WRIST PIN FIT?

-
Troy can u get weights of current rods pistons and pins? You will have to compare to whichever ones you shop for.
I wonder if a crank turned .010 would cause much weight difference?
Up here a rebalance is damned pricey...$600 min.
 
Troy heres some weights from my build. .030" over 340 Not sure if it helps or not.

20171117_173559.jpg


20171117_173620.jpg


20171117_173838.jpg


20171117_174022.jpg


20171117_174212.jpg
 
Troy can u get weights of current rods pistons and pins? You will have to compare to whichever ones you shop for.
I wonder if a crank turned .010 would cause much weight difference?
Up here a rebalance is damned pricey...$600 min.

The factory weight for a 71 340 connecting rod without the rod bearing shells is 758 gms. The factory weight for the piston is 719 gms. The wall thickness of the piston pin matters. I'd be interested in the weights of all the con rods. I heard chrysler did a good job of balancing their engines.

Whatever amount of steel that is removed from the crank journal is replaced by the bearing shell.
 
Thanks Steve. I liked the Icon pistons and Scat rods suggestion, but trying not to spend time in the machine shop. I have never been a "good enough" guy if it means cutting corners. That being said, there must be a point where the benefits (for me) don't justify the additional cost. Just not sure if this is it.
 
Thanks Steve. I liked the Icon pistons and Scat rods suggestion, but trying not to spend time in the machine shop. I have never been a "good enough" guy if it means cutting corners. That being said, there must be a point where the benefits (for me) don't justify the additional cost. Just not sure if this is it.
Edit: What did you put into your build as far as pistons, rings and rods go?
 
Well, maybe you should put the project on hold until your budget comes up to speed.
>If the rings have to work in a tapered bore, they will wear out the ringlands, lose seal, and the engine goes away.
>If If the bores are not round, the rings cannot seal properly, and then you don't have an engine. Well you do but she is an oil-burner and down on power.
>The very top inch to inch and a half has got to be right; this is where the power is made.
>But all of it has to be straight and round on the Intake stroke, else the low-pressure (vacuum) is reduced, Effective stroke is lost, Effective pressure goes down, and the power goes away.
>Oiling of the cylinder walls keeps the wear to a minimum, and is a primary factor in ring-sealing. If the rings allow blow by, then you get pistons that look like yours between the ringlands, and the blow-by may burn the oil off the cylinder walls, creating products that the oil-rings then scrape off, and they get plugged, and no longer function correctly if at all.
> So you can see that the short block is not the place to cut corners, especially not as to round and straight bores. If you fail to do this right, you will just end up doing it over.
> but good news! Just have the machine shop measure these things with a dial-bore gauge. You just never know.......

BTW
consider this; the ring gaps change by a factor of 3.1416 per .001 change in bore size. Therefore a change of .0010 in bore size, will be .00314 change in ring-gap. So say the bottom is at 4.0600, and the top is 4.0620, that being totally possible, the ring gaps will change by .00628! Say from .030 to .036, which, at the top, is where the pressure is gonna begin to be made. Some of that is gonna try to escape thru the increased gap and so on. If, besides being tapered, the bores are not round, say goodby to your power. If the oil-rings fails to remove the proper amount of oil from the cylinder walls, now you have a serious oil-burner, and a detonation prone engine, ............ with....... all new parts.
 
Thanks Steve. I liked the Icon pistons and Scat rods suggestion, but trying not to spend time in the machine shop. I have never been a "good enough" guy if it means cutting corners. That being said, there must be a point where the benefits (for me) don't justify the additional cost. Just not sure if this is it.
Heh Troy I have a used set of 8 rods and pins out a 1973 360 part # 3418645. U can have them for free and I can meet you in Northbay. Bought a new to me truck and looking for a road trip.lol.RJ
 
Well, maybe you should put the project on hold until your budget comes up to speed.
>If the rings have to work in a tapered bore, they will wear out the ringlands, lose seal, and the engine goes away.
>If If the bores are not round, the rings cannot seal properly, and then you don't have an engine. Well you do but she is an oil-burner and down on power.
>The very top inch to inch and a half has got to be right; this is where the power is made.
>But all of it has to be straight and round on the Intake stroke, else the low-pressure (vacuum) is reduced, Effective stroke is lost, Effective pressure goes down, and the power goes away.
>Oiling of the cylinder walls keeps the wear to a minimum, and is a primary factor in ring-sealing. If the rings allow blow by, then you get pistons that look like yours between the ringlands, and the blow-by may burn the oil off the cylinder walls, creating products that the oil-rings then scrape off, and they get plugged, and no longer function correctly if at all.
> So you can see that the short block is not the place to cut corners, especially not as to round and straight bores. If you fail to do this right, you will just end up doing it over.
> but good news! Just have the machine shop measure these things with a dial-bore gauge. You just never know.......

