Local-heretic

My neighbor has a Fox with a 347. runs mid 11's on motor, granted, it's a gutted car, but still not bad.

12sMustang

Or how about one better, a 5.4" rod with a 3.4" stroke reduces the compression height of the piston enough so that in my case, a top tech at CP recommended that I absolutely do not go over a 3.3" stroke with a 5.4" rod, though I originally wanted to go with a 3.34" stroke crank. I specifically asked about using a 5.315 rod, and he told me that I would be fine with a longer stroke with that rod. Fortunately/unfortunately, I found a smokin' deal on a set of billet oliver 5.4"s, and a pretty good deal on a sonny bryant billet 3.250" crank. These deals were too good to pass up in the search for shorter rods with a longer stroke for only an additional 16 cubes.

They made custom pistons for my boosted application and specifically told me not to run that stroke with that rod as it compromised the strength of the piston and increased the temps that would make it to the piston pin.

I guess you know better than them, though. How long have you been designing custom pistons for people?

Chris

88blackgt

5.4 vs. 5.315 has no affect on burning oil. that was my the point of my post; you would think one could get away from the 347 vs. 331 garbage on an ls1 forum.

no one setup fits everyone. the intersecting setups have thicker ring lands. on the non-intersecting setups the lands are moved up to avoid the pin.

in a boosted app the taller ringlands are helpful. so yes he would try to keep you away from a 5.4/3.4 setup.

to answer your question no i dont design custom pistons, but i can tell you why he recommended what he did

12sMustang

Well, then don't criticize me because you've had a problem with people on other forums concerning this topic. While I was the only one to bring up the topic of rod-length and you decided to make light of that with this statement: but, as you can go back and verify, I never said a damn thing correlating the rod-length with oil consumption. Actually, I made a statement directly in contradiction to that premise when I said that many builders have success with the 5.4" rod. So go back and look, now. I'll wait.....

Sounds like you know it all. Congrats on that accomplishment. Maybe one day I can be as smart as you.

Chris

88blackgt

haha you need to relax. you're taking a sarcastic post way too far. i thought the !!!!!!1!1!!zomg made it pretty obvious.

12sMustang

Obvious as the sarcasm may be, both lines in the post indicate that you think that the rod length makes no meaningful contribution. What you actually did was portray your annoyance with me for bringing up the fact that there are design advantages to building a 347 with a 5.315" rod instead of a 5.4" rod. Then you make a "straw-man" argument that I did not - ringlands/wristpin intersection. And now it would be ridiculous of you to deny those facts considering your follow-on post defending the statement. Were it really a pointless sarcastic post, you wouldn't have defended it saying:

Furthermore, I don't need to do anything except die, eventually. Though your point may have been filled with sarcasm, it was nonetheless directed at me, the only person in the thread who brought up the comparison of engines with a 5.400" rod and a 5.315" rod. So, rather than come off as some ignorant dipshit, I'd much demonstrate that in fact I am an educated dipshit.

Chris

The Manalishi

iTrader: (3)

You said it.

88blackgt

never doubted you knew what you were talking about, just made a little joke. didnt think we needed to discuss rod/crank combos for a 302 based motor on ls1tech haha. im never serious in my posts, so dont take them as such.

12sMustang

cool!

sciff5

iTrader: (1)

Why is it so easy to get 480-500hp out of a ford 347 (which is around 450whp) yet that takes a pretty extreme combo on an Ls1


Either the ford guys are lying about what they produce or something is wrong with our ls1s. I think the biggest gains for the lsx community will come with better intake manifolds development in the future.

PNYKLR-TA

iTrader: (1)

seriously? and an extreme combo to make 450rwhp!?

it doesnt even take the out of date LT1 any "extreme" combo's to make that kinda power. ported heads and intake with a decently sized cam in an LT1 from someone like LLyod Elliot will make that power with ease. thats without converting to single plane intake and carb'd setup or any other major modification for that matter. and you can have all that for just under $2000.

thats not too drastic or extreme if you ask me. and this is just an an boat anchor LT1, not even the LS1 with much better flowing heads. IIRC i have heard or bolt-on cammed LS1's making near 425rwhp, thats pretty close and thats only bolt-ons and a cam.

sciff5

iTrader: (1)

Its harder than you think to make 450+ whp with a 347. How many 347s on this board do you think are making 450+ whp

Btw I know of a cam/intake combo on an ls1 putting out 450+whp but just because its been done doesnt make it easy to do.

PNYKLR-TA

iTrader: (1)

you just answered why i responded to your first post yourself.

i never doubted it was hard, you were the one who said why is it 'easy' for them the first time, and now your saying its not easy, and i completely agree with the second post of yours because it corrects everything you were wrong about in the first one.

and yea i know a few combo's making near those numbers too and no it doesnt make it easy, but i'd be willing to be its at least a little easier to make the LS juan hit 450 over the 347 ford motor.

which is why i had a problem with your post. you act like its easy for them, yet i'd be willing to be its exactly the opposite.