Charger Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is a peak at our new 5.7 program with new stage 3 heads, 392 shortblock, 392 race warrior cam, precision converter, mopar cai, mopar longtube headers, BG Stage 2 Flash, and a little orange paint. This is not the same 392 as the one's we have built in the past, everything you are about to see is completely new to PPP as we plan to take on the 5.7 market with a vengeance. Once completed, Colin(Daddy Kool) will be driving down to Bristol for Mopar Thunder this weekend. This build will be followed up with another 392 build over the weekend as well as 3 5.7 heads/cam packages over the next 3-4 weeks. Please enjoy the pictures and ask as many questions as you would like.
http://picasaweb.google.com/dkeillar/ModdinInCincy

http://picasaweb.google.com/dkeillar/ModdinInCincyDay2

http://picasaweb.google.com/dkeillar/ModdinInCincyDay3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
Some SRT's, not all ;-).

C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Some SRT's, not all ;-).

C.

You dont have an SRT, you have a PPP. Big difference. lol. Dean called me today and he lit the tires up at least 4 times while I was on the phone. He sounded happier than I have ever heard him before, said his car was too fast and it actually scares him at times. lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
Note to self.......deal with hhp for now on!:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
This is a peak at our new 5.7 program with new stage 3 heads, 392 shortblock, 392 race warrior cam, precision converter, mopar cai, mopar longtube headers, BG Stage 2 Flash, and a little orange paint. This is not the same 392 as the one's we have built in the past, everything you are about to see is completely new to PPP as we plan to take on the 5.7 market with a vengeance. Once completed, Colin(Daddy Kool) will be driving down to Bristol for Mopar Thunder this weekend. This build will be followed up with another 392 build over the weekend as well as 3 5.7 heads/cam packages over the next 3-4 weeks. Please enjoy the pictures and ask as many questions as you would like.
http://picasaweb.google.com/dkeillar/ModdinInCincy

http://picasaweb.google.com/dkeillar/ModdinInCincyDay2

http://picasaweb.google.com/dkeillar/ModdinInCincyDay3
I assume this will be offered as a long block?

Is it short stroke/big bore or long stoke/smaller bore?

Check my sig and you'll see why I ask!!

Also, has anybody tried different rod lengths in these motors? ala Smokey Yunick and the long rod SB Chevies of days gone by?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,728 Posts
so i was told by someone else on here (not mentioning who) that this 392 stroking idea is a bad idea due to increased engine wear. Now i hold that to be true with old cars old motors, but seriously what's your guys take? Obviously you disagree as you sell the parts and do it ? Please inform a brother.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
so i was told by someone else on here (not mentioning who) that this 392 stroking idea is a bad idea due to increased engine wear. Now i hold that to be true with old cars old motors, but seriously what's your guys take? Obviously you disagree as you sell the parts and do it ? Please inform a brother.
Anytime you change rod/stroke/bore ratios, engine wear is going to change as sidewall loading will be different, among other things.

If you're concerned, then get the piston skirts coated.

Besdies that, (and heres the bullet to the head of that idea) your foot being buried to the firewall will cause even more engine wear regardles of displacment, stock or stroked.

I say that's a crok-o-crap, just an excuse from somebody who hasn't got the stones to sroke it, or negative advertising from a competitor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I have found that this is old news to a lot of engine builders. Apparently the great myth regarding "rod/stroke ratio" is just that, a myth. I don't know where or when this "long rod" theory began. Some say it was something that Smokey Yunick started, or some tech article in a magazine. Whatever, many people have put a lot of faith in the "long rod is better" theory. The theory has something to do with the piston "dwelling" for a longer period of time near top dead center. Like most theories, there are always other theories that basically counteract each other. Like, "whatever goes up, must come down", or "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

Being in the Stroker Kit Engine business, we get to hear customers and prospective customers discuss the merits of different "rod/stroke" ratios. The consensus with some of these people is that "longer is better" (we're talking about connecting rods, now), and in many cases they are willing to settle for a smaller displacement engine that has a "better" rod/stroke ratio. Hey, whatever the customer wants, right? If they are willing to trade less horsepower for a longer rod, no problem for us.

