Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

Long Rod vs Short Rod

Old May 1, 2012, 05:38 AM
  #1  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
GSR ONE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Long Rod vs Short Rod

I've been searching though the forum trying to find info on the subject and have only found a bit here and there. There's a bit about it on the web but I'd like to hear it from people that own 4g63/64s.
So with that being said, what are the Pros and Cons of both.
It would be good to hear from you guys that own the Long Rod setups and why you built that particular setup over the Short Rod do you feel any notable difference or was your decision base on efficiency, longevity better Rod Ratio etc.

Thanks in Advance.
Old May 1, 2012, 11:52 AM
  #2  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (71)
 
okevolutionVIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: OKC
Posts: 1,458
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
I can't think of any benefits on the long rod setup other than being able to rev higher and last longer due to the rod angles not being severe. If I started over, I'd built a long rod block.
Old May 1, 2012, 01:56 PM
  #3  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
 
JohnBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northwest
Posts: 11,396
Received 64 Likes on 48 Posts
LR2.4 to SR2.4 (for instance)-

Less vibration
Reduced sideload on cylinder walls
Increased rev capability with greater reliability vs a standard rod at the same RPM

NO DIFFERENCE IN POWER
Old May 1, 2012, 02:01 PM
  #4  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (18)
 
getsideways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
How many engine failures have you seen in the 2.4 due to sideload?

Also how does a longrod rev higher, how is this different then a long stroke motor, i was under the impression a shorter stroke engine allows for higher RPM operation?

Or am i confused and does the shorter stroke involve a smaller crank and longer rods?
Old May 1, 2012, 02:23 PM
  #5  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
 
JohnBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northwest
Posts: 11,396
Received 64 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by getsideways
How many engine failures have you seen in the 2.4 due to sideload?

Also how does a longrod rev higher, how is this different then a long stroke motor, i was under the impression a shorter stroke engine allows for higher RPM operation?

Or am i confused and does the shorter stroke involve a smaller crank and longer rods?
They can rev the same. The answer to your question lies in rod angularity. A long rod pushes less as the crank is at 90* and 270* rotation because its less angle at half stroke. The total angularity change is also less. Basically an engine with a smaller rod stroke ratio isnt going to last as long at a given RPM as something with a larger rod stroke ratio. Its related having a short stroke since the deck height only will allow some much. If you build a custom block with a deck height as high as it needs to be you could shove a HUGE connecting rod into a long stroke motor and get the best of both worlds.

Look at IHRA mountain motors for more direct application. They have added INCHES to the deck height of a big block Chevy, Ford, or Mopar in order to make their 815cid motors last as long as possible.

That I can think of, I have seen 4 SR2.4s fail after extended (and I mean LONG) time at high rpm. There are other factors that can cause the failure and when its catastrophic its not possible to point to one exact reason. However I look at F1 cars with a R/s of 4:1 running 18,000 for 2 hours at a time. Or even crazier, Volvo motors running almost a 2:1 ratio and running for 350k miles. They both do it for difference reasons but longevity is a key one.

2.3 or 2.4 with a R/s of 1.5:1 ratio- max angularity of 19.47*
2.4 with a R/s of 1.56:1 - max angularity of 18.75*
2.2 with a R/s of 1.659:1- max angularity of 17.58*
2.0 with a R/s of 1.7:1- max angularity of 17.06*

Last edited by JohnBradley; May 1, 2012 at 02:29 PM.
Old May 1, 2012, 02:44 PM
  #6  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Drifting Away's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think I just got smarter....
Old May 1, 2012, 03:15 PM
  #7  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (44)
 
Blue91lx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
I have a collection of Aaron's quotes in a folder on my computer, and this is why.
Old May 1, 2012, 03:29 PM
  #8  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
03whitegsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 4,001
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
The rod ratio has very little impact on RPM capability with regards to piston/rod forces, "all things being equal." We are talking 50-100 RPM difference at the 10,000 RPM level between the 150mm rod and 156mm rod, it's nothing.

Things aren't equal though and the long rod setup can have a lighter piston which reduces wrist pin forces. While the long rod ends up heavier compared to the short rod, the net effect CAN BE a lighter rotating assembly.

My opinion, but if it is an engine that's going to see actual competition, the best bet is simply using shelf-stock parts so that when you blow them up, you can replace them with little down time. If you start buying rods and pistons in non-standard sizes, you have the potential to waste an entire season waiting for new parts. If that's not a concern, then you might as well optimize if you are willing to spend the extra.

It does seem the longer dwell time at TDC can cause problems on low-octane fuels though...
Old May 2, 2012, 01:02 AM
  #9  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
GSR ONE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My VIII will probably never see True competition as it is my DD, I only put 98 pump fuel in it, but will more the likely see racing fuel when it's finally built.

Thanks for the input guys, never such a thing as to much information so feel free to add. It'd be good to hear more opinions.
Old May 2, 2012, 05:30 AM
  #10  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
SmurfZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I thought Manley and Wiseco (And JE) was starting to stock these as off the shelf due to their popularity?
Old May 2, 2012, 05:48 AM
  #11  
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
 
Spec-Ops1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fayetteville,NC
Posts: 1,229
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Smurf, I just ordered a set of LR 2.4 Wiseco pistons for a customer a few months ago... took 4 weeks to have the pistons made...
Old May 2, 2012, 08:28 AM
  #12  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (18)
 
getsideways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
You guys certainly know your stuff at English, Thanks for the information
Old May 2, 2012, 09:14 AM
  #13  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
SmurfZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, Transplanted from Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,313
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Freddie@Spec-Ops
Smurf, I just ordered a set of LR 2.4 Wiseco pistons for a customer a few months ago... took 4 weeks to have the pistons made...
I stand corrected
Old May 2, 2012, 09:50 AM
  #14  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
 
JohnBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northwest
Posts: 11,396
Received 64 Likes on 48 Posts
We are working on getting the 1400HD (well have been for awhile) as a stocking item. I think it will finally start to happen here before too long. Some interesting changes coming to their piston line up
Old May 2, 2012, 07:20 PM
  #15  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (18)
 
getsideways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Would like to hear more about the changes as the 1400HD already seem to be the best on the market, Its what im using.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Long Rod vs Short Rod



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM.