Has anyone used these copper intake gaskets yet ?

Wonder what their advantage would be, since they would transfer a lot of heat from the exhaust, correct?

For cylinder head porting and the ability to reuse the gasket

They were also used in a recent slant 6 dyno test magazine article in both Mopar Muscle and Hot Rod magazine. They also have been very popular with turbo builds that are prone to blow out composition style gaskets.

_________________
There's no such thing as too much cam....only not enough engine!

Note also that Brian Droschak has been reproducing the super strong green gaskets that the Cox Bros used to sell. I've never seen one burned out. They can be reused if you put a little lube (like Vaseline) on both sides when installing.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines

The copper ones are also a direct copy of the Cox Brothers gasket, but more refined and with consistent port shape, sizes and port spacing because theirs weren't matched the same on each of the ports. At least the sample I was given was like that and needed correcting. Not sure what method they used to make theirs, but for the era they were made was probably ok. But adding modern design technology like CAD and CNC manufacturing made the copper ones better in many ways. Plus, the copper ones are also designed using Chrysler cylinder head blueprints for more exact port spacing, coupled with the larger intake and exhaust port openings to accommodate for a ported head, and letting a top shelf racing gasket company manufacture them makes them a premium piece. A composition material gasket made to these same exacting design specs is also available as well.

_________________
There's no such thing as too much cam....only not enough engine!

Seems the CNC exactness benefit is of less importance if the copper advantage is for porting.
I also wonder about the reuse issue vs the composition gasket, as the thinking is the copper slightly deforms to allow "better" sealing, but copper has effectively no "spring back" ( my choice of words) relative to a composition gasket, so how is copper better for reuse, unless it is exactly re positioned to exact same alignment with exact same ports on a reuse, or is close some how good enough but still better?

No one has addressed the heat transfer issue; it is not one, or its acceptable?

The purpose of the copper is more for the reusable aspect because they don't tear when you remove the intake or exhaust manifold and for high boost usage where composition gaskets can still burn out. That's why they were selected for use in those magazine articles, because of their repeated use qualities since they were intending to remove and test multiple intake and exhaust combos. The CNC benefit is just a bonus of the 21st century because of the methods used to design it and make them. The composition version of the copper ones were also designed and manufactured with the same technology. There is hardly any deforming from repeated use, much like a copper head gasket if you have any experience with them, I have plenty and with these gaskets in question. There are currently over 100 of them in the field over the last 5 years , and the heat transfer is no issue. This is not new technology and has been used in racing now for close to 30 years now. The heating wouldn't be anymore so than in engines where the intake and exhaust manifold are bolted together and connected by a heat box to warm the intake for cold weather. The copper was intended more for the severe duty turbo guys and might not be for everyone, that's why the composition style is also still out there.

_________________
There's no such thing as too much cam....only not enough engine!

There have been threads that mentioned EFI heat soak issues with port injectors, and the cause was alluded to the proximity of intake to exhaust manifolds, hence my heat transfer questions I have no experience with copper gaskets, but a quality often mention is the softness of the copper to seal, just seems common sense that that feature would eventually be a negative in reuse. I fully agree real world experience trumps any internet common sense. I wonder about the thinking of gasket failure what the main cause is with a turbo, higher heat. or higher pressure, or some combination, and what pressures does this start to be relevant for a gasket failure.

My world revolves around, weather never below 60F, Turbo, EFI port, and hopefully zero reuse.

Hey, these are very valid points and questions. The copper sheets used in making these gaskets as well as head gaskets are not as compressive and dead soft as one may think. They don't crush like a composition type gasket will, or like soft copper electrical wire that may come to mind when you think of copper. There is also sealer applied to both sides of the gasket, this may also help reduce heat bleeding into the intake from the exhaust manifold or header since they doesn't actually contact the copper gasket directly. Another install note, is since the copper doesn't squash or compress like a composition gasket does, the mating surfaces on both the intake and exhaust need to be much flatter to aid in sealing, and may not be as forgiving on an otherwise distorted or wavy sealing surface.

To answer your last question, my guess is that is probably a spike in the tune that went lean and caused the gasket to fail, or a mating surface that was not as flat as it could have been to create a good seal. Many other engine types in racing use much higher boost with no problems with composition gaskets, so whether a copper one is a fail safe option or not, other manufacturers of them seem to think so.

_________________
There's no such thing as too much cam....only not enough engine!

The benefits of copper gaskets have been well covered here...but I'll note that, in general, they are for engines that are meant to work for a dozen hours between teardowns and not 100,000 miles between rebuilds. As noted, they're not as forgiving when it comes to repeated cold/hot cycles. I'd also expect they need to be re-annealed between uses if you're gonna re-use them with best results.

As for heat transfer, few metals transfer heat as well as copper so if heat transfer is your goal, that's good. If insulation is your goal, not so good.

For the average engine I'd much rather have a composition metal-core gasket.

I designed and created the large port copper gaskets at the request of several turbo guys wanting and needing a better product to better suit their needs that weren't being met by other products that were available. For that purpose they were created for, they fit the bill perfectly, and the added benefit of being reusable was part of the criteria as well. Yes, copper is a great conductor, but heat transfer is a non-issue when installation instructions are followed correctly in these engines, and in all the other engines where copper exhaust gaskets are used. Since I was the originator of this product, there have been others that began to also make them. I can't speak for their quality or results, but I haven't heard any complaints in the 100 plus I've sold or about these other guys products. And I have also created a large port composition gasket as well because the copper is not for everyone and have sold almost twice as many of them than the copper ones.

_________________
There's no such thing as too much cam....only not enough engine!

So a dead soft fully annealed SS gasket might make for an interesting solution, or is the reason the copper works is because it can't get hot enough to fail since it conducts heat so well?


edit, main reason for SS suggestion, its almost an insulator compared to copper

Its likely a cost factor. I made some stainless exhaust inserts to reshape the ports about 10 years ago for some dyno tests we were doing on another forum. And back then in just a .032" thickness, they were over $60 my cost for one cylinder head in a 6 cylinder. Stainless can handle the temps, many turbo headers are made from it if you can handle the cost.

_________________
There's no such thing as too much cam....only not enough engine!

I would have thought copper would be more costly then then SS, material wise.