Mahle Pistons
10-02-2007, 11:34 PM
#1
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Webb City, Missouri
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mahle Pistons I have a set of Mahle pistons 189-LS1314905F04
They are for a 3.905 bore and a 3.622 stroke which is what I am currently running but I was wondering if you could use a 4.0 or 4.1 stroker crank with the pistons?
They are for a 3.905 bore and a 3.622 stroke which is what I am currently running but I was wondering if you could use a 4.0 or 4.1 stroker crank with the pistons?
10-03-2007, 11:35 AM
#4
Teching In
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Blue Springs,MO
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never say never fellas. I've put some oddball parts together before, just to do it and I had spare parts laying around, but it usually gets costly and not worth it.
You could do a 4.100 stroke, but you would have to go to a 5.85" rod from someone like Eagle, and you would have to have the pin end honed to accept the .945 wrist pin, (they might have to replace the bushing to do it) and that's assuming that the rod isn't too wide to fit between the pin bosses on the piston. That would put the pistons about .010" down in the hole which isn't ideal, but it's not the end of the world. That is assuming that your pistons have a compression height of 1.340 and a block deck height of ~9.25".
In the end, it would be easier for you to sell your pistons and buy what you need.
You could do a 4.100 stroke, but you would have to go to a 5.85" rod from someone like Eagle, and you would have to have the pin end honed to accept the .945 wrist pin, (they might have to replace the bushing to do it) and that's assuming that the rod isn't too wide to fit between the pin bosses on the piston. That would put the pistons about .010" down in the hole which isn't ideal, but it's not the end of the world. That is assuming that your pistons have a compression height of 1.340 and a block deck height of ~9.25".
In the end, it would be easier for you to sell your pistons and buy what you need.
10-03-2007, 01:07 PM
#5
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never say never fellas. I've put some oddball parts together before, just to do it and I had spare parts laying around, but it usually gets costly and not worth it.
You could do a 4.100 stroke, but you would have to go to a 5.85" rod from someone like Eagle, and you would have to have the pin end honed to accept the .945 wrist pin, (they might have to replace the bushing to do it) and that's assuming that the rod isn't too wide to fit between the pin bosses on the piston. That would put the pistons about .010" down in the hole which isn't ideal, but it's not the end of the world. That is assuming that your pistons have a compression height of 1.340 and a block deck height of ~9.25".
In the end, it would be easier for you to sell your pistons and buy what you need.
You could do a 4.100 stroke, but you would have to go to a 5.85" rod from someone like Eagle, and you would have to have the pin end honed to accept the .945 wrist pin, (they might have to replace the bushing to do it) and that's assuming that the rod isn't too wide to fit between the pin bosses on the piston. That would put the pistons about .010" down in the hole which isn't ideal, but it's not the end of the world. That is assuming that your pistons have a compression height of 1.340 and a block deck height of ~9.25".
In the end, it would be easier for you to sell your pistons and buy what you need.
Trending Topics
10-04-2007, 12:48 PM
#8
Teching In
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Blue Springs,MO
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it wouldn't. The only possible problem, would be counterweight clearance and most cranks can have the counterweights turned down and mallory added to make up the weight during balancing. Or, I guess the reluctor ring could cause issues too, but I don't know enough about that to speak on it.
The wrist pin isn't moved from the stock location, which was always the excuse that shitty builders used in the past when they had oil control issues, so why would you think that?
If you guys are talking about that bullshit rod/stroke ratio, and "side loading" of the block, those are the biggest internet myths in the world. Hell, if it mattered, the old Gen I 400's would have been oil buring beasts, and we all know they just leaked.....lol.
A comparison, LS1 with a 5.85 rod with 4.100 stroke equals 1.426 r/s ratio. Gen I 400 sb with a factory 5.565 rod and a factory 3.75 stroke equals 1.484 r/s ratio. Not much difference huh?
Oh, and the shorter rod engine is going to be less detonation prone than the long rod, especially if it's a power adder vehicle too.
Originally Posted by Beaflag VonRathburg
Talk about an oil burner.
If you guys are talking about that bullshit rod/stroke ratio, and "side loading" of the block, those are the biggest internet myths in the world. Hell, if it mattered, the old Gen I 400's would have been oil buring beasts, and we all know they just leaked.....lol.
A comparison, LS1 with a 5.85 rod with 4.100 stroke equals 1.426 r/s ratio. Gen I 400 sb with a factory 5.565 rod and a factory 3.75 stroke equals 1.484 r/s ratio. Not much difference huh?
Oh, and the shorter rod engine is going to be less detonation prone than the long rod, especially if it's a power adder vehicle too.
