connecting rod strength h vs I beam



Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby grumpyvette » February 12th, 2014, 6:06 pm

the discussion about whats the best connecting rod length to stroke ratio and what rod design should be selected has been hashed thru in a near endless debate, I,d suggest you pay a great deal of attention to the quality of the connecting rods, bearings used, quench,clearances and engine lubrication, and preventing detonation, and maximize oil and coolant cooling to keep both in a reasonable range (THERE THREADS ABOUT THIS) and use an internally balanced rotating assembly, and while longer rod ratios are in theory beneficial the proven benefits are usually minimal as long as you keep the piston speeds reasonable
before I even begin,to discuss this Id strongly suggest IF your planing an engine build, that you purchase a complete matched rotating assembly, thats internally balanced from a well known manufacturer, and an SFI certified DAMPER AND FLYWHEEL OR FLEX-PLATE because any attempt at matching, miss matched components will result in zero warranty on any problem, fitting, matching or breaking in,the components

anyone who understands physics and geometry and can use a calculator or do minimal research into those questions,understands that a change in rod length will also change several other of the parameters of the engine, not only do you change the rod length, you also change rod angles, ring drag, piston weight, piston pin height, ring stack height in some cases, crank counter weigh, piston dwell, exhaust scavenging timing etc.

If you take some time and actually calculate out , or do the math,what changes happen between lets say a 5.7” rod and a 6.0” rod on a 3.48” , or 3.75"stroke crank, in a 350 or 383 sbc.. You will soon see the actual amounts of the angle changes are very minimum. Then , your forced to ask your self how or even if these small changes in rod angle will affect the engines hp/torque, and to what extent, and will the changes be beneficial or hurt your results, and Id also point out that the compression and cam timing will also effectively change your results in some cases.

yes the internet is full of claims, claims that The motor will carry the power and torque curve father up into the rpm range with a longer connecting rod.
But you are forced to ask, by how much? and is the result , because of the rod length,change or because you used totally different lighter piston with a different ring package,and in many cases changed quench or compression etc. There are sure to be other changes that were required inside an engine with a rod length change, so you can't instantly conclude that the change in connecting rod length alone made the changes (IF ANY) you see on a dyno.

I doubt its even possible to build two virtually identical engines where only the rod length alone changed, not I personally have tried to install the longer rods and try to get a rod to stroke ratio as close to 2:1 AS OTHER FACTORS ALLOW.
this rod to stroke ratio,can be built with a 6" connecting rod and 3" stroke to build a 302 with a 283 crank and using a 327 or 350 4" bore block, or the same 283 crank in a 400 larger bearing size block with custom machined bearing spacers, to build a 4.155 bore and 3" stroke combo, correctly set up these combo are known to make very good horsepower per cubic inch, but theres no question that the added cubic inches of a 3.75" stroke crank far exceeds the results even with a less desirable rod to stroke ratio.
now a 350 with a 3.48" stroke with a 5.7' rod has a 1.64 rod to stroke ratio,
a 383 with a 5.7" rod has a 1.52:1 ratio
a 383 with a 6" rod has a 1.6"1 ratio and in every case Ive ever seen the increased displacement had a far greater effect on the 383 performance than the change in rod length seemed to induce.
as to connecting rods , from a mechanical limitations point of view, the rod bolts and the area they connect tend to be the connecting rod weak point, so Id strongly suggest ARP 7/16" rod bolts in cap screw rod designs, with the (I) beam in theory having a almost non-existent strength advantage IF THE ROD MATERIAL CROSS SECTION IS IDENTICAL, which it is usually not! I would simply suggest you shop carefully ,demand a 7/16" ARP rod bolt cap screw connecting rod of the length you prefer from a quality manufacturer, scat has been my connecting rod of choice for most engine builds


SBC
SCAT I BEAM
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sca-25700/overview/

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sca-2 ... /overview/


SCAT H BEAM
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sca-6570020/overview/

