[mike leech]

Originally Posted by 455firebird1969

I noticed the second hole in the first picture posted. Would you post a picture of the trench that connects the oil feed holes?

Crank is in. But i have some old bearings

[firechickenman]

Thanks for taking the time to post this info! You definitely have one badass Pontiac!

[455firebird1969]

Sounds like you trenched the backside of the bearing? Not the block.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

I had never seen that configuration of sides of the big ends. Is the main purpose to increase lube flow out of the journal/bearing to carry away heat better? Can you run less side clearance because of it? Does this design have much of a "track record" of success? Thanks.

We did some Bearing/Rod testing one time, Jack, in our "Components Lab" with full instrumentation of the connecting rod bearing and the oil flow.

It was truly amazing how the bearing temp number "grew" as the RPM the bearing saw increased. The oil and temp at the bearing surface massively increased for a doubling bearing journal speed.

We tried the different oil feed locations in the bearing and found that once you had the hydrodynamic film established it was just a matter of keeping the flow volume proper as the rpm increased.

Allowing the hot oil out of the rod bearing was studied and spacers similar to the rod mods Mike has made helped remove the oil both between the rods and on the side closest to the crank fillets. You could remove the oil on both sides of the rod (even with a "paired rod" set-up). I like your Carrillo rod mods better than our spacer deal.

Nice Job, Mike. You are making a lot of good decisions here obviously.

Tom V.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by 455firebird1969

Sounds like you trenched the backside of the bearing? Not the block.

We did the block side. But you can see a shadow on the back side of the bearing

[60man]

Originally Posted by mike leech

We did the block side. But you can see a shadow on the back side of the bearing

Another oiling mod to add to file. ��
Both the trench and big end treatment.
Even for a week end warrior.
Thanks Mike.

[Tom Vaught]

There is a thread started by JC You in the forum dated 09-21-2008, 09:45 AM about bearing spacers and oiling.

Quote: "I did some bearing testing on a special rig at Ford about 4 years ago and was amazed at the RAPID INCREASE in bearing temperature from just going from 1000 crankshaft rpm to 3000 crankshaft rpm.
We are talking a lot of heat that the bearing has to carry away quickly. A larger bearing diameter means more heat at the bearing." (so about 2004 time frame, 12 years ago)

In Mike's case he would be 7500+ rpm initially and go from there so you can see that lubrication and Heat is a major concern for his efforts.

Tom V.

ps Our rig would have been dangerous to spin at higher than 3000 crank rpm in a open cell with engineers monitoring data. The physics stays the same.

[Stan Weiss]

Mike,
Since the talk is about RPM and oil temperature (I may have missed it). Have you done anything to your journal diameters to reduce bearing speed?

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Since the talk is about RPM and oil temperature (I may have missed it). Have you done anything to your journal diameters to reduce bearing speed?

Stan

No. There is not enough money in my wallet to do anything with the mains. And the rod is 2.2 per the recommendations of Bryant. We chose rigidity over small journals. The last crank was wiggling around a bit. Plus Crank throw overlap. If we were to say 2.5 inches on the main and Honda journal on the crank, The rod pin would be completely divorced from the main pin on the crank. This was deemed to be a bigger problem at our power level than bearing temp

[Tom Vaught]

Mike, did you eventually go with a dry sump system like John M or are you still using a Luhn Oil Pump? The reason I ask is there is a lot more oil volume with the dry sump so it takes a bit longer to raise the entire volume of the oil (that you might read on a oil temp gage in the pan or gallery) but the bearing oil temp is still the same. Very HOT!

Tom V.

My questions will be based on the engine's ability to live at 1200+ hp and 9000 rpm and your solutions. Thanks Very Much, Mike!

[455firebird1969]

Originally Posted by mike leech

We did the block side. But you can see a shadow on the back side of the bearing

Approximately how deep and wide is the groove/trench. Is this done with a carbide tip mounted in a small grinder (hand tool) like a ninety degree Dotco?

http://products.dotco-tools.com/tool...els?att668491=

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Mike, did you eventually go with a dry sump system like John M or are you still using a Luhn Oil Pump? The reason I ask is there is a lot more oil volume with the dry sump so it takes a bit longer to raise the entire volume of the oil (that you might read on a oil temp gage in the pan or gallery) but the bearing oil temp is still the same. Very HOT!

Tom V.

My questions will be based on the engine's ability to live at 1200+ hp and 9000 rpm and your solutions. Thanks Very Much, Mike!

Mark Luhn makes an awesome pump. I eventually switched very recently in fact to a dry sump. I went with a six stage so we could scavenge oil from all over the motor. The reason I switched was not due to the pump. But more the oil pan and oil control. Due to inertia and the amount of oil we wanted for cooling the valve springs. We just couldn't control the oil and make sure it all got back to the pan before the run was over. i'm pretty sure we were pumping the valve covers full. There's a lot of heat that comes from valve springs.

With the dry sump we have more oil on hand and we are actually sucking it out of the motor especially the valve cover and lifter valley areas. This also allows us to pull more vacuum safely. My initial run with the dry sump we had oil pressure at 100 pounds. Everything looks great other then cylinder with water in it but we had to fix. So now we will turn the oil pressure down to a more sane 65 pounds.

Think of it like this if you were to launch a car with a 1.16 60 foot and you had a passenger with an oil pan in his lap, 7 quarts of oil in the pan where do you think all of oil would be by the 60 foot Mark? It would be everywhere. Same thing happens in the car. That is why I switched to a dry sump. And the ability to scavenge oil for the valve covers.we also stage the car with 9 quarts of oil instead of seven.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by 455firebird1969

Approximately how deep and wide is the groove/trench. Is this done with a carbide tip mounted in a small grinder (hand tool) like a ninety degree Dotco?

http://products.dotco-tools.com/tool...els?att668491=

Only needs to be about an eighth of an inch wide and maybe .040 deep.

[mike leech]

In the front

[mike leech]

We also took special care to block off any oil we could from running down on the crankshaft. Again being able to scavenge oil from this area area helps a bunch too

[Dragncar]

Can you tell us how long the rods are and the stroke ? And explain the "rods configured as long as possible for a application like this" ? Side loading? Dwell at top and bottom ?
I understand if you do not want to disclose the info.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by mike leech

In the front

The added oil holes in the bearing has been around for awhile, it works great! Good to see you doing this thread Mike, keep the info coming!

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Can you tell us how long the rods are and the stroke ? And explain the "rods configured as long as possible for a application like this" ? Side loading? Dwell at top and bottom ?
I understand if you do not want to disclose the info.

Rods are as long as they can be and pin is as high as possible given ring pack requirements. Its about trying to keep the pin in the bore. And the skirt too.

The numbers are irrelevant to the point. Not to be a weiner about it but i'm not posting some numbers here. I gave the cid. You guys can figure it from that. Theres not many ways to 564

[Tom Vaught]

Simple math says 4.4" bore and 4.65" stroke. 10.230" block deck height, 0 deck height, 1.205" compression height used with mm rings, and a common 6.7" long rod EXCEPT that Carrillo will make you any length rod you want so that is a very generic "guess" to get you in the ball park. I have seen compression height pistons with 1.150" compression heights using 22 mm (.866" diameter) thick wall pins which are plenty strong for a NA 1200 HP application. So have fun guessing the real numbers.

Tom V.

[grandville455]

Excellent thread mike!! Thanks