512Stroker
We are all here because we are not all there.
Good question Rusty
I'm still stuck on which type balancer you should run.
Mine is a one piece solid SFI type and was balanced with the rotating assembly
Another 416 Stroker Build-Pic Heavy
- Thread starter RAMM
- Start date
-
I'm still stuck on which type balancer you should run.
Mine is a one piece solid SFI type and was balanced with the rotating assembly
so no agenda blaming everything but the crank , right ?
Dartsun
Mopar Dude
That's the democrat way of thinkin, yeah.
RAMM
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry to inform you but your crank is about to break and fail the moment you fire it. Please do not run that engine until you install a proper YR approved "damper" << we will wait for YR to tell us what is OK to install.
Keep safe, install a non explosive thingy on the front of your engine and stay indoors, oh and run for a vaccine for a disease that has a 99.9% survivability rate as soon as its available. J.Rob
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
That doesn't quite look like it was clearanced by a grinder, more like an impact from a rod and stress crack formed near.
Is that what you're thinking too?
What is the industry standard clearance for the rod/bore on a 4", .075?
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
I know. Lol
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Yeah, don’t have a discussion.
Again, cranks RARELY fail. To have a bunch like that means either you believe they forgot how to make a crank, the metallurgy was wrong (did anyone bother to verify this??? You have the crank pieces there, send them out and have a lab tell you the crank is bad) or some other anomaly in manufacturing the part.
I don’t buy it, until someone can show that a whole run of cranks failed in some way that can be lab tested.
I can’t think of a crank failure that happened before the advent of all these “SFI approved” junkers they let through. Everybody and their mother was making dampers and because of NHRA and their knee jerk reaction to anything they mandated and SFI damper on most everything.
At that point, the “stroker” was just becoming a “thing” and that one change makes any OE damper ineffective. Then you have the bobweight change. And an engine that will most likely spend most of its life at an RPM range that the OE damper was never designed to work in.
Junk is junk at any price, but to think a company sent out marginal cranks and no one I know of has ever produced paper from a lab saying that those cranks were a lesser materiel or the wrong design than an OE cast crank.
RAMM, you can settle this once for all. Send the crank pieces you have, or get them from the customer and have them sent to a lab. I’d bet for a couple hundred bucks you could prove me wrong.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
So we are going to accuse the guy of something without hearing the WHY he said what he said?
Got it.
lol
I do wholeheartedly agree with you about the influx of total chinkesium. There's been a tsunami of it in like the last twenty years, so there's bound to be more "bad stuff" show up.
gregcon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 819
I'm not saying cast cranks are inherently bad. I guess they have their place.
But if you knowingly set out to assemble a 'high performance' engine with one...you're asking for a beating. You might not get the beating, but if you do get the beating..........you asked for it.
But if you knowingly set out to assemble a 'high performance' engine with one...you're asking for a beating. You might not get the beating, but if you do get the beating..........you asked for it.
I had a 408 for quite a few years. Bought the race balanced rotating assembly from Hughes. It was the Mopar Performance cast crank. I forget who the manufacturer would have been for them(Mopar) at that time. Would have been 2002 or 2003. It was a 15 to 1, aluminum headed engine that I turned regularly to 7200. I still have the crank. It is not broken. AND, to top it off, I ran a stock neutral balance 340 balancer on it. Engine was together for ten years. Only reason for still not using it is, I tore it down to freshen and got bit by the gen 3 bug. I guess the point of this rambling is who gives a flying **** about cast cranks and rubber ******* balancers! Let RAMM show us some info without getting **** muddled up!
Lol. Sunoco 116.
The 71 BOSS 351 Cleveland was one of the hottest small blocks of the muscle car era and every single Cleveland made came with a cast crank. The NASCAR boys of the time spun um to 9500 plus RPM.
I built a 416 in 1998. Was the first one in middle Georgia as far as I know. I used the same crank you're talkin about. .070 over 1977 360 block. I blueprinted it like a stock 340. Cam, compression......early HP manifolds and all. Had it in a 67 Dart GT with a 3.23 geared 8.75. I never got it to the track, because I sold it before I got that far, but good GAWD that thing had massive amounts of bottom end torque. The engine is still alive and well in a friend's Ramcharger and the body is right down the road from me. lol If memory serves me right, I think it was Eagle who made those cranks.
I do think you are correct, Rusty. I think it was Eagle.
...and those were supposedly the cranks that broke a lot. I know of two now that didn't. lol I'm sure there are lots more. I used a stock 340 balancer on mine too as I had it internally balanced.
I want to sat they used another vendor, also. I can't be sure.
The only two I know of for those "cast steel" cranks as Mopar called them was Eagle and Scat.
Ok. I wanted to say Scat, just wasn't sure.
-