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sca-6 ... /overview/

Image
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » February 12th, 2014, 10:03 pm

In one of the connecting Rod photos shown Grumpy you have a 1963-1/2 to 1979 Pontiac V8 connecting rod.
Cast Arma Steel.
I have used them in the past.
With ARP bolts they are amazing tough
Such an ugly looking rod.
Supposed to fail at 5700 RPM's in a 455.
6000 RPM in a 389/ 400.
Maybe so but never has happened to me.
As long as the bottom end crank bearings are oiling correct & no Detonation they live just fine.
Ran the 8620 steel Super Duty 455 Rods with ARP Bolts.....
Headaches......

Have Crower Forged & Crower Ti Rods on hand.
Haven't fully decided. Either a good choice to use.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby grumpyvette » February 13th, 2014, 9:39 am

As I,m sure your aware, most Pontiac connecting rods and cylinder heads were not designed primarily for performance thus the bad reputation they gainede as a class if pushed to well past the rpm and stress levels they were designed for, yes there WERE some HUGE exceptions like the better versions of the RAM AIR 4 and RA 5 , tunnel port Pontiac style heads.
http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/t ... _v_engine/
the AFTERMARKET has now made available a good selection of pontiac heads, cranks, blocks cams intakes etc .

we have had several good Pontiac engine builds ,in my area , Ive helped on several,over the last couple dozen years, especially since the aluminum aftermarket heads, and much better connecting rods have been available
I can assure you that the newer edelbrock heads and single plane intake can make a huge improvement over what used to be available


DECENT LINKS YOU WILL NEED
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=1154&p=29335&hilit=pontiac+intake#p29335

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=4125&p=20488&hilit=pontiac+links#p20488

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=2726&p=43385&hilit=what+makes+good+engine#p43385

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2358&p=6226&hilit=pontiac+links#p6226

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=362&p=2778&hilit=pontiac+links#p2778

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=450&p=554&hilit=pontiac+links#p554

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=368&p=450&hilit=pontiac+links#p450

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=449&p=553&hilit=pontiac+links#p553
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby grumpyvette » March 16th, 2014, 9:08 pm

READ THE LINKED INFO ,OPEN THE LINK, FOR CHARTS
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/hrdp ... ting_rods/


Even for a high-performance, street-engine rebuild, there's just no excuse for messing with old-school factory connecting rods anymore. Aftermarket rod prices have declined, and you can get superior small-block Chevy forged rods that are better than those old stockers in every way: They're lighter, made from better materials, and held together by better bolts. Modern forging and machining techniques now yield closely-weight-matched rods, allowing rod manufacturers to eliminate the cumbersome (and space-consuming) old-school balancing pads found on factory muscle car–era rods. And when purchased as a set, no balancing is needed.
Hrdp 1212 20 Dont Bother Building Factory Aftermarket Connecting Rods Duttweiler Performance checked the big and pin ends on its Sunnen Rod Hone machine. The ch

A typical machine shop might charge $230 to $250 to refurbish a set of eight small-block Chevy factory rods for an entry-level hot rod engine. That price typically includes magnetic particle inspection (aka Magnafluxing), installing new quality ARP rod bolts (another $60 or more), resizing the big-ends, and bushing the pin end for floating pins (which, by the way, is the standard method for getting the stockers' center-to-center lengths close on a blueprinted engine). Ideally, none of the rods will be cracked or bent, and the huge balancing pads on the old-school rod will have enough meat to enable weight-matching the set, especially if one of the original rods required replacement. Clearing those potentially huge pads itself requires additional piston clearance, which makes for a heavier, taller piston. The taller pistons, plus the funky nut-and-bolt rods, introduce yet more clearance problems on stroker engines. Get 'er all done, you're still stuck with a 5.7-inch center-to-center stocker, but many engine builders now prefer at least a 6.00-inch rod for use with today's increasingly popular stroker combinations.

