Kostamojen

The machine shop did say they could "dish out" the piston of CR ends up being too high.

Alright, I went back to the machine shop to discuss the piston. He basically said he doensn't think it will be an issue considering he doesn't think the CR will go that high. I told him i'd go do some maths and get back to him on that... So, I just did a "ghetto" CC measurement of the combustion chamber (using a syringe, some gatorade, a straight edge level and a toothpick). The results were: The combustion chamber is approx 30-33cc Removing 2mm from the combustion chamber makes it approx 21-24cc Using this compression calculator: http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html And the associated required information - Bore x stroke - 85mm x 60mm Gasket bore - 85mm (measured it) Compressed headgasket thickness - 2mm Piston dome volume... Zero I presume, but there is a little space around the edge of the piston, possibly worth a couple cc Piston deck clearance - 0 (its flush with the deck) The worst possible scenario i've come up with is a CR of 11.5:1 The best possible scenario i've come up with is a CR of under 10.0:1 An average of the two puts it in the mid-high 10's, 10.5:1 or so.

This is better, these are the measurements for the stock piston:

BTW, JE can make custom pistons: http://www.jepistons.com/TechCorner/SCP_Drawings.aspx But thats expensive of course.

Ok, got one of the 1400 pistons from the old engine for measuring: Comp height - 31.5mm (from middle of piston pin to top of the piston) Piston pin - 21mm Piston diameter - 85mm Overall height - 66.5mm Oil ring - 4mm

I think the piston wouldn't have to be 2mm shorter. When shaving the 2mm from the head, the amount of cc's taken out are not the diameter of the piston, but actually the size of the valve relief area. I need to find out exactly how much that is via cc measurement to see exactly how much lower the piston would need to be.

Here is a photo of the EA63 piston, the top is flat (got this from ebay): For reference, These stats were taken from a EA71 piston via ebay: Comp Height 31.5mm Overall Length 71mm Comp Ring 1 @ 1.2mm 1 @ 1.5mm Oil Control Ring 1 @ 4mm Pin Diameter 21mm Clearance (Minimum) .0006" I'm fairly certain the pin diameter is the same, the rest i'll have to double check.

Now thats some awesome information, thanks. I'll have to pull out one of the pistions from box of parts from the other EA63 I disassembled and check.

I'm not sure how to reply to this, I think we've gone off on a tangent here :-p These are NOT single port heads. Look again at the first pics. And the intake valves are actually on the INSIDE instead of the OUTSIDE which means they are almost perfectly in line with the manifold port, which means less turns. Combined with the front/rear exhaust ports, these are the best flowing stock EA heads bar none. As for port matching, as I said, right now the gasket, intake port of the head and the weber manifold all match PERFECTLY. There is no more need for porting unless I want to use custom gaskets or want to run a higher-powered motor. And yes, the engine mounts are exactly where the single-port exahust ports are, there is about 1/2" clearance, not even enough for the exhaust studs to fit. And as stated, there is no reason to use a crappier single port head anyway... My issues are not with intake porting and such, its with compression and manifold/block/etc. length.

The stock manifold doesn't match very well, but right now the gasket, webber manifold and heads all match perfectly.

Its more than that for the offset, the manifolds are not perfectly horizontal across the block, they are at an angle which means to port match it you have to triangulate the location. Thats why I couldn't tell how much shorter it needed to be until I did headgasket measurements and such. You cant tell just by lining up the manifolds to each other exactly how you need to change it. Its just a bad idea any way you slice it, when you start trying to match the ports you loose gasket matching and end up with bad flow in the chambers from the awkward lips and such. Right now i'm thinking I need to go back to my original plan... Just put the 1400 together with the stock manifold and build a motor later using the 1600 shortblock I have, since this is going to be so much work to do properly.

Just doing the manifold bolt holes doesn't solve the problem of the intake and coolant passages no longer lining up.

BTW, here is the main thread for reference: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=80021

