Recommendation for Forged Pistons and Connecting Rods

-
W

Walt Jackson

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
70
Reaction score
7
I'm gathering parts for a 1963 225 rebuild with oversize valves, hydraulic lifters, appropriate Oregon cam, Gil Welding conversion to MPFI and mild turbocharging.

The goal is a modest increase in power with extreme durability in a car that will not be raced.

The block is unmolested from a low mileage car, so the head and block are probably as delivered from the factory, but will await the verdict by the machine shop that will remanufacture the head and block.

Is there an off-the-shelf forged piston/rod combination that will still allow the use of regular gas? Or must I stay with the stock rods and pistons to achieve that goal?

TIA

--Walt Jackson
 
TRW, and Sealed Power/Speed Pro at one time had stock configuration forged pistons. They have been discontinued for awhile now, but do show up for sale every so often. Stock 225 rods should be fine for your application.
Actually, with mild turbocharging, and having the tune up correct, stock pistons should be OK. Just stay out of detonation.
 
Walt Jackson said:
I'm gathering parts for a 1963 225 rebuild with oversize valves, hydraulic lifters, appropriate Oregon cam, Gil Welding conversion to MPFI and mild turbocharging.

The goal is a modest increase in power with extreme durability in a car that will not be raced.

The block is unmolested from a low mileage car, so the head and block are probably as delivered from the factory, but will await the verdict by the machine shop that will remanufacture the head and block.

Is there an off-the-shelf forged piston/rod combination that will still allow the use of regular gas? Or must I stay with the stock rods and pistons to achieve that goal?

TIA

--Walt Jackson
Click to expand...
I guess I'll ask, do You have everything needed to convert to hydraulic valvetrain, & is there a reason for it?
 
Hydraulic lifters obviate the need to continuously adjust the valves to maintain performance and stability on a fuel injected engine..

--WaltJackson
 
Killer6 said:
I guess I'll ask, do You have everything needed to convert to hydraulic valvetrain, & is there a reason for it?
Click to expand...
I have ordered, but not yet received, the cam from Oregon Cams. I have the rocker arm assembly, bolts, and pushrods.

--Walt Jackson
 
Walt Jackson said:
Will this combination allow the use of regular gas?

The Molnar rods are longer than the stock rods.
Click to expand...
No, they are the same length as the 198 slant 6 rods. Those are longer than the 225 rods. You'll have to call Wiseco. They used to make a dished piston, but I don't see them listed.
 
Walt Jackson said:
Hydraulic lifters obviate the need to continuously adjust the valves to maintain performance and stability on a fuel injected engine..

--WaltJackson
Click to expand...
You'll regret the hydraulic changeover, I believe, but good luck with it.
 
The Molner/198 rods combined with the Wisco piston will increase the compression ratio. I don't have first hand knowledge of how much, but have heard it will make the CR close to 10-1.
There are both forged and hypereutectic pistons for the 2.2 4 cyl engine.
One is a flat top for the non turbo 2.2, but uses a pressed pin (there are no lock grooves in the piston pin bore) that will not work with the Molner rods (pin is floated). It would have to be used with the stock 198 rod. High compression in a slant.
The other is a dished piston, for the turbo 2.2 and has a floating pin which can be used with the Molner rod. Lower CR then the non turbo 2.2 piston.

PS: Personally I don't believe there will be a problem with the hydraulic valve train, if the oil is kept in good condition. Many of the problems with the hydro slants were caused by inadequate oil changes.
 
Charrlie_S said:
The Molner/198 rods combined with the Wisco piston will increase the compression ratio. I don't have first hand knowledge of how much, but have heard it will make the CR close to 10-1.
There are both forged and hypereutectic pistons for the 2.2 4 cyl engine.
One is a flat top for the non turbo 2.2, but uses a pressed pin (there are no lock grooves in the piston pin bore) that will not work with the Molner rods (pin is floated). It would have to be used with the stock 198 rod. High compression in a slant.
The other is a dished piston, for the turbo 2.2 and has a floating pin which can be used with the Molner rod. Lower CR then the non turbo 2.2 piston.

PS: Personally I don't believe there will be a problem with the hydraulic valve train, if the oil is kept in good condition. Many of the problems with the hydro slants were caused by inadequate oil changes.
Click to expand...
Charlie, I called Wiseco. They have nothing on the shelf for my application. If I supply the measurements, they can custom make the piston any way I want it. Do you have recommendations for how the piston should be configured? Campbell Enterprises does not recommend using the 2.2 pistons, but perhaps the custom slant six piston can emulate the desirable characteristics of the 2.2 piston?

--Walt Jackson
 
Walt Jackson said:
Charlie, I called Wiseco. They have nothing on the shelf for my application. If I supply the measurements, they can custom make the piston any way I want it. Do you have recommendations for how the piston should be configured? Campbell Enterprises does not recommend using the 2.2 pistons, but perhaps the custom slant six piston can emulate the desirable characteristics of the 2.2 piston?

--Walt Jackson
Click to expand...
You got hold of someone at Wiseco that didn't know their *** from a hole in the ground.

