S4 Budge stroke engine build question??
10-21-2011, 09:40 PM
#106
Rennlist Member
So far I have heard nothing about how any 928 stroker crank accomodates for the need for a different length rod for use in the 928 engine with either stock pistons and no over-bore or with the 968 pistons both of which whould require a different length rod from any original "offset" 928 or 968 rod. If any stroker crank is made to accomodate that difference I would expect that the crank which is made to use chevy rods is also made to use chevy rods with chevy offset, but is made to accomodate these chevy rods with chevy offset and using the strocker crank to fit the 928. What am I missing here?
Jerry Feather
Jerry Feather
10-21-2011, 09:52 PM
#107
Rennlist Member
Jerry:
I did not mean to offend you...I was just trying to pass on knowledge that you might not be aware of....and like I said, I wasn't going to get "very deep" into your plans/ideas....but just "touch" a couple of things, on the surface. I apologize if I "hurt" your feelings....I have absolutely no business involving myself/commenting on any of your plans.
Just in passing, however, you might want to note that I know exactly where the one crank you have came from....and I know its entire history....I originally installed it, I was the one that had it "turned" undersize and re-heat treated, and I was the one that replaced it with a Moldex crank....but I'm not going to say a word more, least I offend you more.
And a quick note about rods...please don't be offended by this....you can certainly build your own engine anyway that you desire to do it. The "required rod offset" has nothing to do with the crankshaft....it only has to do with the dimensional difference between where the bores are located from side to side, on a given engine. This is a "fixed dimension" that was determined when the engine was designed. A Chevy engine has a completely different "cylinder offset" dimension than a 928 engine. Therefore, "Chevy offset" rods do not end up being "centered" on the piston pin, when installed on a 928. While this might seem to be a moot point, it is extremely important. When the rod is not centered perfectly under the piston, the resulting forces on the piston (when it fires) and the cylinder wall is measured in the "thousands of pounds" of thrust. This is the main reason why most every stroker engine has had "piston/cylinder bore" (severe oil consumption, followed by galling, and immediate engine failure) problems. "Stiff" connecting rods "mask" this problem, but the forces are then transfered to the rod bearing, as the piston "tries" to "rock" in the bore....and leads to "premature" rod bearing failure. This single flaw/misconseption has ruined more 928 stroker engines than every other cause/failure combined....in my humble opinion.
I will, as long as you are not offended by it, reinforce my main point, which was really for the OP....there is absolutely no way anyone can build a stroker engine for 10K in parts and have it run for more than a few miles....
Again, sorry that I commented on your personal quest.
Have fun and enjoy!
I did not mean to offend you...I was just trying to pass on knowledge that you might not be aware of....and like I said, I wasn't going to get "very deep" into your plans/ideas....but just "touch" a couple of things, on the surface. I apologize if I "hurt" your feelings....I have absolutely no business involving myself/commenting on any of your plans.
Just in passing, however, you might want to note that I know exactly where the one crank you have came from....and I know its entire history....I originally installed it, I was the one that had it "turned" undersize and re-heat treated, and I was the one that replaced it with a Moldex crank....but I'm not going to say a word more, least I offend you more.
And a quick note about rods...please don't be offended by this....you can certainly build your own engine anyway that you desire to do it. The "required rod offset" has nothing to do with the crankshaft....it only has to do with the dimensional difference between where the bores are located from side to side, on a given engine. This is a "fixed dimension" that was determined when the engine was designed. A Chevy engine has a completely different "cylinder offset" dimension than a 928 engine. Therefore, "Chevy offset" rods do not end up being "centered" on the piston pin, when installed on a 928. While this might seem to be a moot point, it is extremely important. When the rod is not centered perfectly under the piston, the resulting forces on the piston (when it fires) and the cylinder wall is measured in the "thousands of pounds" of thrust. This is the main reason why most every stroker engine has had "piston/cylinder bore" (severe oil consumption, followed by galling, and immediate engine failure) problems. "Stiff" connecting rods "mask" this problem, but the forces are then transfered to the rod bearing, as the piston "tries" to "rock" in the bore....and leads to "premature" rod bearing failure. This single flaw/misconseption has ruined more 928 stroker engines than every other cause/failure combined....in my humble opinion.
I will, as long as you are not offended by it, reinforce my main point, which was really for the OP....there is absolutely no way anyone can build a stroker engine for 10K in parts and have it run for more than a few miles....
Again, sorry that I commented on your personal quest.
