We are currently running on the new domain and server: www.Speed-Talk.com

IMPORTANT: Update your bookmarks to https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/
(Right-click the URL and select "Bookmark this link")

Engine Masters rod ratio test results

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
tchapps88
New Member
New Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:43 pm
Location:

Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by tchapps88 » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am

for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?

ClassAct
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:55 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by ClassAct » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:37 am

tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?


Is there a YouTube link to that or something? I'd love to watch that.

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4736
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by Walter R. Malik » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:48 am

tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?
No ... not at all.
Some people have simply kept their mouth shut because all the "experts" out there know everything; without actually testing.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

tchapps88
New Member
New Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:43 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by tchapps88 » Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:08 am

ClassAct wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:37 am
tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?


Is there a YouTube link to that or something? I'd love to watch that.
not for this one, its on motor trend on demand

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9223
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by pdq67 » Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:15 am

tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?
I have to ask if the intake and exhaust tracks as well as the cams matched to the individual rod ratios before I believe that a short rod ratio will make more power than a long rod ratio.

Only because of less piston/cylinder side-loading for the longer rod ratio is all.

pdq67

englertracing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:55 am
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by englertracing » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:16 am

pdq67 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:15 am
tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?
I have to ask if the intake and exhaust tracks as well as the cams matched to the individual rod ratios before I believe that a short rod ratio will make more power than a long rod ratio.

Only because of less piston/cylinder side-loading for the longer rod ratio is all.

pdq67
All of the 900+ hp sprint cars went from 6" to 5.9" rods as the intake tracts grew larger.... Like 2.900 or 3" butterflies.....
But its probably as much about the piston and rings as it is about the r/s

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by CamKing » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:40 am

pdq67 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:15 am
tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?
I have to ask if the intake and exhaust tracks as well as the cams matched to the individual rod ratios
Exactly. If the camshaft wasn't optimized for each rod length, The test is meaningless.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs

Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449

PackardV8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6052
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:03 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by PackardV8 » Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Those of us there back in the day remember the 302" SBF would never make any power "because the rods are too short for a 3.00" stroke" and today with good heads, those little suckers are running a 3.40" stroke with a worse rod/stroke ratio and making enough power to split the block.

A 302" has a 3.00" stroke with a 5.090"connecting rod. The 347" increases the stroke to 3.40" and a 5.40" rod. This drops the rod ratio from 1.696:1 for the 302" to 1.588:1 for the 347".
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering

Joe-71
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:46 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by Joe-71 » Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:33 pm

In my experience the only time a shorter rod makes more power is when the intake port is too big for the cubic inches and they keep the same heads and intake, headers. Joe-71
Joe-JDC

blackford
Member
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:29 pm
Location: Anaheim Hills, Ca

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by blackford » Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:40 pm

PackardV8 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:06 pm
Those of us there back in the day remember the 302" SBF would never make any power "because the rods are too short for a 3.00" stroke" and today with good heads, those little suckers are running a 3.40" stroke with a worse rod/stroke ratio and making enough power to split the block.

A 302" has a 3.00" stroke with a 5.090"connecting rod. The 347" increases the stroke to 3.40" and a 5.40" rod. This drops the rod ratio from 1.696:1 for the 302" to 1.588:1 for the 347".
In 2003, I built a street driven SBF 331 using 289 rods that are 5.155". I used a KB322 383 Windsor piston. Rod Ratio works out to be slightly less than a 5.4 rod 347...1.586. I also used fully ported '70 351W heads with 1.94/1.6 valves and had some valve unshrouding done (160cc intake ports and 60cc exhaust ports). 9.8:1 compression. Single Plane intake, 750 HP, 282S Comp Cam, Dougs stepped Tri-Y headers. The engine makes 430 HP @ 6500 and is still making 400 HP @ 7000. More than just about anyone in the SBF community would have believed. Maybe i got lucky and choose components that all worked very well together.
65 Mustang FB, 331 custom built with 289 H beam rods and 383W piston, 282S cam, Ported DOOEs, T5z, 9" 3.89 gears. 430HP@6500

2013 Corvette 427 Convertible daily driver

'65 Fastback

ClassAct
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:55 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by ClassAct » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:03 pm

tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:08 am
ClassAct wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:37 am
tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?


Is there a YouTube link to that or something? I'd love to watch that.
not for this one, its on motor trend on demand
Ok, thanks.

engineguyBill
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 1168
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:15 am
Location: Gold Canyon, AZ

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by engineguyBill » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:14 pm

CamKing wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:40 am
pdq67 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:15 am
tchapps88 wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:25 am
for the ones that watched it what was your take on it? Were you surprised the shorter rods made more power?
I have to ask if the intake and exhaust tracks as well as the cams matched to the individual rod ratios
Exactly. If the camshaft wasn't optimized for each rod length, The test is meaningless.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree with this statement. One of the advantages of longer rods is the fact that there is more piston dwell at TDC, however the camshaft needs to be designed to take advantages of this feature, as well as other features of long rods. Camshaft design for a long rod engine will be different than the camshaft design necessary to take advantage of short rod features.
Bill

Perfect Circle Doctor of Motors certification
SAE Member (29+ years)
ASE Master Certified Engine Machinist (+ two otherASE Master Certifications)
AERA Certified Professional Engine Machinist

n2omike
Expert
Expert
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by n2omike » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:40 pm

On the show, they had basically 'too much cam and head'... The short rods made more top end, and the long rods made more low end power. But it wasn't huge either way. When they did a steady state run (engine locked to one speed) the numbers were pretty much identical.
478 inch Big block Chevy (big bore, short stroke... 4.5" bore, and less than 4" stroke) with 365cc heads and a big roller.

Tom Walker
Member
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:58 pm
Location: Louisville,KY

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by Tom Walker » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:51 pm

Without each rod ratio engine completely optimized and tuned for that combination, I personally don't think it gives us anything except something to continue to discuss, which is fine. I do believe there is merit in using the best ratio for your particular application.
If memory serves me, I believe it was Pro Stock veteran Warren Johnson that said his rod ratio was whatever connected the piston to the crank, but he was also very cagey about what he was actually doing at times.

BlitzA64
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:49 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by BlitzA64 » Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:10 pm

It's all combination, they both will work just like different things. In a wide open no holds barred build rod length would be way down the list for me. In a limited class rule type deal it can move substantially up the list in my opinion. Just swapping out rods and not optimizing the build is a waste of time and effort, maybe it works and maybe it doesn't.

Post Reply