Author Topic: Long Rod FEs (Read 12345 times)

ericwevans · « **on:** September 30, 2016, 10:17:27 AM »

Being my first post, at the bottom I'll provide a little bit of info about me, but I'll start with the actual reason for the post first.

So I'm looking at the distinct possibility of building a long rod FE (332, 352, 360) and wanted to know if anyone on the forum has any experience with these. I'm already aware that aftermarket rods are non-existent, and that pistons can be a problem as well. I intend to use the stock rods with ARP bolts which limits my issue to pistons. So has anyone out there built one of these? Any idea how much RPM the rods can handle on a 3.5" stroke? Just looking for some insight from experience.

As for me (and this will probably answer the question as to why this idiot is shooting himself in the foot and building a long rod engine) I have been on and off toying with cars and motorcycles for the better part of 30 years but life always got in the way of the hobby. I fell in love with the FE sound after watching Bullitt as a kid and ever since then I wanted one. It was then I would hear my dad talk about street racing his 1960 Starliner with the solid lifter 352 in it and the hook was set. That has set me up with a love of the short strokers. I also am a very build it rather than buy it guy and prefer to keep external aftermarket parts confined to the intake manifold (Jay, expect an e-mail to put me on a list for an intake manifold adapter

) and headers and use stock castings for the heads and block. I learned of Jay and this site from Hot Rod Drag Week on YouTube (which I just found and binge watched about 6 months ago) and hope to have my '65 F-100 there for 2018 (wish I could make 2017 but I know I won't have the cage in it by then).

That's it for now, look forward to getting to know y'all!!!

-Eric

Drew Pojedinec · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2016, 10:45:04 AM »

Wade built a long rod 390 if I recall.
I don't think it worked as well as he wanted. I'll try to flag him down and send him over here.

ericwevans · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2016, 10:56:54 AM »

Just to clarify, long rod being one of the 6.54" con rod engines (332/352/360) rather than the more common 6.488" engines (390/406/410/427/428)

-Eric

My427stang · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2016, 11:08:25 AM »

Eric,

I have built a total of one 6.54 inch performance engines, it was a dual quad CJ-headed 410 with some heavy pistons we shaved. it did great. I have done some 5500-5700 rpm 360s, and they ran OK, but in their defense I never spent much on heads on those

However, IMHO, a longer rod doesn't do any better than any other length rod and with the slightly weaker rod, I'd likely not do it again. That being said, if I WERE to it again, I'd go zero deck with custom Racetecs or Diamonds for a real light piston so the rod and crank had a little less stress on it and still have a good valve relief then cam and compression to match use.

I am a believer that despite some minor dwell differences, in the end, a rod just connects the piston to the crank and length changes don't help much.

Now, if you just want a hot 360, long rod and cast crank longevity should be pretty good up to 6000 rpm with a good balance and light pistons, after that, the rods start to concern me first.

Of course, as with any FE, and maybe any engine, the power is in the combo, and it isn't cheap to make a small cid FE make hero power

Drew Pojedinec · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2016, 11:10:18 AM »

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1319247428/Excitement!+new+long-rod+390+going+together

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1325565922

Some links of interest ^

I contacted Wade, hopefully he'll stop by. If I remember he had some detonation issues and wasn't ever really satisfied with the engine.

Anyway, good luck,
Dp

ericwevans · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2016, 11:33:36 AM »

Thanks for the quick info Ross. The rod coming apart is my obvious concern too. My end goal is a 6500 RPM shift point so I was hoping to hear that someone else had done it.

I know in the 60's the failure points tended to be the bolts so was hoping the upgrade to ARP fastners would buy me something. But all 6.54 rods have 50 years on them now so that is a concern. The only reason for retaining the long rod is so I don't have to replace the pistons in my short block, otherwise I'm going to need more compression distance on the pistons. I may have found an off the shelf option for that though, but I need to go find it again.

ericwevans · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2016, 11:43:50 AM »

Just finished reading Wade's posts, thanks Drew. Looks like his impression on the bolt being the weak link is the same one I've had. In those posts he doesn't go past the initial drives so not sure how he liked it. Interested in how hard he has pushed it and if the rods survived.

