383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Moderator: Team
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:06 pm
- Location: Dripping Springs, Texas
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
I had a Scat 3.75 x 5.7 assembly that hit the cam with a .375 lobe. The skirts hit the crank too
Live in such a way that those who know you but don't know God will come to know God because they know you.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2997
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:16 pm
- Location: Lake Elizabeth, CA
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Call up Eagle tech support. They'd have a better idea about any limitations to your idea.
Joe Facciano
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
With the low cost of a Scat 4340 I beam being only $260.00 it is not worth trying to upgrade a stock rod.
http://www.jegs.com/i/Scat/942/36000/10 ... tId=761555
http://www.jegs.com/i/Scat/942/36000/10 ... tId=761555
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
I think it all depends on how you feel about buying new pistons.
So much to do, so little time...
- Wolfplace
- Guru
- Posts: 3580
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:39 pm
- Location: Mendocino County, Northern CA
- Contact:
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
firebuick wrote:thank you for reply i plan on using a eagle rod also and a eagle 3.75 crank internaly balance
my cam is a old comp cam 294s 248/248 at .050 525/525 lift whit 1.6 roller
my piston are flat top forge srp 40 over
head are edelbrock performer rpm 185 cc whit 70 cc chamber
this is mainly for the street whit a few 1/8 miles drag
yes i plan on balancing rotating
Internal balance with a 5.565 rod,,,,
Good luck with that
Mike
Lewis Racing Engines
4axis CNC block machining
A few of the cars I have driven & owned
A tour of my shop
The Dyno
And a few pics of the gang
"Life is tough. Life is even tougher if you're stupid"
John Wayne
Lewis Racing Engines
4axis CNC block machining
A few of the cars I have driven & owned
A tour of my shop
The Dyno
And a few pics of the gang
"Life is tough. Life is even tougher if you're stupid"
John Wayne
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Mike,
Please elaborate more here about internally balancing a 400 short-rod engine.
Thanks,
pdq67
Please elaborate more here about internally balancing a 400 short-rod engine.
Thanks,
pdq67
- Wolfplace
- Guru
- Posts: 3580
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:39 pm
- Location: Mendocino County, Northern CA
- Contact:
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Pretty simple reallypdq67 wrote:Mike,
Please elaborate more here about internally balancing a 400 short-rod engine.
Thanks,
pdq67
How many stock 400's do your see that are internally balanced?
There is a reason GM hung all that weight on the damper & flywheel same as a 454,
Not enough room for a counterweight without the piston hitting it,,
Unless you want to spend a fortune on Tungsten of course,,
Mike
Lewis Racing Engines
4axis CNC block machining
A few of the cars I have driven & owned
A tour of my shop
The Dyno
And a few pics of the gang
"Life is tough. Life is even tougher if you're stupid"
John Wayne
Lewis Racing Engines
4axis CNC block machining
A few of the cars I have driven & owned
A tour of my shop
The Dyno
And a few pics of the gang
"Life is tough. Life is even tougher if you're stupid"
John Wayne
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Thanks for the come back.
In other words, you don't have to cam-cut the counter-weights for piston shirt clearance.
Just the added expense of installing enough heavi-metal to internally balance it.
pdq67
In other words, you don't have to cam-cut the counter-weights for piston shirt clearance.
Just the added expense of installing enough heavi-metal to internally balance it.
pdq67
-
- Guru
- Posts: 8707
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:16 pm
- Location: Victoria BC Canada
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Stay away from that eagle crap. Hard and costly to balance.
Go with the scat stuff and use the 6" rod combo because you can internal balance them easy with most pistons.
The 5.7 rod crank is more costly to balance with lighter pistons.
You can also get a " No Holes Balance" direct from scat with a complete rotating assembly at a very reasonable extra charge but the piston choice is what determines the balancing cost. Ligher pistons available today make some cranks harder to balance and there fore more costly as they were designed for a 1850ish Gram bob weight, When you get to 1700 or less most times metal has to be added which costs more money.
As for the power difference unless you dyno the engine back to back with the different rod lengths you would not see much seat of the pants difference but it will last longer and make more on top with the longer rod as long as you have decent heads to feed the engine,
JMO
Go with the scat stuff and use the 6" rod combo because you can internal balance them easy with most pistons.
The 5.7 rod crank is more costly to balance with lighter pistons.
You can also get a " No Holes Balance" direct from scat with a complete rotating assembly at a very reasonable extra charge but the piston choice is what determines the balancing cost. Ligher pistons available today make some cranks harder to balance and there fore more costly as they were designed for a 1850ish Gram bob weight, When you get to 1700 or less most times metal has to be added which costs more money.
As for the power difference unless you dyno the engine back to back with the different rod lengths you would not see much seat of the pants difference but it will last longer and make more on top with the longer rod as long as you have decent heads to feed the engine,
JMO
Real Race Cars Don't Have Doors
-
- Member
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:17 am
- Location:
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
You have that backwards. A lighter bobweight will need the counterweights cut or drilled. A heavier bobweight might require heavy metal/tungsten.ProPower engines wrote: Lighter pistons available today make some cranks harder to balance and there fore more costly as they were designed for a 1850ish Gram bob weight, When you get to 1700 or less most times metal has to be added which costs more money.
JMO
And although I prefer Scat as well, the Eagle stuff has gotten much better. I've used a bunch of their Olds H-beams lately with no issues.
Engine Builder, Accel, AEM, Comp, Erson, Holley, and Lunati Dealer
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2858
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:57 am
- Location:
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
Eagle cranks might be wacky in some ways but I've found that their stuff is usually very easy to balance, Scat is generally harder or at least more unpredictable.ProPower engines wrote:Stay away from that eagle crap. Hard and costly to balance.
Go with the scat stuff and use the 6" rod combo because you can internal balance them easy with most pistons.
http://www.the351cforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=203
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
5.850 SBC rods are as common as dirt.6sally6 wrote:Is there a "Chevy-type"(non custom made) rod that's a little shorter than 6" but longer thanstd 350 rod?
6sally6
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
I did almost the same thing many years ago (1978). 377 (400 block, 350 crank and rods ) broke crank, changed to 400 crank and 5.565 chevy rods with good bolts. Shift point dropped from 7500 to 7000 but no clearance issues with standard base circle cam (Comp Cam.650 lift, 280 @ .050) or pistons (BRC). The car was much quicker with the increased torque. Had to change from 6.50 to 5.86 rear to use it. I never had any problems with rotating assembly even though it was externally balanced. I have ran several externally balanced engines over the years with no issues at all.
-
- Member
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:58 pm
- Location:
Re: 383 chevy long rod vs short rod
there are a lot more piston choices at reasonable prices for 5.7 or 6" rods
Think ahead
Think ahead