PDA

View Full Version : Anyone used an MP 3.246” Stroke Crank?



Mario
03-13-2006, 10:21 PM
I recently picked one up and was interested in building an engine with it. I'm wondering what would be an optimal set-up.

86Shelby
03-15-2006, 10:55 PM
16V high revving, let that sucker breathe!

I've thought a lot about picking one up as well. Toss a TIII head and a GLHT into the mix and it should make for some good times...

Mario
03-16-2006, 03:18 PM
What would be the optimum rod length to use?

Also I remember reading a while back that either someone used a pre 89 crank in an 89 and up block or vise versa. If that's true what do I have to modify in order to do that? The seals and their housings?

8valves
03-16-2006, 03:22 PM
I think it's the front snout of the crank that is different between common blocks and not. How to use one in the other, you've got me.

You'd definately want either a bad --- 8V head with some serious work done to it, or a 16V optimally with a short throw setup. I think it would be awesome, and if you use the right rod length you'd be sitting pretty for a better rpm range. Now, the actual rod length, let me get back to you, I'll see what I can come up with.

Aaron Miller

Mario
03-16-2006, 07:18 PM
Thanks, I appreciate it.

rbryant
03-17-2006, 02:31 PM
Wouldn't it be just as easy to drop in a 2.0 from a Neon block and all?

Unless you are putting it into an lbody the motor mounts should be cheaper to fab up than the crank would be.

I guess electronics would be the issue.

-Rich

BadFastGTC
03-18-2006, 08:14 AM
I'm putting a 2.0 crank in the common block and we're making a sleeve to press over the 2.0 snout. The common block seal retainer will be changed to accept the '87 seal. There are a ton of rods to chose from out there. A rod for a SBC with a thicker bearing may work without too much trouble. I would rather just buy a set of cutom pistons instead of having to but a set of custom rods and pistons.

As far as the head goes, I'm working on a copy of a raised port 8V that a buddy of mine did a few years ago. The goal with all of this is to nail 500WHP.





I think it's the front snout of the crank that is different between common blocks and not. How to use one in the other, you've got me.

You'd definately want either a bad --- 8V head with some serious work done to it, or a 16V optimally with a short throw setup. I think it would be awesome, and if you use the right rod length you'd be sitting pretty for a better rpm range. Now, the actual rod length, let me get back to you, I'll see what I can come up with.

Aaron Miller

turbovanman²
03-19-2006, 04:20 AM
Wow, sounds awesome Steve, :thumb:

TrrboJeep
03-20-2006, 01:27 PM
The goal with all of this is to nail 500WHP.
500hp! Holy scattershield batman! :lol:

altered7151
03-20-2006, 01:50 PM
I'm putting a 2.0 crank in the common block and we're making a sleeve to press over the 2.0 snout. The common block seal retainer will be changed to accept the '87 seal. There are a ton of rods to chose from out there. A rod for a SBC with a thicker bearing may work without too much trouble. I would rather just buy a set of cutom pistons instead of having to but a set of custom rods and pistons.

As far as the head goes, I'm working on a copy of a raised port 8V that a buddy of mine did a few years ago. The goal with all of this is to nail 500WHP.

Definitally keep us updated on how things are going. I'd be super interested in how that works out, would like to use something like that for a bonneville motor.

altered7151
03-20-2006, 06:55 PM
I'm putting a 2.0 crank in the common block and we're making a sleeve to press over the 2.0 snout. The common block seal retainer will be changed to accept the '87 seal. There are a ton of rods to chose from out there. A rod for a SBC with a thicker bearing may work without too much trouble. I would rather just buy a set of cutom pistons instead of having to but a set of custom rods and pistons.

As far as the head goes, I'm working on a copy of a raised port 8V that a buddy of mine did a few years ago. The goal with all of this is to nail 500WHP.

I was wondering what you're doing for the main bearings? It looks like the 2.0 main journals are like over .300" smaller then the 2.2 crank. Are you having the journals welded up and turned?

BadFastGTC
03-21-2006, 06:04 PM
The main and rod journals are the same as stock 2.2 stuff.





I was wondering what you're doing for the main bearings? It looks like the 2.0 main journals are like over .300" smaller then the 2.2 crank. Are you having the journals welded up and turned?

BadFastGTC
03-21-2006, 06:06 PM
I worry about that area a good deal! Hopefully my billet flywheel will be stout enough for what I hope to accomplish.




500hp! Holy scattershield batman! :lol:

altered7151
03-21-2006, 06:11 PM
The main and rod journals are the same as stock 2.2 stuff.

Hmm, I must have been looking at the wrong specs then. How do the front snout o.d's compare, how large of a sleeve are you having to put on?