My427stang · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2016, 11:44:21 AM »

So, both Brent Lykins and Wes Adams can comment on a long rod 360 build for high rpm use, although I do not think the engine I am thinking about was built yet

However, that wasn't a 6.54 rod, in their case they used an aftermarket BBC rod. The 6.70 BBC rod with a worked crank and custom pistons should be very strong, and 6.70 BBC rods, as well as custom pistons are pretty cheap now. In that case, the money would be in the crank, but for 6500 rpm, you likely don't need a lot

thatdarncat · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2016, 12:58:20 PM »

Eric, you should read this thread this on the other FE Forum from 2009 about Bill Heinson's 352 powered Super Stock Galaxie, here's a link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1244492706

Bill did very well with that car and is a hero to the 352 guys lol. Another racer who did well with a record holding 352 Galaxie in Super Stock was Kip Martin. Kip has sadly passed away, but I think Blair Patrick on this site owns that car today. Maybe Blair will join the conversation.

You will notice reading that thread that Bill did some extra prep to those stock rods. I'd have to look back in an old NHRA rule book to know what was legal back then, you may have only been allowed stock rods. Now days NHRA allows accepted aftermarket rods, but still requires the stock length for the engine and they must be within a NHRA published minimum weight tolerance. Keep in mind your stock rods are now about 25+ years older than the rods Bill was running.

thatdarncat · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2016, 01:11:26 PM »

Here's a link to an earlier 2002 discussion with Bill Heinson about his 352 Super Stock Galaxie.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1018049075/History-+Super+Stock+352

ericwevans · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2016, 01:15:51 PM »

Thanks Kevin! I read all Bill's posts, have to go back and read everything else when I'm not "working"

. Does make me feel like I'm not too crazy to go this route.

jayb · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2016, 01:18:45 PM »

Eric, welcome to the board and I hope you enjoy the book I just sent you

The engine sounds like an interesting project and I wholeheartedly agree that ARP rod bolts will improve the durability of the stock rods. But be aware that every now and then, a 50 year old stock rod will just let go, and then you've got a bunch of scrap parts on your hands. I like Ross's suggestion of using some inexpensive aftermarket 6.700" big block Chev rods and a turned down stock crank. You would have an even longer rod motor, get the benefits of new rods and bolts, and also the benefits of the wider BBC rod bearing. Lots of advantages to that approach.

By the way, I no longer have a list for the intake adapters, I keep the castings in stock and machine them as customers ask for them. Lead times on them are usually a couple weeks - Jay

ericwevans · « **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2016, 02:10:17 PM »

Hey Jay, can't wait to get the book! I'll have to see what machining the crank will cost around here and consider the BBC rod option. Of course if I do that, then I'll want to spin it harder!

So not sure my reliability will go up.

machoneman · « **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2016, 04:38:44 PM »

Long rod= total waste of time.

When David Reher & Buddy Morrison long ago said it was way, way down the list....they weren't kidding. And for fellows who built tons of long rod 1.9-1 SBC's that dominated the scene in Comp, Super Comp, SS and other classes for years, they do know of what they speak.

http://rehermorrison.com/tech-talk-10-by-the-book/

http://rehermorrison.com/tech-talk-85-how-not-to-build-a-racing-engine/

As David says, spend your bucks on head flow, intake flow, exhaust flow and pretty much everything but long rods.

plovett · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2016, 05:01:22 PM »

My opinion is that the difference between a 6.54" rod and a 6.49" rod will not be measurable in any significant functional way.

If you compare a 7" rod and a 6" rod, then maybe.

I do like one-off engines and encourage you to make one if you want to. Keep in mind that custom pistons are not much more expensive than high quality off-the-shelf pistons these days. So that is not an issue, in my opinion.

paulie

plovett · « **Reply #15 on:** September 30, 2016, 05:07:55 PM »

Quote from: machoneman on September 30, 2016, 04:38:44 PM

As David says, spend your bucks on head flow, intake flow, exhaust flow and pretty much everything but long rods.

