Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Performance mods and Advanced Stroker discussion.
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by SilverXJ »

In my build I plan on setting deck clearance at 0 and use a .051" gasket to set my quench. The reason for using the .051" head gasket is because 1) the .041" head gasket is only available from carquest, 2) possibly no availability in the future 3) can not be had in a multi layer steel gasket. #2 also means is if I have to replace the head gasket for any reason in the future and i can't get a .041" gasket I will have a quench of .061"

So anyhow... is there anything bad about decking or my logic?
User avatar
Mgardiner1
Donator
Donator
Posts: 574
Joined: August 2nd, 2008, 6:19 pm
Stroker Displacement: 284 CI
Location: Wading River, NY

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by Mgardiner1 »

Just make sure the machinist measures everything properly. I asked for a 0 deck clearance, and the machinist claimed he left .002 in the hole, but it really worked out to be .009 (avg) deck height which i wasn't too crazy about, but not pissed off enough to remove all the parts again and bring it back to the machinist.
oletshot wrote:....and silvolites are only cast not hypericantspellits. :-)
User avatar
Alex22
Consistent
Consistent
Posts: 273
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 7:37 pm

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by Alex22 »

SilverXJ wrote:In my build I plan on setting deck clearance at 0 and use a .051" gasket to set my quench. The reason for using the .051" head gasket is because 1) the .041" head gasket is only available from carquest, 2) possibly no availability in the future 3) can not be had in a multi layer steel gasket. #2 also means is if I have to replace the head gasket for any reason in the future and i can't get a .041" gasket I will have a quench of .061"

So anyhow... is there anything bad about decking or my logic?
I'm glad to see people planing ahead. We get customers who need work redone because one part or another is no longer available. Since you want a .051 quench height then I would just go with the thicker head gasket.

Is there only one company making a .041 thick head gasket?

~Alex
The enemy of good thing is wanting something better.
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by SilverXJ »

As far as I know the only company that makes them is Victor-Reinz
User avatar
gradon
Donator
Donator
Posts: 1353
Joined: February 13th, 2008, 5:33 pm
Stroker Displacement: 4.6/280ci
Vehicle Year: 1996
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: DC

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by gradon »

Yeah the victor-reinz/mopar performance P4529242 is the .043" HG. I ordered the gasket tear down kit P4529245 thinking it was gonna come with the .043", but it ended up being a Fel Pro .051" HG with the crappy cork valve cover gasket and 3-piece cork oil pan gasket(didn't use). If I ever have to take the head off, I will find a .043"(if carquest in fact has it). I asked the machinist to remove .030" from the deck and it came out to be .028", so I have .010-.011" deck clearance +.051"HG=.061-.062" quench.
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by SilverXJ »

gradon wrote: I will find a .043"(if carquest in fact has it).
I purchased one from them about two months ago..
User avatar
1bolt
Donator
Donator
Posts: 545
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 4:06 pm
Location: Culpeper Virginia

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by 1bolt »

Why not just zero deck either way? Whats the rod stretch going to be with stock con rods? .010 or .015? I'm asking here not stating... I seem to recall somewhere between .010" and .020"? There's nothing wrong with .041 quench... assuming your cam selection will allow the valves to clear... If not then machine some reliefs on the pistons :mrgreen:

Also as others have noted already, the actual deck is going to end up proud of zero by a small bit anyway, because your machinist will likely only deck to the crown of the tallest (so to speak) piston and rod.
--
Simon
Looking for a 232 crankshaft see my want ad: http://www.jeepstrokers.com/forum/viewt ... =17&t=1292
http://www.jeepstrokers.com 94 XJ Stroked lifted locked. 89 MJ restored Work truck, 88 YJ going on third build up and second Stroker.
gremlinsteve
Making Progress
Making Progress
Posts: 64
Joined: July 13th, 2008, 10:48 am

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by gremlinsteve »

you will be fine with a steel rod with as much as a .035 quench. would not run any thing tighter. no real reason not to zero deck a motor anymore.

steve
User avatar
John
I love JeepStrokers.com!!
I love JeepStrokers.com!!
Posts: 709
Joined: February 13th, 2008, 8:35 pm
Stroker Displacement: 4.6
Location: West Virginia

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by John »

1bolt wrote:Why not just zero deck either way?
That is the best approach, .040 -.060 quench is considered good. Either gasket will fall within that range on a 0 decked engine. Careful piston selection/dish size and cam selection and you are on your way to a well thought out build. And you still have adjustments to quench and compression by gasket selection.
John
User avatar
IH 392
I love JeepStrokers.com!!
I love JeepStrokers.com!!
Posts: 725
Joined: October 4th, 2008, 11:15 am
Location: Eugene ORYGUN
Contact:

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by IH 392 »

My Victor set# 95-3480VR has a the head gasket with # 5997 on the gasket, it measures .043 uncompressed, it says it's for '94-'95 year applications, it has the cork valve cover gasket, I haven't even looked to see if it's compatible with my late ('97) tin cover?
You can get more power out of ANY engine!!!
ASE Master certified engine machinist, gas and diesel
User avatar
seanyb505
Donator
Donator
Posts: 447
Joined: February 16th, 2008, 9:34 am
Stroker Displacement: 280ci
Vehicle Year: 1997
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: West Palm Beach Florida

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by seanyb505 »

Just remember zero decking the block will require custom shorter pushrods. Or do what I did - deck the block and head enough to equal a total of .060 and use a .060 shim for the rocker arms.
Now I can be like all those other awesome people with more than one Jeep in their sig, but now I have to say one of them is sold:(
97 XJ 4.6
90 MJ 4.0 - sold

I want to have as many Jeeps as children. DD, offroader, drag MJ and another one. 4=4
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by SilverXJ »

IH 392 wrote: it has the cork valve cover gasket, I haven't even looked to see if it's compatible with my late ('97) tin cover?
I don't think it is.
User avatar
SilverXJ
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5790
Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
Vehicle Year: 2000
Vehicle Make: Jeep
Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Location: Radford, Va

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by SilverXJ »

seanyb505 wrote:Just remember zero decking the block will require custom shorter pushrods. Or do what I did - deck the block and head enough to equal a total of .060 and use a .060 shim for the rocker arms.
Harland Sharp adjustable roller rockers.
User avatar
Mgardiner1
Donator
Donator
Posts: 574
Joined: August 2nd, 2008, 6:19 pm
Stroker Displacement: 284 CI
Location: Wading River, NY

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by Mgardiner1 »

If you take .020 off the deck of the block, the machinist can probably take .020 of the top of the valve stems without affecting retainer clearance.
oletshot wrote:....and silvolites are only cast not hypericantspellits. :-)
User avatar
Backwoods Rambler
Noob
Noob
Posts: 14
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 9:48 pm
Location: Brighton, CO
Contact:

Re: Decking vs. thinner head gasket

Post by Backwoods Rambler »

Mgardiner1 wrote:If you take .020 off the deck of the block, the machinist can probably take .020 of the top of the valve stems without affecting retainer clearance.
Can anyone confirm this by measuring a loose valve stem they maybe have laying around?
1998 XJ- Custom 4.5" suspension - 33" BFG MT's - Custom Bumpers - Custom Belly Skid - Custom Tire Carrier In Progress......Planning a stroker to help with the pop-up camper pulls,

Click HERE to Find out more about Project X-pedition
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 61 guests