My potential compression ratio

moper said
I'vwe always found it safer to err on the side of lower than higher dynamic because I never know what altitude or the quality of fuel available where-ever the engine ends up. I do think many people overthink a lot of things...lol. But there's making a decision, and hemming and hawwing and never making a choice. Overthinking is only overthinking when you can't make a choice.

Agreed, and I am making a decision, I am just not there yet, so I am getting my hemming and hawing out of the way before it holds me back :)

blue missile said
Moper,
I feel that in the long run I have an advantage in that I am building the power plant last.
I can not tell you how many cams, "new and improved" I have plugged into the engine dyno, including all sorts of roller cams, and nothing happens to fit my combination like the 285. Now the 295 gives me more power but the power band climbs up into territory im not interested in going to.
I also have to agree with DGC333, in that chart is pretty much a worst case scenario put together by people who are not taking into account such things as quench and coatings which we have access to today.Its just a baseline reference when talking about true or Dynamic Compression. It also takes no account of altitude adjustments.
Andrew

The 285 fits numerically for me too, but not in drive-ability or manners, at least not on paper. I am leaning towards DGC333's advice and just going with it, but I also wonder what if I took my quench distance to .050? My SCR would drop to 10.56 and my DCR to 8.50 - what would I "loose" having an .050 quench vs. an .039 to .040 quench?

moper said
I also think Dave's (DGC333) build is a great one to copy

Agree again, and that is what started this epiphany-of-sorts for me - if I zero-deck my block and throw the same XE268H stick in there we'll have twin engines - which, for my sanity's sake, is probably the best plan for now