By contrast, aftermarket, entry-level, 6.00-inch rods bushed for floating pins are available for as low as $200 per set, and even trick H-beam rods are offered in a variety of options for less than $600 a set and are, in some instances, advertised as supporting 1,000 hp or more. We know this because we ordered up a representative sampling of 6.00-inch small-block Chevy rods from Summit Racing (thanks, Summit!) and direct-sales outfit Ohio Crankshaft, then measured, analyzed, and photographed the lot with the assistance of Duttweiler Performance, BHJ, and FH Pumps. When all was said and done, we found, in nearly all cases, the rods were accurately machined in critical areas. About the only required end-user rework would be honing the pin end to your preferred pin-clearance specification.

Even if sticking with tried and true 5.7-inch rods, otherwise equivalent rods to those we examined would be slightly cheaper yet. As usual, Summit's pricing is virtually unbeatable, usually much lower than the manufacturers' retail pricing.

For a detailed breakdown on what we found, see the photos and spec charts on the following pages, followed by a detailed summary of what it all means. The rods on the following pages are presented in order from the least expensive to the most expensive, at the time we priced them from Summit Racing and Ohio Crankshaft. Listed are the basic material and physical configuration of the rods and rod bolts, actual measured dimensional information, and principle manufacturers' published data.

What the Specs Mean

Duttweiler Performance checked the big and pin ends on its Sunnen Rod Hone machine. The checking mandrel was set to the minimum spec for the big end and then to the small-block Chevy's 0.927-inch piston pin size for the small end. The big end was checked by rotating the rod around the three-fingered checking mandrel to obtain an overall reading. Only one rod proved out of round.

On the previous pages are a bunch of arcane numbers and specs. Here's what they mean. Any red callout letters refer to the specific dimensions listed in the large photo on the opening page and in the charts.
Hrdp 1212 21A Dont Bother Building Factory Aftermarket Connecting Rods FH Pumps' Bob Lucey weighed the rods on its digital Fairbanks scale. The I-beam rods were

Rod materials: Even at the less-than-$600 level, almost all the rods are made from premium 4340 forged steel, although one entry-level rod is forged from 5140. Either material, when properly prepped and heat-treated, is much better than original small-block Chevy 1053 forged steel rods (or the later powdered-metal design). However, while the four-number steel alloy designator accurately describes the material's basic chemical composition, it does not account for the materials' purity, number of occlusions, or grain structure. There are several different grades of the same alloy; the higher the level, the greater the purity. There is no way for the end user to actually judge the "level" or "quality" of the material short of sectioning the rod and sending it out to a special lab for detailed analysis. According to rod expert Jack Sparks, the grade or purity is one of the main differences between the entry-level rods and the $1,000-plus rods.

Power and rpm capability: Of the rod brands we analyzed, Eagle and Manley are the only manufacturers that publish official claimed power and rpm capabilities. At best, these are only an approximation, with rpm being more critical. Other rod makers maintain that rpm, crank stroke, piston weight, and number of cycles, as factored into a very complex equation, or, better yet, actual physical cycle and bending tests are the only ways to establish a rod's true fatigue life and failure point. That requires very specialized laboratory-quality testing.

Weight: The weight (in grams) is important when balancing the rotating assembly. The manufacturers claim their sets are all weight-matched. We weighed only one individual rod of the same part number. When selecting the rods for your application, note that some rods specifically trade ultimate power capability for less weight.

Rockwell hardness: A material’s Rockwell value roughly correlates to its tensile strength. We tried checking the rods multiple times on both sides of the big end, the beam, and the pinhole, then averaged the results. Unless the I-beam rod’s side-beam area is polished, it is not flat enough to yield a reliable Rockwell number. Likewise, some rods’ pinholes had insufficient flat-surface area to obtain a reading. We found the heat treating for any given rod fairly consistent, although some rods seemed slightly softer at the pin end than on the big end; this may be an actual deformation of the relatively thin surface in the pin area when hit by the Rockwell tester’s diamond tip rather than a true hardness measure. Generally, one would expect less than a one-point variation throughout the entire rod. Jack Sparks says stock-type rods should yield a Rockwell number in the high 20s on the C-scale; entry-level performance rods around 32–36; and higher-end 4340 rods around 38–41.

