Another 416 Stroker Build-Pic Heavy

-
justinp61 said:
Several years ago a bunch of Eagle 4" cast cranks broke, IIRC most broke right behind the #1 main cap or in front of the #5 main cap. Several of them were in mild builds that weren't beat on hard.
Click to expand...

Ramm said on this motor, “was the result of many things ending in catastrophe. ”.

I’d think many of the other failures were similar too: assembly, machining, parts combination, other parts quality, environment (slicks, converter, line lock), tuning, etc.... And some just assuming too high limitations for HP.

It’s harder to play detective when many contributing factors. Especially over the internet.
 
Last edited:
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
it's that the Metallurgy was ****.
You can put 550 -580 through a GOOD cast/nodular crank and it'll hold up.
After that...its like tap dancing in glass shoes.
Scat is quality and so are ohio crankshaft & mopar cast cranks, all known to take abuse.
Click to expand...


Not if the damper is junk. A junk damper will kill any crank in short order.
 
yellow rose said:
Not if the damper is junk. A junk damper will kill any crank in short order.
Click to expand...

These cranks are known for this exact type of failure and it is probably accurate to say that this crank has a poor design and subgrade metalurgical properties. Also I believe the harmonic balancer was installed cocked and was "driven" home from my conversation with the owner. Like I said a comedy of errors--only there isn't really anything funny about it. J.Rob
 
autoxcuda said:
Ramm said on this motor, “was the result of many things ending in catastrophe. ”.

I’d think many of the other failures were similar too: assembly, machining, parts combination, other parts quality, environment (slicks, converter, line lock), tuning, etc.... And some just assuming too high limitations for HP.

It’s harder to play detective when many contributing factors. Especially over the internet.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they're junk and will stick with forged cranks.
 
RAMM said:
These cranks are known for this exact type of failure and it is probably accurate to say that this crank has a poor design and subgrade metalurgical properties. Also I believe the harmonic balancer was installed cocked and was "driven" home from my conversation with the owner. Like I said a comedy of errors--only there isn't really anything funny about it. J.Rob
Click to expand...

Lesson learned there.

If it doesn’t fit right, doesn’t feel right... it’s probably not right.

Then you need to figure out why.
 
What’s sad is someone would spend good money on some quality parts, only to support those parts with less than quality parts and substandard assembly procedures. Oh well, you’ll make it right RAMM
 
I wonder what he paid for the heads? My question is how much will I have into them?..
 
Ahhhhh, who cares?!?! We have a fresh slate to watch being built.
 
RAMM said:
Also that GIANT hole they put in the rod throw at the angle it's bored is also not adding to the strength column. Ridiculous-even the forged variants machined this way are shudder worthy. J.Rob
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seemed to be right where they all broke, too.
 
j par said:
I wonder what he paid for the heads? My question is how much will I have into them?..
Click to expand...

I don't see where that enters into this. It's what his customer WANTS so that kinda makes the rest a moot point. I'm curious what the iron heads can do too.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I don't see where that enters into this. It's what his customer WANTS so that kinda makes the rest a moot point. I'm curious what the iron heads can do too.
Click to expand...
Well I thought it was perfectly clear the the owner of the engine doesn't have a clue of what he wants...
I want big fast motor go vroom vroom...
 
Nat said:
REALLY ? I have a junk **** damper with over 10,000 miles still runs , iyt's more than just the damper
Click to expand...


Because I’ve seen better cranks than that junked by junk **** dampers. That’s why.

I’m saying at the very least, that damper was BIG in the destruction of that entire engine.

There are THOUSANDS of pages of information out there on vibration, harmonics, torsion twist and more that are FREE if you want to learn.

When Tom Lieb, the owner of Scat Cranks says NOT to use an ATI damper because of its design and manufacture, I would listen, especially if it was HIS crank.

There is no way I’d spend all that money and use ANY brand, ANY type of elastomer damper. Ever.

I beat the **** out of my junk as hard as anyone and I never failed a STOCK steel crank at 8500 plus RPM, on alcohol with most of the the time more than 15:1 compression.