And about the hydraulic comment I made. It's my personal opinion that the slant 6 was never designed as a hydraulic lifter engine. They do not even have oil galleries to pressurize the lifters. The lifters are fed oil "backwards" through the head, through the rocker shaft, through the rocker arms, through the pushrods and FINALLY to the lifters. It's simply a piss poor design IMO for a hydraulic lifter engine. Are you actually saying you're afraid of a valve adjustment once every couple of years? Because that's about the frequency even if that.
 
RustyRatRod said:
You got hold of someone at Wiseco that didn't know their *** from a hole in the ground.

And about the hydraulic comment I made. It's my personal opinion that the slant 6 was never designed as a hydraulic lifter engine. They do not even have oil galleries to pressurize the lifters. The lifters are fed oil "backwards" through the head, through the rocker shaft, through the rocker arms, through the pushrods and FINALLY to the lifters. It's simply a piss poor design IMO for a hydraulic lifter engine. Are you actually saying you're afraid of a valve adjustment once every couple of years? Because that's about the frequency even if that.
Click to expand...
I'm just concerned that a fuel injection system that depends on consistency will produce drivability problems as the solid lifter system slowly comes out of adjustment. Am I wrong about this?

Doug Dutra was in the process of building an aluminum block engine for my project, which was lost in the great fire that destroyed his shop and left the engine a puddle of aluminum. He planned to tap an oil passage on the block for an external tube to the valve cover that would supply additional oil (eventually!) to the lifters. It was something he developed for hydraulic lifter engines built for racing.

--Walt Jackson
 
The stock adjustable rockers will stay in adjustment for a long time. What you've seen or heard about is literally from years of neglect. They run fine. Build it like you want to. You came on here asking advice, remember? Running mechanical lifters like the engine was designed for IS my advice.
 
RustyRatRod said:
The stock adjustable rockers will stay in adjustment for a long time. What you've seen or heard about is literally from years of neglect. They run fine. Build it like you want to. You came on here asking advice, remember? Running mechanical lifters like the engine was designed for IS my advice.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

--Walt Jackson
 
Walt Jackson said:
Charlie, I called Wiseco. They have nothing on the shelf for my application. If I supply the measurements, they can custom make the piston any way I want it. Do you have recommendations for how the piston should be configured? Campbell Enterprises does not recommend using the 2.2 pistons, but perhaps the custom slant six piston can emulate the desirable characteristics of the 2.2 piston?

--Walt Jackson
Click to expand...
I can't recommend any particular configuration, as most of my engines use either stock OEM cast pistons or the same in a forged. Did Campbell say why they don't recommend the 2.2 piston?
 
Charrlie_S said:
I can't recommend any particular configuration, as most of my engines use either stock OEM cast pistons or the same in a forged. Did Campbell say why they don't recommend the 2.2 piston?
Click to expand...
He said that their customers did not have a favorable result, whatever that means.

--Walt Jackson
 
Walt Jackson said:
He said that their customers did not have a favorable result, whatever that means.

--Walt Jackson
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the Wisco piston, are the same configuration as the 2.2 non turbo. Except it has valve reliefs, and pin lock grooves.
Like I mentioned in my prior post the 2.2 non turbo piston does not have the pin lock grooves, so can't be used with the Molner rods. I have a set of forged 2.2 turbo, and non turbo piston in stock. I was going to use them with OEM 198 rods, but the machine shop ruined both sets of rods.
 
Could those pin retainer grooves in the non turbo pistons, be cut in after you get them??
I do see various wiseco pistons on ebay all the time specifically listed (there anyway) for a slant 6. The last several I saw there were all 0.045 oversized (vs a "std bore" /6) so I think it's the 2.2 pistons.
 
I never cared for dished pistons. Everyone sings the praises of a 360 around here, says to dump our /6s and 318s in a ditch, but the holy grail 360 (at least to most around here) has always been a gas sucking pig for me, and I have yet to see a stock 360 that doesn't have them.
I think the dished pistons that Mopar castrated the 360s with, are a good portion of the reason.
 
Like Walt Jackson, I prefer hydraulic lifters. Indeed, I changed my 1965 273 to hydraulic. One big reason was to use Rhoads variable (leak-down) lifters for a poor-man's VVT. Most use them to get acceptable intake vacuum at idle (for brake booster) while running a racing camshaft, but I installed a milder "RV/Torque" camshaft which still has more lift than the OE solid-lifter camshaft since my goal was better mileage and low-end torque. But, like Charrlie_S says, the hydraulic lifters in the last-gasp slants was a kludge with strange oiling thru the pushrods. The same Rhoads lifters fit the small-block and big-block engines (0.910"D bore, recall), but wonder about the slant. Perhaps see if same PN for hyd lifters in slant and small-block, if interested.
 
volaredon said:
I never cared for dished pistons. Everyone sings the praises of a 360 around here, says to dump our /6s and 318s in a ditch, but the holy grail 360 (at least to most around here) has always been a gas sucking pig for me, and I have yet to see a stock 360 that doesn't have them.
I think the dished pistons that Mopar castrated the 360s with, are a good portion of the reason.
Click to expand...
A bone stock 360 in an A-body with a TQ carb & intake and heads w/2.02" intake valves will go 13's all day long if it's got a little gear & traction. How much will it take for a Slanty to do it? It was small intake valves & cams that hurt the most, even tho' the low squeeze certainly hurts them plenty. Slantys don't do any better in the stock squeeze dept. even with the flat-tops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top