/6 198 rods needed badly

-
Come on Dude!

He should look up "dude". It's an infected hair on an elephant's butt. Maybe that fits sometimes. LOL

"Boost dish"? This guys clearly been reading and latching onto the wrong things from the wrong people and wrong places. Anybody here is gonna be hard pressed to get that info outta his head. Very similar to a good friend of mine. You caint tell him a thing.

He's already got the perfect "boost dish" because the stock piston sits a mile in the hole. Fact is he would likely never feel the difference between a stock piston motor and a 198/KB piston motor with a turbo on either one, but you'll never convince him of that.

Turbo motors don't give a crap about a "boost dish" wherever the hell that term came from. The dish is there simply to lower the SCR so that the turbo can be used, PERIOD. End of story. Yet, somebody, somewhere has put the idea in his head that he has to have "boost dish" pistons to achieve his goal and it's just not true.

Will the 2.5 pistons have less friction and be lighter? Sure. But they are 100% not necessary in this case, plus for a street engine the stock length ratio will be better to keep piston speed up........but again he'll never know the difference and nobody here will ever be able to convince him of that, because all anybody is interested in is throwin around a bunch of theories they know little about and confusing people like him.

To the OP, find a good runnin 225, put you a turbo on it and have some fun. People do it over and over again every day without the "198 rod" and it works great. Ask CharlieS. He runs nitrous all over a stone stock bottom end. Is that enough power adder and cylinder pressure for you? He's run turbos for years too. If you want to have an empty wallet, keep goin like you're goin.
 
I don't know a lot of things...but I sure as Hell know that I'm going to tear into that old 198 sitting out in the rain by my garage and grab the rods out of it. I nearly hauled it off for junk. Any other goldmine parts in there I should know about?
 
I don't know a lot of things...but I sure as Hell know that I'm going to tear into that old 198 sitting out in the rain by my garage and grab the rods out of it. I nearly hauled it off for junk. Any other goldmine parts in there I should know about?

nope... lol...
 
Lower rod to stroke ratio.


That was a popular thing to do with the Ford 200 & 250 6 cylinders....use the longer 200 rod in the 250 engine, using aftermarket pistons.....and the same for the 302C & 351C V8's.....use the longer 302 rod in the 351, using aftermarket pistons.
Australia made the 302C's as they were never available in the US.
 
That was a popular thing to do with the Ford 200 & 250 6 cylinders....use the longer 200 rod in the 250 engine, using aftermarket pistons.....and the same for the 302C & 351C V8's.....use the longer 302 rod in the 351, using aftermarket pistons.
Australia made the 302C's as they were never available in the US.

The Boss 302 (in the U.S.) was a Cleveland-headed 302, in 1970, I think.
 
Why would piston speed be faster with short rods? Less weight?


Average piston speed is the same. That's determined by stroke and rpm. The acceleration approaching and departing from TDC (and peak speed) is higher with a shorter rod. HOWEVER, engine builders much smarter and more experienced than I am have said repeatedly that there is no measurable power difference between identical engine combinations with a shorter or longer rod. You do get less side loading and theoretically less bore wear with a longer rod but it's all pretty minimal in the scheme of things.

The only reason people build 7.005-inch rod (198 rod length) 225 slant six motors is because the only "off the shelf" aftermarket pistons are designed for that rod or, like FWD mopar pistons, they coincidentally work well with that combination of rod and deck height. And because the only off-the-shelf aftermarket rods are 7.005 inches long.
 
Average piston speed is the same. That's determined by stroke and rpm. The acceleration approaching and departing from TDC (and peak speed) is higher with a shorter rod. HOWEVER, engine builders much smarter and more experienced than I am have said repeatedly that there is no measurable power difference between identically engine combinations with a shorter or longer rod. You do get less side loading and theoretically less bore wear with a longer rod but it's all pretty minimal in the scheme of things.

The only reason people build 7.005-inch rod (198 rod length) 225 slant six motors is because the only "off the shelf" aftermarket pistons are designed for that rod or, like FWD mopar pistons, they coincidentally work well with that combination of rod and deck height. And because the only off-the-shelf aftermarket rods are 7.005 inches long.

