Engine Masters rod ratio test results

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

396project
New Member
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:28 am
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by 396project »

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
Mark O'Neal
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
Contact:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by Mark O'Neal »

Walter R. Malik wrote: 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.
Do you mean people like Reher and Morrison?
BCjohnny
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: Black Country, England

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by BCjohnny »

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
Walter R. Malik
Guru
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

Post by Walter R. Malik »

Mark O'Neal wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:43 am
Walter R. Malik wrote: 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.
Do you mean people like Reher and Morrison?
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.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.
digger
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2722
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:39 am
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by digger »

Kazoom wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:58 pm good thread. =D>

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
rod ratios don't really exist in isolation.
PackardV8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7633
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Spokane, WA

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by PackardV8 »

digger wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:15 pm
Kazoom wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:58 pm good thread. =D>

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
rod ratios don't really exist in isolation.
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.

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
Joe-71
Pro
Pro
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:46 pm
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by Joe-71 »

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
David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by David Redszus »

is anyone here saying a 1.46 rod ratio would be better than a 1.56 rod ratio in any V8 app ?
The term rod ratio can be misleading.

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.
swampbuggy
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1575
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Location: central Florida

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by swampbuggy »

This is information that in my strong opinion makes good sense ^^^^^^^^^^Mark H.
396project
New Member
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:28 am
Location:

Re: Engine Masters rod ratio test results

Post by 396project »

Wondering if 300M (or forged titanium for that matter) for both rod 'combinations' would have resulted in more bias by their performance comparison?
Post Reply