Best 1/4 mile time is 16.27 with a stock bore 225.

My question is, if I take that motor out and install my long rod motor with full floating 2.2 pistons. How much gain if any, in ET would I expect from this change

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page

With all the same head, induction, exhaust, compression, etc, my wild guess would be 0.2 sec gain.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

Thanks for your input on this Lou. It should be real close to stock compression, cut 60 off a stock head on this motor. An uncut head will be put on the long rod motor. For some reason my 2.2s are still -70 in the hole, with gasket I think we should still be safe for the turbo.

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page

All else being the same I bet you won't see any difference. What you gain with the long rods you lose from intake filling from the short rod accelerating the piston away from TDC faster.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

Air/fuel supply change for the long rod, don't quite understand what your saying

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page

I was thinking you would be using the K1/Wiseco, which should have lower friction ring packs. That would be the main difference.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

What benefit would that give me vs 2.2 piston ring pack?

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page

I am only guessing that the 2.2 pistons have a higher friction ring pack. No data, only a guess.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

The shorter rod accelerates the piston away from TDC faster than the long rod. That promotes faster cylinder filling.

The long rod "parks" the piston longer, so cylinder filling is slightly slower. You do have a slight gain from reduced friction from the rod angle, so it is basically a wash.

The 2.2 does have a narrower ring than the stock 225 pistons, but I bet you would be hard pressed to see any difference on a dyno.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

I should have looked at the pistons next to each other before we put the motor together. Now we know the rings have less friction/ not as wide. I think lower ring set on the piston would be less likely to get damaged JMO, better over all? Thanks for pointing that out Lou.

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page

Thanks slantzilla now I understand. It also leads me to another question. With the cylinder filling slower not pulling fuel in as fast. Could this cause maybe, leaning out the system a little
Also if the cylinder fills slower but has less area to fill, does it have the same volume of fuel per volume of area to fill

The last question, if the cylinder in the long rod lets say, has more volume of fuel per area to fill, is the explosion grater?

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page

Rod length will not change cylinder area. It will still be the same size as a short rod motor, it will just have a somewhat different filling time. Will it be lean? No. Your A/F will still be the same, just the fill rate will be slower.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

Thats cool, it will fill the cylinder slower than the shorter rods, do to length of the piston drop. The long rod parking the piston up in the cylinder, would not drop as much so my filling slows down. Is one better than the other If the A/F stays the same, why would one or the other be better

_________________
'72 Duster /6 with turbo build up
'03 Ram 2500 4x4 w/HEMI 5sp 4:10 posi
My Twister Page