Stroker tech
01-02-2009, 06:05 PM
#106
Wondered when that would happen. Saw that and said WTF? Ahh, I get it now.
On edit, does this also mean that Mark is still open for business? Or does it mean he still has the parts and the contacts to get it done? Or does that mean some of the business partners are doing something rather odd?
On edit, does this also mean that Mark is still open for business? Or does it mean he still has the parts and the contacts to get it done? Or does that mean some of the business partners are doing something rather odd?
Last edited by SeanR; 01-02-2009 at 07:52 PM.
01-02-2009, 07:56 PM
#108
Nordschleife Master
01-02-2009, 07:58 PM
#109
Three Wheelin'
01-02-2009, 08:53 PM
#110
Rennlist Member
01-02-2009, 09:06 PM
#111
Three Wheelin'
I've always wondered, about that. The Porsche rods have small end bushings and I think the Chevy's don't. Do you ream out the Chevy rods so the Porsche bushings fit, or ream to fit the Porsche pins without bushing. Keeps me awake at night thinking about that.
01-02-2009, 09:17 PM
#112
Rennlist Member
The rods get the reaming. (and get rebushed)
That is one of the absolute bonuses of going with nikasiled cylinders, you get to use out of the box SBC rods because you are now using domestic pistons. Unless of course you happen to have a stroker project that was commenced before nikasiling was available, and ended when OEM pistons were no longer available. Then you wind up using reamed out SBC rods and custom domestic pistons that have a "custom" bigger wrist pin hole to make room for the Porsche wrist pins that you no longer now need to use, except that your rods were reamed for them.
That is one of the absolute bonuses of going with nikasiled cylinders, you get to use out of the box SBC rods because you are now using domestic pistons. Unless of course you happen to have a stroker project that was commenced before nikasiling was available, and ended when OEM pistons were no longer available. Then you wind up using reamed out SBC rods and custom domestic pistons that have a "custom" bigger wrist pin hole to make room for the Porsche wrist pins that you no longer now need to use, except that your rods were reamed for them.
01-03-2009, 12:04 AM
#113
Three Wheelin'
The rods get the reaming. (and get rebushed)
That is one of the absolute bonuses of going with nikasiled cylinders, you get to use out of the box SBC rods because you are now using domestic pistons. Unless of course you happen to have a stroker project that was commenced before nikasiling was available, and ended when OEM pistons were no longer available. Then you wind up using reamed out SBC rods and custom domestic pistons that have a "custom" bigger wrist pin hole to make room for the Porsche wrist pins that you no longer now need to use, except that your rods were reamed for them.
That is one of the absolute bonuses of going with nikasiled cylinders, you get to use out of the box SBC rods because you are now using domestic pistons. Unless of course you happen to have a stroker project that was commenced before nikasiling was available, and ended when OEM pistons were no longer available. Then you wind up using reamed out SBC rods and custom domestic pistons that have a "custom" bigger wrist pin hole to make room for the Porsche wrist pins that you no longer now need to use, except that your rods were reamed for them.
475hp/460lb.ft
01-03-2009, 01:13 AM
#115
Former Sponsor
The length is indeed correct. Don't use a Chevy design rod, however.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
01-03-2009, 01:26 AM
#116
That is fantastic news. On of our locals who's father pioneered the 928 stroker engines (Highway guys in '85) is back in the game and is looking to futher the 928 stroker stuff. One thing Bud was talking about was this exact same thing. I'm just learning the stroker stuff and am amped by some of these posts.
The length is indeed correct. Don't use a Chevy design rod, however.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
01-03-2009, 02:01 AM
#117
Three Wheelin'
The length is indeed correct. Don't use a Chevy design rod, however.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
01-03-2009, 03:35 AM
#118
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
01-03-2009, 10:56 AM
#119
Rennlist Member
The length is indeed correct. Don't use a Chevy design rod, however.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
The Chevy rod application is one of those "left over" ideas, from the very beginning of 928 stroker technology, that is now very obsolete. It's one of those things that everyone just accepted and kept doing...over and over again. Turns out that the Chevy rod has the completely wrong offset for the 928 engine, which puts thousands of pounds of side thrust onto the piston. This force thrusts the piston into the cylinder wall and causes the piston pin and rod bearings to have abnormal wear, due to the side loading. This offset issue beats the crap out of the cylinder walls, especially when using the Alusil technology. Our original stroker engines escaped this problem, because we were using a 928 rod, with a slightly different stroke, than is commonly used.
We and Carrillo did extensive research and development with this issue. The side loading numbers are incredible (I have a copy of the engineering data, if anyone wants to see it.) The end result is that Carrillo developed us a proprietary custom H beam rod, just for the 928 engine, that has the correct offset and is as light as their "A" beam rod. It solves all the issues that were created by using the improper offset rod in our 928 application.
We've now used up 10 sets of these "new" rods in stroker applications. The cylinders, the rods, and the bearings are now much happier.
01-03-2009, 02:21 PM
#120
Drifting
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: zürich, switzerland
Posts: 2,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Nicole;6108062]There are cars in Europe with recommended oil change intervals of 30k kms - that's almost 20k miles. Strangely, they neither use Amsoil (sorry, Mark, had to say this 
) nor do they fail frequently.
.............QUOTE]
Strangely American cars when sold in Europe have much longer recommended oil change intervals than 3K, not just new ones but also 15/20 year old models when they were new.
I have several US cars with their service books to confirm this but I won't name names as this thread seems to be becoming a lawyer feast.
Marton
) nor do they fail frequently..............QUOTE]
Strangely American cars when sold in Europe have much longer recommended oil change intervals than 3K, not just new ones but also 15/20 year old models when they were new.
I have several US cars with their service books to confirm this but I won't name names as this thread seems to be becoming a lawyer feast.
Marton