Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: sshemi] #1141617
01/13/12 03:14 PM
01/13/12 03:14 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383 Offline
Too Many Posts
70Cuda383  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
Quote:



???

A forged thing is heavier then a cast thing.




when made identically, yes.

but often times, Forged pistons are lighter than their cast counter-parts, because the stronger forging allows for less material at the same or greater overall strength.

Especially when you start comparing aftermarket forged pistons to heavy stock cast ones.


**Photobucket sucks**
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: 70Cuda383] #1141618
01/13/12 03:48 PM
01/13/12 03:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick Offline
I Live Here
patrick  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
Quote:

Quote:



???

A forged thing is heavier then a cast thing.




when made identically, yes.

but often times, Forged pistons are lighter than their cast counter-parts, because the stronger forging allows for less material at the same or greater overall strength.

Especially when you start comparing aftermarket forged pistons to heavy stock cast ones.




NO the density of steel is the same, whether it's cast or forged, 7820 kg/cubic meter. if 2 cranks are dimensionally identical (both displace the same volume), their mass will be the same even if one is CAST STEEL and the other is forged steel.

IF a crank is dimensionally identical, but the cast one is lighter, then it is not CAST STEEL. then it is most likely DUCTILE CAST IRON, also known as NODULAR IRON. it's density is about 10% less than steel, due to the much higher carbon content (which, in ductile iron is in the form of little spherical nodules dispersed though the continuous iron phase)...IIRC it's manganese as an alloying element that causes the carbon to form nodules vs. flakes like in traditional (grey) cast iron, but it's been 16 years since I had any metallurgy classes.


1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: patrick] #1141619
01/13/12 04:24 PM
01/13/12 04:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,933
Finalnd, Perkele
J
jyrki Offline
master
jyrki  Offline
master
J

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,933
Finalnd, Perkele
It's just as easy to compress metal as it is to compress fluid. No can do, so, unless it's a porous casting,the weight of a cast and forged object with the same displacement should be the same. I'm as far of a scientist as you can get, but still I have a theory about cast and forged cranks differencies. Has anyone really weighed them? Because, my first tehory is that since the cast crank is weaker, they have to make the crankpin size heavier duty than in a forged crank, and since the counterweight sizes are the same, the crank needs external balancing. So, it's actually heavier, not lighter, than the forged crank (yes, haven't weighed for example a 383 forged and cast crank). The second theory is that because of the porousity, the counterweights of the cast crank are lighter...


Plynouth VIP '67 TT IC EFI
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: Rapid340] #1141620
01/13/12 06:23 PM
01/13/12 06:23 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,532
off the grid
340B5 Offline
pro stock
340B5  Offline
pro stock

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,532
off the grid
Quote:

Density is increased by the forging process itself, even the cast steel cranks are lighter. Rotating weight can be a great place to go on a diet and often costs less than free.

Disclaimer: I would be looking at a forged piece at power levels much lower than 700.






Correct. Grain structure is more dense on the forging just under the bearing surface. My own personal preference would be to go to a forging when nearing 500hp.


Yeah, it's got a smallblock.
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: 340B5] #1141621
01/13/12 07:58 PM
01/13/12 07:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
D
dogdays Offline
I Live Here
dogdays  Offline
I Live Here
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
I think Patrick has it right. The cast nodular iron is actually a little less dense than real steel, because it has a LOT more carbon, which is lighter than iron.
Here are some numbers:
Ductile or nodular cast iron: 0.257 lb/cu in.
Alloy steel, cast: 0.283 lb/cu in.
1040, 1020 and 1060 steel, wrought: 0.283 lb/cu in.
4340 steel: 0.283 lb/cu in.

THAT MEANS that a cast nodular iron crank with exactly the same volume as a steel crank will weigh about 9% less because the material is less dense.

One word about forging: It results in a better MICROSTRUCTURE than casting the same material, at least in steel. The microstructure is what gives the steel its properties.
R.

Re: 3.58" crank [Re: dogdays] #1141622
01/13/12 08:27 PM
01/13/12 08:27 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 288
IL. Jerseyville
J
jg309 Offline
enthusiast
jg309  Offline
enthusiast
J

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 288
IL. Jerseyville
got one in a circle track car 360/374 off set ground,on its 3rd. block,if we could get valves to last as long i'd be happy,engine made 545h.p. on chasse dino

Re: 3.58" crank [Re: jyrki] #1141623
01/13/12 08:39 PM
01/13/12 08:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383 Offline
Too Many Posts
70Cuda383  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
Quote:

It's just as easy to compress metal as it is to compress fluid. No can do, so, unless it's a porous casting,the weight of a cast and forged object with the same displacement should be the same. I'm as far of a scientist as you can get, but still I have a theory about cast and forged cranks differencies. Has anyone really weighed them? Because, my first tehory is that since the cast crank is weaker, they have to make the crankpin size heavier duty than in a forged crank, and since the counterweight sizes are the same, the crank needs external balancing. So, it's actually heavier, not lighter, than the forged crank (yes, haven't weighed for example a 383 forged and cast crank). The second theory is that because of the porousity, the counterweights of the cast crank are lighter...




Ok, I always thought forged was a little more dense than cast.

if they are the same density, and weigh the same...then why is a stock forged 440 crank heavy enough to internally balance, when a stock cast 440 crank is not heavy enough and needs external balance?

are they not cast steel?