Here are a few examples of different OEM engine combinations and their rod /stroke ratios:

302 Small Block Ford (1.70:1)
351Windsor Ford (1.70:1)
350 Small Block Chevy (1.63:1)


Are these rod/stroke ratios "good"? Does anybody know for sure? Does it matter?

Let's do some comparison testing for fun. In this test, you have to pick which engine you would rather have for your performance car.

First, if you were going to pick a Small Block Ford powerplant, would it be a:

302 SB Ford (1.70:1), or a 289 SB Ford (1.78:1)?

For the Chevy fans, how about a 350 SB (1.63:1) or a 454 BB (1.53:1)?

For the Chevy SB Stroker Motor racers, would you favor a 350 (1.63:1) or the ever popular 383 (1.52:1)?

For the Ford Stroker Motor racers, how about a 302 SB (1.70:1) or a 347 SB (1.58:1)?

If you selected the larger displacement engines in each case, you get an "A". If you selected the larger rod/stroke ratios in each case, you will be required to go to the back of the classroom and face the corner (large, pointed hat included at no extra charge).

But if you still want a big rod/stroke ratio engine, we offer the 221 cubic inch Ford Flathead for your approval (1.86:1).

Before we get off the subject of connecting rods, let's discuss another great myth; connecting rod design.

Since we are only willing to settle for the best, should it be the "H-Beam" design, or the "I-Beam" design? If you said "H-Beam", you may be part of a vast group of racers that seem to have been programmed into believing that an "H" is stronger than an "I". Here's a question to ponder. When they construct a high-rise building, do they frame the building with I-Beam girders or H-Beam girders? If you selected H-Beam, guess again. Why, because the I-Beam design is a stronger (and lighter) design. Maybe this is why the NASCAR Winston Cup engine builders (even Smokey) use I-Beam rods almost exclusively.

Does anyone think that those big aluminum rods inside of John Force's 6000 HP engines are more of an I-Beam or H-Beam design? Do we even need to answer this question? In fact, has anyone ever seen an aluminum H-Beam rod? I don't think so.

Another great myth down the tubes.

But, despite all of these facts, and because we feel that the customer is always right, we will be happy to sell you a smaller displacement, long rod, (H-Beam design) engine. If you're happy, we're happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I assume this will be offered as a long block?

Is it short stroke/big bore or long stoke/smaller bore?

Check my sig and you'll see why I ask!!

Also, has anybody tried different rod lengths in these motors? ala Smokey Yunick and the long rod SB Chevies of days gone by?
thats a 6.125" rod. 4.050 stroke. 3.947 bore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
I have found that this is old news to a lot of engine builders. Apparently the great myth regarding "rod/stroke ratio" is just that, a myth. I don't know where or when this "long rod" theory began. Some say it was something that Smokey Yunick started, or some tech article in a magazine. Whatever, many people have put a lot of faith in the "long rod is better" theory. The theory has something to do with the piston "dwelling" for a longer period of time near top dead center. Like most theories, there are always other theories that basically counteract each other. Like, "whatever goes up, must come down", or "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

Being in the Stroker Kit Engine business, we get to hear customers and prospective customers discuss the merits of different "rod/stroke" ratios. The consensus with some of these people is that "longer is better" (we're talking about connecting rods, now), and in many cases they are willing to settle for a smaller displacement engine that has a "better" rod/stroke ratio. Hey, whatever the customer wants, right? If they are willing to trade less horsepower for a longer rod, no problem for us.

Here are a few examples of different OEM engine combinations and their rod /stroke ratios:

302 Small Block Ford (1.70:1)
351Windsor Ford (1.70:1)
350 Small Block Chevy (1.63:1)


Are these rod/stroke ratios "good"? Does anybody know for sure? Does it matter?

Let's do some comparison testing for fun. In this test, you have to pick which engine you would rather have for your performance car.

