Vid of my car dynoed @ Rodeheaver's

[somethingclever]

Rod to stroke ratio is a total internet myth........

Really?

So piston speed is meaningless for wear?

So a rod/stroke ratio consideration only happened since the birth of the internet? (internet myth as you call it) So engineers never take rod/stroke ratio into account when designing engines?

Hmmm....learn something new everyday.

[Rodeheaver's]

Really?

So piston speed is meaningless for wear?

So a rod/stroke ratio consideration only happened since the birth of the internet? (internet myth as you call it) So engineers never take rod/stroke ratio into account when designing engines?

Hmmm....learn something new everyday.

X2...

[pRojekt02GT]

Really?

So piston speed is meaningless for wear?

So a rod/stroke ratio consideration only happened since the birth of the internet? (internet myth as you call it) So engineers never take rod/stroke ratio into account when designing engines?

Hmmm....learn something new everyday.

[gmkillr]

Really?

So piston speed is meaningless for wear?

So a rod/stroke ratio consideration only happened since the birth of the internet? (internet myth as you call it) So engineers never take rod/stroke ratio into account when designing engines?

Hmmm....learn something new everyday.

When did I mention piston speed?

People who argue rod to stroke ratio always talk about side load, which is a load of bullcrap. This didnt originate on the internet but the internet certainly escaladed it......:)

Its certainly taken into account when designing an engine but the difference between a 331 vs. a 347 and a 393 vs, a 408 is virtually nothing!

There are factory engines that come in everyday vehicles with 100,000+ miles on them with worse rod to stroke ratio than any 347 or 408 out there.
Thus, the reasoning behind my argument........

[Rodeheaver's]

piston speed and side loads are two very tiny aspects of rod to crank ratio... lets not start a internet battle pleeeeaaasssee!!!

[Rodeheaver's]

piston speed and side loas are two very tiny aspects of rod to crank ratio... lets not start a internet battle pleeeeaaasssee!!!

[Rodeheaver's]

piston speed and side load are two very tiny aspects of rod to crank ratio... lets not start a internet battle pleeeeaaasssee!!!

[pRojekt02GT]

piston speed and side load are two very tiny aspects of rod to crank ratio... lets not start a internet battle pleeeeaaasssee!!!

hahaha x3?

[97LaserRed]

hahaha x3?

piston speed and side load are two very tiny aspects of rod to crank ratio... lets not start a internet battle pleeeeaaasssee!!!


x4!

[94svtcobra]

good seeing you out today brian

[97LaserRed]

You too man! Your Car is looking clean! Paint is so crispy!

[somethingclever]

When did I mention piston speed?

Doesn't rod ratio affect piston speed?

But I'm sure you already know that different rod ratio's will give different avg piston speeds as well as accelerations which in-turn affects ring wear, piston wear, bearing wear, rod fatigue, and pin fatigue.

Just doesn't sound like an "internet myth" to me.

[biminiLX]

oh no man, please dont take it the wrong way... i didnt mean anything harsh, i do have a slight problem putting my toughts on the screen, so people tend to tak ethings i say the wrong way.. I am real favorable of the 393 because of the comp height, rod length, and stroke, they have a decent ratio and super strong wrist pin placement..IMO...

I didn't think you did but then I reread the thread and I didn't want it to sound like I was pissing on the 393 idea.
I'm not going to get into the rod/stroke debate, but 4" stroke in a 9.5 deck block is fine with me. Having it built right is the most important part.
-J

[Rodeheaver's]

I didn't think you did but then I reread the thread and I didn't want it to sound like I was pissing on the 393 idea.
I'm not going to get into the rod/stroke debate, but 4" stroke in a 9.5 deck block is fine with me. Having it built right is the most important part.
-J

thats cool man, i totally agree.