|
Re: Rod Journal Size
[Re: DusterKid]
#2482141
04/13/18 01:30 PM
04/13/18 01:30 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206 New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206
New York
|
Lower journal overlap means slightly weaker crank (still safe). Smaller journal means slightly reduced local oil pressure, which is a function of circumference × engine speed (still safe).
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: Rod Journal Size
[Re: DusterKid]
#2482185
04/13/18 02:48 PM
04/13/18 02:48 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
Unless you are burning fuel, there is never a reason to use a 2.375 rod throw. 2.20 is plenty big. 2.100 is more than doable most of the time N/A.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: Rod Journal Size
[Re: DusterKid]
#2482187
04/13/18 02:49 PM
04/13/18 02:49 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
BTW, the smaller rod throw also reduces the weight of the rod, the rod bearing and the rod throw.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: Rod Journal Size
[Re: DusterKid]
#2482261
04/13/18 06:50 PM
04/13/18 06:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206 New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206
New York
|
I agree, late SBC 2.100" is safe with any conventional stroke, but there are fewer rod choices by length than with BBC. Caveat: if the grinding doesn't unmask an oil passage.
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
|
|
|