The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 29, 2024, 15:32:19 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
350869 Posts in 28606 Topics by 6827 Members
Latest Member: bmwjaguare5
* Home This Year's European Top 20 lists All Time European Top 20 lists Search Login Register
+  The Cal-look Lounge
|-+  Cal-look/High Performance
| |-+  Cal-look
| | |-+  82 vs 84 stroke
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 82 vs 84 stroke  (Read 3039 times)
louisb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3274


Runs with Scissors


« on: April 10, 2008, 15:10:46 pm »

Is the difficulty, and how much more difficult is it, to assemble an 82 stroke crank with 5.325 rods vs a 84 stroke crank with 5.4 rods worth the extra CCs? (82 stroke is VW journal, 84 stroke is Chevy journal, H-beam rods) The price is the same for both combos. My first stroker engine build so I am more worried about how difficult it will be to get it to all fit together.

edit: more/not

Thanks,

--louis
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 15:32:54 pm by louisb » Logged

Louis Brooks

The Beatings Will Continue Until Moral Improves!
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7121



« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2008, 17:36:29 pm »

hi louis

the issues I have run into with 84mm crank (Chevy and Porsche journal, one 5.500, one 5.600)

both motors encountered cam-lobe to crank cheek clearance. One motor I re-ordered a smaller base circle cam for and got in it. The other motor required machine work to crank.

crank cheek clearance issue with center cam saddle, but that can be dressed easily.

top of my filled German case needed some light clearancing to get my rods to clear, easy fix....

Now the 82..

With 82mm crank motor, one time, with 5.352 Eagle rods, VW journal, I had caps of rods hit things in case, sent rods to be clearanced on caps and all was fine.

One thing.... if you go 84mm you'll need some cc's in your heads so you don't need to add a bunch of cylinder spacers under barrels... on my 84mm/5.600 rod combo I had to run I think .250" thick spacers, resulting in a wide motor, long, heavier pushrods, tinware issues, tight fit in car, etc..... only plus side was more room for AN banjos going into 48's....

hope this helps. 2332 makes a fast motor.....
Logged
louisb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3274


Runs with Scissors


« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2008, 17:47:06 pm »

Thanks Jim, that is just what I was looking for. I am hoping with the shorter 5.4 rods the motor will not be too wide. (I like short rods on a street motor anyway.) I am almost tempted to try the 5.325 rods on the 84 stroke but people keep saying don't do it. (Cylinder wear is not a big concern, if they wear otu, put in new ones.)  The crank to cam clearance is my biggest concern. I think with the FK-45 and some good heads the 2332 would make a very nice street bruiser.

--louis
Logged

Louis Brooks

The Beatings Will Continue Until Moral Improves!
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7121



« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2008, 18:01:47 pm »

Thanks Jim, that is just what I was looking for. I am hoping with the shorter 5.4 rods the motor will not be too wide. (I like short rods on a street motor anyway.) I am almost tempted to try the 5.325 rods on the 84 stroke but people keep saying don't do it. (Cylinder wear is not a big concern, if they wear otu, put in new ones.)  The crank to cam clearance is my biggest concern. I think with the FK-45 and some good heads the 2332 would make a very nice street bruiser.

--louis

There was a long-lived 2332 race motor in North Calif that lived many many years with rare freshen-ups, Okrasa 84mm x 5.352" Carrillos...  only special treatment was light notching at skirts to clear rods @ BDC

Rod length wears out cylinders? Or do unfiltered 48mm Webers? Which will happen first....?



Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!