Have fun and enjoy!
Otherwisae what you seem to suggest is that there are correctly designed stroker cranks that are using some kind of undisclosed shorter rods with a very custom offset or that there are some kind of after market magical rods that work with all of the stroker cranks that are designed for chevy 5.85 rods. Which is it?
Jerry Feather
10-21-2011, 10:07 PM
#108
Rennlist Member
'thanks, Shawn. I think you and gp and I are singing the same hym, but you seem to be about two pages back in the hymnal.
What gp seems to allege is that whoever designed the cranks that I happen to have, both of which I think are designed for chevy 5.85 rods, did so without regard to the orientation of the rod journal to the centerline of each of the cylinder bores given that they are slightly offset for one side of the engine to the other.
I would expect that the offset is in fact just equal to the width of the big end of the rod in either case. So, I suppose the first question is whether the 928 rods are the same width at the big end as the chevy. I don't know the answer to that. If they are significantly different, then the question is whether or not or actually how close to the centerline of the opposing cylinders are the centerlines of the respective rods.
I still go back to my just previous question or suggestion that the designers of both of my or even all of the stroker cranks have already designed the chevy rods into the cranks. This is because I have heard nothing about what other rods should be used. It is clear that none of the 928 or 968 rods will work.
Jewrry Feather
What gp seems to allege is that whoever designed the cranks that I happen to have, both of which I think are designed for chevy 5.85 rods, did so without regard to the orientation of the rod journal to the centerline of each of the cylinder bores given that they are slightly offset for one side of the engine to the other.
I would expect that the offset is in fact just equal to the width of the big end of the rod in either case. So, I suppose the first question is whether the 928 rods are the same width at the big end as the chevy. I don't know the answer to that. If they are significantly different, then the question is whether or not or actually how close to the centerline of the opposing cylinders are the centerlines of the respective rods.
I still go back to my just previous question or suggestion that the designers of both of my or even all of the stroker cranks have already designed the chevy rods into the cranks. This is because I have heard nothing about what other rods should be used. It is clear that none of the 928 or 968 rods will work.
Jewrry Feather
10-21-2011, 11:06 PM
#109
Former Sponsor
Thanks, gb, for the edit about the rods. I am not so obtuse as not to understand about what the cylinder offset and rod requirements are all about. What I kind of expect is however, that if someone has gone to the trouble to design a stroker crank for the 928 and has determined that the use of 5.85 chevy rods is what is needed to accomodate the longer stroke in order to keep the top of the piston at the correct place at TDC they would have most likely also designed into the stroker crank the correct placement of the rod throw that will keep the newly required rod (chevy) in the correct proximity to the bore to functon properly. If not, I will be very surprise.
Otherwisae what you seem to suggest is that there are correctly designed stroker cranks that are using some kind of undisclosed shorter rods with a very custom offset or that there are some kind of after market magical rods that work with all of the stroker cranks that are designed for chevy 5.85 rods. Which is it?
Jerry Feather
Otherwisae what you seem to suggest is that there are correctly designed stroker cranks that are using some kind of undisclosed shorter rods with a very custom offset or that there are some kind of after market magical rods that work with all of the stroker cranks that are designed for chevy 5.85 rods. Which is it?
Jerry Feather
Again, this has nothing to do with the crank or the length of the connecting rod. The one crank you have was designed to use a "Chevy" big end size and width, with stock Chevy rod bearings. I don't know anything about the other crank.
This problem is purely about how much offset is built into the connecting rod....which is determined by how far off the right front cylinder is from the plane of the left front cylinder. Connecting rod manufacturers make different offsets into their rods, depending on what "brand" of engine the rod is being used for. A Chevy has a different offset than a Ford, which is different than a Dodge, which is different than a 928. The correct rod, for your application, will have a "Chevy" big end (made for 2.1" journals) with a 968 wrist pin end, with an offset for a 928 engine. This is not a generic, "off the shelf" 5.850" long Chevy small block rod....which has been a huge mistake made by other engine builders.
Which is one reason why not many of the stroker engines, from the past, actually still run....
10-21-2011, 11:10 PM
#110
Rennlist Member
Jerry:
Again, this has nothing to do with the crank or the length of the connecting rod. The one crank you have was designed to use a "Chevy" big end size and width, with stock Chevy rod bearings.
