only then do they transfer it to their dyno for load testing.

I personally couldn't bring myself to do the initial start of a fresh engine sitting on an old tire with no cooling or instruments. I want it on my stand with everything connected (up to and including the dual A/F meters). I fully believe that the potential for damage to an engine is much higher with a impromptu start on a tire than it is with a controlled planned start on an adequate stand. I have also heard that after a successful initial start, an engine should be run at 2000 RPM for at least 20 minutes to break in the cam. So, it seems I must make a choice of risking my camshaft or my piston rings. Since I personally know folks who have had their cams go flat, but nobody with an unseated set of fresh rings, I'll go with the stand. Anyway, haven't I been reading (other places and even here) that modern rings break in in a minute or so? I think "Ol' Ron"s concerns may have been valid back in the old days with"chrome rings", but in this day and age, I think I'll stick to my engine stand.

In any event, it was run for less than 1/2 hour because I need my stand for my Olds Rocket initial start-up.

[Frank Miller]

Ford broke in the babbit bearing motors by running them with an electric motor until the current decreased by a certain amount. I agree with Ron about having a load to seat the rings but it takes a lot to glaze the cylinder walls.

[Ol' Ron]

I guess I was being alittle crude when I suggested the old tire, it's a junk yar thing of my youth. The problem I have with an engine stand is: Once you have it there, you might consider running it just to impress your friends while you build up the car to put it in. This might take a few years and by that time the engine is all warn out from
No load running"
Bearings, that have been properly fit, need little or no break in time. And some new style rings and honing break in rather quickly. Not many of use them. At one time I had a dyno with all the bells and whistles. inital start up was check for oil pressure and leaks. I brought the rpm up to 2000 rpm and brought a load in to drop the rpm to 1500. Left it there untill I got some tempature in the engine and started increasing the load to about 100 ft/lbs at 2000 RPM and then shut it down. The next day retorque the heads and fire it and play with it for awhile with tuning the carb and ignition. call the customer to pick it up.
But an old tire is better than an engine stand, as it won't hurt the rngine.

[tubman]

Which is why they have horse races.

[48fordnut]

After having built many ohv engines I always run the eng for aprox 20 min to break in the cam. The only oil the cam and lifters get is splash off the rods. Always be sure the eng will start within a couple of turns . Cranking and cranking on a eng will only wear the lube off the cam and lifters.
This works for me.


Thanks Tubman.

[Ol' Ron]

When It comes to piston clearances, I'm only concerned with the circumference area of the piston. not the center. Due to the difference in dome radius in both pistons and heads, all your looking for is an area that will furnish the "Squish" just before the spark plug fires, thus burning more of the F/A . Most modern engines use aprox. 1/2 " of the outside diameter of the piston.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by 48fordnut

The only oil the cam and lifters get is splash off the rods.

Not sure I understand this comment?

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Not sure I understand this comment?

Maybe he should have said "thrown off the rods", rather than 'splash', to be technically correct. But oil flung off the crankshaft is what lubes the cam and lifters.

[Karl Wescott]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by tubman

I do not agree with this statement for the reasons I stated. If I had infinite money and infinite time I might consider getting the block right, but that would require complete disassembly of a completed and painted short block; valve train, crank and pistons, everything. I am talking about .039" over a span of 20". I don't think this is enough to be consequential. I would be willing to bet that thousands of flatheads left the factory or rebuilding shops with this much of an error if not more, and ran fine for many thousands of miles. Then we get into the question of deck thickness. There is a good chance that this block has been decked before (albeit rather poorly). Given the notorious thinness of flathead blocks, I would rather take a chance on he .039" than making an already thin deck thinner. If I'm right I'm right. If I'm wrong, what could go wrong? With the extent of the cut I'm talking about here, I doubt anything serious; a leaking head gasket maybe? If anything goes wrong, it would be time to re-think this.

If you cant afford to do it right the first time... How can you expect to afford to do it right the second time??