BadFastGTC
03-21-2006, 06:30 PM
The '87 crank uses a larger seal. The seal retainer for the '89 is going to get a small disc/washer of aluminum welded to it and then we will machine that out to the '87 size.

The remainder of the adapter will involve a bit more. The whole snout will be larger and will utilize a 1/2" ARP stud to hold the timing gear pulley. The sleeve will have to be larger than the '89 snout as leaving it the stock diameter will not allow us to cut another keyway. The difference in diameter between the two is roughly .100" So by going larger, we'll have enough meat to cut the keyway and be indexed properly. The inside of the '89 timing gear will also be machined out larger. The crank pulley will still bolt on fine with the ARP stud also. Gear removal won't be an issue either. The '89 snout is also longer and we'll make the sleeve long enough to compensate. Keep your fingers crossed!




Hmm, I must have been looking at the wrong specs then. How do the front snout o.d's compare, how large of a sleeve are you having to put on?

altered7151
03-21-2006, 06:53 PM
The '87 crank uses a larger seal. The seal retainer for the '89 is going to get a small disc/washer of aluminum welded to it and then we will machine that out to the '87 size.

The remainder of the adapter will involve a bit more. The whole snout will be larger and will utilize a 1/2" ARP stud to hold the timing gear pulley. The sleeve will have to be larger than the '89 snout as leaving it the stock diameter will not allow us to cut another keyway. The difference in diameter between the two is roughly .100" So by going larger, we'll have enough meat to cut the keyway and be indexed properly. The inside of the '89 timing gear will also be machined out larger. The crank pulley will still bolt on fine with the ARP stud also. Gear removal won't be an issue either. The '89 snout is also longer and we'll make the sleeve long enough to compensate. Keep your fingers crossed!

Would it be possible to just have the snout surface welded up, then machined and have the new key-way recut? Seems like that route might be a little easier if you could use the stock CB front seal and retainer and crank timing pulley. I'm definitally keeping my fingers crossed for you though, this sounds like an awesome set-up!

turbovanman²
03-21-2006, 07:38 PM
The '87 crank uses a larger seal. The seal retainer for the '89 is going to get a small disc/washer of aluminum welded to it and then we will machine that out to the '87 size.

The remainder of the adapter will involve a bit more. The whole snout will be larger and will utilize a 1/2" ARP stud to hold the timing gear pulley. The sleeve will have to be larger than the '89 snout as leaving it the stock diameter will not allow us to cut another keyway. The difference in diameter between the two is roughly .100" So by going larger, we'll have enough meat to cut the keyway and be indexed properly. The inside of the '89 timing gear will also be machined out larger. The crank pulley will still bolt on fine with the ARP stud also. Gear removal won't be an issue either. The '89 snout is also longer and we'll make the sleeve long enough to compensate. Keep your fingers crossed!

Would love to see pics of that, :thumb:

Directconnection
03-21-2006, 07:47 PM
I'm putting a 2.0 crank in the common block and we're making a sleeve to press over the 2.0 snout. The common block seal retainer will be changed to accept the '87 seal. There are a ton of rods to chose from out there. A rod for a SBC with a thicker bearing may work without too much trouble. I would rather just buy a set of cutom pistons instead of having to but a set of custom rods and pistons.

As far as the head goes, I'm working on a copy of a raised port 8V that a buddy of mine did a few years ago. The goal with all of this is to nail 500WHP.

This is something I have been wanting to do...but time/money/and enough knowledge is needed;) I have said in the past that 500whp is acheivable in my opinion on the 2.2 8V. Add in the 2.0 crank (I had thought of offset grinding a forged 2.2 crank instead) and the JS style head and Steve's goals will be met no problemo.

BadFastGTC
04-01-2006, 08:15 AM
Steve,

Cost is a major factor for me also. Thank goodness my machinist is going to be me for the most part! The guy who does my machine work was very cool about this project as he said,"You can pay me a ton of money to do this, or you can come up here on your spare time and do it after I show you how." Needless to say, I jumped on the opportunity. The first thing I had to do was machine the "semi-finished" head without a blueprint. I used an old 445 casting for a reference. A lot of tedious work to get it under construction. I also am putting in a shouldered Hemi valve guide vs. the standard 2.2 guide. Again, more machining, but I wanted to go this route as I will gain a little retainer to guide/seal clearance. Most of the rough port work is done. I'm going to finish machining the guides, cut spring seats, and machine/install seats next week. Copper-beryllium seats are going in the exhaust side. I can then do the combustion chambers before rough cutting the seats. Looking at ports raised 1/2", I can see why JS had such success with his head.

The crankshaft worf will be the same thing. I'll get a brief overview as to what to do and then he'll let me fire on high!



