Quote:

it seems to me this post is all about showing errors of defective 440 source parts,, not about an actual build.

crank "pin" lightening holes drilled at an angle is not a big deal at all,, i have callies, scat, and other cranks here that have holes at angles to lighten, aslong as you maintain .150 or so thickness,, it will be fine, ive been down to .100 on th eedge where the lighten hole started in on a angle in a scat super stock hemi crank that i make 900hp with and run to 9000rpm with a 2525 bobweight,, no cracking or breaking of the crank,,, not even a clue of it..

bob george said something about the "center of the crank" being out of balance because the way the center two pin holes were drilled,, thats funny,, does it have center counterweights?? no it doesnt along with 90% of cranks out there,, therefore they cannot be balanced in the center. this is just another thing brought up that doesnt mean anything.

everyone makes cranks with 1/8" radius in mains and rods,, i would fight with this on callies cranks, i could never get bearings that would work out of a box,, cause they didnt exist,, so i would scrape the mains,, rods we would just narrow if needed.,, everyone makes cranks that way,, everyone has to fit their bearings,, it wont blow the motor up if you dont,, but its not that best. all bearings are made to clear a 3/32" radius,, 1/32 less than 1/8",,, if you made the main width narrow enough on the crank then you have issues,, callies does,, scat just makes it,, and eagles are fine,, usually...

it was obvious that the crank was etched at 2300gram bobweight, then rebalanced, but it was made to sound like there was something terribly wrong with the bobweight being lower than that,, how should that have been handled??? spin the crank and see if its balanced to see if it is 2300 or the actual weight for your parts,, then say something,, just gives bad press for no reason other than a guy getting jumpy and making something out of nothing.


jeff



Thanks Jeff for the first grounded and accurate post I've seen here. I'd like to clarify a few things. First, I can appreciate and respect what BG is trying to do here, that is examine the parts and post his findings. However, somewhere during the process (perhaps due to a lack of familiarity with what is being examined?) things went awry. Please allow me to respond to some of the things that have been mentioned.

If my responses don't agree with BG's in some areas, please don't take as a personal attack against him, it's simply my point of view on the matter.

The first thing in question here is how the crank is drilled through the rod pins (lightening holes). I believe this is done at an angle on some forgings to ensure that the lightening hole does not intersect the rod to main oiling passages. Several people responded to this by saying they would send the crank back, and BG stated he'd be afraid of it weakening the crank, and even went so far as to say "you get what you pay for.How the Manufacture could ever ship a product in this condition is beyond me." Another well known "expert" on this site says "IMHO, I would NOT run that crank in an engine with decent power. You have effectively weakened the throw into the cheek and that would be a likely place for a break."

With respect, this can only be due to the fact that these "experts" don't understand what they are looking at, and how the stresses are distributed through that forging under load.

The truth is, these cranks have been manufactured this way since day one. Over the last 7 years, we've sold thousands upon thousands of them all over the world. The majority of them go into bracket motors running 9's or 10's, and many are in cars in the 7 and 8 second range. I even know of a dozen or so running in the 6's for the last couple years. Hot rod magazine recently did a twin turbo motor with our crank in it that made 1434 horsepower, and it's still running great to this day. How many hundreds and hundreds of people on this very site are making serious power with our cranks (often for many years now) with great success?

To take an item like this that clearly does not fail during it's intended use, (in fact has proven itself in literally thousands of successful cases over a period of time spanning most of a decade) and then take one look at it, and proclaim you've decided it's defective and will most likely fail during use... well that just doesn't add up.

BG states in one post that "if we want the truth then we better be able to handle the truth." Well, to me, the "truth" is the undeniable RESULTS thousands of racers are getting with these same cranks.

So, I respectfully ask what BG's response would be to the proven track record of this crank he's so quick to label as a complete waste of money?

This reminds me of a similar post a couple months ago about our water pump housing. Some self proclaimed moparts "expert" analysed our water pump housing and found the ports to be smaller than he would have liked. Right away, he posted how our housing would without a doubt cause the engine to overheat because of the smaller passages. Well, I personally run one of those housings on my own car, and I'd never had any kind of overheating problem, so I thought it was a bit strange. So, I looked up our sales data, and it turns out we've sold many thousands of those same housings over the last 3 years and we've not heard of any overheating problems caused by them. Even if 1% of the people who bought those housings had an overheating problem caused by them, that would still be hundreds of calls we would have received about the problem, so we definitely would have known about it.

Just another instance of how an "expert" can take one look at a perfect good and proven part, and then post on here how it can't possibly work.

The other thing I wanted to address is the comment about "The better" (meaning name brand high dollar) "parts are always right."

Anyone who tells you a part is "ALWAYS" going to be perfect because it costs a certain amount of money or has a certain companies name written on the side of the box, is showing you the ignorance of their inexperience. We sell a lot of product from the top, most well established name brands in the industry, including Edelbrock, Comp Cams, ARP, Clevite, etc, etc. I can tell you from personal experience that ALL of these companies have had a product at one time or another that has been defective and that we needed to exchange.

Engine builders who have real experience, (and I'm talking about builders who have built thousands of engines over decades) will tell you that anyone who says anything in the aftermarket parts world is "always perfect" has their head up their you know what. Making a comment like that simply reveals that the person is either (A) ignorant, or (B) has very little real world experience.

As I said earlier, and I can understand and respect what is trying to be done here. But if you examine any part, from any manufacturer, with a super fine tooth comb, and your sole intention is to try to find a defect (or even something you don't like,) believe me, sooner or later your going to find something. I don't care what the part is, where it's made or what company makes it.

Thanks for allowing me to provide my input, thanks BG for your effort, and I'll look forward to the sections on the rods and pistons.