This problem is purely about how much offset is built into the connecting rod. Connecting rod manufacturers make different offsets into their rods, depending on what "brand" of engine the rod is being used for. A Chevy has a different offset than a Ford, which is different than a Dodge, which is different than a 928. The correct rod will have a "Chevy" big end (made for 2.1" journals) with a 968 pin end, with an offset for a 928 engine. This is not a generic, "off the shelf" 5.850" long Chevy small block rod.
That's where many of the stoker engines went wrong.
Again, this has nothing to do with the crank or the length of the connecting rod. The one crank you have was designed to use a "Chevy" big end size and width, with stock Chevy rod bearings.
This problem is purely about how much offset is built into the connecting rod. Connecting rod manufacturers make different offsets into their rods, depending on what "brand" of engine the rod is being used for. A Chevy has a different offset than a Ford, which is different than a Dodge, which is different than a 928. The correct rod will have a "Chevy" big end (made for 2.1" journals) with a 968 pin end, with an offset for a 928 engine. This is not a generic, "off the shelf" 5.850" long Chevy small block rod.
That's where many of the stoker engines went wrong.
10-21-2011, 11:31 PM
#111
Former Sponsor
The problem, today, is that many people believe that everything that is manufactured is built exactly the same way....and the price difference is simply someone getting a good deal and someone getting ripped off.
They think a Eagle crank for a 4.25" stroke Big Block Chevy is the same as a Sonny Bryant Crank for a 4.25" stroke Big Block Chevy....because they happen to fit the exact same application and have the exact same major dimensions.
What they don't know is that the round piece of billet steel that the Sonny Bryant Crank was made from cost Sonny Bryant more to buy than the Eagle Crank retails for....
How could they possibly be the exact same product?
Funny story...absolutely true:
When I was at my machinist's shop, while they were checking out the Scat crank I talked about (where the crank wore, but the rod bearings did not), they were poking fun at this particular crankshaft. At first, they simply thought that the crank had missed nitrating, but they tested the surface and foud out that it had, indeed, been nitrated.
They finally explained it this way....
If your dog takes a crap, out in the yard, and that pile of crap sits in the sun (essentially heat treating it), the pile of crap will harden on the outer surface. However, once you get through that harder outer layer, the inside is still just soft smelly s#!t.
10-22-2011, 12:24 AM
#112
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I built a stroker back in 1987 for the 340 Mopar bought the crank from Moldex tool company.
There wasn't many strokers out there back then.The longest was 3.81" that Dennis Maurer used in Super Modified drag car.Bob Glidden back then in Pro stock might of ran a 3.75" stroke on his stroker small block before Pro Stock rules changed and went to big blocks.I did alot of research on what they were running and what was available and nothing in 4" but they said there was room for it if notching the block out for the connecting rod nuts to clear.This was back in the mid 1980's when I looked into those cranks before I built one in 1987.
About 10 years later Chrysler finally offered a 4" stroker in their Direct Connection catalog.
A motor is just an air pump,it doesn't care what make it is,its a matter of using the best made parts and not cutting corners if building a good stroker motor.
Most crank builders will make any size journal and stroke needed from 4340 billet within reason.
Back then I went from stock 3.31" stroke to 4" which is what a stock Chevy 454 uses for stroke (4")
The big block Chevy rod was 6.135" long center to center.
A small block Chrylser rod center to center distance is 6.125" only .010 difference so tried to keep the rod ratio the same area of 1.53
6.125" rod length/4" stroke=1.53 rod ratio
Ran dike rings .031 with 1/16" face and 2nd ring 1/16"
Oil ring was 3/16" low tension also.
One of the lower rod ratio motors was the 400 Chevy small block which was 1.4848 and they didn't last as long and low rod ratio motors don't rev high.
Once you know the deck height and the shortest piston within reason while spacing the rings enough and having the top ring also within reason from the top then you will know the longest rod you can go with.
The lower the rod ratio more cylinder pressure you have on the sidewalls in the block.
I went with .120 diameter wrist pins size it was a street car and some drag use,build more like an oval track motor .090 wrist pins for drag use are thin better off with .120.
When the crank is made don't just think its a bolt in and go.Check everything out! I put the rod on and tighten them up and they locked right up.The journal sides had big fillets and the rads were hitting the sides of the rod bearing.So had to put a chamfer on each rod bearing so they would clear the fillet area on the crank.Once they cleared and were free added alittle more to make sure.Test everything out.I even had a new roller cam where the journal weren't drilled all the way thru on a new camshaft!
Check ever oil hole in the block also.Had a block machined before and a chip went up into the oil hole going to a crank journal.