That is 99% of everything, in my opinion. The rest is just the last 1%. That is, if you are just trying to make the most power you can.

paulie

ericwevans · « **Reply #16 on:** September 30, 2016, 05:37:54 PM »

Thanks for the input Bob and Paulie. I probably should have better title the post Short Stroke FEs as I think the purpose is getting confused. 360 and smaller FEs (which is what I'm building) use a longer rod than the other engines and I was looking for experience with durability. I want looking for a performance gain out of it.

That being said I'll take the opinion under advisement. :-)

plovett · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2016, 06:55:34 AM »

Well my understanding, without direct experience, is that the longer FE rod may be slightly less durable than the standard length FE rod.

So, what I am saying regarding custom pistons might have some pertinence. Maybe not. If you're going to buy good expensive forged pistons anyway, I'd look at getting custom pistons with the right compression distance for the shorter rod. Just a thought.

paulie

blykins · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2016, 07:07:31 AM »

The main "plus" from a longer rod is that you cut the compression height of the piston way down.

When working with a 3.5" stroke in an FE, the tall deck height makes for a very tall piston. Even with a small diameter, you're looking at a pretty heavy slug. A 6.700-6.800-7.100 rod will help that tremendously. Even with a 7.100" rod on a 10.150" deck, you're still at a 1.300" compression height. Obviously, you need a BBC rod journal, which isn't a deal breaker, but it does add a good bit of cost to the machining bill. You either widen the journal in addition to turning the diameter down, or you run a narrowed rod and bearing. Either option is not cheap.

The caveat to this is where you have a very large intake port in relation to the displacement of the engine. For instance, a Boss 302 engine will benefit from a shorter rod as it keeps dwell time down, which in turn keeps the intake charge moving. With the heads that will fit on a small bore FE, you generally won't have that issue though, unless the heads are hogged.

If I were building a hipo 352, I would go the 7.100" rod route....

I'm also not convinced that a longer rod won't make more torque in certain situations. I have built a few engines where I was rewarded with a little more torque than I was expecting. One instance was a road race 289, in which I used a steel crank, had the rod journals turned down to SBC size, used a Molnar 5.700" SBC rod that had been narrowed considerably (by about .110") and then used a GM V6 rod bearing. Even with a 7000-7500 rpm horsepower peak, it still made 390 lb-ft of torque....a ton of torque out of a little engine.

plovett · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2016, 05:15:46 PM »

I was only talking about the long and short factory FE rods. 6.54" vs approx. 6.49". For whatever that is worth.

ericwevans · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2016, 09:01:06 PM »

Thanks for all the info guys, I'm definitely going to look at the BBC option, I think y'all have sold me on that. I have a contract at a machine shop here, so I'll see what the cost of machining crank will be. I think as long as I can keep it all within a reasonable budget I believe you guys are absolutely correct will be the way to go.

Thanks again for all the advice!

Tommy-T · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2016, 01:49:19 PM »

I've used the 352/360 length rod in a few low-buck 390 builds. Like many here, I think a connecting rod holds a piston and crankshaft together and nothing more. The idea is to get the piston (usually a budget cast but sometimes a TRW) to zero or slightly proud of deck. It is always a hassle to get an FE intake manifold to fit, and machining a block .010 or more does not help any. Much easier to whittle on cheap pistons. If you are buying custom pistons or rods...this is all moot.

Will a piston at zero make your 390 have amazing power? Nope, but your pal with a stock or rebuilder 390 might notice your truck is a little "zippier". Maybe not, but in my opinion zero is where a piston is supposed to be.

As far as building a "little" FE goes, it'll run fine. My '56 "bird had a +.060 (390 block bored .010) 352 with Edelbrock heads, Streetmaster intake, 2" custom headers, and a curved vacuum advance distributor with Pertronix/MSD. Plenty of power for the little car...but in the back of your mind is ALWAYS "what if I'd put that 3 3/4" crank in that's sitting in the corner?".

