Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Moderator: Team
-
- New Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:28 am
- Location:
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Curious about the longevity aspect--real time wear rates may have been more definitive.
Would measuring weight of piston rings before and after an automated break-in, using a laser scale for either combination (rod length/piston compression height) produce more definitive results than <1% in the performance department? I'd like to know how much interest I'm charging Peter long term to pay Paul $0.009.
-Mike
Would measuring weight of piston rings before and after an automated break-in, using a laser scale for either combination (rod length/piston compression height) produce more definitive results than <1% in the performance department? I'd like to know how much interest I'm charging Peter long term to pay Paul $0.009.
-Mike
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1649
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:23 pm
- Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Do you mean people like Reher and Morrison?Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:48 amNo ... not at all.
Some people have simply kept their mouth shut because all the "experts" out there know everything; without actually testing.
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Do you mean people like Reher and Morrison?
Paraphrasing the 'anything that connects the crank to the piston is the right ratio' phrase, concerning power, is practical for most cases
Long term wear & reliability is a different matter, when a longer rod is almost always easier on parts, not just limited to 'thrust' issues, speaking as someone who's always run the least amount of ignition advance to get the job done
-
- Guru
- Posts: 6382
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
- Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
- Contact:
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Again; Not at all ... there are many others who could actually know but don't wish to argue with those many others who think they know.Mark O'Neal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:43 amDo you mean people like Reher and Morrison?Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:48 amNo ... 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.
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
rod ratios don't really exist in isolation.Kazoom wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:58 pm good thread.
is anyone here saying a 1.46 rod ratio would be better than a 1.56 rod ratio in any V8 app ?
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/0 ... od-ratios/
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... _to_f1.htm
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Agree, Digger. Reading the literature from the founding fathers, Harry Miller, Leo Goosen, D.R. Pye, all the way up to today, there are those who would run rod ratios of 2:1 if there were no constraints of cylinder block height, weight, engine compartment packaging, et al, but all those tradeoffs exist in the real world.digger wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:15 pmrod ratios don't really exist in isolation.Kazoom wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:58 pm good thread.
is anyone here saying a 1.46 rod ratio would be better than a 1.56 rod ratio in any V8 app ?
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/0 ... od-ratios/
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... _to_f1.htm
Same but different, I wasted many years of my young life trying to make horsepower with the then-new 289". When the 302" came out with shorter connecting rods, we all knew that would never work; too much side thrust. Today's checkbook 347" builds with a 1.55 R/S ratio are making enough horsepower to split the block down the middle using rods which are obviously unsuitably too short for the stroke.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
I wonder how many of those 302 blocks that you day split down the middle had an aluminum stud girdle on the main caps? I have built and raced SBFs for nearly 55 years, and have never split a block. Every one I have heard of had an aluminum girdle on them. I believe it is the different expansion rate of the aluminum vs an iron girdle that promotes splitting the blocks. Joe-71
Joe-71
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9633
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
The term rod ratio can be misleading.is anyone here saying a 1.46 rod ratio would be better than a 1.56 rod ratio in any V8 app ?
Suppose we have a fixed stroke and vary the rod length to obtain the above ratios.
That would be quite different than changing both the stroke and rod length to obtain the prescribed ratio.
rod.....stroke.....ratio
4.38.....3.0......1.46
4.46.....3.0......1.56
5.11.....3.5......1.46
5.46.....3.5......1.56
Rod ratio has no meaning unless the stroke is kept constant. Even if the ratios are the same, a
change in stroke will produce a substantial change in engine performance.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:54 pm
- Location: central Florida
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
This is information that in my strong opinion makes good sense ^^^^^^^^^^Mark H.
-
- New Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:28 am
- Location:
Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results
Wondering if 300M (or forged titanium for that matter) for both rod 'combinations' would have resulted in more bias by their performance comparison?