Looking for some pics of...
05-06-2010, 02:50 PM
#11
Like Dezert already said, piston protrusion is irrelevant Spoo. You need to set up your pistons correctly with the rod height, etc.. After 10k miles, my 408 didn't drink oil (well, not before I galled the cam bearings anyway).
390?? I think you are over-thinking all this. Yeah, I said it. Rex, you stop laughing now
390?? I think you are over-thinking all this. Yeah, I said it. Rex, you stop laughing now
05-06-2010, 03:30 PM
#13
Like Dezert already said, piston protrusion is irrelevant Spoo. You need to set up your pistons correctly with the rod height, etc.. After 10k miles, my 408 didn't drink oil (well, not before I galled the cam bearings anyway).
390?? I think you are over-thinking all this. Yeah, I said it. Rex, you stop laughing now
390?? I think you are over-thinking all this. Yeah, I said it. Rex, you stop laughing now
(4.030 x 4.030 x 3.825 x 8) x .7854 = 390.32 ci
That should keep the pistons from protruding to far outta the sleeve and rocking around, the rod length should reduce side loading, pistons pin height will be below the oil rings as well.
05-06-2010, 03:33 PM
#14
yup. 
I was typing up my last response when you posted up with the crank I'm figuring on using. I figure I'd try something a bit different. I'm trying to build something under square rather than squared off. But still give it some stroke in the process without running into reliability issues.
05-06-2010, 05:51 PM
#15
Dang, I would of liked to of seen those pics. How far below the oil rings was that mark and what length rod were you using? Stock or 6.125 or ??
I think I found a compromise for what I'm gonna do because 408 + boost + long term reliability is clearly a pick two of three scenario.
I think I found a compromise for what I'm gonna do because 408 + boost + long term reliability is clearly a pick two of three scenario.
6.125" rods.
05-06-2010, 06:20 PM
#16
you matt
