TigerCoupe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 01/22/2000 5:19:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> Laifman@Flash.Net writes:
>
> > As a matter of interest, I have heard that Ford had a problem in the 302
> > itself.
> > The longer rod apparently allowed piston slap at the bottom of the
> bore......
>
> Steve, I think what you meant to say was the longer STROKE, not longer ROD.
> The rod on a standard 302 (not Boss) is 5.090", SHORTER than the 5.155'" of
> the 221/260/289.
>
> Dick
Actually Dick, you are correct, again.
I did misspeak. As I said, this was a matter of hearsay, not first hand
experience, and I gather that there is some merit to the argument about this.
The correct statement should have been the "reduced" length of the 302 rods,
combined with the increased stroke, caused the piston to come too far out at the
bottom of the stroke. This can cause piston slap, although I don't believe
counterweight contact is an issue.
I am told it can be solved by custom piston design, locating the wrist pin
higher
in the piston, using longer rods, or reinforcing the piston skirt bottom to
withstand the added loads.
Again, let me reiterate, I have no personal experience here, and am quoting
non-Tiger Ford performance people's related experience. I could have heard
wrong,
misquoted, or was given inaccurate data, but there's something here worth
examining and taking care.
Thank you for the correction. No use having bad info out, regardless of the
reason.
So - here we are with last years "long rod" discussion, but in this case it is a
matter of physical interference, not torque enhancement (which is still probably
correct).
--
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >
B9472289 < important in your life >
< and don't let it get away!>
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/
|