This makes sense to me.
 
Average piston speed is the same. That's determined by stroke and rpm. The acceleration approaching and departing from TDC (and peak speed) is higher with a shorter rod. HOWEVER, engine builders much smarter and more experienced than I am have said repeatedly that there is no measurable power difference between identical engine combinations with a shorter or longer rod. You do get less side loading and theoretically less bore wear with a longer rod but it's all pretty minimal in the scheme of things.

The only reason people build 7.005-inch rod (198 rod length) 225 slant six motors is because the only "off the shelf" aftermarket pistons are designed for that rod or, like FWD mopar pistons, they coincidentally work well with that combination of rod and deck height. And because the only off-the-shelf aftermarket rods are 7.005 inches long.

since this is still going im going to jump in... rod ratio is kinda like open headers... if your driving around and then open the headers, its going to perform worse, extra time needs to be taken to get the most out of open headers vs exhaust.

Good rod ratio's have many advantages such as you mentioned side loading (lower mechanical friction is always good) and my favorite is piston dwell time. much like a stroker motor long rod motor eat up duration. Running more duration with a less duration "effective" is going to do what? better cylinder fill...

F1 motor are something like a 2.7:1

some good reading

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/1996/PageID/3226/Does-Length-Matter.aspx
 

since this is still going im going to jump in... rod ratio is kinda like open headers... if your driving around and then open the headers, its going to perform worse, extra time needs to be taken to get the most out of open headers vs exhaust.

Good rod ratio's have many advantages such as you mentioned side loading (lower mechanical friction is always good) and my favorite is piston dwell time. much like a stroker motor long rod motor eat up duration. Running more duration with a less duration "effective" is going to do what? better cylinder fill...

F1 motor are something like a 2.7:1

some good reading

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/1996/PageID/3226/Does-Length-Matter.aspx

But, F-1 motors are high-rpm racing engines that seldom see low or medium rpm... a different kettle of fish from a 4+-inch stroke slant six.

They make their power at 20,000rpm.

I think that has a huge effect on their ideal rod/stroke ratio.

But, I am no engineer... what do I know?

From David Reher's book "If I had to make a list of the ten most important specifications in a racing engine, connecting rod length would rank about fiftieth. Back in the days when Buddy Morrison and I built dozens of small-block Modified motors, we earnestly believed that an engine needed a 1.9:1 rod/stroke ratio. Today every Pro Stock team uses blocks with super-short deck heights, and we couldn’t care less about the rod ratio. A short deck height improves the alignment between the intake manifold runners and the cylinder head intake ports, and helps to stabilize the valvetrain. These are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio. There’s no magic – a rod’s function is to connect the piston to the crankshaft. Period."

He makes his living building Pro Stock motors... probably knows what he's talking about...
 
But, F-1 motors are high-rpm racing engines that seldom see low or medium rpm... a different kettle of fish from a 4+-inch stroke slant six.

They make their power at 20,000rpm.

I think that has a huge effect on their ideal rod/stroke ratio.

But, I am no engineer... what do I know?

From David Reher's book "If I had to make a list of the ten most important specifications in a racing engine, connecting rod length would rank about fiftieth. Back in the days when Buddy Morrison and I built dozens of small-block Modified motors, we earnestly believed that an engine needed a 1.9:1 rod/stroke ratio. Today every Pro Stock team uses blocks with super-short deck heights, and we couldn’t care less about the rod ratio. A short deck height improves the alignment between the intake manifold runners and the cylinder head intake ports, and helps to stabilize the valvetrain. These are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio. There’s no magic – a rod’s function is to connect the piston to the crankshaft. Period."

He makes his living building Pro Stock motors... probably knows what he's talking about...

lol i cant compare a F1 for an example but your going to throw out prostock? And to tell you the truth i think you pointed out a big point by accident! Those short deck, short rod motors get torn down very often because they blow up or wear out past spec. No so with F1...

everyone will agree that a high rod ratio lowers mechanical friction... and if you read and find it out for yourself the dwell benifit can be big ESPECIALLY on our poor breathing NA slant six...
 