This is something I have been wanting to do...but time/money/and enough knowledge is needed;) I have said in the past that 500whp is acheivable in my opinion on the 2.2 8V. Add in the 2.0 crank (I had thought of offset grinding a forged 2.2 crank instead) and the JS style head and Steve's goals will be met no problemo.

BadFastGTC
04-01-2006, 08:16 AM
Would love to see pics of that, :thumb:

Buy me a camera!

BadFastGTC
05-03-2006, 09:18 AM
I'm putting a 2.0 crank in the common block and we're making a sleeve to press over the 2.0 snout. The common block seal retainer will be changed to accept the '87 seal. There are a ton of rods to chose from out there. A rod for a SBC with a thicker bearing may work without too much trouble. I would rather just buy a set of cutom pistons instead of having to but a set of custom rods and pistons.

As far as the head goes, I'm working on a copy of a raised port 8V that a buddy of mine did a few years ago. The goal with all of this is to nail 500WHP.

Update on this: Monday I began to make a crank pulley out of T-6061 to position everything as if I were using a common block crank. It was easier to make a new timing belt pulley rather than the initial method we looked into doing. We will still modify the factory seal retainer as previously stated.

altered7151
05-03-2006, 09:34 AM
Update on this: Monday I began to make a crank pulley out of T-6061 to position everything as if I were using a common block crank. It was easier to make a new timing belt pulley rather than the initial method we looked into doing. We will still modify the factory seal retainer as previously stated.

Awsome work, I can't wait to see what kind of numbers this thing will lay down. Keep us updated :thumb:

John B
05-03-2006, 10:18 AM
Same as a 327 small block Chevy. Good omen!

BARRON
05-05-2006, 07:24 PM
Buy me a camera!


Just a heads up,you can get a cheapo digital camera that takes a decent pic(around 640x480-800x600 resolution) for less than $40 at wallmart.


These pictures were taken with said type of camera.

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/420000-420999/420349_3_full.jpg http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/420000-420999/420349_2_full.jpg

:thumb:

BadFastGTC
06-05-2006, 08:26 AM
The seal retainer was completed on Saturday. It will adapt the common block seal retainer to the '87 seal size and position perfectly! It was a royal pain in the --- to make, due to time consumption. The next step is welding it to the common block retainer and then machining the weld flat. I also ground down the end mill to cut the teeth in the new pulley on the crank grinder. I needed the end mill cut deeper for the depth of the teeth. Tonight I will get the pulley on the degree head and have at it.





Update on this: Monday I began to make a crank pulley out of T-6061 to position everything as if I were using a common block crank. It was easier to make a new timing belt pulley rather than the initial method we looked into doing. We will still modify the factory seal retainer as previously stated.

BadFastGTC
06-18-2006, 07:16 AM
Here is a shot of the crank pulley. I've been informed that the T-6 6061 may not hold up, rather I should have used a 7075. I hope I do not have to make this pulley again, although I do have a small mistake to correct.

John B
06-18-2006, 01:14 PM
6061 is a good alloy, and weldable. 7075 has a high magnesium content and does have more strength, but it's not all that much greater and it's not weldable.. 7075 is more prone to cracking than 6061. I kinda think 6061 will be just as good as 7075. The 7075 will be T6 hardness to the T6 hardness of 6061, so the wear characteristics should be similar.

BadFastGTC
06-18-2006, 07:12 PM
I sure hope so, as I said, I really do not want to have to make another one! Thanks for the info John.

Are the wear characteristics of the 7075 better than the 6061?




6061 is a good alloy, and weldable. 7075 has a high magnesium content and does have more strength, but it's not all that much greater and it's not weldable.. 7075 is more prone to cracking than 6061. I kinda think 6061 will be just as good as 7075. The 7075 will be T6 hardness to the T6 hardness of 6061, so the wear characteristics should be similar.

powermaxx
06-18-2006, 10:26 PM
I sure hope so, as I said, I really do not want to have to make another one! Thanks for the info John.

Are the wear characteristics of the 7075 better than the 6061?

You might try hard anodizing it. They do that on my blower pulleys.

Directconnection
06-18-2006, 10:45 PM
6061 is a good alloy, and weldable. 7075 has a high magnesium content and does have more strength, but it's not all that much greater and it's not weldable.. 7075 is more prone to cracking than 6061. I kinda think 6061 will be just as good as 7075. The 7075 will be T6 hardness to the T6 hardness of 6061, so the wear characteristics should be similar.

We used to use a certain aluminum for making molds which is more dense and much harder than the common and cheaper 6061. The aluminum I am talking about was a 7xxx series.

Steve...have fun with the broach on that keyway? Watch yer fingers up top!