Bolts: ARP rod bolts were used exclusively on all the rods. This company has a reputation for quality and consistency, and the fact that just about every rod maker uses ARP fasteners to hold the rods together ought to tell you something. There are at least three different levels of ARP bolts, and even the “entry-level” 8740 alloy steel fastener is light years stronger than original factory bolts and even the rod material itself. You rarely see rod-bolt failures anymore if the bolts are properly installed and preloaded. Optional upgraded ARP2000- or ARP L19-alloy bolts generally add about $80 to $90 to an otherwise identical rod set at Summit.
Hrdp 1212 23 Dont Bother Building Factory Aftermarket Connecting Rods The Wilson 2000-series Rockwell tester forces a diamond tip against a flat surface to meas

Center-to-center length (A): This is the blueprint length from the center of the big end to the center of the pin end. For these rods, it should be 6.0 inches exactly. Consistent rod lengths are important when decking to minimum to achieve the exact same piston deck height (of course, the crank indexing and stroke as well as the piston pin centerline-to-block deck dimensions must also be consistent). BHJ is not just about torque plates and balancers. It has all sorts of neat machining and checking gauges; we used its connecting rod-length gauge to measure the rods. None of the individual rods we checked were longer than 6.001 inches or shorter than 5.99 inches. We also checked a complete set of identical rods, and as a group, they varied less than 0.003 inch. A high-end ($1,400) set of Crower rods was checked just for kicks and on average they deviated less than 0.001 inch.

Big-end bore (B): This is the rod-journal bore size, which should range from 2.2247–2.2252 inches for the 2.100-inch-od small-block Chevy rod journals. All rods checked were close to the minimum dimension; that's desirable to achieve today's preferred tight bearing clearances. Besides, you can always hone the journal if necessary. Only one rod was actually out of round.

Big-end centerline to bottom (C): This is both an indication of material thickness at the bottom of the rod and how well it might clear the oil pan or bottom of the cylinder in a critical stroker application. A thicker rod made from the same material should be stronger, but it's also heavier and takes up more space. None of the rods have old-school big balancing pads.

Big-end max width (D): This is the widest part of the big end, generally from the outside of one bolt boss to the opposite boss. Wider means stronger, but added material adds weight, and in some cases, there may be less clearance to the pan rails. In the same vein, capscrew rods have more clearance and offer better load retention than nut-and-bolt rods.

Big-end thickness (E): This the fore-and-aft rod width as viewed from the side when installed on the journal. A thicker rod should have less side clearance. We found nearly all rods to be fairly consistent, at about 0.942–0.943-inch thickness. One ultralightweight Scat rod was slightly thinner.

Rod bolt center-spacing (F): Ken Duttweiler says that if the rod bolts are spaced more widely, given the same bolt and similar parent material, increased spacing should make for a stronger rod overall (but again, slightly heavier).

Rod beam max width (G): This is the rod's max width. I-beam rods have a narrower width than H-beam rods. Within a given rod crosssection (H- or I-beam), thicker generally means stronger if the material strength and hardness is the same--but that means it's also heavier.

Rod beam thickness (H): This value is the beam thickness as viewed from the side. I-beam rods are thinner than H-beam rods.

Pin-end bore (I): Duttweiler likes to see 0.92782–0.9280 inches with a 0.927-inch floating pin. We found all the bores undersize, which at least lets the builder hone to his preference.

Pin centerline to top (J): This references material thickness and how far above the pin centerline the rod extends, offering an indication of how much clearance above the rod is required when ordering custom pistons. None of the rods had balancing pads, which means any custom piston can be shorter and lighter.

Pin-end max width (K): Again, this indicates material thickness and required piston clearance. In the case of unpolished I-beam rods, this includes any forging flash. You could gain a little clearance here by polishing the rod.

