| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Social Groups |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
I went to check on my block and crank at the machine shop and I was suprised. My stuff has been there for three weeks and I needed to see the progress to order my pistons. The machinest said, "what block did you drop off and let me see if I can find it." My crank and block was in the back corner of the shop untouched! I was floored. He said that he didnt see it under some boxes he stacked on it. Anyways he said he was going to get it done next week. I guess when people are paying 800 plus bucks for porting BBC heads and stuff, they come first. Thats what he was doing when I walked in. I was a little pissed, but I did order some goodies today. I ordered my speed pro pistons, cat rods, balancer, and flexplate. I just need some rod bearings and he will be able to balance my assembly. Just thought I would vent a little. Maybe next week I will have some good news.
__________________
1976 trans am. 400 .040" over stock crank, CAT rods, speedpro flat tops, 72cc eheads, rpm intake, quick fuel 750, xe274, 1.5 HS. Built 700r4 (by me) w/3200 EDGE converter. 3.73's hustler headers. Flowmaster exhaust system. 17" torque thrust II's |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
ON the CAL AUTO TRANSPEED (CAT) rods :: I just had a set, balanced and installed, after oh 8 min of run time, took a look at the bearings, they had wear "lines, wide ones .
seems the crank end is BORED and has boring rings throughout that showed up as wear as the bearing conformed to the rod end. bearings toast. I would STRONGLY suggest either getting better rods, or getting those RE-SIZED AND balanced. Mine were off my a total of 10 grams total (thats huge in my book) any set should get a balance, but the extra cost for resizing might just put you in a better rod price range.
__________________
" Long may we DRIVE !" |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ive been debating on rods for a while now. I decided on the cat rods because of my budget. They are going to the machine shop as soon as they come in. I know about the ends needing attention. Thanks for the input.
__________________
1976 trans am. 400 .040" over stock crank, CAT rods, speedpro flat tops, 72cc eheads, rpm intake, quick fuel 750, xe274, 1.5 HS. Built 700r4 (by me) w/3200 EDGE converter. 3.73's hustler headers. Flowmaster exhaust system. 17" torque thrust II's |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
They're fine, IF the crank was chamfered after it was turned, that raised the holes. run a fine double cut file over the chamfers, then polish.
You ALWAYS chamfer prior to turing the crank. Pontiac Gregg
__________________
Greg Merrick |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Greg said...
Also, 10 gr. adjustment for an I-beam rod is nothing. Stock rods are seldom that "close". This WHY we balance engines! H-beams are generally more consistent, as they are 100% "machined". Same is true of the high-dollar I-beams (like Manley, Oliver, etc.), NOT including Crower Sporstman. While still a very good rod, the Sportsman is an "unfinished" I-beam, leaving material inconsistent along the beams. A simple balance fixes it. Yes, check the big end, and have it honed. A hone produces the most desirable finish, and will maintain "round" much better than a boring machine. Jim |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I purchased a set of these rods last year for my 400. The crank end had a honed finish on them out of the box. I mic'd them for size and indicated them for circularity and everything looked good. I did stone all the edges of the machined surfaces though as they were a little sharper that desirable. I also installed the bearing shells and torqued to spec. Mic'd again and had .0025-.0029 bearing clearance across the board on +.010 bearings. I have since had the engine apart and the bearings looked fine. All rods checked within several grams of each other too. Average 6-7grams with two a little bit heavier than that. I did not check for hardness though. For the price I've found these to be a decent rod. Just spend some time cleaning and preping them.
Last edited by BAW'D GOAT; 02-22-2006 at 09:46 PM. |
| Reply |
|
|