First, if you were going to pick a Small Block Ford powerplant, would it be a:

302 SB Ford (1.70:1), or a 289 SB Ford (1.78:1)?

For the Chevy fans, how about a 350 SB (1.63:1) or a 454 BB (1.53:1)?

For the Chevy SB Stroker Motor racers, would you favor a 350 (1.63:1) or the ever popular 383 (1.52:1)?

For the Ford Stroker Motor racers, how about a 302 SB (1.70:1) or a 347 SB (1.58:1)?

If you selected the larger displacement engines in each case, you get an "A". If you selected the larger rod/stroke ratios in each case, you will be required to go to the back of the classroom and face the corner (large, pointed hat included at no extra charge).

But if you still want a big rod/stroke ratio engine, we offer the 221 cubic inch Ford Flathead for your approval (1.86:1).

Before we get off the subject of connecting rods, let's discuss another great myth; connecting rod design.

Since we are only willing to settle for the best, should it be the "H-Beam" design, or the "I-Beam" design? If you said "H-Beam", you may be part of a vast group of racers that seem to have been programmed into believing that an "H" is stronger than an "I". Here's a question to ponder. When they construct a high-rise building, do they frame the building with I-Beam girders or H-Beam girders? If you selected H-Beam, guess again. Why, because the I-Beam design is a stronger (and lighter) design. Maybe this is why the NASCAR Winston Cup engine builders (even Smokey) use I-Beam rods almost exclusively.

Does anyone think that those big aluminum rods inside of John Force's 6000 HP engines are more of an I-Beam or H-Beam design? Do we even need to answer this question? In fact, has anyone ever seen an aluminum H-Beam rod? I don't think so.

Another great myth down the tubes.

But, despite all of these facts, and because we feel that the customer is always right, we will be happy to sell you a smaller displacement, long rod, (H-Beam design) engine. If you're happy, we're happy.

It was my understanding from previous infromation that a longer rod exerted more mechanical leverage on the crank, therefore making more effective use of the stoke length. Nothing to do with dwell time.

I am not so dumb nor inexperienced as to think a flathead will outpower a 454 regardless of rod length.

I felt I asked a legimate question and was met with a smoewhat sarcastic response. No offense, but geeze I am sorry I asked now. We're talking several thousand dollars here for these set-ups, I'd like some questions answered before I drop the dough.

Now that that is setlled please answer my earlier question and tell me what the bore sizes and stroke leght is/are, it is my understanding there is more than one way to get 392 CI from the 5.7 block, or am I off in fairytale land with another myth???


thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
thats a 6.125" rod. 4.050 stroke. 3.947 bore.
What other combinations will yield 392 CI.

What are the advantages/disadvatage of each.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
What other combinations will yield 392 CI.

What are the advantages/disadvatage of each.

Sorry about that, I wasnt being sarcastic, thats a quote from an online article that I thought had some good info in it. As for your question of other ways to get 392, you could start with a 6.1 block, 4.080 bore, and a 3.795 stroke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Sorry about that, I wasnt being sarcastic, thats a quote from an online article that I thought had some good info in it. As for your question of other ways to get 392, you could start with a 6.1 block, 4.080 bore, and a 3.795 stroke.
Sorry for the misinterpretation, it came across as kind of a slam, or maybe I'm having male PMS today:knockout:

Doesn't seem like much difference either way. Looks like they are both almost "square" regarding stroke vs bore. (not rod length)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
the 6.1 based 392 will make more hp, the 5.7 based 392 will make more tq. The 6.1 will probaly outlive the 5.7. You could always go with a 381 which would be a 3.795 stroke and a 4" piston as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
the 6.1 based 392 will make more hp, the 5.7 based 392 will make more tq. The 6.1 will probaly outlive the 5.7. You could always go with a 381 which would be a 3.795 stroke and a 4" piston as well.
As far as I'm concerned, torque rules the street (and the strip until you get into stupendous RPM ceilings) so for me it'll be the 5.7 block.

I might be backtracking here, but what bout overbores? .030., .060?

thougths, comments?
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top