557 question???

I like the 4.3 deal better myself and I have my reasons, but I know of a lot of 4.5 stroke motors in A460 and the like blocks making big power and its not an issue.

I'm talking about early blocks like the D1VE D0VE, and how about the D9 since we're talking about. I take a certain amount of interest in this topic because I will be keeping an eye for a crank for a future build.

AK wrote:found it


"Look closely and you'll notice that our first-choice 4.500-stroke Scat crank pulled virtually the entire piston skirt out of the bottom of the cylinder sleeve. This obviously was not going to work, and since we already had the pistons, we elected to move down to a 4.300-inch-stroke Scat crank and 0.100-inch-longer rods."

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1009_834hp_429_boss_ford_engine_build/index.html

I built two motors one a 532 one a 557 DOVE Blocks and all i can say is i sold the 557 and i still have the 532 and it makes plenty of power and the skirts do not show the wear the 557 was showing. If Kasse does something to a motor its not just for looks that man knows FORDS better than anyone i think he has proved it numerous times.

An A460 block with a 4.5" stroke with the 6.7" or 6.8" rod is an easy deal.....about 1/4" longer cyl. lenght.
I saw in the article that the Eliminator block has the extra long cyl. like the D9 and A460 blocks. I measured both blocks several years ago at Jetboat's place and found that not to be the case. Earlier this year some one on the other forum told me I was wrong .......I figured I was just stupid so i let it go. Last week I measured both blocks in Oakley's garage and the Eliminator block is still about 1/4" shorter that an A460 block.

Guess I was just lucky with my 557 D1ve block deal

So what blocks should and shouldnt be used for a 4.500 crank?

brand X should not be used!

studly wrote:

AK wrote:found it


"Look closely and you'll notice that our first-choice 4.500-stroke Scat crank pulled virtually the entire piston skirt out of the bottom of the cylinder sleeve. This obviously was not going to work, and since we already had the pistons, we elected to move down to a 4.300-inch-stroke Scat crank and 0.100-inch-longer rods."

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1009_834hp_429_boss_ford_engine_build/index.html

I built two motors one a 532 one a 557 DOVE Blocks and all i can say is i sold the 557 and i still have the 532 and it makes plenty of power and the skirts do not show the wear the 557 was showing. If Kasse does something to a motor its not just for looks that man knows FORDS better than anyone i think he has proved it numerous times.

On your 532 deal, you using a 4.3 crank with a 6.7 rod or 6.8 rod?

Most times a 4.5 crank 6.7 rod uses the same piston as a 4.3 crank and 6.8 rod. For my build I used a 4.5 crank and a 6.8 rod so as not to pull the piston down as far. It is a specific piston/comp height for that combo.

FWIW Mark

Lem Evans wrote:An A460 block with a 4.5" stroke with the 6.7" or 6.8" rod is an easy deal.....about 1/4" longer cyl. lenght.
I saw in the article that the Eliminator block has the extra long cyl. like the D9 and A460 blocks. I measured both blocks several years ago at Jetboat's place and found that not to be the case. Earlier this year some one on the other forum told me I was wrong .......I figured I was just stupid so i let it go. Last week I measured both blocks in Oakley's garage and the Eliminator block is still about 1/4" shorter that an A460 block.

Will say a Eliminator block is just over 6 5/16 long . deck doesnt need a clean up cut like the A460 block setting next to it . what's your A460 block measure ?

1Bad91 wrote:

studly wrote:

AK wrote:found it


"Look closely and you'll notice that our first-choice 4.500-stroke Scat crank pulled virtually the entire piston skirt out of the bottom of the cylinder sleeve. This obviously was not going to work, and since we already had the pistons, we elected to move down to a 4.300-inch-stroke Scat crank and 0.100-inch-longer rods."

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1009_834hp_429_boss_ford_engine_build/index.html

I built two motors one a 532 one a 557 DOVE Blocks and all i can say is i sold the 557 and i still have the 532 and it makes plenty of power and the skirts do not show the wear the 557 was showing. If Kasse does something to a motor its not just for looks that man knows FORDS better than anyone i think he has proved it numerous times.

On your 532 deal, you using a 4.3 crank with a 6.7 rod or 6.8 rod?

6.7 rod 4.3 stroke

DanH wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:An A460 block with a 4.5" stroke with the 6.7" or 6.8" rod is an easy deal.....about 1/4" longer cyl. lenght.
I saw in the article that the Eliminator block has the extra long cyl. like the D9 and A460 blocks. I measured both blocks several years ago at Jetboat's place and found that not to be the case. Earlier this year some one on the other forum told me I was wrong .......I figured I was just stupid so i let it go. Last week I measured both blocks in Oakley's garage and the Eliminator block is still about 1/4" shorter that an A460 block.

Will say a Eliminator block is just over 6 5/16 long . deck doesnt need a clean up cut like the A460 block setting next to it . what's your A460 block measure ?

