land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: destroke 302

To: "Phillip Landry" <saltracer@hotmail.com>, saltracer@hotmail.com,
Subject: RE: destroke 302
From: Ray Buck <rbuck@aros.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:21:36 -0700
Here's another study of connecting rod length (based on a Chevy 400 
or 383) that was done by a friend who has a little engineering 
experience, Team Leader on the Apollo moon shots.  Take it for what 
it's worth: http://www.rustpuppy.org/rodstudy.htm

It's one man's study and based on mathematical formulae, not 
empirical testing.  But his conclusion is that connecting rod length 
has only a minimal overall effect on total power.

RtR



At 07:59 PM 01/06/2007, Phillip Landry wrote:

>found this on HotRod's site regarding rod length to stroke ratio
>
>http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/marlan_davis_technical_advise/ideal_%20rod_ratios.html
>
>
>>From: "Phillip Landry" <saltracer@hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: "Phillip Landry" <saltracer@hotmail.com>
>>To: land-speed@autox.team.net
>>Subject: destroke 302
>>Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:00:33 -0600
>>
>>what are the advantages (and possibilities) of destroking a 302 
>>ford to make a 260? as compared to using the 255 block to begin 
>>with. I understand the 255 bore is pretty small 3.68, but has the 
>>same stroke. Just theory wise wouldn't it be better to have the 4.0 
>>bore of the 302 and whatever short stroke is required to reach 260? 
>>Obviously I'm thinking of a "E" class motor, 260 max. I also 
>>understand a stock 260 is actually a little over the limit. Phil




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>