GT40s.com
MK-I  MK-II  MK-III  MK-IV  GULF  MIRAGE  J-CAR  LOLA
GT40s.com
Home Forum Gallery Support GT40s.com  
Register FAQ Advertisers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   GT40s.com > >

Notices

GT40 Tech - Engines/Induction/Exhaust Motors and engine related - right here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 8th July 2018, 02:10 PM   #1
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 4,179
Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Another thread on 331 verse 347 and their comparison to standard 302 stroke/bore dimensions opened up the question of rod to stroke ratio.

The question was asked (by Jac so I know this is a good question) which was the best ratio: 302= 1.696, 331=1.661, 347= 1.588

My guess is the 302.....

So what do you think?

I found these:

Rod to Stroke Ratio - Tech - Honda Tuning Magazine

Connecting Rod vs. Stroke Analysis: panic Tech Paper No. 1

Importance of Rod Ratio? - Speed Talk

https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hc...e/1827793.html
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2018, 11:05 PM   #2
Ryan Love
4 Tenths
Australia
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne - Aus
GT40: Scratch Build
Posts: 406
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

My thinking which is likely to be wrong is.......


I would go with the 1.588 as it gets the piston accelerating down the bore quickest and creates the most vacuum which gets the momentum on the column of air above the valve moving the best, resulting in the most power.


this will probably have a negative effect on engine longevity


Ryan
Ryan Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 05:32 AM   #3
JP Verweij's Avatar
JP Verweij
Rookie
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Netherlands
GT40: KVA mk2
Posts: 63
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Less stroke = less pistonspeed = less wear.
Less pistonspeed equals also capable of more rpm.
JP Verweij is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 08:29 AM   #4
Ryan Love
4 Tenths
Australia
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne - Aus
GT40: Scratch Build
Posts: 406
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

i get that JP, however as most classes these days seem to have either a capacity limit or a rev limit or both, what would you choose?

that's what i based my decision on.

I understand that it may be geometrically impossible to get some of the ratios into a standard 8.2" deck block, i didn't think that was the point of the question.
Ryan Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 11:52 AM   #5
Hendrickx Paul's Avatar
Hendrickx Paul
Silver Supporter
France
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Mayenne France
GT40: RED KVA MKIII
Posts: 85
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

ww.enginebuildermag.com/2016/08/understanding-rod-ratios/
__________________
Only Robinson crusoe got things done by Friday
Hendrickx Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 11:52 AM   #6
Hendrickx Paul's Avatar
Hendrickx Paul
Silver Supporter
France
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Mayenne France
GT40: RED KVA MKIII
Posts: 85
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

try again:Understanding Rod Ratios - Engine Builder Magazine
__________________
Only Robinson crusoe got things done by Friday
Hendrickx Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 03:54 PM   #7
Cliffbeer2
I Have No Life
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sand Point, WA
GT40: CAV - sold.....
Posts: 2,695
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

I know very little.....in fact, probably nothing....about this. But where there's a capacity limit (as there is in most classes) it seems building revs with short stroke is one good option.

Ferrari F1 must be onto something......
Attached Thumbnails
Connecting rod to stroke ratio-ferrari-f1-crankshaft-jpg  
Cliffbeer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 06:37 PM   #8
jac mac's Avatar
jac mac
I Have No Life
New Zealand
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gore, NZ
Posts: 4,373
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

347 with 5.625 rod, only way to go with 347. 1.65 rod ratio.
__________________
AMGT Rep Steel Mono x Plans, FE328 T44R.
[email protected]OP
jac mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 08:54 PM   #9
kevinruthbox's Avatar
kevinruthbox
2 Tenths
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South Australia
GT40: GT40NZ
Posts: 291
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Wow Jac Mac

That gives you a real short pin height - .875 if my calcs are about right for an 8.2 deck
That would put the oil ring a fair way down the pin area
Does it work ok with normal support rails???