Pin-end max thickness (L): This provides a clue as to whether the rod will fit between the piston's inner pin bosses.

Pin oiling method: Floating pins require pin oiling. There are two methods: one hole drilled from the top down, or two drilled on each side from the bottom up. There is no consensus on which is better. Lunati covers its bases by drilling all three holes.


IM OFTEN ASKED WHY I DON,T REBUILD CHEVY CONNECTING RODS, WELL MAYBE A PICTURE WILL HELP,
Image
a good set of SCAT FORGED 4340 forged connecting rods costs less than $400 and they are 150%-200% stronger than MOST OEM chevy SBC rods
it will cost you almost that much to replace the bolts with ARP wave lock bolts, balance and polish and resize stock rods and you have far weaker rods when your done
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 17th, 2014, 11:45 am

In the End Grumpy,
You just have to build it.
Prototype.
I have personaly witnessed custom long rods work .
Pontiac V8.
One engine Dynoed 744 HP At 7500. 1996.
A real screamer.
Another installed in a 1962 Catalina. It Ran 9.10 @ 158 mph.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 17th, 2014, 11:49 am

None of these guys install a 5.7 & 6.0 Rod & pistpn combo on engine mockups.
Degree wheel used.
Dial indicator & flat bar piston stop.
Record numbers TDC & BDC.
Just Smokey Yunick did.
And my late bud Bill.
Computers don't show all.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby philly » March 17th, 2014, 8:32 pm

i agree that a motor shouldnt be built on the premise that long rod stroke ratios are better, but the pressure put on cylinder walls and bearings with short rod stroke ratios (1.5 and lower) is markedly higher than that of the same combo with a 1.75 ratio. when you want longevity in a motor that you are going to beat on and race (even if no one is next to you winding through the gears, its still racing the motor) you should take into consideration a longer rod for your build. in the small block chevy 383 combo when you are buying a rotating assembly, you can score a set of 6 inch rods for the same price as the kit with 5.7 rods so why WOULDNT you want to use it? every little edge you create for yourself adds up in the end and makes power as a combination.

just as we know that a set of valvesprings in an otherwise stock motor may not pick up any horsepower, they are paving the way for us to install a bigger cam and rev the motor higher and as such are making more power possible with less likelyhood of valvetrain failure. i think if we look at the rod stroke theory outside of "longer rod=more power" we can appreciate its benefits for what they are.

smokey yunick tells us that the ideal rod stroke ratio is 2 to 1 but generally you need to extend the deck height and or destroke to get a rod stroke ratio that big WHILE KEEPING A PISTON PIN HEIGHT THAT ALLOWS PROPER RING SPACING FOR A DAILY DRIVER.

i think we need to realize alot of guys that build shit for drag racing professionally build it on the pretense that therell be a teardown after every round and we as hobbyists, enthusiasts, drivers of our "race cars" cant afford that... even if we could afford it fiscally, the time investment is too costly.

if you want to talk about rod stroke ratio you should also consider bore size as it relates to the angle of the rod... honda motors are frequently in the 1.5x rod stroke ratio range but have considerably smaller bores than what we are accustomed to in v8 land. this obviously puts less stress on the bore than say a 4.125 bore on an lsx motor would with the same rod stroke ratio.
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby philly » March 17th, 2014, 8:36 pm

also i think its of note that inline motors have different pressures exerted on the skirt and cylinder wall than a v configuration motor and also different from boxer or flat motors. and each different v config has different stresses because of the angle of the configuration
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 17th, 2014, 8:42 pm

If I was Rich $&$ &$$ I would build lots of engines with Grumpy.
Keep it scientific.
Vary rod lengths in the builds.

