Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
New Edge Cobras
Modular 5.0 stroker kits, any high mileage builds out there?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IUP99snake" data-source="post: 13391694" data-attributes="member: 7060"><p>I know the rod length is an important component of a well designed stroker setup and the rod ratio is a meaningful piece of data. But what I'm trying to describe concentrates on the stroke in proportion to the deck height or cylinder bore liner length. </p><p></p><p>Ultimately, the deck height or cylinder bore length is the limiting factor in how much stroke is possible because there's only so much room for the piston to travel up and down. </p><p></p><p>The LSx people have been building a 454-based 572 LSx stroker. Previously the 454 was the largest that could be done given the deck height and liner length constraints. In order to add enough additional stroke to make a 572, a "tall deck" LSx block was introduced. I've also seen standard deck LSx blocks modified with spacers above the original deck in order to press in longer cylinder liners to accommodate the extra stroke without making the piston design completely unreliable. </p><p>Despite the rod ratio, the LSx people were able to go with a much longer stroke by using a taller deck block with longer liners instead of making additional sacrifices to the piston skirt and wrist pin location. </p><p></p><p>The 5.4 has a taller deck height and a longer cylinder liner compared to the 4.6. Despite having a significantly longer stroke than even a 4.6 based stroker motor, the 5.4 is able to use the same pistons as a stock 4.6 because there's more room for the piston to travel up and down within the bore in the taller deck block. But when you increase the stroke in the 4.6, there needs to be a modified piston design to prevent it from protruding from the top or bottom of the cylinder liner. </p><p></p><p>Since I don't have the data the cylinder bore length for a 4.6 or 5.4, I'll use the deck height as a substitute to demonstrate how this is calculated. </p><p></p><p><strong>5.4: 10.079" deck height / 4.17" stroke = 2.41</strong></p><p><em>(The deck height is 2.41 times greater than the stroke)</em></p><p></p><p><strong>4.6: 8.937" deck height / 3.55" stroke = 2.51 </strong></p><p><em>(The deck height is 2.51 times greater than the stroke) </em></p><p></p><p>5.0 Stroker: 8.937" deck height / 3.75" stroke = 2.382</p><p>(By increasing the stroke, the deck height is now only 2.382 times greater than the stroke compared to 2.41 times with the 5.4. Even though the 5.4 has a much longer stroke and a worse rod ratio than a 5.0 stroker, it has a more favorable deck height to stroke ratio which allows them to use the same pistons as a stock 4.6 without having to use a stroker specific piston like what would be seen in a 5.0 stroker.) </p><p></p><p>It all really starts with the deck height or cylinder liner length.That's what dictates how much additional stroke is feasable given the sacrifices made to the piston. </p><p></p><p>Like I said before, I'm not sure if this metric is used by engine builders or not. But based on my experience with engine building and the design of stroker packages, I think this type of ratio is important given how much additional stroke is feasable given the constraints associated with the deck height or cylinder liner length</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IUP99snake, post: 13391694, member: 7060"] I know the rod length is an important component of a well designed stroker setup and the rod ratio is a meaningful piece of data. But what I'm trying to describe concentrates on the stroke in proportion to the deck height or cylinder bore liner length. Ultimately, the deck height or cylinder bore length is the limiting factor in how much stroke is possible because there's only so much room for the piston to travel up and down. The LSx people have been building a 454-based 572 LSx stroker. Previously the 454 was the largest that could be done given the deck height and liner length constraints. In order to add enough additional stroke to make a 572, a "tall deck" LSx block was introduced. I've also seen standard deck LSx blocks modified with spacers above the original deck in order to press in longer cylinder liners to accommodate the extra stroke without making the piston design completely unreliable. Despite the rod ratio, the LSx people were able to go with a much longer stroke by using a taller deck block with longer liners instead of making additional sacrifices to the piston skirt and wrist pin location. The 5.4 has a taller deck height and a longer cylinder liner compared to the 4.6. Despite having a significantly longer stroke than even a 4.6 based stroker motor, the 5.4 is able to use the same pistons as a stock 4.6 because there's more room for the piston to travel up and down within the bore in the taller deck block. But when you increase the stroke in the 4.6, there needs to be a modified piston design to prevent it from protruding from the top or bottom of the cylinder liner. Since I don't have the data the cylinder bore length for a 4.6 or 5.4, I'll use the deck height as a substitute to demonstrate how this is calculated. [B]5.4: 10.079" deck height / 4.17" stroke = 2.41[/B] [I](The deck height is 2.41 times greater than the stroke)[/I] [B]4.6: 8.937" deck height / 3.55" stroke = 2.51 [/B] [I](The deck height is 2.51 times greater than the stroke) [/I] 5.0 Stroker: 8.937" deck height / 3.75" stroke = 2.382 (By increasing the stroke, the deck height is now only 2.382 times greater than the stroke compared to 2.41 times with the 5.4. Even though the 5.4 has a much longer stroke and a worse rod ratio than a 5.0 stroker, it has a more favorable deck height to stroke ratio which allows them to use the same pistons as a stock 4.6 without having to use a stroker specific piston like what would be seen in a 5.0 stroker.) It all really starts with the deck height or cylinder liner length.That's what dictates how much additional stroke is feasable given the sacrifices made to the piston. Like I said before, I'm not sure if this metric is used by engine builders or not. But based on my experience with engine building and the design of stroker packages, I think this type of ratio is important given how much additional stroke is feasable given the constraints associated with the deck height or cylinder liner length [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
New Edge Cobras
Modular 5.0 stroker kits, any high mileage builds out there?
Top