BTW
consider this; the ring gaps change by a factor of 3.1416 per .001 change in bore size. Therefore a change of .0010 in bore size, will be .00314 change in ring-gap. So say the bottom is at 4.0600, and the top is 4.0620, that being totally possible, the ring gaps will change by .00628! Say from .030 to .036, which, at the top, is where the pressure is gonna begin to be made. Some of that is gonna try to escape thru the increased gap and so on. If, besides being tapered, the bores are not round, say goodby to your power. If the oil-rings fails to remove the proper amount of oil from the cylinder walls, now you have a serious oil-burner, and a detonation prone engine, ............ with....... all new parts.[/QUOT

See below.

I have a plan......The cylinders measure out at 4.070 (why I bought the engine) with no taper. I have found evidence of skirt scuffing because of the bad pin pressing ruining the piston holes. I have scrapped the rods and pistons. The crank measures out at 2.115 with no taper, so it's good at 10/10. I have a set of 340 floating rods that I am going to have re-conditioned. I will bring the block to the machine shop and have the bores brought up to 4.080 which is max overbore, and purchase 8 2316 pistons. I know there are better out there, but with the combo of the original rods and the heavier 2316's I should be able to assemble without a re-balance since the weights of the pistons and rods are really close to the originals. I have a set of U heads fresh from the machine shop and a new xe262 cam and lifters. Original cast iron intake and T/Q, with all new engine internals.

Sound viable?
 
Last edited:
I have a plan......The cylinders measure out at 4.070 (why I bought the engine) with no taper. I have found evidence of skirt scuffing because of the bad pin pressing ruining the piston holes. I have scrapped the rods and pistons. The crank measures out at 2.115 with no taper, so it's good at 10/10. I have a set of 340 floating rods that I am going to have re-conditioned. I will bring the block to the machine shop and have the bores brought up to 4.080 which is max overbore, and purchase 8 2316 pistons. I know there are better out there, but with the combo of the original rods and the heavier 2316's I should be able to assemble without a re-balance since the weights of the pistons and rods are really close to the originals. I have a set of U heads fresh from the machine shop and a new xe262 cam and lifters. Original cast iron intake and T/Q, with all new engine internals.

Sound viable?
 
Not 100% sure if they work but do some research.RJ
Thanks for reaching out RJ. I suspect that your 645's would have pressed pins, and the piston dia of a 360 wouldn't work. I am trying to work my way though this without signing a blank cheque for a rebuild. I appreciate the offer. Look me up if you get out this way.
 
Thanks for reaching out RJ. I suspect that your 645's would have pressed pins, and the piston dia of a 360 wouldn't work. I am trying to work my way though this without signing a blank cheque for a rebuild. I appreciate the offer. Look me up if you get out this way.
Ok wasn’t sure, but if I am out that I will get in touch.RJ
 
262 cam is pretty small.
You may end up with too much cylinder pressure, depending on your finished true compression ratio.
Because you want to save machining costs, I suggest you wait on ordering a cam until you have that Scr number
 
262 cam is pretty small.
You may end up with too much cylinder pressure, depending on your finished true compression ratio.
Because you want to save machining costs, I suggest you wait on ordering a cam until you have that Scr number
I have the cam already. It was recommended by Comp Cams. I ran the numbers through the Wallace dynamic compression calculator and came up with around 8. It looks like the pistons I am considering are flat tops with 7.5 cc valve reliefs. My combustion chambers were cc'd at 69cc's.
 
The 2316’s should stick out about .018”(in an uncut block), so figure that into your DCR equation.
 
Id ship you a set of pulled 340 floater rods but your in Canada. I always try to use floaters as it does not require a rod deforming press for any work but the MP cast magnum stroker pistons are press fit so I'm in the same boat. I got them on 360 LA rods, all on but 2 are a little firm. 6 I can rattle back and forth just wagging the rod, but the last 2 require me to physically move them. I hope they wear themselves in. These pistons are no longer available to buy 2 new ones.
 
Last edited:
Pishta, if there is a shop near you with this type of fixture, the pistons can be removed without any damage to them.
The fixture supports the rod, and the piston still floats on the pin during the removal process.

After they’re off, they could be honed for a little more clearance, then reinstalled.

8038A937-FE6A-488F-9001-A90792A9AD7B.png
 
8 is a lot for DCR and iron heads. Good luck.
 
Id ship you a set of pulled 340 floater rods but your in Canada. I always try to use floaters as it does not require a rod deforming press for any work but the MP cast magnum stroker pistons are press fit so I'm in the same boat. I got them on LA rods, all on but 2 are a little firm. 6 I can rattle back and forth just wagging the rod, but the last 2 require me to physically move them. I hope they wear themselves in. These pistons are no longer available to buy 2 new ones.
After going through what I went through, I wouldn't trust those tight ones to "wear in". They would be off to a machine shop to have the holes reamed, or whatever they do to make them slick. I found evidence of scuffing because the rods and pistons were not articulating properly. One man's opinion.....
 
8 is a lot for DCR and iron heads. Good luck.
Please continue.......I read someones post here, that aiming for between 7 and 8 DCR is the goal with pump gas? I have a brand new lunati 268, but I am trying not to build an engine that needs high RPM to be in the power band. Would this be better?
 
My shop had a hell of a time pressing the magnum piston pins into the LA rods. Both .984? They got them in but he said they were the toughest he ever did.
 
-
Back
Top