I'm basically trying to get as much assistance as possible regarding the motor i'm putting together for my FF-1 project. I'm not getting much help in the main thread, so I'm going for the actual engine information section for this. Anyway, here is a short brief for the un-initiated: Its an old EA motor, EA63 to be exact (1400, 1.4l, 1361cc). The original motor was an EA61. The shortblock is a NEW 1.4l dry-sleeve (as opposed to wet-sleeve which is what most 1.4l's are, finding a dry-sleeve 1400 is HARD to do). The cylinder heads are dual-port (front/rear port) 1400 heads, which I MUST use due to engine mount/crossmember location (cant use single-port heads). Now, for the serious information... I'm trying to use a VERY rare Weber manifold on the engine, as seen here: The big issue is the Weber manifold is 4mm shorter than the stock manifold! This is because that manifold is designed for a JDM-only "sport" motor (1300G) that had a shorter shortblock. That motor I can't find, and don't want to use anyway due to the fact it is a WET-SLEEVE motor (more headgasket failures, harder to maintain, HARD to rebuild). This manifold will let me use a very nice dual-barrel carb setup, and I spent a LOT of money on it so i'd like to use it Now the problem: As you can see in the picture, the manifold DOES bolt to the engine and line up perfectly with NO HEADGASKETS installed. I've done all the measurements and figured it is exactly 2mm each cylinder head that needs to be shorter. I've started talking to engine machine shops about this along with various old-school Subaru guys and i'm getting mixed information/opinions. My goal with this engine is NOT a pure-race engine, but a quality, reliable street driven engine. Known Options: Shaving the heads - In order to run the manifold, the easiest (and cheapest) option is to shave the head 2mm each side. This will increase the compression ratio of course, however i've been told anywhere from 10.0:1 to 15.0:1 (stock compression ratio is iether 8.5:1 or 9.0:1, depending on the year of the 1400, in this case i'm not sure but i'm guessing 9.0:1). I'm fine with something around 10.0:1 as long as the headgaskets will hold up and i'm fine running and tuning it to premium gas. Custom thin headgasket - I've done some homework into custom headgaskets that are thinner (the OEM and aftermarket headgaskets for this motor are 2mm thick) like Cometic and Copper gaskets. From what i've read, MLS (multi-layer steel) headgaskets are best, but Cometic won't make just one set of custom headgaskets. Copper gaskets i'm getting mixed messages about, with some saying they are a PITA and should only be used on pure-race engines, while others have no issues with them. Either way, i'd still have to shave whatever the thinkness the gaskets are from the cylinder head to fit the manifold. Pistons - I've been thinking that somehow modifying the piston (shaving?) to solve the compression ratio issue with shaving the cylinder heads. Custom pistons are expensive, so are modifying normal ones something that actually occurs? Other potential solutions - I've had people say to modify the intake manifold or put some kind of spacer on there. Thats more difficult that one would think because not only does air travel down the manifold but coolant as well... Any other ideas would be helpful. My only other solution is to run the stock manifold with a 32/36 weber carb which is what most other people run on old EA motors, which isn't that interesting of an option (plus i'd buy a new one of those with the adapter and such, which runs around $400 anyway. Shaving the heads and using the weber manifold with the carb I have with that will cost less than that!) Note: I have not calculated the cc of the compression chamber and have never done something like that before, but it has been mentioned to me. P.S. If you have any other general questions about what i'm doing, or need more photos of something specific, just say so...

As you can see, the weber installs perfectly without headgaskets. So ya, 2mm is what needs to come off, either by machining or by a thinner headgasket and less machining.

Apparently shortening the pushrods isn't a huge deal either. And the valves are recessed enough as to not be an issue clearing the pistons. Either way, its going to be cheaper than I expected.

Alright, it looks like I only need about 1/16" or 2mm shaved from each head... Any experts out there think thats manageable? Is there anything else I should be concerned about when doing this?

Just found these on Youtube, figured i'd share them: Thats the weber manifold/carb on there, so its probably a sport motor. I think this is the guy who has a Japanese Blog going about FF-1 builds.

Just took my engine/heads/etc. to a machine shop. Basically it looks like it will be cheap to fit the Weber manifold, cheaper than buying another 32/36 carb and running the stock manifold I just need a better measurement of exactly how much needs to be shaved from the heads...

They are more prone to failure than standard lifters, and can't handle higher RPMS well. And I think something to do with oil pressure can effect the way they operate, i'll have to ask again about it. Edit: Found a long article about it regarding VW engines: http://www.ratwell.com/technical/HydraulicLifters.html Basically it seems comes down to: Hydraulic - Pros: Quiet, Less adjustment needed (less maintenance) Cons: Limited RPM capability, can fail if not adjusted properly, slightly less power/responsiveness. Solid - Pros: Best performance for higher RPMS, won't fail as easily (solid piece of metal), more responsive Cons: Louder, more maintenance required (valve adjustments) I just saw another article just now saying the Hydraulics have a slight valvetrain lag on startup due to oil pressure, but that might have just been for the Chevy V8's they were discussing.

I'm using Evercoat right now. I'm finding that it sands good using both the coarse and fine grit sand papers. But i'm not experienced with figuring out what the surface is supposed to look like, but i'll take some pics of how i'm doing next weekend when I can work on it again (big time rain storm today, and yesterday I was at work all day). I do have one slight issue, how to sand concave areas?

The hydraulic valves, while lower maintenance, have other issues which is why I'm not going to use them in my motor build.

For future reference, this is false and starting to become a bit of a myth around here due to CCR's comment awhile back about this. Full engine gasket kits are still available through Subaru, including headgaskets. Almost any part for the motor (waterpumps, oil pumps, pistons, bearings, valves, etc.) can still be found new. Blocks and heads of course can not be found new, but are easy to find.