Quote:

---

No journal taper, no journals out of round, no journals to big or small. At least not enough to cause any problems.

---

Quote:

---

Here's the truth: I can machine a crank down more accurately than ANY machine shop in the world. Period.
I have full access to a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with a resolution of better than 5 angstroms and years of experience working with one (+ Ph.D. in physics). I also have access to vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (typically used for semiconductor applications, but suitable for iron), capable of machining a crank to within a tolerance of 12 nm (that's 7 zeros to the right of the decimal before you get to the "1"). Using the SEM and VCSEL I can machine an entire crank. Given the fact that the etching process requires almost exactly 100 hours to etch and area of 1 cm^2 and I'll need at least 40 hours on the SEM per square cm to check tolerances, AND the fact that the approximate journal surface of a BB Mopar crank is 660 cm^2, AND the fact that I have to purchase time on both the SEM and VCSEL ($135/hour on the SEM and $1700/day on the VCSEL) in order to do this, you're looking at a $17589000 price tag for me to machine your crank better than ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD CAN.
I'll even throw in free shipping if you place your order before 5 p.m. today!
I guess everyone has their standards as to what's acceptable.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No journal taper, no journals out of round, no journals to big or small. At least not enough to cause any problems.

---

I'm not quite sure how to respond here... So, they weren't "right", but they were "close enough" to use? Or they were within normal ranges for whatever specs your machinist bases his decisions on?

---

I'm not quite sure what you want to hear. They didn't need any extra work. They were not out of round, did not have excessive taper, did not require turning, did not need excessive metal to balance, have ran with zero problems. Don't know what else to tell you.

Quote:

---

Brad,

PM Wayne (Big Squeeze) and see what his findings have been.

---

I don't assemble a LOT of motors (roughly 12 to 20/year) but, I've never had a cheap crank that was ready to drop in, out of the box.....They've all needed at least the rods, mains, or both ground to be fixed (and that's not counting the two from a source I bought cranks from that the counter weight hit the block when the crank was slid forward to check endplay AND the other I'd bought that had the indexing so far off (.035) it wasn't even fixable )........I just plan on having them all indexed.......and for the power level most of the motors are at that I work on, the cheap cranks are fine, if machined right.....

FYI......I sent the crank back, that had the throw off .035", and, long story short, I know they resold it as-is....so some poor sap got a crappy crank that they mic'd and thought was "good"......

Quote:

---

My 440 Source 4.25 crank needed a little work done before my machinest was ready to call it good. Can't find the measurements in my file, but I did have to pay about $150 to get it "worked" on a little in the crank grinder. I'll keep looking for exactly what was done to it. Been 3 years ago, and I have a hard time remembering what happened yesterday.

With that being said, I have been running this crank right at 800 HP (flywheel) for over 3 years in a stock RB Block. I hit it with a 175 shot of nitrous right on the line, and it runs 10.5's in a 4100 lbs car at Bandimere Speedway. So far, so good.

---

Quote:

---

Run the 440 Source rods, they miced good also........

---

I've run them too.........and they mic'd fine, but when you loosen and retorque the rods with a stretch gauge, the big end goes out of round and needs to be resized......

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My 440 Source 4.25 crank needed a little work done before my machinest was ready to call it good. Can't find the measurements in my file, but I did have to pay about $150 to get it "worked" on a little in the crank grinder. I'll keep looking for exactly what was done to it. Been 3 years ago, and I have a hard time remembering what happened yesterday.

With that being said, I have been running this crank right at 800 HP (flywheel) for over 3 years in a stock RB Block. I hit it with a 175 shot of nitrous right on the line, and it runs 10.5's in a 4100 lbs car at Bandimere Speedway. So far, so good.

---

Brian, who did you use for the crank work?

---

Quote:

---

cheap aftermarket crank. not always about the rod jounals or mains.

---

Looks like mine..


Eagle cast (according to their specifications, it shoulda been enough)
Rod journal on the 1/2 throw had over .0005" taper and put it under the low at it's smallest point. Gave me acceptable clearance so I ran it anyway. Counterweights were too tall, once the rod was torqued, they hit pistons. Learned me a lesson that day, don't just put a piston on the rod with a half bearing and check for clearances to the crank, torque it down and THEN check the clearances. Eagle SIR rods. H beams probably wouldn't move that much. Learned a lot on that build. Won't run eagle again. They can't seem to figure out the counterweights need to clear the pistons.
This is my new Scat, everything checked out spot on with it. Cost 900+ with the stage 1 lightening done to it. Believe it weighs in at 52 lbs.

Run a lot of Scats, a few RPM's and several Eagles. They all seem to be fine, except for some fitment issues with the eagles in ford and chryslers.

Quote:

---

Nine Ohio BB cranks so far, no issues or come backs except one 440 motor with the 4.25 stroke Ohoi crank using CAT 7.1 H beam rods, rods went out of round and lost oil pressure

---

Oh CAT, good products there!
Cat rockers, 6000 miles...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nine Ohio BB cranks so far, no issues or come backs except one 440 motor with the 4.25 stroke Ohoi crank using CAT 7.1 H beam rods, rods went out of round and lost oil pressure

---

Oh CAT, good products there!
Cat rockers, 6000 miles...

---

that picture tells me someone also forgot to check reatiner to rocker clearance ...

Quote:

---

Every K-1 was perfect...
Monte

---

Thanks, Monte. I was wondering how the K1's measured out.