Keeping piston speed up on a street engine wins every time. A shorter rod does it. There are benefits and drawbacks to each type. Small block chebbies have rod ratios in the 1.5 range. Anybody with any sense will not argue against what a great little street engine the SBC is. I used to think a greater ratio was good for everything too until I did a lot of reading on the subject. You'd do well to do the same.
 
Keeping piston speed up on a street engine wins every time. A shorter rod does it. There are benefits and drawbacks to each type. Small block chebbies have rod ratios in the 1.5 range. Anybody with any sense will not argue against what a great little street engine the SBC is. I used to think a greater ratio was good for everything too until I did a lot of reading on the subject. You'd do well to do the same.

yep those little suckers will rev to the moon, not so much for a slant... as you said there are benifits to each, but we are talking a low RPM slant currently.
 
Exactly Ed. Think about what you're saying. Low RPM. Low RPM will benefit from high piston speed.
 
lol i cant compare a F1 for an example but your going to throw out prostock? And to tell you the truth i think you pointed out a big point by accident! Those short deck, short rod motors get torn down very often because they blow up or wear out past spec. No so with F1...

everyone will agree that a high rod ratio lowers mechanical friction... and if you read and find it out for yourself the dwell benifit can be big ESPECIALLY on our poor breathing NA slant six...







Reher and Morrison buils all kinds of engines... but, they are probably most-famous for their Pro Stock motors. Their clients, truth-be-known, are likely Bracket Racers, running Powerglides in .90's class cars like Super-Class racing.

But, his point was, it really doesn't matter, output-wise, whether the rod-length ratio is this ot that... it's gonna put out the same amount of horsepower.... within a very few ponies.

I tend to ignore the reliability/longevity issue, because al the engines I am associated with are low-annual-mileage, racing engines.

That is a fault of mine and I apologize for it. Rod-length can affect piston/ring/cylinder-wall life, for sure, and that's what our engine has in it (simply, because that is what K-1/Wiseco was selling at the time we built our short-block,) not for any other reason. If it adds to the life of our engine, that's a plus...
 
lol i cant compare a F1 for an example but your going to throw out prostock? And to tell you the truth i think you pointed out a big point by accident! Those short deck, short rod motors get torn down very often because they blow up or wear out past spec. No so with F1...

everyone will agree that a high rod ratio lowers mechanical friction... and if you read and find it out for yourself the dwell benifit can be big ESPECIALLY on our poor breathing NA slant six...

I never said anything about rod-length ratios on Pro Stock motors... just that David Reher builds a lot or Pro Stock motors. And, he does... but alludes to his reasoning RE: the Small-Blocks, he and partner (R.I.P.) Buddy Morrison built back in the day... when they always worked toward a 1.9:1 rod/stroke ratio. THAT is what he was referring to when he contended that rod-length is unimportant to the output, not in Pro Stock... He just threw in the low-deck, short-rod P/S motors they currently build, to prove a point.

And yes,a F-1 engine will go a long way with a 2.7:1 rod/stroke ratio. Why wouldn't it; the angularity is minimal...
 
Ok so as a "forum reader" I'm gonna chime in here.

This whole discussion about rod length and piston choices all comes down to one thing and one thing only. Micro-Tuning.

I firmly believe that a longer rod will build horsepower because even though the average piston speed will remain the same, piston speed at TDC and BDC will be slower and the piston will dwell longer (stop moving) at TDC and BDC, simple mathematical calculations and geometry will prove this to be true. At TDC this will create more time for cylinder pressure to increase before the power stroke actually begins. It's only logical. Also although I have never heard this said, I believe too that since the dwell time at BDC will last longer, there will be more time for momentum (or pressure in a forced induction app.) to bring the intake charge in just before the compression stroke starts. Keep in mind though, I could be wrong there due to the fact that in the dead middle of the stroke the piston will move signifigantly faster (remember for avg. piston speed to remain the same, if the piston is moving slower near top and bottom dead centers, other areas of piston will move faster). Take away from that what you will, I am not an engineer, I'm just a teenager.

