MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
As long as Jmac wipes the squished sealer down haha
Our guys can lay a bead of 3bond like no otherAs long as Jmac wipes the squished sealer down haha
I'm glad you know I'm just bustin Pheakish's chops n not yours.Our guys can lay a bead of 3bond like no other
It's a good crank. I'd say it's plenty for anything street/strip oriented. If BPE trusts it and will warranty it at their rated power, I wouldn't worry about it.Everyone seems to agree that the cast crank in this package is fine. What are the limits of this piece?
It's a good crank. I'd say it's plenty for anything street/strip oriented. If BPE trusts it and will warranty it at their rated power, I wouldn't worry about it.
There are alot of wives tails that follow around engines, that are rooted to the quality of parts avail in the 70's.
Being a tier 1 manufacturer, we manufacture, machine, or produce, many of our own parts. Cranks are an example of that. We use the same foundry as the other big name guys that everyone flaunts over, and bring the crank to our facility to balance and machine. In a cast steel crank, vs fully forged, it comes down to the process and material is just worlds beyond what was avail in the 70's. Same goes with pistons. There are alot of wives tails that follow around engines, that are rooted to the quality of parts avail in the 70's. Heck, there are still some people that will tell you strokers in general are problematic because of the rod angle. Our R&D department, and nearly 400000 BluePrint Engines in circulation would say differently
So anyways, to the crank specifically. The only thing adding a forged unit to this engine would do is increase the cost. We have cars using this engine running into the 11's out there, and it's one of those things if we didn't think they were adequate, we wouldn't use them. Having never broke one to my knowledge, it's doing its job. These engines make power into the low 6000's as they should for street/strip use. They are built to live, not ring out every last HP. Mopars are hard enough to keep the cost down on, so if I don't have to charge someone another 300 or 400, and the engines make it through all our testing, that's a good day.
Being a tier 1 manufacturer, we manufacture, machine, or produce, many of our own parts. Cranks are an example of that. We use the same foundry as the other big name guys that everyone flaunts over, and bring the crank to our facility to balance and machine. In a cast steel crank, vs fully forged, it comes down to the process and material is just worlds beyond what was avail in the 70's. Same goes with pistons. There are alot of wives tails that follow around engines, that are rooted to the quality of parts avail in the 70's. Heck, there are still some people that will tell you strokers in general are problematic because of the rod angle. Our R&D department, and nearly 400000 BluePrint Engines in circulation would say differently
So anyways, to the crank specifically. The only thing adding a forged unit to this engine would do is increase the cost. We have cars using this engine running into the 11's out there, and it's one of those things if we didn't think they were adequate, we wouldn't use them. Having never broke one to my knowledge, it's doing its job. These engines make power into the low 6000's as they should for street/strip use. They are built to live, not ring out every last HP. Mopars are hard enough to keep the cost down on, so if I don't have to charge someone another 300 or 400, and the engines make it through all our testing, that's a good day.
As an aftermarket performance engine manufacturer we are an OEM. Our industrial division is a tier one to various private label contracts. The material comparisons fall apart for me a bit since the 5.0 coyote, most LS, most LT, and 5.7/6.4 hemi all use hyper pistons. It's my opinion you can't compare apples to oranges on one level (cranks), then turn around and ignore apples to apples (pistons) on another. Just my high level opinion for what it's worth. More than one way to skin a cat. More than one way to assemble a reliable rotating assembly.This background is very much appreciated. Can you share which OEM your company supports?
In any case, hearing that you machine the cranks to your own specs goes a long way. Clearly BPE is taking ownership over the performance and functionality of this part of the engine. That says a lot.
No doubt, cast cranks are vastly better than they were in the 1970s...but this makes me curious. I have a modern Ford in my garage with a V8 engine (that makes less power than a 408 stroker) and Ford, not known for being particularly "generous" saw fit to include a forged crank shaft in the Coyote. This particular engine has a higher rev limit than the 408 but also a shorter stroke length (presumably similar piston speeds...too lazy to do the math ). It also has sophisticated fuel management which undoubtedly reduces the punishment taken by the rotating assembly. So if it's just old wives tales that say modern cast cranks aren't up to the task for a street performance engine, why did Ford go this route? And yes, Chevrolet uses a forged crank in the current gen LT1, Dodge uses a forged crank in the 6.4L/392 motor as well.
