To stroke or not to stroke......

-
MP. sells a crank with the 3.58" stroke and 340 main for $400. You need to use a .070" over 360 piston for a .030" 340 block. If your gonna have to bore your 340 block to .060" you would need a .100 over 360 piston. But now your going to need custom pistons and a 4" stroker crank is the same price as the 3.58" crank and Im sure most piston companies will stock a .060" piston for the 4" stroke.
 
Hadn't heard that, but that's good info to know. I guess that is enough material going from 2.81 to 2.5. I can buy a new crank straight from mopar with the proper main size if necessary.
 
When you reduce the size of the mains it creates less material overlap between the rod journal and the main journal. I have heard the same on the RB crank turned down to the B main size, although a ton of people have done it with no ill affects. Maybe it is because 99% of the people use steel cranks with the big block package.
 
11.072 @120.33 leap frogging on the 60 ft. 510 tq. 510 horse @ 6200 .414 ci. W2 stroker. If you want more inches stroke it
 
I got the feeling of a holier than thou attitude from your own statement, and I qoute " Sorry for sounding arrogant but this is the way that it is."

I could not find in any of my posts in this thread where I said I was more intelligent than you. I did say, and you can reread thru them to verify, that "just because your old does not make everybody else an idiot", and I also said something about "so don't be so full of yourself that you insult others who may know alot more than you give them credit for", not that they may know more than you. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Seems to me that you are of the "I am the only one who knows attitude" (just what I percieve from what you have posted) and you are offended that some of us don't agree with your opinion of stroked engines. Thats to bad. As has been said, to each their own.

Personaly, I never come to any bulletin board (or any thing for that matter) with the attitude that I have to prove myself to anybody else. By your own statement "So from now on I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else." I am thinking maybe you do.

I actually have a great deal of respect for you to have stayed in the racing industry for this many years, and I do (contrary to what you may think) respect your ideas and opinions on the subject, It is (just reiterating <"spelling?") why I asked about your combo. And once again I will say it, because maybe others would like to know what it was you have done. I just didn't care for the (my perception of what you posted) "I am right you are wrong because I am the only one who can possibly know" attitude.

Personaly, I think you took my post responses in the wrong way, but that is one of the great difficulties with textual conversations of this sorts, it's difficult to get the ideas across without someone thinking it is some sorta personal attack. I disagree with you, as do many many other people in the engine industry. If stroked engines were so terribly short lived and such a bad idea, then diesel engines would never have been succesful, as most of them are hugely stroked engines (thats where they get the HUGE torque from) and they get a million miles out of a lot of them, or the 4.0 liter 6 cylinders that they sold in the jeep for many many years (I own one by the way, still going strong after 225k miles, and for a tasty little bit of trivia "When it was introduced, the 4.0 I6 made more power than the Ford 302 V8, Chevy 305, Chrysler 318, and AMC 360. It also was way more powerful than any 6 cylinder engines the Japanese were putting in their trucks... and had comparable or better fuel economy. It left the V6 engines from Ford, GM and Chrysler in the dust."). If stroked engines were so bad they wouldn't have started using them more and more in newer vehicles.

When I scrape together the money and time to do my 360 (I am working towards that goal) which by the way I intend to stroke to a 408 or 416, I will be posting all about it. I just am not rich and don't just throw money at stuff either. I do a LOT of research first.

So please do not be offended that I chose to debate you on the subject, as I said I actually do apreciate your thoughts and opinions as do the others here. If I didn't, I would never have bothered to comment or reply in the first place, and the things I have said here are only to point out what I percieved and thought based upon what you posted, nothing I post is a personal attack. Peace out Brother Moparite :toothy7: :thumbup:
 
I dont claim to know alot, however, I believe the 4in strokers are not a good ideal I think you get in the 390 + cubes you are loosing rod stroke ratio and most heads cannot handle it either. Ive seen small engines blow by strokers a few times. I have a 3.58, 60 over 340. 378 inches. I think that is a solid number. Much more and it starts going the other way.
Just my .02

And BTW 400 hp is way easy on a 340 without stroke. My pistons were around $700 if I remember.
Hell I sell you my engine, carb to pan. Its making over 450 im sure.
 
70Barracuda,
I agree with the 378 CI 's, as piston speeds get higher the more cylinder head that you need, look at a big block chevy, 4.0 stroke and 260 round port, and 290 cc square port heads. There rod ratio work's out close to the same as the stroker small block mopar. You would have to run W-8 or W-9 heads and this just is feasiable for daily use. For what the heads and valvetrain would cost you can build a complete engine that will fly.
 
The biggest issues I see wiht the 4" crank engines are related to shops used to building stock strokes. It's easy to overcam the short 3.31 or 3.75. For years I never had to use a cam larger than a hydraulic with .520 lift, and it's rare even now for me to install a solid bigger than .550 (that comes to .530 after lash) The 4" engines need port volume. They create the velocity thru the piston acceleration rates. It's the velocity that keeps the power up all thru the rpm band. But, it also means there needs to be enough port, and enough cam, to keep things moving. In a street car, it also means you need to harness the type of power it makes. They make huge torque. Even with bigger heads and cams. So, your typical 4-4500 convertor will feel soft on the street. And 4.56s will be very hard if not impossible to stick tires to the ground with. Even sticky ones. Tq numbers over 450 pound feet at under 2500 are common, with the peak over 525 tq under 4K. That's almost deisel territory. With good suspension, well thought out drivelines, and a modestly built 416, an A body race car (2600lbs) can run well into the 10s. A street car (3300lbs) that can hook even a little can run 11.90s with 3.91s. mid 12s with 3.23s. They are flat out amazing...lol.
 
I bought a "How to build big inch Mopar small blocks" book on e-bay.
It's a book about strokers. Buy one and it may answer some of your questions. Check out e-bay item # 180017087817 $18.00+s&h

All of you have valid points. Stroking a smallblock is a matter of personal choice and of function. Both engines can be built to produce lots of power for about the same $$$$ The stock stroke engines seem to last longer if you plan on running your car another 100K miles. Do you want a screaming small block or a big cube torque monster? Your choice. Mike
 
Here is some info from the good old victory site.
http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/rod-tech-c.htm

If money is no object go for it , this is one reason i didn't stroke my 440 cause 500+ cubes means nuthin with crap heads.
Decide on what compression you want, compression = cam, cam = convertor and gears. Work out on paper what you want stroke, head cc size, compression etc and see if it fits your needs.

If you spend $100 on a part that should give you 20 hp then that is what you should get from it. If you are ok with only 10 hp you really should be looking for a $50 part.
Match the build, it is like anything you want what you pay for. just my 2cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top