360 Came With A Forged Crank

-
66fs said:
And larger main journals.
Click to expand...

You know, a lot of people see that as a negative and talk about how more surface area of a larger min journal creates more friction. I don't buy that, because bearings and journals have clearances, with a film of oil between, so friction is minimal. In fact, I see the larger main journal as a plus, since there is more material and strength. But that's only my opinion.

I've never seen any races won or lost as a direct result from journal diameter.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Yeah and it blows chunks because they still offer several compression heights for the 318 and none for the 340 or 360.......in stock replacements anyway.
Click to expand...

I guess it’s a numbers game. Is’nt what they always tell us? Like Fluidamper. Can’t make an early and late damper for a small block, but every silly damper ever made for a sbc
 
66fs said:
I guess it’s a numbers game. Is’nt what they always tell us? Like Fluidamper. Can’t make an early and late damper for a small block, but every silly damper ever made for a sbc
Click to expand...

I know and they tell us stuff like "engineering costs" and blah blah blah but I wonder the cost on the twelveteen balancers available for the Chevy.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I know and they tell us stuff like "engineering costs" and blah blah blah but I wonder the cost on the twelveteen balancers available for the Chevy.
Click to expand...

So what do you think it would cost to move the 0 TDC mark and Heaven forbid offset one pulley hole? Give me a break. And yes I have called them...
 
RustyRatRod said:
You know, a lot of people see that as a negative and talk about how more surface area of a larger min journal creates more friction. I don't buy that, because bearings and journals have clearances, with a film of oil between, so friction is minimal. In fact, I see the larger main journal as a plus, since there is more material and strength. But that's only my opinion.

I've never seen any races won or lost as a direct result from journal diameter.
Click to expand...

Yep, less pounds per square inch of force with a wider journal due to more area to spread it over IMO.
 
RustyRatRod said:
You know, a lot of people see that as a negative and talk about how more surface area of a larger min journal creates more friction. I don't buy that, because bearings and journals have clearances, with a film of oil between, so friction is minimal. In fact, I see the larger main journal as a plus, since there is more material and strength. But that's only my opinion.

I've never seen any races won or lost as a direct result from journal diameter.
Click to expand...

It is only stronger. There is a theoretical limit to the wedge of oil at high rpm in relation to the journal diameter. But most of us will never have to worry about that.
 
66fs said:
So what do you think it would cost to move the 0 TDC mark and Heaven forbid offset one pulley hole? Give me a break. And yes I have called them...
Click to expand...

I know, right? It's all so stupid.
 
66fs said:
It is only stronger. There is a theoretical limit to the wedge of oil at high rpm in relation to the journal diameter. But most of us will never have to worry about that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I couldn't even think that hard anyway, so it's all irrelevant to me. LMAO
 
RustyRatRod said:
You know, a lot of people see that as a negative and talk about how more surface area of a larger min journal creates more friction. I don't buy that, because bearings and journals have clearances, with a film of oil between, so friction is minimal. In fact, I see the larger main journal as a plus, since there is more material and strength. But that's only my opinion.

I've never seen any races won or lost as a direct result from journal diameter.
Click to expand...

It depends on the length of the stroke and the overlap of the crank. If you have a relatively short stroke (say...3.700) you can use a smaller main bearing, still have the same overlap and not lose any strength. Then there are smaller rod bearings. The bearing weighs less, the big end weighs less, you have less mass in the counter weights...

So even at a 4 inch stroke, the 360 main bearings are bigger than they need to be, and the 2.125 Rod bearings are too big.

The reason why the 360 had bigger mains is the cast crank didn't have enough overlap with 340 sized bearings. If they would have not cheaper out and used a forged crank it would have had 340 main bearings.
 
Max1196 said:
Not even from Direct Connection , 1977 Special parts catalogView attachment 1715152708
Click to expand...
Max, I am going to disagree with you. My "Mopar Engines" book, 8th Edition, published by the Chrysler Corporation (no publication date given) says at page 39 that there were three 4340 billet steel cranks for the 360 (i.e., large main journals) available from the factory for those who wanted to go racing: the P4529819 with a 3.55" stroke; the P4452978 with a 3.58" stroke, and the P4452979 with a 3.79" stroke.
 
I was shooting for the earliest information I could find ,in 77 up to this point there was no offering, all very well later stuff was available, but the original post said his "from new" 74 had a steel crank!
 
Max1196 said:
I was shooting for the earliest information I could find ,in 77 up to this point there was no offering, all very well later stuff was available, but the original post said his "from new" 74 had a steel crank!
Click to expand...

Exactly. My interpretation of this thread was there was a factory offered steel crank 360 in production vehicles. There was not. D/C or M/P are both entirely different animals.
 
I skipped after the 4th post, to the last. This type of B.S. is typical of cruise ins and car shows. Why I don't go to either one!
 
RustyRatRod said:
Exactly. My interpretation of this thread was there was a factory offered steel crank 360 in production vehicles. There was not. D/C or M/P are both entirely different animals.
Click to expand...

Point taken, Max and Rusty. Thanks for the correction. I wasn't clear on the difference between D/C and M/P.
 
But....you couldn't put the power to the ground unless you had the 8.3/4 Dana Posi
 
All cast for the 360. It was high performance engine, Came with a windage tray. Maybe that's what the guy was thinking
 
Mandatory photo for added confuscation...

383 Hemi Powered-Valve Cover.jpg
 
RogerRamRod said:
But....you couldn't put the power to the ground unless you had the 8.3/4 Dana Posi
Click to expand...
I'm not following you here. The Chrysler 8-3/4" Dana Power Lok diff really existed from 1958 to 1969. The part no. was 2881487. If I missed your point, I apologize for being dense.
 
just continued ribbing of hot rod “shop” selling a 65 for the give away price of over $30,000. Complete with no paint, rattle canned interior,
830 (more available- but that’s where they backed off the dyno) horsepower,
with its Iron Slave heads
Chrysler Sure Grip/Dana Power Lock is not a “Posi” that’s all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top