The Cal-look Lounge

Cal-look/High Performance => Cal-look => Topic started by: Zach Gomulka on August 15, 2010, 01:14:58 am



Title: Why 78.4?
Post by: Zach Gomulka on August 15, 2010, 01:14:58 am
Something that's always bothered me. Who came up with 78.4, and why?? No other stroker crank was given extra tenths of a millimeter. Why is 78 so special?? ???


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: neil68 on August 15, 2010, 02:16:03 am
Some Porsche's featured 78.4 cranks and I think it goes way back to Oettinger, SPG, etc, and others.  Interesting that some Mazda's also use a 78.4 stroke. A "tenth of a mm" that is not rounded off to 0.5 or 1.0 is fairly common.  I believe Scat sells a 78.8 mm crank...


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Taylor on August 15, 2010, 02:58:43 am
I always thought it was because 78 mm is to long for standard pistons and too short for strokers?


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Bruce on August 15, 2010, 03:38:05 am
I thought it originated back before you could get CIMA 90.5s.  Back then you used NPR 90mm pistons.  With that bore and a 78.4 crank you get exactly 1995cc.  So that stroke is the longest you use and still keep under the 2 liter limit that is common in many racing classes.


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: deano on August 15, 2010, 04:57:32 am
Bruce, you maybe close... But, the 78.4mm stroke dates back beyond/older than the 90mm bore.


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: kingsburgphil on August 15, 2010, 05:12:07 am
Way back then you could build a welded 78x92B motor as almost easily a a stocker. With low compression, modest cam/carburation, one could venture hours out into the Badlands. Flogging the engine at will, protecting only the tires...and knowing you'll make it back to camp.  At the time, the big, slow turning and cheap 2074 was a popular combination for offroad enthusiasts. As to who tacked on the .4, your guess is as good as mine.  :D  


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: TexasTom on August 18, 2010, 19:13:01 pm
My guess would be it came out of the gas classes back in the good old days.
I'm sure there was some advantage to the extra .015-.016 inch. Also, there's a near perfect 1.75:1 rod ratio when using stock 1600 length units.
True innovation back then ...


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Speed-Randy on August 21, 2010, 05:58:15 am
because 78.3 wasn't enough ;)


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: deano on August 25, 2010, 00:38:19 am
Okay, according to Ron Fleming, this stroke goes back to a time when the German TUV had stricker rules and regulations for cars fitted with an engine larger than 2000cc. So, at a time before the 92 cylinder (late 1968), Okrasa/Oettinger, SPG, etc., slightly increased the stroke to bring the total engine size just below the 2000cc limit.


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Zach Gomulka on August 25, 2010, 02:32:56 am
Okay, according to Ron Fleming, this stroke goes back to a time when the German TUV had stricker rules and regulations for cars fitted with an engine larger than 2000cc. So, at a time before the 92 cylinder (late 1968), Okrasa/Oettinger, SPG, etc., slightly increased the stroke to bring the total engine size just below the 2000cc limit.

So Ottinger/Okrasa 90's I presume? Thanks for the info, Dean!


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: John Rayburn on August 25, 2010, 05:26:42 am
because 78.3 wasn't enough ;)
                                                 So, Randy was right.


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Diederick/DVK on August 25, 2010, 12:32:36 pm
Sounds reasonable! 78.4 x 90 = 1995 cc
But if so, why on earth can we now get a 78.8 crank ???
I think only Scat is selling those, though.


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: deano on August 25, 2010, 14:08:02 pm
Sounds reasonable! 78.4 x 90 = 1995 cc
But if so, why on earth can we now get a 78.8 crank ???
I think only Scat is selling those, though.

As Tom Hanks once said, "220, 221, whatever it takes...."


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Chuck Fryer on August 27, 2010, 19:22:32 pm
psst.... It was Michael Keaton, Mr. Mom ,)


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Speed-Randy on August 29, 2010, 14:56:50 pm
because 78.3 wasn't enough ;)
                                                 So, Randy was right.
exactly


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Harry/FDK on September 02, 2010, 18:19:41 pm
Scat 78.2  ???


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: Speed-Randy on September 04, 2010, 03:48:52 am
Scat 78.2  ???
because 78.3 was to much ;D


Title: Re: Why 78.4?
Post by: stoneloco808 on September 04, 2010, 07:23:07 am
I thought the 0.4 or 0.8 mm extra was just for the bench racers.  Example;

Guy 1; I have a 78x94, thats 2165cc's.

Guy 2; You will need some window cleaner to clean your windshield very good.  Just so you could see my rear plates and figure out this 78.8x94, 2187cc's, will be spankin' that ass everytime.