I checked evrything over and ran into more problems and if they were over looked anyone would of been a bad outcome of ruining a new motor.
Back then prices were $1300 for a crank.
Not sure if they are still around.
http://moldexcrankshaft.com/Home_Page.html
Always went with Venoila piston too.
http://www.venolia.com/
Building it also you need to have heads flowed and cams to match that can feed the new cubic inch and when it comes to the 928's Greg probably knows and tested more than anyone on that area.
There wasn't many strokers out there back then.The longest was 3.81" that Dennis Maurer used in Super Modified drag car.Bob Glidden back then in Pro stock might of ran a 3.75" stroke on his stroker small block before Pro Stock rules changed and went to big blocks.I did alot of research on what they were running and what was available and nothing in 4" but they said there was room for it if notching the block out for the connecting rod nuts to clear.This was back in the mid 1980's when I looked into those cranks before I built one in 1987.
About 10 years later Chrysler finally offered a 4" stroker in their Direct Connection catalog.
A motor is just an air pump,it doesn't care what make it is,its a matter of using the best made parts and not cutting corners if building a good stroker motor.
Most crank builders will make any size journal and stroke needed from 4340 billet within reason.
Back then I went from stock 3.31" stroke to 4" which is what a stock Chevy 454 uses for stroke (4")
The big block Chevy rod was 6.135" long center to center.
A small block Chrylser rod center to center distance is 6.125" only .010 difference so tried to keep the rod ratio the same area of 1.53
6.125" rod length/4" stroke=1.53 rod ratio
Ran dike rings .031 with 1/16" face and 2nd ring 1/16"
Oil ring was 3/16" low tension also.
One of the lower rod ratio motors was the 400 Chevy small block which was 1.4848 and they didn't last as long and low rod ratio motors don't rev high.
Once you know the deck height and the shortest piston within reason while spacing the rings enough and having the top ring also within reason from the top then you will know the longest rod you can go with.
The lower the rod ratio more cylinder pressure you have on the sidewalls in the block.
I went with .120 diameter wrist pins size it was a street car and some drag use,build more like an oval track motor .090 wrist pins for drag use are thin better off with .120.
When the crank is made don't just think its a bolt in and go.Check everything out! I put the rod on and tighten them up and they locked right up.The journal sides had big fillets and the rads were hitting the sides of the rod bearing.So had to put a chamfer on each rod bearing so they would clear the fillet area on the crank.Once they cleared and were free added alittle more to make sure.Test everything out.I even had a new roller cam where the journal weren't drilled all the way thru on a new camshaft!
Check ever oil hole in the block also.Had a block machined before and a chip went up into the oil hole going to a crank journal.
I checked evrything over and ran into more problems and if they were over looked anyone would of been a bad outcome of ruining a new motor.
Back then prices were $1300 for a crank.
Not sure if they are still around.
http://moldexcrankshaft.com/Home_Page.html
Always went with Venoila piston too.
http://www.venolia.com/
Building it also you need to have heads flowed and cams to match that can feed the new cubic inch and when it comes to the 928's Greg probably knows and tested more than anyone on that area.
Last edited by inactiveuser1; 10-22-2011 at 12:40 AM.
10-22-2011, 12:24 AM
#113
Rennlist Member
So....
The problem, today, is that many people believe that everything that is manufactured is built exactly the same way....and the price difference is simply someone getting a good deal and someone getting ripped off.
They think a Eagle crank for a 4.25" stroke Big Block Chevy is the same as a Sonny Bryant Crank for a 4.25" stroke Big Block Chevy....because they happen to fit the exact same application and have the exact same major dimensions.
What they don't know is that the round piece of billet steel that the Sonny Bryant Crank was made from cost Sonny Bryant more to buy than the Eagle Crank retails for....
How could they possibly be the exact same product?
Funny story...absolutely true:
When I was at my machinist's shop, while they were checking out the Scat crank I talked about (where the crank wore, but the rod bearings did not), they were poking fun at this particular crankshaft. At first, they simply thought that the crank had missed nitrating, but they tested the surface and foud out that it had, indeed, been nitrated.
They finally explained it this way....
If your dog takes a crap, out in the yard, and that pile of crap sits in the sun (essentially heat treating it), the pile of crap will harden on the outer surface. However, once you get through that harder outer layer, the inside is still just soft smelly s#!t.
The problem, today, is that many people believe that everything that is manufactured is built exactly the same way....and the price difference is simply someone getting a good deal and someone getting ripped off.
