I guess we are in trouble then.. that is what my son and I used in our 340. Edlebrock heads and all! Remember, we took over 250 grams of bobweight off of the crank pins versus a stock 273/318, and the OP is doing the same.
Other factors:
- The 273/318 light rods only weigh 5-6% less than 340 rods, so looks can be deceiving for those and the cranks.All my 68 to 72 or so teener rods look identical to 340 rods, same casting numbers and all. And they all in turn look the same as my 360 rods which are less the upper bushings. The 273 rods I have are from a 65 and they look nothing at all like the other bunch; spindly,sickly-looking in comparison.In my 367, I installed the bushed teener rods, with new bushings. I never weighed any of these. So I cannot say how much less the 273 rods might be.
- Crank strength is also in the materials' strength, not just the quanitity.Understood
- And since only so much torque can be put on the crank with an A-body before the wheels spin, that is a help too; it is not a truck at 10 tons with 3-4 more times traction and lugging up a long hill. Yeahbut can it withstand 18 years of 7200rpm blasts, with 295s or sometimes 325s, with neutral drops with a CFII trying to split the A833 wide open? I mean my 367 has ripped teeth off 5.38s and 3.91s. It has shredded U-joints and clutch discs, and spit out damper springs on several occasions. It has ripped teeth off the input of one A833 OD box and all the teeth of the cluster at the od location,twice. I wasn't interested in saving weight when I put that 367 together, except to balance those lightweight hypers, and I put the balance in the flywheel also for that reason; namely, I didn't have the smarts to try and fool around with the internals.
I promise I'll let you know as soon as we snap that 273 crank. (Cue the 'Jeopardy waiting music'... LOL)
