Moparts Tech Archive
Fel Pro #1009 gaskets, doesn't look like they will work for longMore 451 related stuff...
Looks like the 1009 gaskets hang over the bore chamfers on a couple cylinders by a small amount, maybe .010-.12 or therabouts. Not good.
I don't understand why, some of the huge factory bore chamfers are still there even after the overbore/parallel deck cut, and the gasket hangs over those, even. I did just barely break the top edge, but not enough to cause any problems.
if I flip the gaskets over, the same hole in the gasket is off, on whatever cylinder happens to be under that hole. Same thing happens if I move the gasket to the other bank...So I guess it is a quality control issue on Fel Pro's part, or the factory just went way overboard with the chamfers. I don't know.
I *do* know the majority of the wire ring will get clamped down, and it will probably work for a little while but I am thinking they will probably blow after awhile, given enough time and abuse. True?
I also don't particularly like the dorky valve relief wings in these gaskets, seems like nothing but a dead air space to me.
Options? Whatever I end up with has to be able to work w/aluminum heads.
I would be willing to try the Fel Pro marine gasket Greg Z mentioned (17059), except there is no listing for bore size in the catalog. So I would have to special order them, and if they aren't going to work I would probably have to eat the cost.
At the moment I am considering buying a set of SCE .040" copper gaskets. they come with a 4.38 bore (supposedly), and I would just cut them out until the clear the chamfers with a deburring tool or a fine half round file. What a way to spend an afternoon that would be But at least I would be sure they weren't hanging into the cylinders.
Zippy, the best solution in my book is the 17059's. they have a bore size of 4.500 and measure 10.3 cc's compressed. for comparison the 1009 is a 4.41 bore size and 9.9 cc's. they will work with no problems with the aluminum heads also. same permatorque style.
I used those gaskets on my motor, had to retorque the heads after the engine was run on the dyno.I had the same problem with the 1009 gaskets. The block was actually the problem.When I spoke to the Fel Pro rep. He told me that if the heads are pulled at a later time the head surface would have an imprint of the sealing ring aprox. of .008 deep.No problems with the gaskets, John.
what is the 17059 (is this the PT1)? i went through this grief with the 470". ended up using the 1039 which is the larger bore version of the 1009. does the 17059 have the preflattend wire ring inside the armor like the 1009 and 1039? the 1039 is about 13.7 cc's (i think). i'm guessing the 17059 is a standard permatorque without the wire ring inside. don't have PN's in front of me and i'm getting headaches trying to remember all these #'s.
That gasket overhang will heat up and eventually fail the head gasket. That has been reported on this board. My 451 (400 block) had almost no chamfer so no overhang. However, my spare 400 short block has the biggest factory chamfer on the top of the cylinders that I ever saw. What was the factory doing?
DRAM,thanks that's the first time i've seen numbers on the marine gasket. i'm guessing these are about .039" compressed as most of the others (except the 1039).
ZIPPY,as humdawg mentioned the stock permatorque (8519 PT-1) gasket could be your best bet. i believe they give you a little more room in the bore area than the 1009 and don't hog up compression like the 1039. they are also the most inexpensive of all these gaskets. i posted for the cc volume of the 8519 PT-1 before and believe the number someone shot back was 9.7 cc's. also GregZ said he knew of guys running these stock gaskets up like to 12.5:1 with no problems untile they sprayed the engine (at which point they knew they wouldn't hold up).
WHEW...BB head gaskets have been a PITA.
OK, so for future reference, let's try to figure all these out:
James, thanks for the anecdote.
The marine gasket is sounding pretty good at this point.
Why does nobody use or recommend copper
head gaskets with sealer? Milodon says it will be OK, and a couple of my friends running GM products have had good luck with them, with no O rings.
On my 4.380" bore, there is basically _no_ room for error w/ gasket alignment using a FP 1009. I ran them w/ a 4.375" bore w/o any problem for thousands of miles. However, there was no extra chamfer at the top to worry about. The spare engine I'm doing w/ a 4.350" bore shouldn't have any problems at all w/ the 1009, but I'll check closely to be safe.
I picked up a set of 8519s to compare against the 1009s, since the 8519 and the marine-spec gasket are listed as having identical dimensions. There is a _small_ difference in bore diameter, probably enough to use them w/o any problems in the new engine. I've run the 8519s in street engines before w/o any issues and expect that I can still, even though the new combination is closer to 11:1 CR using my Stage VI heads.
As far as the "wings" in the gasket design... well, none of the OEM combustion chambers are exactly round on the plug-side of the chamber, and my freakin' Stage VIs take up every bit of those "wings" because of the way the chambers are cut to unshroud the valves. It's not the way _I'd_ have designed it, but that's the way some brainiac at Chrysler did it decades ago.