302/351C Stroker Info - Page 2 - Ford Forums

TMG70GT · 08-05-2006, 08:22

[quote=brenx]I'm interested in finding that out too. Most 6" rod combo's I've seen foul. Stranger things have happened though

[/quoteYou got to fit um.

clevo351 · 09-14-2006, 03:40

Hey tmg70gt, Just wonder if you have a part number on the pistons you are running, thinking they must have a 1.00" pin height, im looking for something close to this piston thanks

ClevelandRocks · 09-26-2006, 21:23

Just curious, do the pins end up in the oil rings of the piston with the 4" stroke and 4.2" rod?

brenx · 09-26-2006, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandRocks

Just curious, do the pins end up in the oil rings of the piston with the 4" stroke and 4.2" rod?

You mean 6.2" rod. Yes they do. Hence why most kits for clevo blocks only use a 6" rod when using a 4" stroke.

ClevelandRocks · 09-27-2006, 08:08

also must be why you guys seem to favor the 393 over anything much bigger.... 4.2" rod??? Well that wouldn't foul the oil rings at all would it! lol

brenx · 09-27-2006, 10:33

No cleveland combination uses 4.2" rods.

Cleveland combinations use:

5.788", 6" and 6.125".

The 408 combo's that use the 6.2" rod is not using a cleveland block. Generally a Dart or SVO block. The 6.2" rod requires you run a 9.5" deck height. Cleveland is 9.2" deck height.

You can't go any bigger than 408 in a factory cleveland block. Otherwise you'll smash your pistons into your cyl heads.

I'm not 100% sure but I think you have "stroke" mixed up with "rod length".

351 = 3.5" stroke
378/383 = 3.750" stroke
393 = 3.850" stroke
408 = 4" stroke.

Any larger than that and the crank counter weights smash into your oil pan rails.

ClevelandRocks · 09-27-2006, 16:29

thanks Brenx,

My second reference to a 4.2" rod was in jest.

I have seen stroker kits for std C blocks, with std 9.2" deck heights using 6.2" rods. The SCAT 408 inch kits show that option anyway. Must be pretty high pin pistons and I would guess a bit of block clearancing and a punched out tray would be needed too for sure.

Anyway, my question to TMG70GT was about the pin height in his 408, with 6.2 rods, in a std C block. I don't see any way with that combination to keep the pin out of the oil control rings on any piston. That's what I was trying to say anyway, I do see I botched that a bit. :-)

I was curious if oil consumption was an issue.

Anyway, thanks for the correction. Have a good one.

Dave

brenx · 09-27-2006, 17:35

I'm pretty sure his kit supplier MME racing in the US told him his rods weren't 6.2" long recently in a discussion @ Ford 335 "Cleveland" Series Engine Forum Mark told him the rods are actual 6" rods

Mark stated he never uses 6.2" rods in a C block.

ClevelandRocks · 09-27-2006, 20:19

thanks for the link assist. long one eh?

Good reading. All of it's been pretty helpful to me in my decision making process.

"Can't claim to know what I don't learn" Sometimes it comes the hard way

393 seems like the magic cube for the Clevo. I'm impressed with the research Mark did on his 408 kit(s). Just don't have the bucks to do it right and I did read the "if it's gonna be 408, it's gotta be done right" part. Not much sense building a grenade.

btw. the guy who did my machining last time builds circle track 358C's.
He recommended and got me a set of "full groove" main bearings and I don't recall the brand. I know they aren't Clevites.

Do you use em?

Dave

brenx · 09-28-2006, 04:20

According to my reciept. My mains are stock type bearings.

I used an ACL race bearing on the rods. I'm not sure whether they were full groove or not. If I get bored later this year? I'm going to pull the engine out and check over it. Might do it in Nov/Dec?

Full groove bearings wouldn't hurt as clevelands are known for starving oil in the rear of the block.