Stroker size

nedceifus Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:23 am

What stroker sizes are better for different applications? I’m just getting my 460 together but really need to upgrade to a forged piston, I’m going to put some NOS to it next summer. Seems like if I’m going to invest in a good set of pistons I may as well just buy a stroker rotating assembly. This is going in a 64 Ford. Street/Strip, heavy on the strip. Victor, 1000cfm 4150, 700 lift solid roller, SCJ heads, pump gas, 200 shot. I want to be able to beat the piss out if it.

Dave De Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:58 am

If its a factory block... going 4.3" stroke is friendly. D9TE blocks have longer bores where they are the best for using 4.5" stroke but even with them I think 4.3" is the practical choice for a street/strip package.

dfree383 Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:27 am

Bigger the stroke the more torque and power it will make.

rmcomprandy Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:11 pm

Dave De wrote:If its a factory block... going 4.3" stroke is friendly. D9TE blocks have longer bores where they are the best for using 4.5" stroke but even with them I think 4.3" is the practical choice for a street/strip package.

I agree, especially when longevity of ring life is expected.
A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod or a 4.5 stroke with a 6.7" rod is marginal for decent ring life even in a D9 block..
Keep the piston in the bore not out of the bottom.

If it is a high maintenance racing engine then it probably won't matter.

BBFTorino Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:57 am

The biggest that you can afford.

wickettoby1 Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:50 pm

If you’re ‘64 is a “full figured Gal” she’s gonna be weighing in at 4K plus (unless she’s been to fat camp) so lots of torque should be high on the priority list. A 521 can make the same power as a 545 it will just take a few more RPM’s to do it. Personally I wouldn’t be afraid of using either one but I’d definitely spring for all forged internals.

Doxnoogle Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:53 am

rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?[/quote]

Dave De Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:59 pm

Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
Dave De wrote:
A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

Mr. Doxnoodle altered that thread to make it look like I said "A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod" I did not. That is ridiculous.

If anyone thought that I was suggesting 6.6 rods I was not. I agree that 6.7 or 6.8 rods must be used with a 2.2 rod journal. If factory blocks are used a 6.8 rod is best but a 6.7 rod will be okay with a D9 block. Street use is more important to have the pin higher in the bore thus a 6.8 rod is ideal.

Going further to make a point. The weakest link in a BBF is the rods. If you are are looking for more power on a build and who isnt. Using a 4.3 or 4.5 or 4.6 crank with 6.7 or 6.8 BBC rods with a 2.20 crank pin and .990 piston pin is the only way to roll. If there is something better let me know.

Doxnoogle Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:01 am

Dave De wrote:
Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
Dave De wrote:
A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?
Mr. Doxnoodle altered that thread to make it look like I said "A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod" I did not. That is ridiculous.

If anyone thought that I was suggesting 6.6 rods I was not. I agree that 6.7 or 6.8 rods must be used with a 2.2 rod journal. If factory blocks are used a 6.8 rod is best but a 6.7 rod will be okay with a D9 block. Street use is more important to have the pin higher in the bore thus a 6.8 rod is ideal.

Going further to make a point. The weakest link in a BBF is the rods. If you are are looking for more power on a build and who isnt. Using a 4.3 or 4.5 or 4.6 crank with 6.7 or 6.8 BBC rods with a 2.20 crank pin and .990 piston pin is the only way to roll. If there is something better let me know.

Wtf are you talking about? Three posts up from mine rmcomprandy mentioned using a 6.605 rod with a 4.3" stroke. Forgive me that i missed one of the quote inserts. Jesus you guys next level touchy around here, sweet burn spelling my name wrong, do i have to throw a tantrum now to fit in?

Dave De Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:35 am

Hey Doxnoogle,
I accept your apology for scrambling that quote even though you say that you missed something. When you take my quote and alter it down to a string that doesn't make sense "A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod" it makes me look like a fool. It certainly looked intentional but if it wasn't I'll take your word for it. Please be careful. And yes I intentionally said noodle but wont do it again going forward.
Carry on,
Dave

Mark Miller Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:02 am

Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

[/quote]

Ford Racing Sold a Stroker Kit back in 2002 or so with a 4.3 stroke Crank and with the 6.605 rods!!

