KORE copper head gaskets
02-06-2002, 03:19 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KORE copper head gaskets
I'm wondering what the copper .62 and .93 copper head gaskets at the Kore website have over the stock gaskets in the tibby? can someone explain this to me? Will it alter compressions? or is it just for better wear and tear? Any performance increase?
02-06-2002, 04:06 AM
#2
Super Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Posts: 11,851
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Vehicle: 2008 Toyota Prius 2006 Suzuki SV650S
The thicker gaskets will lower compression.
I have no idea why someone would want one.
The stock gasket is damn near bullit proof, and lowering compression via a thicker head gasket leads to other problems...(improper/too much squish/quench area in the combustion chamber).
I have no idea why someone would want one.
The stock gasket is damn near bullit proof, and lowering compression via a thicker head gasket leads to other problems...(improper/too much squish/quench area in the combustion chamber).
02-06-2002, 04:16 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL! Random is the supreme guru, bow before him 
On the other side of things, a THINNER head gasket can increase static compression and doesn't carry the same detrimental side effects of a THICKER head gasket. Since I am unsure of the stock headgasket thickness, I couldn't tell you if these are thinner or not.
The stock BETA head gasket is two metal layers and a cork/rubber/spongy layer. I'm willing to bet that every 600+ wheel horsepower BETA engine uses the stock head gasket with no problems. You're more likely to stretch the stock head bolts than actually blow the gasket from too much cylinder pressure. smile.gif
-Red-
On the other side of things, a THINNER head gasket can increase static compression and doesn't carry the same detrimental side effects of a THICKER head gasket. Since I am unsure of the stock headgasket thickness, I couldn't tell you if these are thinner or not.
The stock BETA head gasket is two metal layers and a cork/rubber/spongy layer. I'm willing to bet that every 600+ wheel horsepower BETA engine uses the stock head gasket with no problems. You're more likely to stretch the stock head bolts than actually blow the gasket from too much cylinder pressure. smile.gif
-Red-
02-06-2002, 07:00 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be correct.
Strictly in a theoretical sense, a thinner head gasket would also be good for a forced induction engine too. I say this because a thinner head gasket will bring the quench area between the piston crown and the cylinder head much tighter, which can (again, theoretically) result in better fuel atomization, a cooler air/fuel mixture and more power delivered across a smaller area = more force on the piston.
Theoretically speaking
-Red-
Strictly in a theoretical sense, a thinner head gasket would also be good for a forced induction engine too. I say this because a thinner head gasket will bring the quench area between the piston crown and the cylinder head much tighter, which can (again, theoretically) result in better fuel atomization, a cooler air/fuel mixture and more power delivered across a smaller area = more force on the piston.
Theoretically speaking
-Red-
02-06-2002, 07:11 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quench areas are a thermodynamic fact but they're also somewhat of a black hole after a certain extent. You can maximize quench area and quench clearance to find gains, until you reach a certain point where it suddenly reverts backwards and causes more problems than it solves.
Typically, 0.045" of clearance is an acceptable tradeoff... You can ratchet this down even tigher for more help, but at some point you cross the lines and either have problems with valve pocket depth in the piston OR clearance issues with the head and piston itself.
As I've stated before, I'll be knocking my quench areas down to 0.035" for my own project. It's on me if it doesn't work right tongue.gif
-Red-
Typically, 0.045" of clearance is an acceptable tradeoff... You can ratchet this down even tigher for more help, but at some point you cross the lines and either have problems with valve pocket depth in the piston OR clearance issues with the head and piston itself.
As I've stated before, I'll be knocking my quench areas down to 0.035" for my own project. It's on me if it doesn't work right tongue.gif
-Red-
02-06-2002, 08:08 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: Custom Wagon
So if you were going to stay N/A you would want to get a smaller gasket with largers Cams not the 2.0L cams correct? Or would this be a bad thing to do with a more lumpier cam in the car? Also there is no gain HP or torque wise by doing this correct only better atomization of the gas.
02-07-2002, 01:18 PM
#10
Super Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Posts: 11,851
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Vehicle: 2008 Toyota Prius 2006 Suzuki SV650S
Guilty-
Quench/Squish areas do not lead to better atomization, but rather to better air/fuel mixture dispursion throughout the combustion chamber, allowing a more "even" mix through the chamber, and thus a more controled burn. This CAN lead to more HP and torque, or totally hork things up if done wrong.
Quench/Squish areas do not lead to better atomization, but rather to better air/fuel mixture dispursion throughout the combustion chamber, allowing a more "even" mix through the chamber, and thus a more controled burn. This CAN lead to more HP and torque, or totally hork things up if done wrong.