Re: solve a debate for me
[Re: rice2muscle]
#896246
01/04/11 10:19 PM
01/04/11 10:19 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,200 UK
602heavy
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,200
UK
|
Quote:
he is standing by his point that with a longer stroke your dwell time is reduced at tdc thus causing a loss in power. anyone got some insight i can use???
.....then you go tell him 'long rod is an advantage on power stroke'...
|
|
|
Re: solve a debate for me
[Re: bigtimeauto]
#896252
01/04/11 10:40 PM
01/04/11 10:40 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,200 UK
602heavy
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,200
UK
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
he is standing by his point that with a longer stroke your dwell time is reduced at tdc thus causing a loss in power. anyone got some insight i can use???
.....then you go tell him 'long rod is an advantage on power stroke'...
what if its boosted???
|
|
|
Re: solve a debate for me
[Re: rice2muscle]
#896256
01/04/11 11:15 PM
01/04/11 11:15 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,654 Southern by Choice
Shoozy
I have a foot fetish
|
I have a foot fetish
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,654
Southern by Choice
|
You came on to Moparts to "solve" a debate? Seriously? Carry on.
Old, tired, and sometimes broke down. Me, not my car...
|
|
|
Re: solve a debate for me
[Re: rice2muscle]
#896257
01/04/11 11:17 PM
01/04/11 11:17 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,293 Rock Springs
Bob_Coomer
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,293
Rock Springs
|
Let me guess, he has a small Ford or Chevy, they have a poor rod stroke ratio. It has much less to do with the engine than what he is saying. Trying to argue with him or anyone is almost as dumb.
[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: solve a debate for me
[Re: Shoozy]
#896259
01/04/11 11:34 PM
01/04/11 11:34 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,908 Ontario, Canada
Stanton
Don't question me!
|
Don't question me!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,908
Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
You came on to Moparts to "solve" a debate? Seriously? Carry on.
This is by far THE BEST reply yet !!
|
|
|
Re: solve a debate for me
[Re: moparniac]
#896260
01/04/11 11:48 PM
01/04/11 11:48 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,845 Tampa
DusterDave
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,845
Tampa
|
When you find Sasquatch, you'll find the solution to the rod/stroke ratio debate.
Gone to the dark side with an LS3 powered '57 Chevy 210
|
|
|
Re: solve a debate for me
[Re: rice2muscle]
#896261
01/05/11 12:00 AM
01/05/11 12:00 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,285 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,285
Bend,OR USA
|
Quote:
a friend of mine and i are debating rod stroke ratio,
he believes that the r/s ratio determines where in the rpm power band your engine will make power. I think he is an idiot, and it has to do more with head flow, cam selection etc... he is standing by his point that with a longer stroke your dwell time is reduced at tdc thus causing a loss in power. anyone got some insight i can use???
Ask him if you have the same motor and change the lengths of the rods, short rod first and then a long rod, say .300 longer, and nothing else except the pistons to make the same compression ratio, cubic inch and so on does that make the motor have more HP, more torque or less of one and more of the other or less of both Please let us know his responce BTW, the short rod thanking is that it spends less time at TDC than the same stroke motor with a longer rod thus making for more or less piston to valve clearances at and near TDC . I like long rods, 1.75 ratio or longer on rod lengths to stroke
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 01/05/11 01:04 AM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
|
|