LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

con rod's

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-14-2004, 10:26 PM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
rob97ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lake Grove.LI
Posts: 251
con rod's

Whats up guys im lookin to put together a budget 383.i see some kits with 5.7 rod an 6.0 rods,what are the pros an cons of either one
rob97ss is offline  
Old 02-14-2004, 10:50 PM
  #2  
Registered User
 
roadtrip120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Amarillo Texas
Posts: 712
Sorry no help with the rod question

But call a machine shop and ask them a price on machining your block, so there is enough clearance. Its pretty pricey i hear. With alot of grinding to be done. Thats just if you are on a budget

i think a longer rod puts the connecting pin up higher in the piston, i think you might burn more oil, since its so close to the oil control rings not sure though???
roadtrip120 is offline  
Old 02-14-2004, 10:58 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
jonaddis84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 1,639
Not much difference in power if any, since your piston compression height will make up for the diffference anyway. Main reason for 6" rods is they are easier on the cylinder walls and better for longevity of an engine, but not as good for high revs.

Block machining for rod clearances is not that expensive, less than $100 usually, unless you have to clearance the rods for the cam, but not usually, unless its a 396. Youll pay a lot more for the line bore/hone.
jonaddis84 is offline  
Old 02-15-2004, 10:40 AM
  #4  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
rob97ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lake Grove.LI
Posts: 251
Thanks anyone else.Where are you hign tech guys chime in
rob97ss is offline  
Old 02-15-2004, 12:05 PM
  #5  
Moderator
 
rskrause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 10,745
General consensus is that a longer rod/stroke ratio is better for (very) high rpm operation because of lower piston acceleration. This allows the piston to "dwell" near TDC longer and increases cylinder pressure (=hp). This piston/rod combo is also a bit lighter with the long rod combo. There is also less side loading on the clinder wall, which decreases wear and friction. But the magnitude of the difference is small.

With a stroker you also run into the issue of allowing enough room for the ring package. The wirst pin will necessarily be higher up in the piston with the longer rod. For NA, this is not an issue. But for blower or N2O setups you need enough room for a thick top ringland. I would sum it up by saying that for an NA motor a 6" rod is a good choice. For power adder, the 5.7" is better The faster acceleration of the piston away from TDC with a short rod also makes a power adder setup less prone to detonation, as it lower peak cylinder pressure.

Rich Krause
rskrause is offline  
Old 02-15-2004, 01:09 PM
  #6  
Registered User
 
CCCCCYA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Oakland City, IN
Posts: 356
When I built my 383, I didn't want the wrist pin up in the bottom of the oil rings (my preference), but I wanted a relatively lightweight package, so I opted for 5.850 rods. This places the pin location JUST below the oil control rings, and gives me a little more meat up top (N2O motor) and still allowed me to use off the shelf parts (scat + JE). Saved a little weight too, without getting into an unreasonable rod ratio.

Just another view...

Dave C.
CCCCCYA is offline  
Old 02-15-2004, 02:40 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
rskrause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 10,745
Originally posted by CCCCCYA
When I built my 383, I didn't want the wrist pin up in the bottom of the oil rings (my preference), but I wanted a relatively lightweight package, so I opted for 5.850 rods. This places the pin location JUST below the oil control rings, and gives me a little more meat up top (N2O motor) and still allowed me to use off the shelf parts (scat + JE). Saved a little weight too, without getting into an unreasonable rod ratio.

Just another view...

Dave C.
Yeah, 5.850" is a good compromise.

Rich Krause
rskrause is offline  
Old 02-15-2004, 09:27 PM
  #8  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
rob97ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lake Grove.LI
Posts: 251
thanks guys for the info.
rob97ss is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
football4life
Cars For Sale
2
10-04-2015 07:48 AM
Z Power
LT1 Based Engine Tech
8
09-19-2015 11:19 PM
karpetcm
LT1 Based Engine Tech
7
09-15-2015 11:07 AM
95craz28
Fuel and Ignition
11
09-12-2015 07:47 AM
Daluchman1974
Cars For Sale
1
09-11-2015 06:12 AM



Quick Reply: con rod's



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.