4.750 4340 crank

Go down

4.750 4340 crank

Post  IDT-572 on January 14th 2015, 1:11 pm

At PRI, I thought Scat was coming out with a new 4.750 4340 crank for the 460.  I called them and they know nothing about it.

Was it Scat or someone else?
avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4604
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 57
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  res0rli9 on January 14th 2015, 1:28 pm

Lem knows

res0rli9
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 3338
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 68
Location : sarasota FL.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  61coon on January 14th 2015, 2:11 pm

scratch I heard that they were too.
avatar
61coon

Posts : 1818
Join date : 2009-08-07
Age : 41
Location : Hillsboro,TN

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  61coon on January 14th 2015, 2:13 pm

avatar
61coon

Posts : 1818
Join date : 2009-08-07
Age : 41
Location : Hillsboro,TN

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  Lem Evans on January 14th 2015, 3:24 pm

Scat 4.750" = Billet.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7148
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  IDT-572 on January 14th 2015, 3:55 pm

4-460-4750-6700-220 4340 Pro Comp Light Weight and in Super light

Found it on their online catalog.

avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4604
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 57
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  hienergy557 on January 14th 2015, 9:15 pm

avatar
hienergy557

Posts : 179
Join date : 2009-08-20
Age : 56
Location : Melbourne, Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  Lem Evans on January 14th 2015, 9:46 pm

hienergy557 wrote:Callies also do a 4.750" crank.

http://www.callies.com/crankshafts/magnum/magnum-ford-460/

Correct....I've sold a few.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7148
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

question

Post  747JetMech on January 16th 2015, 12:41 am

Is there a point where increasing the stroke will diminish gains due to bad rod ratio?

We have had some forged cranks available from non us suppliers for some time now. Is there any feedback on serviceability on these units? Good luck not so good?

Thx

Tom
avatar
747JetMech

Posts : 254
Join date : 2009-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  the Coug on January 16th 2015, 7:07 am

747JetMech wrote:Is there a point where increasing the stroke will diminish gains due to bad rod ratio?

We have had some forged cranks available from non us suppliers for some time now. Is there any feedback on serviceability on these units? Good luck not so good?

Thx

Tom



Just what do you call Bad Rod Ratio? and whom said it is good or bad?
avatar
the Coug

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2008-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Hi Coug

Post  747JetMech on January 19th 2015, 12:42 am

I remember reading something in Smokey Yunick book quit some time ago... Over 10 years ago..

Tom
avatar
747JetMech

Posts : 254
Join date : 2009-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  the Coug on January 19th 2015, 8:23 am

747JetMech wrote:I remember reading something in Smokey Yunick book quit some time ago... Over 10 years ago..

Tom


ok now forget what you read, Rod Ratio, it is what it is just a ratio, .the Rod serves a purpose it connects the Piston to the crank, it takes a lot of stress. but there is no proof good or bad, it is just a word a lot of people throw around, and the Chebby guys like the word evidently. I have ask this question to 100s of chevy and ford guys and no one can explain what a good or bad Ratio is and how they came to the conclusion it was either....
avatar
the Coug

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2008-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  68formalGT on January 19th 2015, 10:57 am

I asked and was told not to concern myself with that stuff.
avatar
68formalGT

Posts : 797
Join date : 2012-02-13
Location : Pueblo West, Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  rmcomprandy on January 19th 2015, 11:00 am

747JetMech wrote:I remember reading something in Smokey Yunick book quit some time ago... Over 10 years ago..

Tom

That was back in the day when cylinder heads needed as much help as they could get because a higher rod/stroke ratio makes cylinder demand less near the top half of the stroke.
With the air flow capability of heads today, it is almost easy to get enough air flow for the combination.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 5142
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  Lem Evans on January 19th 2015, 11:56 am

I agree, the modern cyl. heads make something like a 632" engine more viable than it would have been decades ago.

The small negitives of a 4.750" stroke and a 6.700" rod are greatly offset by the advantage of the extra displacement.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7148
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Thanks

Post  747JetMech on January 19th 2015, 4:16 pm

Thanks guys for answering my question.

Tom




avatar
747JetMech

Posts : 254
Join date : 2009-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  68formalGT on January 19th 2015, 4:40 pm

Lem Evans wrote:I agree, the modern cyl. heads make something like a 632" engine more viable than it would have been decades ago.

The small negitives of a 4.750" stroke and a 6.700" rod are greatly offset by the advantage of the extra displacement.

Hey Lem, how about in nitrous applications? I've been reading where guys are moving away from the 4.750 to the 4.500 cranks, is this because of the pin placement in relation to the rings?
avatar
68formalGT

Posts : 797
Join date : 2012-02-13
Location : Pueblo West, Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  Lem Evans on January 19th 2015, 6:31 pm

68formalGT wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I agree, the modern cyl. heads make something like a 632" engine more viable than it would have been decades ago.

The small negitives of a 4.750" stroke and a 6.700" rod are greatly offset by the advantage of the extra displacement.

Hey Lem, how about in nitrous applications? I've been reading where guys are moving away from the 4.750 to the 4.500 cranks, is this because of the pin placement in relation to the rings?

That's not the case locally.....then again the tall bbc block is .100" shorter....so maybe they have an issue.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7148
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 4.750 4340 crank

Post  68formalGT on January 20th 2015, 2:55 am

Lem Evans wrote:
68formalGT wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I agree, the modern cyl. heads make something like a 632" engine more viable than it would have been decades ago.

The small negitives of a 4.750" stroke and a 6.700" rod are greatly offset by the advantage of the extra displacement.

Hey Lem, how about in nitrous applications? I've been reading where guys are moving away from the 4.750 to the 4.500 cranks, is this because of the pin placement in relation to the rings?

That's not the case locally.....then again the tall bbc block is .100" shorter....so maybe they have an issue.

That makes sense, thanks Lem.
avatar
68formalGT

Posts : 797
Join date : 2012-02-13
Location : Pueblo West, Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum