Rod cap design

I'm collecting up parts for my next project and noticed a little difference in these two Oliver rods. Mostly the cap design had me wondering if they make different designs for specific applications. They both are 2.2 journals but one is .450 longer which may be part of the design change?

What are the PT#'s Lee, are they both BB series or is one BB-Max, or maybe light series vs Ultra light series.

The longer one c7250BB8 must be the bbmax as all I see listed that long.the other one is the standard 6.8 for a BBF.

Stroker clearanced??

BBFTorino wrote:Stroker clearanced??

IDK, I'm gona call them and see if they think they're up to a 9000 rpm deal.

cool40 wrote:

BBFTorino wrote:Stroker clearanced??

IDK, I'm gona call them and see if they think they're up to a 9000 rpm deal.

They show that design on the custom rod drawing page 15 of the link below. It appears that design is for the BBC which would account for the reduced cap height (for stroker clearance) the design also looks like they beefed up the bearing shoulders with the reduced height. The part # breaks down to
"C"- Chevy "7250" - 7.250"  "BB" - Big Block series "8" - number of cylinders. They will likely go there no problem, but I would agree better to call them.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/574db0c7b6aa6019e9f57e2a/t/5751b175cf80a1c9cb58e972/1464971640262/ORP_Online+Catalog_2014.pdf

Thanks for the link! Somehow I over looked that page,suppose I didn't scroll down far enough.

cool40 wrote:Thanks for the link! Somehow I over looked that page,suppose I didn't scroll down far enough.

You can contact Tom Molnar of Molnar Technologies and ask him. 616-940-4640. Tom was a design engineer at Oliver for some time, then started K1, now has his own line of rods and cranks. Super nice guy, very easy to talk to -but- be prepared for an education in connecting rods.

This is what I ran in the 611 BBF truck pull motor I built. 6.800 x 2.20 x .990. It saw 9000-9200 regularly.

Scott Foxwell wrote:

cool40 wrote:Thanks for the link! Somehow I over looked that page,suppose I didn't scroll down far enough.

You can contact Tom Molnar of Molnar Technologies and ask him. 616-940-4640. Tom was a design engineer at Oliver for some time, then started K1, now has his own line of rods and cranks. Super nice guy, very easy to talk to -but- be prepared for an education in connecting rods.

And an earful about how bad Oliver is?

Scott Foxwell wrote:This is what I ran in the 611 BBF truck pull motor I built. 6.800 x 2.20 x .990. It saw 9000-9200 regularly.

Is it expired? Saw?

dfree383 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:This is what I ran in the 611 BBF truck pull motor I built. 6.800 x 2.20 x .990. It saw 9000-9200 regularly.

Is it expired? Saw?

Unfortunately yes. That's what happens when customers decide to do their own "maintenance" and don't know what they're doing. Then blame the engine builder.

Scott Foxwell wrote:This is what I ran in the 611 BBF truck pull motor I built. 6.800 x 2.20 x .990. It saw 9000-9200 regularly.

how much did that wrist pin weigh? I've got a lot of confidence in the Oliver rods personally. That 6.8 in the pic had the bearing beat out from a lack of deck clearance credited to myself and lack of experience the one on the journal beside it turned a little blue a got kinda out of round but never give up. I may be looking for more rpm later but it'll be after I'm convinced a bbf can't make enough torque to pull the gear I want it to!

cool40 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:This is what I ran in the 611 BBF truck pull motor I built. 6.800 x 2.20 x .990. It saw 9000-9200 regularly.

how much did that wrist pin weigh? I've got a lot of confidence in the Oliver rods personally. That 6.8 in the pic had the bearing beat out from a lack of deck clearance credited to myself and lack of experience the one on the journal beside it turned a little blue a got kinda out of round but never give up. I may be looking for more rpm later but it'll be after I'm convinced a bbf can't make enough torque to pull the gear I want it to!

LOL...pin weighed a third of the piston. 201 g. The 611 made 1030 lbs/ft.

Scott Foxwell wrote:
Is it expired? Saw?

Unfortunately yes. That's what happens when customers decide to do their own "maintenance" and don't know what they're doing. Then blame the engine builder. [/quote]

Careful Mr. Foxwell. I am sure you don't want the other side of the story to be publicly aired?? or do you?

Lets keep it civil.

68galaxie wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:
Is it expired? Saw?

Unfortunately yes. That's what happens when customers decide to do their own "maintenance" and don't know what they're doing. Then blame the engine builder.

Careful Mr. Foxwell. I am sure you don't want the other side of the story to be publicly aired?? or do you?

Lets keep it civil.

Careful???
You make a crack like that and say lets keep it civil?  I'm never afraid of the truth. You think you know the truth??? LOL...You don't have a clue.

Calm down! You were the shit disturber on this. The truck pullers you slander are not here.
They had nothing to do with this thread. YOU chose to post pictures of someone else's parts.
And then slam the person that paid for those parts.

There are always several sides to a story. Of course your side is the truthful one.

Another soap opera in the works??

BBFTorino wrote:Another soap opera in the works??

3 sides to every story.

68galaxie wrote:Calm down! You were the shit disturber on this. The truck pullers you slander are not here.
They had nothing to do with this thread. YOU chose to post pictures of someone else's parts.
And then slam the person that paid for those parts.

There are always several sides to a story. Of course your side is the truthful one.

The engine ran here on the dyno for many pulls. The engine ran for several more pulls on their dyno. The engine was dominant on the track for a full season, undefeated. Over the winter it was taken apart and maintenance was done, changes were made. Engine expired after the second race afterwards.
No one with any common sense will believe that an engine with 17:1 compression, if it was THAT poorly built, would live through two dyno sessions and a full season of truck pulling competition.

BBFTorino wrote:Another soap opera in the works??

Sure seems like it...

Gentlemen... Lets get back on topic....
And yes, I do have limited moderator powers....

In the future....
If you don't want to debate a "they caused this, they did that" drama
Don't open the door by saying "Thru their own stupidity".....js

cool40 wrote:I'm collecting up parts for my next project and noticed a little difference in these two Oliver rods. Mostly the cap design had me wondering if they make different designs for specific applications. They both are 2.2 journals but one is .450 longer which may be part of the design change?

Just judging from what usually happens with a company making a running change ... they have found, through one way or another, that they should put more strength in one area and can sacrifice some in an other area so they re-design their own product. Simply because the rod is longer it may place some other stresses in a slightly different location and could be a reason for a cap design change.
Therefore, I would presume that whichever rod is the later design, (if they were both meant to do the same job), is the better way to go.