BTW...get it anodized. There are different ypes of anodizing... I have an article that was done on SCC and aem ghears on the anodizing processes and which ones had the best wear characteristics. I think my wife wiped out the link in my favs... try a search on the article. I actually have it printed out somehweres...

BadFastGTC
06-19-2006, 07:12 AM
I most certainly will do that. Thanks.



You might try hard anodizing it. They do that on my blower pulleys.

BadFastGTC
06-19-2006, 07:15 AM
Steve,

I did have fun on the 50 ton press with that tool. Thanks godness I didn't have to make one of those!

I'll do a search here this morning for the anodizing and see what I can come up with.





We used to use a certain aluminum for making molds which is more dense and much harder than the common and cheaper 6061. The aluminum I am talking about was a 7xxx series.

Steve...have fun with the broach on that keyway? Watch yer fingers up top!

BTW...get it anodized. There are different ypes of anodizing... I have an article that was done on SCC and aem ghears on the anodizing processes and which ones had the best wear characteristics. I think my wife wiped out the link in my favs... try a search on the article. I actually have it printed out somehweres...

Directconnection
06-19-2006, 12:20 PM
Were I was working, we often used a "hard coat" which was thicker than normal, but also harder...obviously. There's also a neat ano with teflon added as well.

Mario
07-04-2006, 04:22 AM
I've been gone for a while. I see there's been some updates since then.

Steve, what rods and pistons do you plan on running?

Aaron, did you ever come up with any optimal lengths?

mpgmike
07-04-2006, 10:17 PM
http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/index.html

Anodizing stuff galore.

Mike

BadFastGTC
07-05-2006, 07:57 AM
Mario,

I'd been looking into a 6.125" SBC rod, however, I have run into issues coming up with adequate rod width. I've contacted a few manufacturers and inquired into the width of blanks. I figured I could just finish them myself if I could find what I needed. No dice so far. I was hoping to stay away from a custom rod and a custom piston. I suppose I will have to do both.

Steve M.







I've been gone for a while. I see there's been some updates since then.

Steve, what rods and pistons do you plan on running?

Aaron, did you ever come up with any optimal lengths?

BadFastGTC
08-02-2006, 07:34 AM
I found some Crower billet rods that Mike @ FM helped me out with. The rods are 34 grans lighter than the factory rod and are 6.350" long. Very nice stuff, albeit they are used. I'll have to replace the bushings at the pin ends, but otherwise they are fine. Rod bearing clearances are .002". Schweet!

Steve M.



Mario,

I'd been looking into a 6.125" SBC rod, however, I have run into issues coming up with adequate rod width. I've contacted a few manufacturers and inquired into the width of blanks. I figured I could just finish them myself if I could find what I needed. No dice so far. I was hoping to stay away from a custom rod and a custom piston. I suppose I will have to do both.

Steve M.

Frank
08-02-2006, 08:14 AM
I found some Crower billet rods that Mike @ FM helped me out with. The rods are 34 grans lighter than the factory rod and are 6.350" long. Very nice stuff, albeit they are used. I'll have to replace the bushings at the pin ends, but otherwise they are fine. Rod bearing clearances are .002". Schweet!

Steve M.

I am finding your setup is going to be pretty crazy! With the shorter stroke and the longer rods, you geometry should allow for better leverage and higher revs... should be crazy with that head.


Frank

BadFastGTC
08-03-2006, 09:46 AM
I sure hope so Frank. By the way, the rods are grams lighter, not grans! The Crower rods are the first version of their RBT stuff. Very nice and stout! The first version use a stud and nut vs. a bolt. You can view them via this link. Go to page 151-172.

http://www.crower.com/misc/m_cat.shtml


Steve M.




I am finding your setup is going to be pretty crazy! With the shorter stroke and the longer rods, you geometry should allow for better leverage and higher revs... should be crazy with that head.


Frank

Frank
08-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Where is your Iron City Avatar by the way?

Reaper1
08-06-2006, 06:13 PM
Steve, you've got a nice set-up going on there! It's got me alsmot wanting to get my custom bottom end put together!

I had a 2.2 crank offset welded and ground to 3.75" stroke and had the rod journals made for SBC rods(width taken in to account) that are 6" long(Lunati H-beams). To match it all up I have cutom JE pistons. There are two issues keeping me from acutally assmebling this thing: #1 the rods are made for a V8, so they are flat on one thrust side because they are supposed to be back-to-back and have a fillet(I think that's the correct term) on the other. I don't know if I need to have the rods machined on the falt side to be the same as the other, and if I do, what, if anything, I need to do to the bearings. #2 is that the crank is a non-CB crank. I had the seal surface on the snout turned down to the CB size, and I think that it sticks out far enough for the CB seal retainer, but I can't remember.

If you have any hints or suggestions I'd appreciate it. I might just put this thing together!