460 Stroker Kits

I am putting together a new line of stoker kits, stock heads and P-51.

I know Scat has a 4.750 stoke crankshaft for these things and my question is; Do people use these, or is it an outlier?

While I'm at it, what's the Blue Thunder head market like nowadays?

I'm unaware of the Scat 4-3/4 deal.....but Callies sells all they produce.

They had the 4.750 listed in their catalog but not much talk about it here.

Lem Evans wrote:I'm unaware of the Scat 4-3/4 deal.....but Callies sells all they produce.

That does mean that Scat will.

Are they mostly in boats, pullers?

Yes offer all strokes avaliable especially 4.5 and 4.75 if avaliable

Offer Pistons for Stock, P51/SCJ, AFR, A460 and C460 if you want to hit the major market

Mark O'Neal wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:I'm unaware of the Scat 4-3/4 deal.....but Callies sells all they produce.

That does mean that Scat will.

Are they mostly in boats, pullers?

Drag cars mostly and some dirt/mud deals. Not many classes where pullers are allowed super huge engines but there are a few out there.

68formalGT wrote:They had the 4.750 listed in their catalog but not much talk about it here.

I guess they were trying to keep it a secret They haven't sent me a catalog in about 5 years.

I found this from 2015.

https://www.429-460.com/t22117-4-750-4340-crank?highlight=Scat+4+750+crank

With a 4.750 stroke aren't you limited to about a 6.700 rod length? With that consideration how well will this work in a production block except for the D9TE? Would you make pistons with bore sizes of 4.390, 4.440 etc or would you start with a 4.500 strictly with the SVO style block in mind?

Most all are 6.7". A guy could get a 6.800" rod in there with a ~ 10.320" deck and 043/043/3mm. I'd want the longer cyl. and 4 both caps with either rod.

dfree383 wrote:Yes offer all strokes avaliable especially 4.5 and 4.75 if avaliable

Offer Pistons for Stock, P51/SCJ, AFR, A460 and C460 if you want to hit the major market

You have to offer what volume will support, unless you do it with a custom or "pre-engineered" piston, which I have no objection to.

Doing the kits with a stock and Kaase valve reliefs gets you 60 part numbers to shelf.

Of course most of the pistons companies don't stock but a fraction of their part numbers anymore. Maybe I should have gone to that model.

But I will add the 4.750.

DaveMcLain wrote:With a 4.750 stroke aren't you limited to about a 6.700 rod length?  With that consideration how well will this work in a production block except for the D9TE?  Would you make pistons with bore sizes of 4.390, 4.440 etc or would you start with a 4.500 strictly with the SVO style block in mind?

The bigger the bore is, the more you can pull the top land up. So I vote for a 6.000 bore with a 4.750 stroke and a 6.800 rod....

Using Lems parameters and the C/H is 1.145 which is doable and, if you can run a .975 pin you could get a land stack of somewhere around .320/.140/.078.

That's not too scary, though I'd like to find another .040 for the second land.

Or we could all stick with a 6.700 rod in that combination. Although I try to run the longer rods.

Mark O'Neal wrote:

DaveMcLain wrote:With a 4.750 stroke aren't you limited to about a 6.700 rod length?  With that consideration how well will this work in a production block except for the D9TE?  Would you make pistons with bore sizes of 4.390, 4.440 etc or would you start with a 4.500 strictly with the SVO style block in mind?

The bigger the bore is, the more you can pull the top land up. So I vote for a 6.000 bore with a 4.750 stroke and a 6.800 rod....

Using Lems parameters and the C/H is 1.145 which is doable and, if you can run a .975 pin you could get a land stack of somewhere around .320/.140/.078.

That's not too scary, though I'd like to find another .040 for the second land.

Or we could all stick with a 6.700 rod in that combination. Although I try to run the longer rods.

I just wonder about getting it to work at BDC with the 6.700 4.750 stroke combo in the production block with its .250 shorter bore. D9TE blocks have a longer bore more like the SVO. 4.500 6.700 is very workable but here we're talking about pulling it down another .125.

