If the 1592 would break and 1725 would not, doesn't that about settle the
issue of which crankshaft is stongest?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jarrid Gross" <jarrid_gross@earthlink.net>
To: "Ron Tebo" <tebomr@cadvision.com>
Cc: <GSTROM99@aol.com>; "alpines" <alpines@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: More Power from the 1725
> Ron Tebo wrote:
>
> > Gary:
> >
> > The 5 main bearing crank is nodular cast iron and would probably be less
> > flexible than the 3 bearing crank both because of the extra bearings and
> > because of the material and manufacture. However the drop-forged crank
> > would have better shock resistance because the stress lines in the
> > forging follow the shape of the crank, a result of being formed from a
> > billet, rather than cast (but would flex more with fewer bearings). As
> > you suggest, this may be a trade-off?
>
> The forged 3 main would appear to be a wash as compared to the cast 5
main,
> but I would submit that the rootes works teames did suffer failures from
> broken cranks running the 1592.
>
> I dont recall hearing of a broken 1725 crank.
>
>
> Jarrid Gross
|