Doxnoogle Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:12 pm

Dave De wrote:Hey Doxnoogle,
I accept your apology for scrambling that quote even though you say that you missed something. When you take my quote and alter it down to a string that doesn't make sense "A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod" it makes me look like a fool. It certainly looked intentional but if it wasn't I'll take your word for it. Please be careful. And yes I intentionally said noodle but wont do it again going forward.
Carry on,
Dave

Dude, its not even your quote....

Mark Miller wrote:
Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

Ford Racing Sold a Stroker Kit back in 2002 or so with a 4.3 stroke Crank and with the 6.605 rods!!

Ok, so that was the old FRPP 514 kit that used stock length rods. Ive heard that someone bought all the leftover cranks when ford switched to the aftermarket rod for the crate. Anyone know the contact?

Lem Evans Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:53 pm

Doxnoogle wrote:
Dave De wrote:Hey Doxnoogle,
I accept your apology for scrambling that quote even though you say that you missed something. When you take my quote and alter it down to a string that doesn't make sense "A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod" it makes me look like a fool. It certainly looked intentional but if it wasn't I'll take your word for it. Please be careful. And yes I intentionally said noodle but wont do it again going forward.
Carry on,
Dave

Dude, its not even your quote....

Mark Miller wrote:
Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

I do believe that Scat was the source of the 2.5" journal 4.30" cranks......I'd contact them.

Ford Racing Sold a Stroker Kit back in 2002 or so with a 4.3 stroke Crank and with the 6.605 rods!!
Ok, so that was the old FRRP 514 kit that used stock length rods. Ive heard that someone bought all the leftover cranks when ford switched to the aftermarket rod for the crate. Anyone know the contact?

Lem Evans Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:54 pm

I do believe that Scat was the source of the 2.5" journal 4.30" cranks......I'd contact them.

rmcomprandy Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:20 am

Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

[/quote]

I am guessing that you have never seen or even heard-of the "Ford Racing Performance Parts" 514, (based upon a standard 460 bore), crate engine which has sold well over a thousand units over the years. Those 4.300" stroke crankshafts do use 2.500" rod journals.

The original actually was offered in 2000 with bushed, stock 460 truck rods and aluminum Cobra Jet heads. That was changed to Eagle 6.605" long rods in 2002 but, still a 2.500" rod journal. Then in 2003 that crate engine got Super Cobra Jet heads. That version was offered for the next 7 years until they changed the name to 521, (based upon a +.030" 460 bore), for a couple more sales years.

They even offered that short block with a 4.300" stroke crankshaft and 6.605" long rod in what they called a "Cobra Kit Car" crate engine which used a "Torquer II" intake manifold and a hydraulic lifter camshaft along with the Super Cobra Jet heads.

Please know what you are talking about before you post what you think.

supervel45 Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:59 am

rmcomprandy wrote:
Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

rmcomprandy

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

I am guessing that you have never seen or even heard-of the "Ford Racing Performance Parts" 514, (based upon a standard 460 bore), crate engine which has sold well over a thousand units over the years. Those 4.300" stroke crankshafts do use 2.500" rod journals.

The original actually was offered in 2000 with bushed, stock 460 truck rods and aluminum Cobra Jet heads. That was changed to Eagle 6.605" long rods in 2002 but, still a 2.500" rod journal. Then in 2003 that crate engine got Super Cobra Jet heads. That version was offered for the next 7 years until they changed the name to 521, (based upon a +.030" 460 bore), for a couple more sales years.

They even offered that short block with a 4.300" stroke crankshaft and 6.605" long rod in what they called a "Cobra Kit Car" crate engine which used a "Torquer II" intake manifold and a hydraulic lifter camshaft along with the Super Cobra Jet heads.

Please know what you are talking about before you post what you think.[/quote] rmcomprandy

Question By SuperVel45 Below: I am Trying Not To Jumble The Quotes

Back in 2006 it was mentioned at the old 460Ford site that the TRW Pistons ran out I believe and another company was going to furnish the replacements?