**Photobucket sucks**
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: 70Cuda383] #1141624
01/13/12 08:51 PM
01/13/12 08:51 PM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 319
jonestown,pa
D
dmking Offline
enthusiast
dmking  Offline
enthusiast
D

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 319
jonestown,pa
maybe it costs less to make and complete a cast crank if power levels are equal to the material. i got a sept 1974 6630-440 with internal balance forged and a 78 6630-440 that was cast. who knows why. bothj seemed the came. windage tray, thermobog, dubble row timing chain. etc. it has to be the money on the balance internal vs external on cast

Re: 3.58" crank [Re: 340B5] #1141625
01/16/12 11:56 AM
01/16/12 11:56 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick Offline
I Live Here
patrick  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
Quote:

Quote:

Density is increased by the forging process itself, even the cast steel cranks are lighter. Rotating weight can be a great place to go on a diet and often costs less than free.

Disclaimer: I would be looking at a forged piece at power levels much lower than 700.






Correct. Grain structure is more dense on the forging just under the bearing surface. My own personal preference would be to go to a forging when nearing 500hp.




grain structure is more refined, but the density of the material is the same....


1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: 70Cuda383] #1141626
01/16/12 11:58 AM
01/16/12 11:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick Offline
I Live Here
patrick  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
Quote:

Quote:

It's just as easy to compress metal as it is to compress fluid. No can do, so, unless it's a porous casting,the weight of a cast and forged object with the same displacement should be the same. I'm as far of a scientist as you can get, but still I have a theory about cast and forged cranks differencies. Has anyone really weighed them? Because, my first tehory is that since the cast crank is weaker, they have to make the crankpin size heavier duty than in a forged crank, and since the counterweight sizes are the same, the crank needs external balancing. So, it's actually heavier, not lighter, than the forged crank (yes, haven't weighed for example a 383 forged and cast crank). The second theory is that because of the porousity, the counterweights of the cast crank are lighter...




Ok, I always thought forged was a little more dense than cast.

if they are the same density, and weigh the same...then why is a stock forged 440 crank heavy enough to internally balance, when a stock cast 440 crank is not heavy enough and needs external balance?

are they not cast steel?




either they are ductile iron (9% lighter) or they are different geometry (less material)

I'm pretty sure they're actually ductile iron (nodular iron), not cast steel though.


1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
Re: 3.58" crank [Re: patrick] #1141627
01/17/12 05:48 PM
01/17/12 05:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
D
dogdays Offline
I Live Here
dogdays  Offline
I Live Here
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
Thanks for restating, Patrick.
Here I go again,
STEEL IS ABOUT 9% DENSER THAN NODULAR CAST IRON!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I feel better.
R.

Re: 3.58" crank [Re: dogdays] #1141628
01/17/12 10:48 PM
01/17/12 10:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,976
Chilliwack B.C. Canada
R
RUNCHARGER Offline
I Live Here
RUNCHARGER  Offline
I Live Here
R

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,976
Chilliwack B.C. Canada
I wouldn't put a chinese cast crank in anything. I have seen stock Chrysler cast cranks go into the nines with nitrous thrown at them though. That's what I would run.

Sheldon

Re: 3.58" crank [Re: RUNCHARGER] #1141629
01/17/12 11:40 PM
01/17/12 11:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,176
East Coast
A
A/MP Offline
super stock
A/MP  Offline
super stock
A

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,176
East Coast
This is the real deal with cast factory cranks. A Chrysler factory crank LA motor will take 600HP in a light weight car 2800lbs. What is different between cast and forged(othet than metalugy) is the stress cyclces that the metal can endure. A 360 cast crank with 70,000+ miles whether light or hard use has reached a point wear the metal memory starts getting alzheimers. When the metal structure starts to move with the stress of racing it forgets its original place and starts moving away from its as cast structure. Once that happens the greater the chances of fracture of the metal structure and eventual failure. All forged china cranks whether scat,eagle,ohio,callies come from the same factory. When the china economy becomes stressed, the chineses look for a cheaper way out. This means a cheaper(quality) product.Products that were manufactued 2010,2011,? many fit this proverb. A real Callies crank is $1500.00+. Can it fail? Sure but the chances are slim. Look on ebay for a race W7 or W9 motor. Many of them are only test laps,and they with run low 9's as is. With cam and carb change high 8's. Someone else did all the engineering and at 15K not a bad deal, respectively.

Re: 3.58" crank [Re: A/MP] #1141630
01/18/12 12:13 AM
01/18/12 12:13 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,245
Between a rock & a hard place
C
cudadoug Offline
master
cudadoug  Offline
master
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,245
Between a rock & a hard place
My turn. I'll say that if the goal is a race motor and it's going to be internally balanced, save the dough and get the forged crank to begin with. By the time you balance a cast crank ($$) you will have paid for the forged crank...

Know your goals, keeping LONG TERM costs in check. I mean if the cast crank is what the budgets "requires" and it breaks, it's spendy to have to build the whole thing over again. Or worse the car is parked because there's no dough to build another bullet.

If I HAD to put a cast crank in a race motor, NO WAY would it be an Eagle. Too many documented failures. The Mopar/SCAT crank seems to the cast crank of choice...albeit with HP limits, no nitrous and NO TRANSBRAKE!

Page 2 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1