Ending the season early with a broken crankshaft

-
Oh we are certainly aware of the amount of BBC out there with short decks, short rods, and make big power. No disputing that. The rods I will be changing because they are chevy journal and chrysler width. So my option there is to buy another crankshaft that is chrysler journal and chrysler width, then have the crank cut down to 2.2 journal to use 6 of these rods and replace 2 bent ones. Since my choice for a replacement crankshaft and rods is molnar, their cranks come in chevy journal and chevy width. They don't offer one as chevy/chrysler. It is either chrysler/chrysler or chevy/chevy. Pistons, I may replace the 4 that need replaced, I may buy a whole new set. That is up in the air right now. My builder and I looked into shortening the CH on my piston in order to swing the 4.25 stroke and keep the 6.76 rod. It is possible, but may be a game we just don't want to play. Even if I shortened the rod, to pull off 4.250 stroke, my piston would still not work. My compression height is 1.125 and you are right, I would need 1.300 compression height with the 6.535 rod and 4.250 stroke. Although there are tons out there who do it and are successful with it, it is just not something I am interested in. If I went to a 540, it would be with a shorter CH piston (1.125 CH currently down to a 1.075 CH), and maintaining the 6.760 rod. That would do a couple things, first I would add compression to the engine going from 14.6:1 to 15:1 keeping the same Dome we currently run. Second, I would go with .9mm,.9mm,3mm ring pack over my current .043,.043,3/16 ring set. Third, it would lighten the piston even more running less CH. Would it make more power? I am sure it would. Is it worth the effort? That I am unsure about. The longer rod definitely has an advantage as you are aware. Shortening the rod and adding compression height to the piston would not only make the rod angle worse, but also add weight to the piston, so at this point just something I am going to stay away from. Even in my aftermarket Indy block, I prefer the longest rod possible.

For the sake of keeping it simple, I am leaning toward just staying with the 528 combo.

Sorry for not answering the question clearly. What you said is correct, my builder is advising against the shorter rod for the reasons listed above.
Right up front, thank you for sharing and taking feedback from the armchair quarterbacks! My intensions are always to put everything out there really for you or anyone else to consider with confidence what you want to do with your stuff. I personally think compression is overrated especially if it comes at the cost of flame travel. I have done OK with very little (11:1) which lends credence to what i believe in context. But my trials have been inspired by others whom have shared their experiences. Having any general competent machine shop narrow the rods might be an option depending on what you decide. Also getting into a short CH on the pistons can get expensive. For a better ring stack, typically the piston style changes to a 'box-on' which has a different pin set-up usually as well. It being a low-deck, I'm curious to know how much work Tim put into the intake manifold?
 
I greatly appreciate the input. Thank you. Ya being already 14.6:1, Tim has taught me there really isnt much to gain to go 14.6 up to 15:1.

I will share pictures of the intake manifold when I get home. He fully port matched it to my cylinder heads.

I actually have two low deck intakes which he ported both. One has runner extensions, one doesn’t. The one without runner extensions has a typical 4 hole spacer. The one with runner extensions has an HVH tapered 4 hole spacer.

We experimented last year by putting the intake on with the tapered spacer and runner extensions and the car didn’t show us anything. We did this back to back runs. It was very surprising to both Tim and I that it showed us nothing.

I certainly appreciate your interest in what I have going on.
 
I greatly appreciate the input. Thank you. Ya being already 14.6:1, Tim has taught me there really isnt much to gain to go 14.6 up to 15:1.

I will share pictures of the intake manifold when I get home. He fully port matched it to my cylinder heads.

I actually have two low deck intakes which he ported both. One has runner extensions, one doesn’t. The one without runner extensions has a typical 4 hole spacer. The one with runner extensions has an HVH tapered 4 hole spacer.

We experimented last year by putting the intake on with the tapered spacer and runner extensions and the car didn’t show us anything. We did this back to back runs. It was very surprising to both Tim and I that it showed us nothing.

I certainly appreciate your interest in what I have going on.


Are you going to stop in for a visit at Keystone this weekend
 
Are you going to stop in for a visit at Keystone this weekend
It is looking doubtful John. Tomorrow I’m supposed to go to dinner with my wife for our anniversary and Saturday we have a Halloween party. Sunday is only chance of coming and it doesn’t look promising weather wise.
 
I greatly appreciate the input. Thank you. Ya being already 14.6:1, Tim has taught me there really isnt much to gain to go 14.6 up to 15:1.

I will share pictures of the intake manifold when I get home. He fully port matched it to my cylinder heads.

I actually have two low deck intakes which he ported both. One has runner extensions, one doesn’t. The one without runner extensions has a typical 4 hole spacer. The one with runner extensions has an HVH tapered 4 hole spacer.

We experimented last year by putting the intake on with the tapered spacer and runner extensions and the car didn’t show us anything. We did this back to back runs. It was very surprising to both Tim and I that it showed us nothing.

I certainly appreciate your interest in what I have going on.
I think there's something to be gained with that intake, tailoring it's runner lengths to pipemax recommendations with regards to lengths. Also, the runner lengths vary too much. At your level I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some gains. Any modifications should consider distribution variations, which i know in unmodified form that particular intake isnt great.
 
It is looking doubtful John. Tomorrow I’m supposed to go to dinner with my wife for our anniversary and Saturday we have a Halloween party. Sunday is only chance of coming and it doesn’t look promising weather wise.

I’m not even planning on Sunday. I’ll pay for two days and load up everything Saturday night. I’ve been known to unload again but it’s not likely.
 
I think there's something to be gained with that intake, tailoring it's runner lengths to pipemax recommendations with regards to lengths. Also, the runner lengths vary too much. At your level I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some gains. Any modifications should consider distribution variations, which i know in unmodified form that particular intake isnt great.
Ya I truly don’t know why it didn’t gain anything. Made no sense.
 
-
Back
Top