I have used a 4.750" stroke in a number of Big Block Ford engines meant for some kind of racing; (not some low compression engine).

If that customer won't use an A460 block or other good option, then I simply say NO.

A 6.800" length rod works OK but, the 1.135" compression height does not allow for a dish of very much volume.

A 4.750 crank and an early (pre D9TE OR SVO) block are a poor combination. The PIN is almost half way out of the bottom of the cylinder. That really loads the cylinder and the piston skirt beyond their limits. The piston skirts actually chaffe material off as they head up to the top due to the extreme loading and the D9TE/SVO blocks are only slightly better , still no adequate. Well over .600 of the skirt comes out the bottom on a short skirt design. The 632 Ford is better design wise over the Chevy because the .100 taller block does allow the 6.800 rod to be used but the bottom of the bore condition is still there. The longer cylinders require crank manufacturers to keep the counterweight shorter making it harder to remain internally balanced on steel rod applications.
A tall deck is a MUST for any stroke over 4.750 ( in case you didn't already know).

I seem to recall a guy who was building a 4.750 stroke with a 7.00" rod and custom made 2 ring pistons. I think it was on the "other" 460 forum....the one I don't go to anymore because of the ridiculous advertisements

I guarantee it will be an oil burner even with 20"s of vacuum in the crankcase.

rmcomprandy wrote:I have used a 4.750" stroke in a number of Big Block Ford engines meant for some kind of racing; (not some low compression engine).

If that customer won't use an A460 block or other good option, then I simply say NO.

A 6.800" length rod works OK but, the 1.135" compression height does not allow for a dish of very much volume.

Randy, how does the Eliminator block compare to the A460 when it comes to the cylinder legenth and using a 4.750 stroke crank?

gt350hr wrote:    I guarantee it will be an oil burner even with 20"s of vacuum in the crankcase.

They sure seem to work just fine

The 632 I had had 6.835 rods and 080 thick head gaskets

gt350hr wrote:      A 4.750 crank and an early (pre D9TE OR SVO) block are a poor combination. The PIN is almost half way out of the bottom of the cylinder. That really loads the cylinder and the piston skirt beyond their limits. The piston skirts actually chaffe material off as they head up to the top due to the extreme loading and the D9TE/SVO blocks are only slightly better , still no adequate. Well over .600 of the skirt comes out the bottom on a short skirt design. The 632 Ford is better design wise over the Chevy because the .100 taller block does allow the 6.800 rod to be used but the bottom of the bore condition is still there. The longer cylinders require crank manufacturers to keep the counterweight shorter making it harder to remain internally balanced on steel rod applications.
A tall deck is a MUST for any stroke over 4.750 ( in case you didn't already know).  

There are some horrible combinations out there these days. 4.000 stroke Clevelands with 6.000 rods.

You have to weld a ring compressor to the bottom of the cylinder to make them work. This thing doesn't sound much different.


And everyone knows....if you have to weld it, it's no longer a "bolt-on".

How about offering a 4.625 stroker for use in a D9 block? .060 over, please.

mach1charlie wrote:How about offering a 4.625 stroker for use in a D9 block? .060 over, please.

I think there is a 4.600" stroke cast steel crankshaft offered out there by someone.

I had a few Ford Racing, (big journal), 4.300" stroke, cast cranks offset ground to 4.600" stroke, also.

dfree383 wrote:

gt350hr wrote:    I guarantee it will be an oil burner even with 20"s of vacuum in the crankcase.

They sure seem to work just fine

Two ring pistons have been tried at the highest levels and poor oil control is always the problem.

gt350hr wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

gt350hr wrote:    I guarantee it will be an oil burner even with 20"s of vacuum in the crankcase.

They sure seem to work just fine

   Two ring pistons have been tried at the highest levels and poor oil control is always the problem.

Not the case in the ones I know of, quite a few of them running in the east with thin 3 ring packs and nothing exotic or weird done to them or oil consumption issues that any one have expressed concern over. Keeping in mind these are not street motors.