I still can’t grasp why the general population thinks any elastomer damper is acceptable? They were used by OEM’s because they were cheap, and they were TUNED for 99% of the use out there.

NHRA didn’t ban OE dampers because they own stock in ATI, Fluidamper, Innovaters West or any others.

They did it because power levels are way, way up and that stock type junk is well past its design and engineering.

Of course, all this is easily located if you want to find it.

EDIT: I know of at least 3 billet cranks killed by junk **** dampers. One was a Keith Black billet, naturally aspirated. The others were N/A as well, but I don’t remember who made those.

They also killed the block. Main cap fretting, bolts not holding tension, freak balance train issues all point to junk dampers.

BTW, I run gear drives on ALL my junk. And yet, no broken cranks, except the 8 bolt crank under my reloading bench. And guess what??? That engine came with a junk **** damper, and the crank fractured because of it.
 
I know a guy who did a build with one of those eagle cranks about 10 years ago....when it let go the only parts that could be saved from the engine was the intake; the block, oil pan, oil pump, cam all garbage. Both aluminum heads needed repair....it also wrecked the new convertor and split the fully built new transmission...poor guy spilled $15 grand onto the street
 
j par said:
Well I thought it was perfectly clear the the owner of the engine doesn't have a clue of what he wants...
I want big fast motor go vroom vroom...
Click to expand...

So, when is the build starting? :rofl:

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. :lol:
 
Some progress on the head work was made. This is more or less what all the ports will end up looking like-I had time to put it on the bench tonight and see whats what. I'm pretty satisfied with the first attempt. I'm going to try a small back cut on the valve and hopefully bump the mid numbers a touch and preserve the high lift numbers. J.Rob

PORT.jpg


BOWL.jpg
 
As you can see the test bore adapter was 4.06" --as I do not have a 4.07" . Testing was done at 28". Peak flow was a satisfactory 263@ .540" Sounded real real sweet. J.Rob

894onSF1020.jpg


4060BORE.jpg
 
sorry if it seems off topic, but seeing the ports made me think. has anyone ever 'siamesed' the inlet ports in the intake manifold and head and if so did it help with the pushrod area restriction? or would it cause too much turbulence between cylinders so close to the valve?
the manifold would have 4 large runners not 8 and in the head just past the pushrod the ports would split again.
neil.
 
mygasser said:
sorry if it seems off topic, but seeing the ports made me think. has anyone ever 'siamesed' the inlet ports in the intake manifold and head and if so did it help with the pushrod area restriction? or would it cause too much turbulence between cylinders so close to the valve?
the manifold would have 4 large runners not 8 and in the head just past the pushrod the ports would split again.
neil.
Click to expand...
Major distribution problems doing that without being on the same cylinder.
They weld in or use divider gaskets on stuff like that for that reason.
 
That's inline with that amount of work for that head.
Agree..they are quieter, the approach is flatter, diff than a j head. Drastically.
263 should play well.
Guessing 250's at .500, high 230's at .400
 
yellow rose said:
Because I’ve seen better cranks than that junked by junk **** dampers. That’s why.

I’m saying at the very least, that damper was BIG in the destruction of that entire engine.

There are THOUSANDS of pages of information out there on vibration, harmonics, torsion twist and more that are FREE if you want to learn.

When Tom Lieb, the owner of Scat Cranks says NOT to use an ATI damper because of its design and manufacture, I would listen, especially if it was HIS crank.

There is no way I’d spend all that money and use ANY brand, ANY type of elastomer damper. Ever.

I beat the **** out of my junk as hard as anyone and I never failed a STOCK steel crank at 8500 plus RPM, on alcohol with most of the the time more than 15:1 compression.

I still can’t grasp why the general population thinks any elastomer damper is acceptable? They were used by OEM’s because they were cheap, and they were TUNED for 99% of the use out there.

NHRA didn’t ban OE dampers because they own stock in ATI, Fluidamper, Innovaters West or any others.

