Well..., as Vince for Sham Wow says, "There's your mildew right there!" (see attached picture)
My 80 PSI in #2 was the result of a BEV (Burnt Exhaust Valve). This was a quicky replacement head when it was on the Turbo Coupe. Even though I did a fast valve lap it wasn't enough.
With replacement head #3 I found the exhaust seats to be considerably deformed. It took a lot of work to get the seat concentric.
In retrospect it seems it would have been better to leave the valves alone if your just replacing a head gasket failure. Likely if you pull the valves to clean the gunk out you likely wouldn't get them back in the same distorted location. Then that leaves you vulnerable to leaks and burning. Or for that matter be extremely careful if your just replacing the seals that the valve doesn't rotate.
If your going to get the valves and seats ground then you should be OK. But again if your just replacing the gasket or the seals I would highly recommend that you make sure the valves don't rotate. Otherwise the deformed valve won't fit to the deformed seat and you will get "burned."
Not that I'm recommending running the bad condition, but sometime in an attempt to make things better we make them worse.
Tom
I believe that the valves rotate under normal operating condition.
I have found that most burnt exhaust valves from a solid lifter engine is from the valve adjustment being too tight and not allowing full closure. (Ticking is good ;D) The exhaust valve cools when they close and make contact with the valve seat.
Then add other conditions such as retarded timing, lean mixtures, & load to a tight valve and it can burn fast.
Somehow it posted before I quit typing...
Your engine is probably hydraulic and should not have a tight valve, so I suspect it was a lean mixture and/or retarded timing.
Starliner,
Generally I would agree with you. However, my experience with these heads doesn't seem to follow the norm. The original head blew a gasket due to the radiator rupturing one too many times. None of the valves showed any inclination towards burning.
The second replacement head burnt a single valve. The others were fine. The plugs nor the chamber did not show any lean condition. This happened in just a few thousand miles.
While preparing the third head something rather obvious stood out. Due to limited funds I lap my valves in rather that getting a valve job. First I use a "sacrificial" valve to generally get the seats in the head clean. Then using a lathe I put a file flat to the seat angle and clean up the valve itself. Now that I have the seat and valve clean I lap the two together for a perfect fit. Since this tends to indent the seat in the valve as a final step I put the valve back in the lathe, and with a file just on the upper and lower edges bring the edges to the seat. This has worked well for me. I have had sufficient valve margins.
What I did find in this process is that the exhaust seat on the short side radius was generally more depressed. It showed in the lapping. There were also valves that had the valve head conformed to this depression. Again obvious during the lapping process.
In this engine I don't believe the valves rotate. There are no rotators and the stem tip does not indicate that to my eyes.
Therefore, I felt it prudent to caution others that if they were NOT getting a valve job but had the head off it was probably better to leave the valves where they were. If one pulled the valves simple to clean the head they could possible get a valve that had deformed to a seat depression out of index with the depressed seat. That is more than likely how I burnt a valve in short order in head #2.
Tom
Hey Tom,
Great posts on the 2.3 head bolts & the turbo engine installation.
You and Bill are great assets to this site.
I have a lot to learn about the 2.3 turbo engine.
I have a Volvo P1800ES that I plan to do a 2.3 conversion with a T5.
I will start that project later this year when I feel a little more confident that the company I work for will survive.
For now I just keep my two Pintos drivers going and do some low cost mods to the Volvo.
Starliner,
I had a Volvo 544 S. It was a 1966 model. Their last year was 1965, but in California it rolled over as a 1966 model because of the year sold.
I really liked that car. It was a lot faster than it's "1946 Ford" appearance. I recall getting 36 MPG too. Like most every car I own it was in a state of "arrested decay." I just had too many cars with a little too much that needed to be done. My wife let the "non-op" status slip one year and the cost to re-register it was significant. So, I let it go.
To me there is something different about the non-typical car. Once I get my Pinto dialed in I'm looking to get back to my 1965 Sunbean Tiger. It's been nearly 10 years and that project needs to get done!
Nice chatting with you. tom
Buy a Sunbeam and put a 2.3 turbo in it!
Call it half a Tiger!