The Eliminator block setting in Phillip's garage, as we speak, is 6-1/8" as was the one we measured at Bob's place a year or so ago. Maybe be eliminator made a running change at some point or maybe not.
A460 are 6-3/8" - 6.400" depending on which cyl. is measured.

AK wrote:I'm talking about early blocks like the D1VE D0VE, and how about the D9 since we're talking about. I take a certain amount of interest in this topic because I will be keeping an eye for a crank for a future build.

Well, anybody??

D9 blocks have the longer cyl. walls too.

AK wrote:I recently read in hotrod or popular hotrodding or one of those mags about a kaase stroker build where he was going to use a 4.5 arm then after mockup switched to a 4.3 because he felt the pistons were pulling too far out of the bores. Anyone had this experience with an early block? Just makes me wonder if it wasnt good enough for him, then what about the rest of us???

Long before there were 4.500 stroke/6.800 rod rotating assy's, there were only 4.500 stroke/6.700 rod rotating assy's available. The 4.500/6.700 combos were the norm. Further, during that same earlier time period, the D9TE block was presumed to be a less-than-worthy suitor for high performance engines (believed to be a late model "thin wall" cylinder block casting). And so guess what? Most 4.500/6.700 557's were built in C8VE, C9VE, D0VE, and D1VE blocks. And they ran and ran and ran without issue.

Simply stated, today we have better options available: the 4.500/6.800 combos are everywhere, and we know that D9TE blocks have their specific attributes. So going that direction is a noteworthy consideration. It does not, however, mean that the original combos (noted in the paragraph above) are to be viewed as sending up a big red flag of some kind. It's been well proven that they can work, too.

Paul

Paul Kane wrote:

AK wrote:I recently read in hotrod or popular hotrodding or one of those mags about a kaase stroker build where he was going to use a 4.5 arm then after mockup switched to a 4.3 because he felt the pistons were pulling too far out of the bores. Anyone had this experience with an early block? Just makes me wonder if it wasnt good enough for him, then what about the rest of us???

Long before there were 4.500 stroke/6.800 rod rotating assy's, there were only 4.500 stroke/6.700 rod rotating assy's available. The 4.500/6.700 combos were the norm. Further, during that same earlier time period, the D9TE block was presumed to be a less-than-worthy suitor for high performance engines (believed to be a late model "thin wall" cylinder block casting). And so guess what? Most 4.500/6.700 557's were built in C8VE, C9VE, D0VE, and D1VE blocks. And they ran and ran and ran without issue.

Simply stated, today we have better options available: the 4.500/6.800 combos are everywhere, and we know that D9TE blocks have their specific attributes. So going that direction is a noteworthy consideration. It does not, however, mean that the original combos (noted in the paragraph above) are to be viewed as sending up a big red flag of some kind. It's been well proven that they can work, too.

Paul

I read in a magazine, is usually where all the trouble originates from.............. (miss information)

IDT-572 wrote:
"I read in a magazine," is usually where all the trouble originates from.............. (miss information)

"It has to be true! I saw it on the internet!"



Paul

Does anyone have the actual measurements on one, or more D9 blocks as I have read from 6.125 to 6.375 and would like to stop guessing.

[quote="IDT-572 I read in a magazine, is usually where all the trouble originates from.............. (miss information)[/quote]

Regardless of where I saw it, It was the source (Kaase) that I felt made it noteworthy.

AK,

Neither I nor IDT-572 were picking on you. Our tongue-in-cheek posts are simply generalizations of very common replies that are regularly seen on discussion forums. His points to magazine journalists being mis-interpreted as actual engine builders, and mine points to others reading stuff on the internet and then taking the (incorrect) info as gospel, so to speak.

Neither points to you or to Kaase; he and I were just saying "hi " to each other.

Paul

5 day bump rule

Lem Evans wrote:5 day bump rule

ROTFLMAO!

Hi Lem!

Paul

Paul Kane wrote:AK,

Neither I nor IDT-572 were picking on you. Our tongue-in-cheek posts are simply generalizations of very common replies that are regularly seen on discussion forums. His points to magazine journalists being mis-interpreted as actual engine builders, and mine points to others reading stuff on the internet and then taking the (incorrect) info as gospel, so to speak.

Neither points to you or to Kaase; he and I were just saying "hi " to each other.

Paul

Thanks Paul, well said.............. Sorry AK I just hate to see the Rags carry people down the wrong road. It happens way too much.

Rod Ratio for 557 vs 532

557 Cubic Inches
4.440 bore
4.50 stroke
6.80 rod
=1.511
6.70 rod
=1.488



532 Cubic Inches
4.440 bore
4.30 stroke
6.7 rod
=1.558
6.8 rod
1.580

studly wrote:Rod Ratio for 557 vs 532

557 Cubic Inches
4.440 bore
4.50 stroke
6.80 rod
=1.511
6.70 rod
=1.488



532 Cubic Inches
4.440 bore
4.30 stroke
6.7 rod
=1.558
6.8 rod
1.580

454 Chubby 1.534 And Chevy's are the greatest engines ever built, so a 1.5 rod stoke ratio on a stoker BBF should be fine too..............