When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
More Specifically.
Callies offers their Ultra series in both an h beam and an I beam. The H weighing in at 650 grams and the I at 662 grams.
My Question is both of these rods are rated at the same power from callies at 1,500hp.
Now I have seen the Ibeam perform well above this and I believe many people skip right over the h beam because of the strength of the I.
Now i have heard and picked up conversations here and there that describe the h beam being able to shed oil thus having less after the fact weight. Aiding in quicker crankshaft acceleration.
So at the end of the day in theory the H beam is a more efficient rod due to weight savings and less overall mass (especially after the fact when it is moving more oil with its rotations).
A Direct quote from "Pantera EFI" and I have been dwelling on it for the past couple of weeks.
"The "I" beam rod design will shed oil under 1800 RPM then ATTACH oil above 1800 RPM.
The "X" beam rod design is a design that will hold more oil than all other rods.
The "H" beam design will "shed" oil best over 1800 RPM with MAJOR HP gains from that fact.
Now understand with less oil rotating, the crankshaft will accelerate MUCH faster due to lower weight."
So in my opinion at the end of the day. Say your overall hp goal is 1,500hp. The h beam will both in weight savings, power handling, oil shedding, and even if minute a slight increase or less restricted hp. Not to mention the $4-500 difference in price.
I guess I am in a large debate because I continue to get people to tell me "just go with the I beam"
I dont want to go with an ibeam if I absolutely do not need it. I also am not a fan of just buying things because people said to. Especially if it is the difference of $500 and I can come out with the same results.
I currently run callies standard h beam compstars and trap 174mph at 3,250lbs. I am beginning to feel nervous about going any further with the car. I would like another 10-15mph out of it next season so an upgrade in my opinion is a must.
The material and rod bolts will handle quite a bit. If they don't have an L19 rod bolt you may want to look into that and then rehone the big end.
Rods are really normally misconstrued as based only off hp ratings. Piston weight and speed (mqx rpm and/or stroke length) are the 2 bigger factors along with oil supply and windage.
The biggest of those being max rpm. Those ultra rods wont stretch as much as the std ls rod or a std 4340 rod so going to either one is a good thing. The I beam isnt a conventional I beam it is more of an H/I hybrid and considered the best overall design. That is why it has more mass BUT youll want to see where that mass is. If it is closer to the big end it wont matter as much as if it is on the small end.
Remember weight will change with altitude but mass doesnt.
The material and rod bolts will handle quite a bit. If they don't have an L19 rod bolt you may want to look into that and then rehone the big end.
Rods are really normally misconstrued as based only off hp ratings. Piston weight and speed (mqx rpm and/or stroke length) are the 2 bigger factors along with oil supply and windage.
The biggest of those being max rpm. Those ultra rods wont stretch as much as the std ls rod or a std 4340 rod so going to either one is a good thing. The I beam isnt a conventional I beam it is more of an H/I hybrid and considered the best overall design. That is why it has more mass BUT youll want to see where that mass is. If it is closer to the big end it wont matter as much as if it is on the small end.
Remember weight will change with altitude but mass doesnt.
I know a few guys up around 2,000 hp with the Callies I.
Both rods come with the L19 bolts so that is great.
I guess end of the day I just wonder if the two which are the benefits over each other.
Regardless of hp rating as an overall number. They rate them equal.
Never heard anything about oil shedding vs carrying.... wonder how that info came about. Curious why it would matter since oil is a cooling lubricant and gets on everything anyways. One might argue attached oil from the rod would splash on the piston at TDC acting as a piston squirter then fall back to the baffle at BDC.
In for tech info and complicating your discussion, not to help lol
Never heard anything about oil shedding vs carrying.... wonder how that info came about. Curious why it would matter since oil is a cooling lubricant and gets on everything anyways. One might argue attached oil from the rod would splash on the piston at TDC acting as a piston squirter then fall back to the baffle at BDC.
In for tech info and complicating your discussion, not to help lol
I think the more interesting part is how it sheds and retains oil at one specific rpm (very low also) and no others.
I dont believe that part at all.
Keeping windage down is a must hence one reason why lost heavy hitters or very high rpm motors use dry sump.
Using another baffle in the pan with trap doors like improved racing stuff is a very good idea. Not sure on the need for a crank scraper though, but thats not even brought up so a discussion for another thread.
It's easy to doubt that which we are not familiar with. Lance at Pantera has been around a lot more racing machinery than most of us, and has delved into a lot more engine-related conditions and situations than most of us. I have a feeling he would not get into the rod/oil retention characteristics if they did not exist. He would have no reason to "expand" on the truth here. So I would accept it as truth, as it would do no harm not to. Just my .02.
Never heard anything about oil shedding vs carrying.... wonder how that info came about. Curious why it would matter since oil is a cooling lubricant and gets on everything anyways. One might argue attached oil from the rod would splash on the piston at TDC acting as a piston squirter then fall back to the baffle at BDC.