They did it because power levels are way, way up and that stock type junk is well past its design and engineering.

Of course, all this is easily located if you want to find it.

EDIT: I know of at least 3 billet cranks killed by junk **** dampers. One was a Keith Black billet, naturally aspirated. The others were N/A as well, but I don’t remember who made those.

They also killed the block. Main cap fretting, bolts not holding tension, freak balance train issues all point to junk dampers.

BTW, I run gear drives on ALL my junk. And yet, no broken cranks, except the 8 bolt crank under my reloading bench. And guess what??? That engine came with a junk **** damper, and the crank fractured because of it.
Click to expand...
SO what damper do you suggest be used ? ATI Fluiddamper inovators and OEM are junk , what is left ?
 
Nat said:
SO what damper do you suggest be used ? ATI Fluiddamper inovators and OEM are junk , what is left ?
Click to expand...

The only harmonic balancer on that list that I won't use is the one filled with fluid. Nothing wrong with a good elastomer or clutch plate style "absorber" . They really should be called torsional absorbers because that's what they do--they absorb the twisting forces first. J.Rob
 
Nat said:
SO what damper do you suggest be used ? ATI Fluiddamper inovators and OEM are junk , what is left ?
Click to expand...


Did I say Fluidamper and Innovaters West are junk, because I’ve NEVER said that.

I’ve said I don’t care what name is on the box, I refuse to use an elastomer damper, and I’ve articulated why.

They are used because they are cheap. They have a very narrow frequency range compared to other types of dampers. Chrysler spend a TON of money doing R&D on dampers and they say use a FD.

I can’t count the number of FD’s I’ve used and not a single failure. Not one. My Buddy and I are two of the most abusive guys I can think of on engines. We both run 4 speeds, he was shifting at 8000-8200 and crossing at about 8600, and I was shifting at 8500-8600 and crossing sometimes as high as 9000, and we both ran gear drives.

And not one single time did we fail a crank. And I was mag’ing the cranks once or twice a year, because all the ad reading stooges told us the cranks were about to fall out in pieces.

Not many on here can claim that, and do with honestly with a straight face. I can, because I did it.

Use what you want, but don’t tell me how great it is, or how junky an other than elastomer damper is.

The Damper that RAMM posted is a STOCK damper. It is junk.

I’d love to see how many of those cast cranks that failed had an OE damper, how many had an elastomer damper and how many had something else.

The overwhelming odds would suggest the majority of the failures occurred with elastomer dampers.

BTW, Tom Lieb, who owns Scat, tell you exactly why HE doesn’t use ATI dampers. It’s quite eye opening. And true.

And before you suggest every Pro Stocker in then country uses ATI, and every other swinging dick does too, the guys with the money have their own engineers do the dampers with their OWN rubber. Or, they have ATI build them to suit what they want.

I don’t have the money for that. And a Pro Stock engine spends very little time at an RPM lower than race engine speeds.

That’s one more reason they tow them back. If the crank hangs around at an RPM where the harmonics are not controlled, it will kill the crank on the return road. That’s a fact.
 
Nat said:
SO what damper do you suggest be used ? ATI Fluiddamper inovators and OEM are junk , what is left ?
Click to expand...
A regular new or good condition dampener works fine from any of the well known manufacturers. In house brands like summit, jegs and the rest are a mystery with many complaints of ill fitment and failure. They also need to be replaced every 10-20 yrs and thats something people definitely do not think about . Once the elastomer hardens, its not going to do it's job. Check it.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
A regular new or good condition dampener works fine from any of the well known manufacturers. In house brands like summit, jegs and the rest are a mystery with many complaints of ill fitment and failure. They also need to be replaced every 10-20 yrs and thats something people definitely do not think about . Once the elastomer hardens, its not going to do it's job. Check it.
Click to expand...


How long does it take for the elastomer to change durometer? Because the durometer affects the ability to control harmonics in whatever frequency it’s tuned to.

Asking becaus I don’t know, and I’ve never seen a paper on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top