They think a Eagle crank for a 4.25" stroke Big Block Chevy is the same as a Sonny Bryant Crank for a 4.25" stroke Big Block Chevy....because they happen to fit the exact same application and have the exact same major dimensions.
What they don't know is that the round piece of billet steel that the Sonny Bryant Crank was made from cost Sonny Bryant more to buy than the Eagle Crank retails for....
How could they possibly be the exact same product?
Funny story...absolutely true:
When I was at my machinist's shop, while they were checking out the Scat crank I talked about (where the crank wore, but the rod bearings did not), they were poking fun at this particular crankshaft. At first, they simply thought that the crank had missed nitrating, but they tested the surface and foud out that it had, indeed, been nitrated.
They finally explained it this way....
If your dog takes a crap, out in the yard, and that pile of crap sits in the sun (essentially heat treating it), the pile of crap will harden on the outer surface. However, once you get through that harder outer layer, the inside is still just soft smelly s#!t.
That story is really nice sounding and even sounds like it makes sense to explain what you say the story stands for, but I think it is just S#!T.
There was very little plausibility in this story when you told it before without the nitriding (not nitrating), but it even lacks more credibility now with the hardening aspect added.
Jerry Feather
10-22-2011, 12:53 AM
#114
Damn Jerry, how about you build it and tell us the results. You've got the one guy who has built more strokers telling you how to do it and you want to argue the point because you bought his left overs.
Fvcking do it and prove him wrong if you are so convinced.
Fvcking do it and prove him wrong if you are so convinced.
10-22-2011, 01:37 AM
#115
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Actually the basic Scat chevy cranks (not 928 cranks) ARE machined and finished in China those which fail to meet specs when they arrive in the USA and that is many are then turned undersized and re-finished here. Those are then sold to builders of "crate engines" who are willing to run the undersized reground cranks BECAUSE they get them cheaper and their customers who buy finished engines will probably never realize what is in their "new" crate engine. And yes I have been to Scats facility , observed them machining cranks, and actually ordered a number of 928 stroker cranks.......Mostly just to show how easy it was to get cranks from SCAT if you simply PAID for them.
The misalignment of the "normal " chevy con rods is that the small end is NOT centered on the wrist pin and that creates huge amounts of bending forces on the rod and sideloading on the cylinder walls.
The misalignment of the "normal " chevy con rods is that the small end is NOT centered on the wrist pin and that creates huge amounts of bending forces on the rod and sideloading on the cylinder walls.
10-22-2011, 01:48 AM
#116
Rennlist Member
It's no secret what GB does to earn his living. So that makes it all the more amazing that he has shared as much as he has.
Jerry,
Whatever the secret dimension is for these special offset rods, I have never seen it posted anywhere. It seems like it would be a very good idea to purchase a set of rods from GB if he has them to sell, and you just might be on your way to having a stroker engine that will last a while provided the crank hardness is slightly harder than dried dog doo. If I had to take a wild guess, I would say the custom rods are probably in the neighborhood of 2.....ish.
Jerry,
Whatever the secret dimension is for these special offset rods, I have never seen it posted anywhere. It seems like it would be a very good idea to purchase a set of rods from GB if he has them to sell, and you just might be on your way to having a stroker engine that will last a while provided the crank hardness is slightly harder than dried dog doo. If I had to take a wild guess, I would say the custom rods are probably in the neighborhood of 2.....ish.
10-22-2011, 02:04 AM
#117
Archive Gatekeeper
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
$2200, in January of '09. Not sure what they are now, probably not too different.
10-22-2011, 02:21 AM
#118
Former Sponsor
So, what your story says is that it is feasible to take a piece of soft mushy S#!Tand rub it against a piece of S#!T that had a hardened crust on it from sitting out in the sun and that the soft mushy S#!T will rub through the hard crusty S#!T and into the soft mushy S#!T inside without removing ANY of the soft mushy S#!T that you are rubbing with.
That story is really nice sounding and even sounds like it makes sense to explain what you say the story stands for, but I think it is just S#!T.
There was very little plausibility in this story when you told it before without the nitriding (not nitrating), but it even lacks more credibility now with the hardening aspect added.
Jerry Feather
That story is really nice sounding and even sounds like it makes sense to explain what you say the story stands for, but I think it is just S#!T.
There was very little plausibility in this story when you told it before without the nitriding (not nitrating), but it even lacks more credibility now with the hardening aspect added.
