Wtf
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 4
From: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
How about I toss aside the math, and explain what was confusing me 
This "The 265 has it’s own unique crank with a 3.00" stroke.", coupled with this "The 265 rods are 0.240" longer than the ones in the 350. Both blocks are the same height, but the stroke for the 265 is 0.480" shorter, so the rods have to be longer to make up for half the difference."
I won't deny that my knowledge of how rods and stroke work, as well as how it affects strokers, is lacking. So with that said, I was mixing up that the crank stroke and rod's length were what played into the 4.3's displacement. And the math then I used was (2 x 2) x 3.1416 x 3.240 = 40.715 ci/cyl or 325.7ci motor.
Now I understand that the extra rod length was to bring the piston up to deck hight, instead of having it quite far down if the 5.7's rod was used, and having the motor make squat for compression.
This "The 265 has it’s own unique crank with a 3.00" stroke.", coupled with this "The 265 rods are 0.240" longer than the ones in the 350. Both blocks are the same height, but the stroke for the 265 is 0.480" shorter, so the rods have to be longer to make up for half the difference."
I won't deny that my knowledge of how rods and stroke work, as well as how it affects strokers, is lacking. So with that said, I was mixing up that the crank stroke and rod's length were what played into the 4.3's displacement. And the math then I used was (2 x 2) x 3.1416 x 3.240 = 40.715 ci/cyl or 325.7ci motor.
Now I understand that the extra rod length was to bring the piston up to deck hight, instead of having it quite far down if the 5.7's rod was used, and having the motor make squat for compression.