The question isn't specifically directed at Johnny Mac...
Honestly, this engine could make 800hp and get 40 mpg and you would still have something irrelivent to ask of it. Seems to be a classic no win situation. There is a difference in being an informed consumer, and just being impossible to please.This background is very much appreciated. Can you share which OEM your company supports?
In any case, hearing that you machine the cranks to your own specs goes a long way. Clearly BPE is taking ownership over the performance and functionality of this part of the engine. That says a lot.
No doubt, cast cranks are vastly better than they were in the 1970s...but this makes me curious. I have a modern Ford in my garage with a V8 engine (that makes less power than a 408 stroker) and Ford, not known for being particularly "generous" saw fit to include a forged crank shaft in the Coyote. This particular engine has a higher rev limit than the 408 but also a shorter stroke length (presumably similar piston speeds...too lazy to do the math ). It also has sophisticated fuel management which undoubtedly reduces the punishment taken by the rotating assembly. So if it's just old wives tales that say modern cast cranks aren't up to the task for a street performance engine, why did Ford go this route? And yes, Chevrolet uses a forged crank in the current gen LT1, Dodge uses a forged crank in the 6.4L/392 motor as well.
The question isn't specifically directed at Johnny Mac...
Honestly, this engine could make 800hp and get 40 mpg and you would still have something irrelivent to ask of it. Seems to be a classic no win situation. There is a difference in being an informed consumer, and just being impossible to please.
As an aftermarket performance engine manufacturer we are an OEM. Our industrial division is a tier one to various private label contracts. The material comparisons fall apart for me a bit since the 5.0 coyote, most LS, most LT, and 5.7/6.4 hemi all use hyper pistons. It's my opinion you can't compare apples to oranges on one level (cranks), then turn around and ignore apples to apples (pistons) on another. Just my high level opinion for what it's worth. More than one way to skin a cat. More than one way to assemble a reliable rotating assembly.
No worries here. You are correct I'm not an engineer, but I am an engine builder, and I do trust my teams decisions. Some more insight, we have a machine in the back called a crank breaker. I'm going to over simplify this, but it's basically a sound resonance machine that shoots sound waves at a crank, and you can physically see the crank vibrate. They have calculation relative to piston speed, stress on a journal, etc. You can physically see it vibrate. We over stress the cranks, see where they fail, and make decisions from there. It's quite a process.Again, I do appreciate these responses even if the questions seem critical. Just for the record, rescinding my down payment is not on the table just because I’m asking these questions.
Despite my confidence that there were good reasons for the choices made on how/why these engines are built the way they are, I wouldn’t sleep well at night not knowing what these reasons were. I am also anticipating a risk to my pride when my friends start asking questions about my new engine and I have to shrug my shoulders. I just like to know these things and I know I’m not alone in that.
As for the answer, it doesn’t completely help me understand but it’s also not fair to expect that you would have any insight in engineering decisions made by auto manufacturers. I got ahead of myself with the “Tier 1” thing which doesn’t mean exactly what I thought it did in this context.
Anyway, I guess I was hoping for some explanation about the forces applied to crank shafts and why one application would require x and another gets by just fine with y. In any case, I believe your conclusion and you obviously don’t owe me any answer at all…so thanks.
Well said Johnny Mac, I would not want your job for love nor money.No worries here. You are correct I'm not an engineer, but I am an engine builder, and I do trust my teams decisions. Some more insight, we have a machine in the back called a crank breaker. I'm going to over simplify this, but it's basically a sound resonance machine that shoots sound waves at a crank, and you can physically see the crank vibrate. They have calculation relative to piston speed, stress on a journal, etc. You can physically see it vibrate. We over stress the cranks, see where they fail, and make decisions from there. It's quite a process.