Jerry Feather
Seriously?
You said that I offended you, when I politely pointed out some minor errors in your logic.
I apologized.
Then you have the ***** to call me a liar. Twice. Today.
The first time I was pretty "offended"....the second time....a tiny bit more.
Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
10-22-2011, 03:21 AM
#119
Rest in Peace
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bird lover in Sharpsburg
Posts: 9,903
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I would not worry much about it, Jerry gets offended pretty easy.
Just do a search and look up how many times he has been offended.
He has pissed off one of the few folks on the planet that could help him build a stroker.
But again, he has pissed a lot of us off.
Just do a search and look up how many times he has been offended.
He has pissed off one of the few folks on the planet that could help him build a stroker.
But again, he has pissed a lot of us off.
Jerry:
Seriously?
You said that I offended you, when I politely pointed out some minor errors in your logic.
I apologized.
Then you have the ***** to call me a liar. Twice. Today.
The first time I was pretty "offended"....the second time....a tiny bit more.
Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
Seriously?
You said that I offended you, when I politely pointed out some minor errors in your logic.
I apologized.
Then you have the ***** to call me a liar. Twice. Today.
The first time I was pretty "offended"....the second time....a tiny bit more.
Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
10-22-2011, 05:30 AM
#120
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mostly in my workshop located in Sweden.
Posts: 2,234
Received 464 Likes
on
249 Posts
New news:
I've "started over" on the entire 928 crankshaft design process. Just like the connecting rod issue (Chevy offset vs Porsche offset), the 928 crankshaft design (either stock or stroker) is many, many years old. We've been having the same Moldex crankshaft built for over 15 years.....and while it is a great crankshaft...it can be made better and lighter.
So, starting with a clean sheet of paper and one of the finest crank builders in this country, I've got an entire newly designed "group" of billet crankshafts currently being made. I'm having a lightweight 5.0 crankshaft made, already correctly drilled, for high performance use. Also being made is a 5.4 stroke crankshaft. It will be lighter, stiffer, stronger, and have "modern" oil drillings than the "stock" GTS crankshaft (which is getting very hard to find used and is very expensive new.) And, of course, I'm having built a "brand new design long stroke" crankshaft. Again, this crankshaft will be lighter, stronger, stiffer, and have "current" technology for the oil drillings.
In addition, I'll be offering connecting rods for each of the appropriate applications. I'm going to have rods for "stock stroke" use, to "match" with our new 5.0 crankshaft. Rods are being made in lengths to fit both 5.0 and 5.4 pistons using a GTS stroke crankshaft, and of course I will still have our proven rod design for use in the "long stroke" applications.
My goal is to have all of these pieces on the shelf and ready for use, at all times. I currently try to keep Moldex cranks and rods for stroker engines in stock.
Stay tuned...I've got an amazing amount of "new" high performance 928 pieces, in the works.
This is marketing and PR on the highest level. Very good indeed.
Ake
I've "started over" on the entire 928 crankshaft design process. Just like the connecting rod issue (Chevy offset vs Porsche offset), the 928 crankshaft design (either stock or stroker) is many, many years old. We've been having the same Moldex crankshaft built for over 15 years.....and while it is a great crankshaft...it can be made better and lighter.
So, starting with a clean sheet of paper and one of the finest crank builders in this country, I've got an entire newly designed "group" of billet crankshafts currently being made. I'm having a lightweight 5.0 crankshaft made, already correctly drilled, for high performance use. Also being made is a 5.4 stroke crankshaft. It will be lighter, stiffer, stronger, and have "modern" oil drillings than the "stock" GTS crankshaft (which is getting very hard to find used and is very expensive new.) And, of course, I'm having built a "brand new design long stroke" crankshaft. Again, this crankshaft will be lighter, stronger, stiffer, and have "current" technology for the oil drillings.
In addition, I'll be offering connecting rods for each of the appropriate applications. I'm going to have rods for "stock stroke" use, to "match" with our new 5.0 crankshaft. Rods are being made in lengths to fit both 5.0 and 5.4 pistons using a GTS stroke crankshaft, and of course I will still have our proven rod design for use in the "long stroke" applications.
My goal is to have all of these pieces on the shelf and ready for use, at all times. I currently try to keep Moldex cranks and rods for stroker engines in stock.
Stay tuned...I've got an amazing amount of "new" high performance 928 pieces, in the works.
This is marketing and PR on the highest level. Very good indeed.
Ake