|
|
Compression height vs stroke ?
#1091968
10/10/11 09:28 AM
10/10/11 09:28 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
mac56
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
|
I wondering if anyone can tell me if I could go to a 4.150 stroke with a 1.48 compression height piston on low deck or will the rod be too short?
Thanks
Last edited by mac56; 10/10/11 09:48 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Compression height vs stroke ?
[Re: mac56]
#1091969
10/10/11 09:39 AM
10/10/11 09:39 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,082
St. Paul , Mn.
tubtar
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,082
St. Paul , Mn.
|
Quote:
I wondering if anyone can tell me if I could go to a 4.150 stroke with a 4.80 compression height piston on low deck or will the rod be too short?
Thanks
4.8 ?
Centimeter ?
Because if that's inches , the rod will be VERY short.
|
|
|
Re: Compression height vs stroke ?
[Re: tubtar]
#1091970
10/10/11 09:49 AM
10/10/11 09:49 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
mac56
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wondering if anyone can tell me if I could go to a 4.150 stroke with a 4.80 compression height piston on low deck or will the rod be too short?
Thanks
4.8 ?
Centimeter ?
Because if that's inches , the rod will be VERY short.
Thanks for catching that. It has been corrected.
|
|
|
Re: Compression height vs stroke ?
[Re: supercomp]
#1091972
10/10/11 12:31 PM
10/10/11 12:31 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
mac56
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
|
Quote:
With a chevy K1 6.405 long rod and 9.970 deck height the piston would be .010 down.
What I was concerned with would that bring the piston with that combination too far out the bottom of the bore?
|
|
|
Re: Compression height vs stroke ?
[Re: mac56]
#1091974
10/10/11 11:05 PM
10/10/11 11:05 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,293
Rock Springs
Bob_Coomer
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,293
Rock Springs
|
Low deck height is 9.97 so take 9.97 subtract half the stroke so, 4.15 Divide by 2 is 2.075 subtract rod length of your choice subtract compression height this will tell you height from deck. 
[color:"red"]65 Hemi Belvedere coming soon [/color]
[color:"#00FF00"]557" Indy engine 1.07 60ft 144mph in the 8th 2100 lbs package [/color]
|
|
|
Re: Compression height vs stroke ?
[Re: 23T Hemmee]
#1091976
10/11/11 06:46 AM
10/11/11 06:46 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
mac56
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
|
Quote:
What I was concerned with would that bring the piston with that combination too far out the bottom of the bore?
In a word, "No" unless your concern is piston/counterweight clearance. That would actually improve slightly with a 1.48 CH" as opposed to say a 1.32". Just curious, are you looking at my ad in Big Block parts. My pistons are 1.48's..... 
No I wasn't I have a 3.915 stroke combo and was wondering if I could go 4.150 without buying pistons.
|
|
|
Re: Compression height vs stroke ?
[Re: supercomp]
#1091978
10/11/11 11:15 AM
10/11/11 11:15 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
mac56
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 976
ontario canada
|
Quote:
With a 6.405 rod, a 4.150 crank and a 1.48 compression height piston, you will have .010 deck clearance with a 9.970 deck height. However the crank counterweights will have to be cut down to about 7.22 to have .075 clearance between crank counterweight and piston. That should work.
Thanks for the info Allen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