In for tech info and complicating your discussion, not to help lol
Hey, Im all about it! Im here because I love to learn!
Hi ALL, yes a fair request, my report of Oil Shedding : Customer was JTD in the 1970's.
The Fords beat those "spaghetti benders" in France with 60M spent (6M reported to the stock holders).
The "leftover" parts were used to start the Trans-Am SCCA racing series which was a GREAT war, for sales, between GM/Ford.
Chrysler was little know in Trans-Am, Jerry Mallacot was given the task to fix that problem.
He brought me "buckets" of spares, A blocks, heads, billet crankshafts, rods, etc.
These items were NOT production parts, they were proper race quality.
The BIG argument was Rods with the engineers wanting their "I" beams.
I worked with John Drake and Fred Carillo knowing the a Carillo rod had NEVER been broken
Fred stated "my rods make more power" about 20 HP as an average increase in a 500 HP engine.
Those engineers doubted this fact, common here also, with a request for PROOF.
The 302 "A" Trans-Am race engine was assembled/tested (benched) with a "windowed", TWO FOOT DEPTH Oil Pan. (I Beam Rods)
We observed attached oil inside the engine with the appearance what Salt Water Taffy looked like while being "pulled".
This changed greatly with RPM, becoming more attached as RPM was increased.
NEXT, we exchanged the rods, Fred's rods, same engine, same dyno, same oil pan.
The opposite appearance was observed, with poor shedding at low RPM then as the engine speed was increased, less attachment was observed by the JTD engineers.
^ thanks bud that helps clarify where the info came from
The windowed oil pan sounds freaking awesome!! Might have to try that with a spare motorcycle engine one day.
Can you help us understand why it matters now? Less rotating mass? More consistent/even balancing of rotating mass?
Sounds like the oil slinging caused quite a bit of aeration, I know that causes problems if it circulates the froth but does it matter above the baffle.
Would it have changed with baffle, crank scraper, dry sump, high crankcase vac, or anything?
PS- to date I still haven't heard of Carillo rod failure other then rod bolts stretching or wiping a bearing.
^ thanks bud that helps clarify where the info came from
The windowed oil pan sounds freaking awesome!! Might have to try that with a spare motorcycle engine one day.
Can you help us understand why it matters now? Less rotating mass? More consistent/even balancing of rotating mass?
Sounds like the oil slinging caused quite a bit of aeration, I know that causes problems if it circulates the froth but does it matter above the baffle.
Would it have changed with baffle, crank scraper, dry sump, high crankcase vac, or anything?
PS- to date I still haven't heard of Carillo rod failure other then rod bolts stretching or wiping a bearing.
So much of that isnt relevant to the ls engines though.
And I've seen every rod fail. Esp on bikes. They like carillo rods alot but they do fail. They all fail.
They are one of the least likely parts to fail if you treat the rod bolts as a separate part, but they still can and do fail.
The modern rod, the Pankl rod, can travel the bore up/down 200 (TWO HUNDRED) times in ONE second.
Now, at that speed even air has much weight, think of rain in a Hurricane.
Look at the Pankl rod design as it has better aero, an even more modern design.
Your next question is about TWO items :
The weight of the oil inside the piston, on the way down, will add mass.
The weight of the air (air pressure & mass) has a great effect on how fast the piston can travel down the bore.
Third question : Yes
The engine balance IS effected, this is WHY I "over-balance" the engine by 1%-2% as common with a greater % as RPM is increased.
SURE it will change, an example was the best pan (Manley with scrapers) REMOVED from the engine, then a large 55 gallon fuel drum (1/2 cut) placed below the engine to catch the oil.
The engine picked up about 30 HP.
So, Lance, what you're saying is a lightweight H-Beam rod would be best for a high revving NA motor? Since it will shed the most oil and have the lowest MOI due to it being lighter to begin with and less attached oil?
Aren't the Pankl rods only available as used NASCAR parts? Or is someone making them? If not, don't they require some oddball stuff to run like an 1.850" journal on the crank, piston spacers, etc?
The H/I hybrid is considered by all to be the best rod whether spinning 5400 or 8k. Above that your looking at maybe a Brooks or Oliver billet alum or Oliver or Pankl or carillo TI rod. The alum rods are beefy as hell as they should be but still weigh little...def not for street use though.
If I were building amounting like that Id use the Manley Pro Series light weight and be done with it. Maybe an upgrade to l19 rod bolts.
We have a customer right now running them to nearly 8k with a mahle piston and a 200-250 shot of nitrous and he loves em.
Its in an iron block 370.
He had em at 7400 shifting then 7600 and keeps gaining et and mph so i gave him the go ahead wave to round 3rd.
11-02-2017, 11:08 AM
H Beam Vs I Beam pro's and con's 