My next FE build will have the NEVER used C1AE-B "lightweight" 390 length connecting rod and an Arias flat top piston. Just cuz.

chris401 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2016, 10:08:21 PM »

Pictured are the common 330, 332, 352, 360, 361HD and 361 Edsel long rods, I do not have any 1960 HIPO 352 rods to compare. Look around the bolt area. Ford beefed up the C1AE-A rod for 60?/61? year until the last 4v 352 in 66. It is reasonable to assume the 67 pickup 352 2 barrel used the weaker/lighter C7TE rods. The C1AE-A are recorded to be about 12 grams heavier than the EDC and C7TE rods.

ericwevans · « **Reply #23 on:** October 04, 2016, 03:30:08 PM »

That's a great comparison. My truck is a 65 with original block, so when I get it torn down I'll have check it, although y'all have made a great case for using BBC rods.

chris401 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 04, 2016, 04:27:05 PM »

Quote from: ericwevans on October 04, 2016, 03:30:08 PM

That's a great comparison. My truck is a 65 with original block, so when I get it torn down I'll have check it, although y'all have made a great case for using BBC rods.

Right where the C1 are beefed up is where my C7 broke destroying block, cam and a new set of 361 Edsel pistons. Normal driving is fine but if your going to beat on it look at HIPO rods or the BB Chevrolet rods.

wsu0702 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2016, 06:02:24 PM »

The NHRA super stock 352 racers back in the '70-'80s were able to find a way to prep the long factory rods to live at high RPM/power. The net54 post below explains how Jerry Pruitt and Bill Heinson were able to do it and set national records with their 352 powered 4 spd '64 custom. I don't know how much (if any) Bill exaggerated on the launch and shift RPMs in the post below but I remember watching this car race at my local dragstrip when I was a kid and you would swear it was going to blow up it rev'd so high before launch and shifts. Bill said that they never broke any of the properly prepped long FE rods.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/message/1244499238/Re-+did+you+use+stock+352+rods+or+%26quot%3Bstock%26quot%3B+390+rods-

chris401 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2016, 10:51:54 PM »

Quote from: wsu0702 on October 04, 2016, 06:02:24 PM

The NHRA super stock 352 racers back in the '70-'80s were able to find a way to prep the long factory rods to live at high RPM/power. The net54 post below explains how Jerry Pruitt and Bill Heinson were able to do it and set national records with their 352 powered 4 spd '64 custom. I don't know how much (if any) Bill exaggerated on the launch and shift RPMs in the post below but I remember watching this car race at my local dragstrip when I was a kid and you would swear it was going to blow up it rev'd so high before launch and shifts. Bill said that they never broke any of the properly prepped long FE rods.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/message/1244499238/Re-+did+you+use+stock+352+rods+or+%26quot%3Bstock%26quot%3B+390+rods-

Thanks for the link.

Ford428CJ · « **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2016, 12:10:53 PM »

I'm building a CRAZY 360 and the crank I got from Mr Lykins. I'm gonna use a Chevy type rod. A H Beam that is 6.8". Think it's gonna spin @ 7200 RPM with the solid roller cam I got and intake set up.

ericwevans · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2016, 02:35:46 PM »

That sounds very similar to what I'm building. I think these guys have me bought into the BBC rod and a custom piston, I was originally planning a stock rod with a 6500 shift point, but with the BBC rod I'll probably spin it harder as well. When I get back home (out of town this week) I'll post what I'm planning in the projects forum.

Ford428CJ · « **Reply #29 on:** October 05, 2016, 02:39:07 PM »

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=3897.0

ericwevans · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2016, 03:24:55 PM »

Good read, and very similar. I'm starting with a 360 block, iron heads, 288/300 duration .580 lift on the cam, Jays intake adapter, and (gasp) a Weiand Tunnel Ram with a pair of 500 CFM Edelbrock Thunder AVS carbs. And I'll attempt to drive that junk on the street.

I'm still finalizing the combination but that should be close to final. Buying the short block in November so stuff will start becoming final then.

News:

Author Topic: Long Rod FEs (Read 12345 times)

plovett

plovett

plovett

plovett

chris401

chris401

chris401