• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Flat top piston ?'s....

  • Thread starter Thread starter LethalInjection
  • Start date Start date Oct 28, 2005

LethalInjection

Founding Member
Jul 26, 2002
217
0
17
Arkansas
Oct 28, 2005
#1
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #1
As far as piston design goes, what affects the compression ratio of flat top pistons.. I know valve relief volume is a factor, but what is the difference in say... The 8.5:1 and 10:1 trickflow pistons.. I noticed that they have the low comp pistons listed with a larger compression height.. I would think this would lead to a high compression ratio since it looks as though that would put the piston a little higher toward the head at TDC.. WTF gives...? amnit:
 
D

Daggar

New Member
Jul 19, 2004
3,902
5
0
Oct 28, 2005
#2
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #2
I don't understand what there is left to tell you. It looks as if you've already anwered your own question.

OF COURSE higher compression pistons lead to higher compression ratios... that's the whole point.

Edit: Perhaps you're not taking the rod length and stroke length into consideration?
 
T

tjm73

Founding Member
Aug 3, 2000
2,418
2
48
Rush, NY
Oct 28, 2005
#3
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #3
Are you talking about the difference between a 1.600" and 1.610" compression height? .010"?
 

LethalInjection

Founding Member
Jul 26, 2002
217
0
17
Arkansas
Oct 28, 2005
#4
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #4
Yeah, I was asking how they got a 8.5:1 C\R and 10:1 C\R out of a flat top piston when the lower compression piston has a longer compression height.. Neither pistons have domes, so where'd the 1.5 point bump in compression come from.. Stroke, rod, and bore are all the same..

Compression height is the distance from the wrist pin bore to the top of the piston right? So.. If there's more material in between the wrist pin and the top of the piston, wouldn't that mean that the piston is a little further up in the cylinder bore at TDC, which *should* yield a higher compression correct..? If so, then how does the 8.5:1 piston have a taller compression height yet lower compression?
 
T

tjm73

Founding Member
Aug 3, 2000
2,418
2
48
Rush, NY
Oct 28, 2005
#5
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #5
LethalInjection said:
Yeah, I was asking how they got a 8.5:1 C\R and 10:1 C\R out of a flat top piston when the lower compression piston has a longer compression height.. Neither pistons have domes, so where'd the 1.5 point bump in compression come from.. Stroke, rod, and bore are all the same..

Compression height is the distance from the wrist pin bore to the top of the piston right? So.. If there's more material in between the wrist pin and the top of the piston, wouldn't that mean that the piston is a little further up in the cylinder bore at TDC, which *should* yield a higher compression correct..? If so, then how does the 8.5:1 piston have a taller compression height yet lower compression?
Click to expand...

.010" of an inch is more acedemic than a signifigant impact on C/R. The difference in C/R in those pistons coems from the dish volume. On the 10:1 it'll be eyebrow cuts for valve clearence and on the 8.5:1 it'll be a dished top.

The .010" difference in piston placement in the bore means probably less than .5 of a single C/R point on two otherwise identical pistons.
 

nosmatt

Founding Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,356
0
37
Bass Lake, Ca
Oct 28, 2005
#6
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #6
it has a dish.

i have held them in my hands.


same with the probes

the compression height was becuase to get the dish shaped right, the compression was too low, thus they changed where they drilled the pin hole, this brings the piston up to deck, and maybe slightly out depending on too many factors to list.

you cannot just dig a small hole in a piston, they are "reverse dome" and if that lowers the compression too much, they have to make it up somewhere.
 

LethalInjection

Founding Member
Jul 26, 2002
217
0
17
Arkansas
Oct 28, 2005
#7
  • Oct 28, 2005
  • #7
Ok cool.. Thanks.. I knew it had to be something.. For some reason I was under the impression that they were both flat tops with reliefs and it wasn't making much sense to me..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Engine Forged flat top pistons from 5.0 fit a 351 build?
  • PonyGTrider
  • May 22, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
17
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 1, 2026
PonyGTrider
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
670
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
HP woes with Sniper Sytem
  • Stang_1973
  • Mar 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
804
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 13, 2025
revhead347
S
Can I add a low boost (turbo or s/c) setup to this configuration?
  • SlyFox91
  • Mar 17, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 22, 2023
2000xp8
E
Finished my Fox Hydroboost Install - Tips
  • Engineer Duane
  • Apr 9, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 5, 2025
Engineer Duane
E
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?