Something about a scuffing problem on the skirts {(short rods) my assumption} that had to be resolved with the new pistons.

Can you shed any light on what happened with that? The new piston company brand does not matter if they got or did not get the contract, just wondering what finally became of the deal?

I am not good at multiquotes, so I hope This is OK.

supervel45 Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:33 am

OP: What Block are you going to use?

Nice Top End by the way.

Doxnoogle Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am

rmcomprandy wrote:
Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

I am guessing that you have never seen or even heard-of the "Ford Racing Performance Parts" 514, (based upon a standard 460 bore), crate engine which has sold well over a thousand units over the years. Those 4.300" stroke crankshafts do use 2.500" rod journals.

The original actually was offered in 2000 with bushed, stock 460 truck rods and aluminum Cobra Jet heads. That was changed to Eagle 6.605" long rods in 2002 but, still a 2.500" rod journal. Then in 2003 that crate engine got Super Cobra Jet heads. That version was offered for the next 7 years until they changed the name to 521, (based upon a +.030" 460 bore), for a couple more sales years.

They even offered that short block with a 4.300" stroke crankshaft and 6.605" long rod in what they called a "Cobra Kit Car" crate engine which used a "Torquer II" intake manifold and a hydraulic lifter camshaft along with the Super Cobra Jet heads.

Please know what you are talking about before you post what you think.

Maybe you shouldnt put words in my mouth (or edit them out of quotes). I never "posted what i think" but im about to. This forum, with the exception of two people has been all together unhelpful and not just unfriendly, but Ive never met such an offendable, condescending group of a-holes in all my life. I am well aware of the FRPP 514, i literally mentioned it above, you clipped it out of the quote and made your dumbass comment... Not only that, but i was infatuated with having one as a teenager thanks to my mothers now ex-husband having one in a 50s studabaker wrecker. I was not aware until a couple days ago that they were factory rod length, or ever used factory rods. I also did not know that 4.3" cranks with 2.5" journals even existed, which is why i [i]asked the question[i]. According to my summit catalog, that engine isnt available (or even listed) and every 4.15, 4.3, 4.5 crank commonly available uses 2.2 journals and 6.7 or 6.8 rods. Forgive me for not knowing every crankshaft ever offered for a bbf and coming to a forum to ask questions and learn.

rmcomprandy Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:08 pm

supervel45 wrote:

Question By SuperVel45 Below: I am Trying Not To Jumble The Quotes

I am not good at multiquotes, so I hope This is OK.

YES ... from 2007 to 2011 the Ford big block crate motor pistons were supplied from PROBE.
These days ... Diamond sells replacement pistons for those.

There are 6.250" length rods which are for 2.200" journals.

rmcomprandy Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:23 pm

Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

I am guessing that you have never seen or even heard-of the "Ford Racing Performance Parts" 514, (based upon a standard 460 bore), crate engine which has sold well over a thousand units over the years. Those 4.300" stroke crankshafts do use 2.500" rod journals.

The original actually was offered in 2000 with bushed, stock 460 truck rods and aluminum Cobra Jet heads. That was changed to Eagle 6.605" long rods in 2002 but, still a 2.500" rod journal. Then in 2003 that crate engine got Super Cobra Jet heads. That version was offered for the next 7 years until they changed the name to 521, (based upon a +.030" 460 bore), for a couple more sales years.

They even offered that short block with a 4.300" stroke crankshaft and 6.605" long rod in what they called a "Cobra Kit Car" crate engine which used a "Torquer II" intake manifold and a hydraulic lifter camshaft along with the Super Cobra Jet heads.

Please know what you are talking about before you post what you think.

