My $.02 on rod length, IMHO:
There are always those with their hands in the 'soup' that
can occasionally come up with something better than the
chemists. In this case, however, I think the hyperbole about
rod length attributes more results than the original users
had desired, intended, or obtained.
It is my understanding, from sources around at the time,
that this 'rod length' change was made for a much more
practical reason, and is only a secondary outcome of the
primary rationale.
The engine modifications that really contributed to more
horsepower, and thereby load on the rods, caused engineering
concern about the rod beam's capability of handling the
extra longitudinal loads. Now making them longer doesn't
help this, all other things being equal, as they will bend
even easier. However, all other things are NOT equal. It
just so happens that Ford's (and maybe others) longer
versions of their rods ALSO had heavier cross sections,
allowing their stiffness to be greater. That's the reason
that the Boss 302 and the HiPo rods are in demand. They are
stiffer due to either metalurgy, cross section, or both.
The length of the substitute rod was NOT the reason they
were chosen, it was their cross section, and off-the-shelf
availability.
Now those facts are verifiable, and meet the test of
reasonableness and are easily analyzed. BTW: Check your
'hot parts' catalog and see the beam type rods being sold
for the same purpose. A quick check on their price ought to
allow an easy understanding of why the thicker rods length
was accepted, but not a criteria.
There may be some little known tricks to make up for
compromise manufacturing that are part of any good
'wrenches' tool kit, but we really don't have to believe in
magic to understand mechanical engineering.
--
Steve Laifman < One first kiss, >
B9472289 < one first love, and >
< one first win, is all >
< you get in this life. >
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/
|