I am torn between the stock base gasket and thicker head gasket, vs thicker base and thinner head gasket for less compression ratio lost.
With the custom base in thicker size, Suzuki_Don said he simply left the material the same as the 650G gasket - the 650G is a plain bearing engine and does not use cylinder base egg shaped oil pressure o-rings - it just has a smaller cutout for the oil to transfer, & uses some sort of brass restrictor jet in the crankcase oil feed hole, since it is a plain bearing engine which operates on different oil pressure psi than our roller bearing engines.
The 650E & 550 base gaskets have a cutout for the egg shaped o-rings, so that the o-ring seals metal to metal.
In Suzuki_Don's build, he had substantially thicker base gasket by .3mm or 60% thicker, and I believe he used the 650G gasket as a template and allowed the o-ring to sit down in the 550 crankcase recess intended for it on the bottom side, but the top side of the o-ring would mate to the custom thicker base gasket, and not touching the aluminum cylinder block.
In doing this, the O-ring would have to be compressed .020" thicker than it would otherwise, or thereabouts, perhaps the base gasket would compress a little bit more in that area.
I checked into using thicker cylinder base oil feed o-rings, but the GS400/425 & 77-79 750 o-rings were slightly larger diameter, and look to be a real squeeze to get them to fit in the 550 crankcase and base gasket holes/recesses intended for the smaller 550/650E egg shaped oil feed o-rings.
Parts fiches list the GS400/GS750 8V/GS1100G o-ring as 3.05mm thickness. I measured more like 2.7mm on a 5 year old used version.
I measured the OEM new in package 550 oil feed cylinder base o-rings at 2.2mm thickness. I measured Athena brand new 550 versions of the same o-ring at 2.45mm thickness.
I like the OEM method of o-ring sealing metal to metal using stock thickness base gasket. This seems far better, although Suzuki Din and minder have reported no problems with their thicker base gasket stacked version of this sealing method. With the area in question needing to compress an extra .020" or .5mm, with it torqued down that hard, I'm sure it must create a very firm seal against the oil pressure.
I also got the head gasket bore reduced slightly, as we were going 1mm over the 65mm piston size for the head gasket cylinder bore diameter. Well as I've recalled recently, the 65mm piston, after cylinder to wall clearance added to it, dictates a bore of 64.75mm or so. So we can go with a head gasket cylinder bore size of about 65.7mm or so instead of the previously discussed 66mm. This saved us any further compression loss.
So based on Andy's mockup measurements showing piston out of hole .016" after base gasket (tallest of figures I have collected so far), I am thinking 1.7mm (uncompressed) head gasket is so far the best safe bet.
This would give Andy .046" quench height, so he could safely deck .006"-.008" off the block.
Suzuki_Don's findings 7 years ago would indicate that he may perhaps have needed to mill .014-.016" off the deck to arrive at the optimum .040" or so quench. But even on an unmilled block, quench area starts to have an effect at .060" height, with the biggest positive effect being at almost zero piston to head clearance at speed. So .040" + .014" = .054" quench height. Acceptable still, although not considered the ultimate in performance figures. But allows this gasket to be run on stock block deck surface, or block milled as much as .014-.016".
I'll have to continue this in the AM, brain is getting foggy late at night. Up all night last night after getting home from animal hospital, caring for my dog with a head injury. will pick up these thoughts in AM.
Comment