NOW TO THE OP, who seems to have dissapeared. You really shouldn't waste the time or money pursuing this idea and here is why. RustyRatRod, has repeatedly said that slower piston speeds will be better for a street engine. What he hasn't said, is the reason why. If the piston dwells longer at TDC of the power stroke, pressures will rise more. Higher pressure = higher temperatures = detonation. So if you choose to run 198 rods, you will either have to pay more and run higher octane fuel, or pull ignition timing out, or turn the boost down OR all three. Is this really a comprimise you want to make after spending close to $700 in pistons and rods?

Here is my suggestion to you. If you are really after getting a quicker revving engine to spool the turbo do this build.

  • Find a cast crank block. (1975-1982 blocks)
  • Run a cast crank (they weigh ~24 lbs. less than a forged crank)
  • Run 225 rods
  • Run a good set of cast or hypertectic(spelling?) pistons
  • Use arp crank main studs, rod studs, and head studs
  • Pay super close attention to ring gaps
  • Send your cam, or a cam core to Oregon cam grinders and let them help you pick a good turbo grind.
  • If budget allows, head work. Open and polish the ports, smooth all sharp bends, bigger valves.
Honestly, I don't think your engine should be anymore potent then it is now, young guns and fast cars on the street causes problems. Instead of going faster why not focus on some other areas? Are your brakes big enough to support your power? (hint, think disc brakes up front and ten inch drums out back). What you got for a tranny? A manual VB 904 and a converter that stalls at the appropriate rpm will help alot. Please tell me you aren't running a 7-1/4" rear, at least use an 8-1/4" with a gear ratio in the 2's range, believe it or not gears over a 2.76 ratio will slow a turbo motor down.

Basically it all comes down to what me and RustyRatRod talked on the phone about last week. Alot of V8 guys have no idea where to stop and get obsessed with micro tuning and all this little expensive crap that doesn't really make big and/or favorable changes when considering what the car will be used for. Slant guys make use of micro tuning because we don't have the cubic inches to hide the missmatch of parts so we have to be spot on to be competitive. But here is the thing, the last statement in italics applies to naturally asperated engines. When you start pushing NOS in your slant or running a turbo or a supercharger, you are band-aiding the missmatch of parts and therefore micro tuning becomes largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Basically what I am saying is, if you are on a budget, you should spend money wisely and dumping money on these rods and pistons will be a waste of time and money.

And one last thing, before anyone calls me out on running a cast crank turbo motor, go over to ss.org, ask and discover how many cast crank engines are living well into the 300-400 h.p. ranges.

Keep in mind, this post is exclusively centered around street cars. If you are running at the track (100% drag car, no street use), everything I said goes out the window. Micro tuning becomes important and you want to extract every h.p. you can irregardless of cost.
 
Well I guess I effectively bored everyone to death and ended this conversation.:sign3::oops:
 
Ok so as a "forum reader" I'm gonna chime in here.



I firmly believe that a longer rod will build horsepower because even though the average piston speed will remain the same, piston speed at TDC and BDC will be slower and the piston will dwell longer (stop moving) at TDC and BDC, simple mathematical calculations and geometry will prove this to be true.
Keep in mind, this post is exclusively centered around street cars. If you are running at the track (100% drag car, no street use), everything I said goes out the window. Micro tuning becomes important and you want to extract every h.p. you can irregardless of cost.

David Reher builds competition engines for a living, and has for probably longer than you have been alive.

His Pro Stock motors have won multiple awards, and there have been a LOT of them.

When he says in his book, "There are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio. There’s no magic – a rod’s function is to connect the piston to the crankshaft. Period," just what do you think he means????

I'd like to know whether you think your opinion carries more weight than his in this matter.

What do you REALLY think???:argue:
 
When he says in his book, "There are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio. There’s no magic – a rod’s function is to connect the piston to the crankshaft. Period," just what do you think he means????

A conrod actually converts linear motion into rotary motion...that's it's primary job......just sayin'.
 
What I find hilarious is that about a year ago, I was having this same argument, but I was on the other side. I was arguing that a long rod was better for the street. I was wrong. Now that I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject and know piston speed is good for the street, I come on here arguing that point and I am argued with again. I it's funny as hell no matter which way I argue, it is always assumed I am wrong. You caint have it both ways.
 
-
Back
Top Bottom