Maybe you shouldnt put words in my mouth (or edit them out of quotes). I never "posted what i think" but im about to. This forum, with the exception of two people has been all together unhelpful and not just unfriendly, but Ive never met such an offendable, condescending group of a-holes in all my life. I am well aware of the FRPP 514, i literally mentioned it above, you clipped it out of the quote and made your dumbass comment... Not only that, but i was infatuated with having one as a teenager thanks to my mothers now ex-husband having one in a 50s studabaker wrecker. I was not aware until a couple days ago that they were factory rod length, or ever used factory rods. I also did not know that 4.3" cranks with 2.5" journals even existed, which is why i [i]asked the question[i]. According to my summit catalog, that engine isnt available (or even listed) and every 4.15, 4.3, 4.5 crank commonly available uses 2.2 journals and 6.7 or 6.8 rods. Forgive me for not knowing every crankshaft ever offered for a bbf and coming to a forum to ask questions and learn.

Just simply informing you that there was more than just "A" crate motor from FRPP which used that crank/rod combination of parts.

When I, or others, tell you something factual and you immediately question the validity ... that is on you.

Mark O'Neal Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:14 am

Doxnoogle wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Dont mean to hijack, but thats a thing? Every 521 ive been able to find is a 6.7 or 6.8 rod with 2.2 journals, would assume the 4.3 crank would need to use 2.5 journals for the 6.605 rods..?

[/quote]

Ford did it....for about a month. So, it was thing, but really not a thing.

You might run across a crank if you're lucky.

rmcomprandy Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:33 am

Mark O'Neal wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:

A 4.3" stroke with a 6.605" rod

Ford did it....for about a month. So, it was thing, but really not a thing.

You might run across a crank if you're lucky.

Do your homework Mark ...
"Ford Racing Performance Parts" used that combination of crankshaft journal size / connecting rod for about 10 years in their big block crate motors.

supervel45 Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:22 am

There used to be some discussion of rod bearing speed vs rod length vs crank pin diameter vs stroke length and oiling. It would seem that a longer rod with smaller bearing on a long stroke would have less speed and less surface area to oil? Any truth to that?

Back in the day they used to tout cross drilled cranks for increased oiling, never hear about it any more and it seemed more of a Chevy thing back then.

rmcomprandy Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:38 am

supervel45 wrote:There used to be some discussion of rod bearing speed vs rod length vs crank pin diameter vs stroke length and oiling. It would seem that a longer rod with smaller bearing on a long stroke would have less speed and less surface area to oil? Any truth to that?
.

MAYBE ... the larger rod journals certainly have more oil throw-off to increase the density of crankcase windage.

The original prototype FRPP crate engines did make it through durability testing but, after releasing those engines for sale, they got many returns with broken connecting rods so, they went to Eagle H-Beams and sold a bunch more engines over the years without bottom end issues.
Most truck rods which came back broken, broke the beams just under the small end though.

Doxnoogle Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:33 am

rmcomprandy wrote:

When I, or others, tell you something factual and you immediately question the validity ... that is on you.

I didnt question it, i asked a question. People who dont question everything are lazy or have their heads in the sand, especially "stuff you read on the internet". This thread alone proves you can just accept what someone says as fact, you yourself confirmed my exclamation on the abundance of misinformation out there in my thread. In the day and ago of fake news, its better to question it, find out why, then question again, lets just say i like to be thorough.

As to bearing speed, i know historically there were lots of big blocks spinning lots of rpm. Not to say a 2.2 journal isnt an improvement in weight, friction, oil temp, and even windage like randy said. Still turning a 3" main at the end of the day, personally i side with the people who feel the larger rod journal and better overlap adds to rigidity and durability. I dont want to get into a rod length debate because there are opinions all over the map and little evidence to support either side. Plenty of great minds feel the con rod "connects the piston the the crank" and thats just about right in my book. Going from a 6.605 to 6.7 or even 6.8 isnt going to produce much difference in rod ratio. Youre limited by piston to crank clearance and deck height so theres just not much wiggle room for rod angle changes vs like a sbc going 5.7 to 6.2 for instance. The rules i go by are: at least 1.5:1 ratio, generally speaking, longer rod the better without sacrificing ring pack dimensions, less side loading, more dwell after tdc, less peak piston speed, and theoretically doesnt demand as much of the head / intake. The whole second half of that being irrelevant for the vast majority.

Sponsored content

Stroker size

Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size

Re: Stroker size