[JWL]

Apparently no one paid attention when I covered the subject of ANGLE MILLING in my book. I explain some procedures and discuss what to do about the stud holes and spot faces. I am particularly surprised at Ol'Ron for not remembering.

[flatheadmurre]

JWL if i send you a check can you actually give some solid advice about how to solve issues instead of promoting your book as answer to all questions...
We all know you wrote a book...so did Ol´Ron but he actually do share his knowledge here...

[tubman]

Originally Posted by Karl Wescott

If you cant afford to do it right the first time... How can you expect to afford to do it right the second time??

Please read the entire thread and make an effort to comprehend it completely before making comments like this. The head was angle-milled from back to front, not side to side. Because the deck of the block was angled, this was necessary to bring everything back into alinement. The bolt holes in the head ended up perpendicular to the crankshaft center line after this procedure. They were not when I started. I had a choice of decking the block or milling the head to get everything back in alinement. I chose to angle mill the head rather than the block for three reasons. The first is that flathead decks are notoriously thin and should not be decked any more than necessary. This one had already been decked (incorrectly) but it was perfectly flat, so I did not want to cut it anymore. Second, it's simply easier to mill a head than disassemble a short block and have it decked. Third, if something did go wrong, a head is cheaper and easier to replace than a completed short block.

In short, it was done right the first time so it won't have to be done a second time, as witnessed by the way the engine runs. Check out the video included earlier in the thread and you will see this.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by JWL

Apparently no one paid attention when I covered the subject of ANGLE MILLING in my book. I explain some procedures and discuss what to do about the stud holes and spot faces. I am particularly surprised at Ol'Ron for not remembering.

Thanks for the reminder, JWL. I was about to ask what procedure to use. I got your book several years ago, but totally forgot you covered angle milling. I imagine you get tired of being asked the same questions repeatedly when your book covers so much.

[tubman]

JWL's comments, while appreciated, are not germane to this discussion. I used it to correct a problem probably caused by a carelessly done previous decking. Remember, "end to end", not "side to side".

"Ol' Ron" wasn't "not remembering"; he had followed this thread carefully enough to realize what I was actually trying to accomplish. He knew that what I was doing would bring the bolt holes in the head back to their proper orientation and that they would need no further work.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by tubman

JWL's comments, while appreciated, are not germane to this discussion. I used it to correct a problem probably caused by a carelessly done previous decking. Remember, "end to end", not "side to side".

"Ol' Ron" wasn't "not remembering"; he had followed this thread carefully enough to realize what I was actually trying to accomplish. He knew that what I was doing would bring the bolt holes in the head back to their proper orientation and that they would need no further work.

You're right tubman. How easily we get sidetracked! Even some of us old guys are falling victim to the microscopic attention spans so common today!

[tubman]

Thank you "40 Deluxe". This was a very successful process for me, and I thought that the procedure I went through might be helpful or at least of interest to others. This thread has been sitting here for over a year as what I thought to be an excellent example of the lengths we sometimes have to go to in order to get these old beasts to the best running condition they can be. I thought twice about jumping in, but I felt I had to, since the whole thrust of the thread was being subverted by a couple of guys who didn't take the time to read the complete thread and comprehend it.

I think we should drop it now.

[JWL]

Excellent decision.

[Ol' Ron]

we cover so many problem people have with these engines. Every six months or so we do it all over again. Allot of books have been written about this engine over the years and everything gets covered here on the barn, BUT! in six months we'll start over again. In my opinion I think Johns book is the best one written so far, wish I wrote it.

[flatjack9]

Agreed.

[Bored&Stroked]

Lots of ways to skin a cat . . . and many opinions from the "skinners" to go along with them. You have an engine you're really happy with - that is what counts!

[KiWinUS]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

Lots of ways to skin a cat . . . and many opinions from the "skinners" to go along with them. You have an engine you're really happy with - that is what counts!

Now that Dale is a true statement!

[JM 35 Sedan]

Sorry....sigh..... I read page one and didn't realize you had already milled the head to correct the deck being milled incorrectly. Hope this does work well for you in the long run.

[tubman]

Sigh.......