Posted By: mac56
Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/10/11 01:28 PM
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
Thanks
Compression height vs stroke ?
Posted By: tubtar
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/10/11 01:39 PM
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.
Posted By: mac56
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/10/11 01:49 PM
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.
Posted By: supercomp
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/10/11 02:48 PM
With a chevy K1 6.405 long rod and 9.970 deck height the piston would be .010 down.
Posted By: mac56
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/10/11 04:31 PM
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?
Posted By: mac56
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/11/11 01:50 AM
Posted By: Bob_Coomer
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/11/11 03:05 AM
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.
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.
Posted By: 23T Hemmee
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/11/11 03:13 AM
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.....
Posted By: mac56
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/11/11 10:46 AM
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.
Posted By: supercomp
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/11/11 02:50 PM
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.
Posted By: mac56
Re: Compression height vs stroke ? - 10/11/11 03:15 PM
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