Is that rod an aftermarket Holden Rod ???



regards

KB
__________________
GT40 NZ
Scat / Probe 347W - Modified Brodix Spec heads - Hilbourne (EFI) Roller cam
kevinruthbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2018, 09:09 PM   #10
jac mac's Avatar
jac mac
I Have No Life
New Zealand
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gore, NZ
Posts: 4,373
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinruthbox View Post
Wow Jac Mac

That gives you a real short pin height - .875 if my calcs are about right for an 8.2 deck
That would put the oil ring a fair way down the pin area
Does it work ok with normal support rails???No, slightly shorter pin & spirolocs, alloy button @ each end with groove cut for oil ring and drilled to allow any oil that migrates to pin bore to drain back to pan, sounds complex, but quite simple once first one is made. Both comp rings are above pin. I had pistons made by Denco in NZ ( Ross Blanks ) and cut valve notchs & made pin/button setup myself.


Is that rod an aftermarket Holden Rod ???Yes, Scat makes em.



regards

KB
In text above, from comments being made on this thread most seem to have it back to front, eg living with whats available rather than getting the max rod length able to be fitted and then work out cam, head after you arrive at max rod length. You can notice a difference even if you fit 289 rods ( 5.155" ) to a 302
__________________
AMGT Rep Steel Mono x Plans, FE328 T44R.
[email protected]

Last edited by jac mac; 10th July 2018 at 09:22 PM.
jac mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 03:17 AM   #11
kaspa's Avatar
kaspa
10 tenths
Australia
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maroochydore QL
GT40: i wish
Posts: 1,102
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Jac, i had a 387 built many moons ago for my XC , and from memory they uses a Valiant rod, not 100% but pretty sure, and the pistons were a weisco special.
with an EP2 cam in it she made just over 400 at the wheels and revved like a bumble bee on steroids. was the by far the quickest Cleveland i'd ever owned for sure and i'd had plenty.
john
__________________
Steinard F5000 Steinard LMP Steinard M1B
kaspa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 03:41 AM   #12
jac mac's Avatar
jac mac
I Have No Life
New Zealand
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gore, NZ
Posts: 4,373
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaspa View Post
Jac, i had a 387 built many moons ago for my XC , and from memory they uses a Valiant rod, not 100% but pretty sure, and the pistons were a weisco special.
with an EP2 cam in it she made just over 400 at the wheels and revved like a bumble bee on steroids. was the by far the quickest Cleveland i'd ever owned for sure and i'd had plenty.
john
Were they 6cyl hemi rods, they will be 6.00" long and 2.00" rod journal, so offset grind the 351 crank to get the ~ 387 cu in with around 1.59 rod ratio. by the same token you can get the AU 302 rod @ 6.025 " and some short pistons from OZ to change the 351 w & c to a longer rod ratio around 1.7. Lots of options out there for Fords, many that are not catered for directly by the industry, but with some careful part swapping you can get really good combos.
__________________
AMGT Rep Steel Mono x Plans, FE328 T44R.
[email protected]
jac mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 07:19 AM   #13
kaspa's Avatar
kaspa
10 tenths
Australia
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maroochydore QL
GT40: i wish
Posts: 1,102
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

mate i think your right on the money there, 265 hemi rods sounds like them and yep the crank was off set ground, i did still have the build sheet on file till a couple of months ago when my hard drive decided enough was enough and bloody lost everything,
it was built by Bob Matic in Sydney back in 1997.
cheers John
__________________
Steinard F5000 Steinard LMP Steinard M1B
kaspa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 11:59 AM   #14
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 4,179
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

I have head that a 363 CI SBF can be built with a aftermarket block, Dart I think.
This uses a bigger bore and relative shorter rods? What do you guys think of this combo. The block seams to address the web strength issue of stock FMC small blocks. And I like the overall CI size of 360ish.

Thanks for the knowledge guys. I have learned quite a bit.

The 363 - The Hottest Ford Stroker - Hot Rod Network

363 CUBIC INCH BOSS SHORT BLOCK| Part Details for M-6009-363 | Ford Performance Parts

AMS RACING DART SHP SBF FORD 363 CI STROKER SHORT BLOCK

Last edited by Howard Jones; 12th July 2018 at 12:13 PM.
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 05:07 PM   #15
jac mac's Avatar
jac mac
I Have No Life
New Zealand
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gore, NZ
Posts: 4,373
Re: Connecting rod to stroke ratio

Not many proof readers @ the Hot Rod Network! No reason other than $$$ and lack of talent in that 363 build which could have been done with pistons/rods as I described in posts 8 & 10 above.
__________________
AMGT Rep Steel Mono x Plans, FE328 T44R.
[email protected]
jac mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
331=1.661, question, ratio, rod, stroke


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:39 AM.