Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
I'm using 6 inch rods in my current SBC 400 project, but had 5.7 rods in my 388. For a basic weekend hotrod I wouldn't sweat rod length, find the pistons that give the compression you desire and buy the appropriate rod.

If given a choice though I myself would prefer the 6 inch rods, although the rod is a little heavier the piston is lighter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
i am building my 383 for my 671 weiand blower. I went with those same 5.7 scat rods from summit, im just waiting for them to come in.
I went with the 5.7 over the 6 because it will lower my compression
 

·
Save a horse, Ride a Cowboy.
Joined
·
5,122 Posts
malibu68 said:
I went with the 5.7 over the 6 because it will lower my compression
HUH ????? :confused: I don't understand what you mean.

The static compression never changes and the BMEP is only a tiny fraction due to rod dwell. Like 5 hp difference on a 383 SBC.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,519 Posts
Rod length shouldn't have anything to do with your compression. 5.7 rods and 6 inch rods use completely different pistons, therefore, all other things being equal, your piston determines the compression ratio. I guess you could use 6 inch rod pistons on a 5.7 rod... that would lower your compression I guess... to about 4:1, lol.

K
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,247 Posts
I decided not to use 6 inch rods on my 383 blower motor because the pin hole moves up into the oil ring groove on the 6 inch pistons. Probably not a huge issue but it bothered me and I have read in the past of concerns over oil control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,240 Posts
When building a 383 there are better piston choices for the 5.7 rod if you are building a blown engine. With a 6" rod space is limited for the dish (due to the wrist pin location).

Now as far as 5.7 vs. 6" there really is no advantage either way. This has been beaten like a dead horse yet, there seems to always be misinformation out there. If you do the math you will see there is VERY little difference from a 5.565 to 5.7 to 6" rod. You are not going to see a power difference. I know people will argue this until their death but, that is the cold hard facts. Where one has a tiny advantage the other has the tiny advantage in a different place in the stroke. It all equals out in the wash. Go to the reher morrison race engine site or give them a call and see what they tell you about rod length. They will tell you it doesn't make a difference and that's not from a magazine it's from one of the most well known and respected race engine builders around.

I would suggest a 5.7' rod there are more pistons to choose from, you don't have the wrist pin in the ring pack. Now before anyone says but, the 6" rods use lighter pistons. This is true but, since the rod is longer it is heavier so once again it all equals out no matter how you slice it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,240 Posts
Here is a bit of info for those that want to read up and understand the connecting rod length debate. http://www.rustpuppy.org/rodstudy.htm

I have run 6" rods in a couple engines (strokers) and never had an issue with the wrist pin bore in the ring pack. In the early days I heard there were a few issues, I think that these days the problems have been worked out. I have 6" rods in my blown SBC. I used them because I had them on hand and they were paid for. My next blown engine will have 5.7" rods just because the piston selection is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,613 Posts
This is from the mind of Ron Iskenderian, son of the famous "Camfather"......

Rod Lengths/Ratios: Much ado about almost nothing.

Why do people change connecting rod lengths or alter their rod length to stroke ratios? I know why, they think they are changing them. They expect to gain (usually based upon the hype of some magazine article or the sales pitch of someone in the parts business) Torque or Horsepower here or there in rather significant "chunks". Well, they will experience some gains and losses here or there in torque and or H.P., but unfortunately these "chunks" everyone talks about are more like "chips".

To hear the hype about running a longer Rod and making more Torque @ low to mid RPM or mid to high RPM (yes, it is, believe it or not actually pitched both ways) you'd think that there must be a tremendous potential for gain, otherwise, why would anyone even bother? Good question. Let's begin with the basics. The manufacture's (Chevy, Ford, Chrysler etc.) employ automotive engineers and designers to do their best (especially today) in creating engine packages that are both powerful and efficient. They of course, must also consider longevity, for what good would come form designing an engine with say 5% more power at a price of one half the life factor? Obviously none. You usually don't get something for nothing - everything usually has its price. For example: I can design a cam with tremendous high RPM/H.P. potential, but it would be silly of me (not to mention the height of arrogance) to criticize the engineer who designed the stock camshaft. For this engine when I know how poorly this cam would perform at the lower operating RPM range in which this engineer was concerned with as his design objective!

Yet, I read of and hear about people who do this all the time with Rod lengths. They actually speak of the automotive engine designer responsible for running "such a short Rod" as a "stupid SOB." Well, folks I am here to tell you that those who spew such garbage should be ashamed of themselves - and not just because the original designer had different design criteria and objectives. I may shock some of you, but in your wildest dreams you are never going to achieve the level of power increase by changing your connecting rod lengths that you would, say in increasing compression ratio, cam duration or cylinder head flow capacity. To illustrate my point, take a look at the chart below. I have illustrated the crank angles and relative piston positions of today's most popular racing engine, the 3.48" stroke small block 350 V8 Chevy in standard 5.7", 6.00", 6.125" and 6.250" long rod lengths in 5 degree increments. Notice the infinitesimal (look it up in the dictionary) change in piston position for a given crank angle with the 4 different length rods. Not much here folks, but "oh, there must be a big difference in piston velocity, right?" Wrong! Again it's a marginal difference (check the source yourself - its performance calculator).

To hear all this hype about rod lengths I'm sure you were prepared for a nice 30, 40, or 50 HP increase, weren't you? Well its more like a 5-7 HP increase at best, and guess what? It comes at a price. The longer the rod, the closer your wrist pin boss will be to your ring lands. In extreme situations, 6.125" & 6.250" lengths for example, both ring and piston life are affected. The rings get a double whammy affect. First, with the pin boss crowding the rings, the normally designed space between the lands must be reduced to accommodate the higher wrist pin boss. Second, the rings wobble more and lose the seal of their fine edge as the piston rocks. A longer Rod influences the piston to dwell a bit longer at TDC than a shorter rod would and conversely, to dwell somewhat less at BDC. This is another area where people often get the information backwards.

In fact, this may surprise you, but I know of a gentleman who runs a 5.5" Rod in a 350 Small Block Chevy who makes more horsepower (we're talking top end here) than he would with a longer rod. Why? Because with a longer dwell time at BDC the short rod will actually allow you a slightly later intake closing point (about 1 or 2 degrees) in terms of crank angle, with the same piston rise in the cylinder. So in terms of the engines sensitivity to "reversion" with the shorter rod lengths you can run about 2-4 degrees more duration (1-2 degrees on both the opening & closing sides) without suffering this adverse affect! So much for the belief that longer rod's always enhance top end power!

Now to the subject of rod to stroke ratios. People are always looking for the "magic number" here - as if like Pythagoras they could possibly discover a mathematical relationship which would secure them a place in history. Rod to stroke ratios are for the most part the naturally occurring result of other engine design criteria. In other-words, much like with ignition timing (spark advance) they are what they are. In regards to the later, the actual number is not as important as finding the right point for a given engine. Why worry for example that a Chrysler "hemi" needs less spark advance that a Chevrolet "wedge" combustion chamber? The number in and of itself is not important and it is much the same with rod to stroke ratios. Unless you want to completely redesign the engine (including your block deck height etc.) leave your rod lengths alone. Let's not forget after all, most of us are not racing at the Indy 500 but rather are hot rodding stock blocks.

Only professional engine builders who have exhausted every other possible avenue of performance should ever consider a rod length change and even they should exercise care so as not to get caught up in the hype.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top