Pontiac made a 303 ci V8 with Ram Air 5 Tunnel Port heads.
About 15 were built.
1969.
FOR JERRY TITUS.
SCCA TRAND AM RACE SERIES.
IT USED VERY RARE 7.080" CENTER TO CENTRR LENGTH RODS.
Tall Deck & Short Deck Versions built.
It Redlined 9k Rpms.
R/S ratio was 2.10.
Few remain running. About 3 only.
Legend has it that they are screamers even today.
4.33 geared rear.
Installed in 1969 TRANS AM & THE 1970-1/2 TA Jerry Titus wad driving when a Race accident took his life.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 17th, 2014, 8:50 pm

In 1970 A 1970-1/2 Trans Am was built with Malcom McKellers help.
Chief Pontiac Engine Engineer from 1958-81.
His work made the GTO & FIREBIRD TRANS AM PERFORMANCE LEGENDS.
They built a 455 Poncho with short rods.
Pikes Peak Hill climb Racer & SCCA RACER.
R/S RATIO OF 1.48.
It was untouchable on the East Coat circuit.
Blew the Doors off of Factory Porsche Race Cars with full factory backing.
Didn't have to wind high RPM.
SUPER TORQUE .

SO all these so called experts are full of shit I think.
I will listen to Grumpy.
Rest can go scratch themselves.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 17th, 2014, 9:07 pm

philly wrote:also i think its of note that inline motors have different pressures exerted on the skirt and cylinder wall than a v configuration motor and also different from boxer or flat motors. and each different v config has different stresses because of the angle of the configuration

Yes Phil...
Major & Minor cylinder wall Thrust with crankshaft rotation.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 17th, 2014, 9:10 pm

Combustion chamber design too Phil.
Something no computer can predict exact.
Engine dyno testing.
Racetrack testing.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby philly » March 18th, 2014, 6:42 am

87vette81big wrote:Combustion chamber design too Phil.
Something no computer can predict exact.
Engine dyno testing.
Racetrack testing.


ive always stood by the fact that every single combination is different, two motors with the same off the shelf parts can be very different. what stresses one can be tolerable in another. similarly when we get into piston design for these rod combos we also have to consider chamber size and shape for our desired quench and compression ratio. i also dont se alot of people stress the importance when designing cusome pistons and chambers on placing the majority of the combustion pressures centered on the pin so that most of your energy is spent pushing down (the cylinder) instead of laterally (in the cylinder) if you read between the lines on alot of larry widmers "tech" pettifog, you learn that the relationship between each combustion chamber and each piston is unique and important when looking for longevity, torque, and good BSFC which translates to better fuel economy with the same power (important in his nascar background and in our daily driver applications.) larry is a huge proponent (pioneer) of swirl technology, as it relates to port, chamber, and PISTON design, grumpy has a couple neat graphics about swirl ive seen in other threads.

same time, you got guys like judson massingill, a success in his own right, (he and his wife run the school of automotive machinists) who says swirl is bullshit and quench beats swirl ten times out of ten.

these guys live like two hours from eachother so im sure they are aware of eachother and theyre polar opposite opinions on the subject. and they are both champion engine builders...

i guess the "top of the mountain" in racing isnt exactly a summit with one guy clearly above the rest, its a rolling hill where everyone seems to be in the ballpark of the top with no obvious winner
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 18th, 2014, 9:03 am

On the Racetrack or Street Racing Phil.......
Just 1 winner.
Other guy Lost.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby philly » March 18th, 2014, 9:32 am

yea but the same car with the same driver can win against the same opponent one night and lose the next... cars are competitive and combinations coming from many different directions and schools of thought can take money from one another all week. theres different ways to skin a cat and in the end you still end up with the pussy
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: connecting rod strength h vs I beam

Postby 87vette81big » March 18th, 2014, 9:48 am

Build ypur LSX Engine as You see fit Phil.
You can't make the Rod so long that it interferes with the Oil & Upper ring packages & expect long term durabilty .
Boost makes up for many handicaps.
Most of my knowledge & experience is with Normally aspirated power.
A kicker power adder.
Your the Turbo Guy Phil.
Teach Me.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Rotating Assemblies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests