Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide!



Go Back   Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide! > Technical Forums > Performance Talk

Click here to search for Mopar cars and parts for sale.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-15-2002, 09:08 PM
plymsatellite66's Avatar
plymsatellite66 plymsatellite66 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charles City, IA
Age: 41
Posts: 65
Default Rod choices for hi-po 440

I'm currently working on building a 440 for my Satellite. It's going to be a fairly hi performance engine and I'm either going to put Arias, Diamond or Ross pistons in it so they are going to be lighter than stock pistons. I have a set of 440 six pack rods for the engine, but talking to a friend and he told me to sell them and buy a lighter set because I don't have heavy pistons attached to them and I could save some money and weight. What do you guys think? Would a lighter and possibly weaker rod work better because of the lighter piston? I thought a weaker rod could result in a bent rod more easliy? Thanks in advance for your help

Corey
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-15-2002, 09:18 PM
deadhorse66's Avatar
deadhorse66 deadhorse66 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LaCenter, KY
Age: 42
Posts: 482
Default

I wouldn't want a sixpack rod in even a low performance engine. They weigh a ton, and aren't strong enough to justify the extra weight. Get your Arias or whichever piston (all of the ones you mentioned are great), get a custom (forged, not billet) rod with a .990 big block Chevy wristpin and lose some more weight, and get them 6.86 in length if you are going to run an open head and a thick gasket. Do that, and you will have a lighter, faster revving 440 with a better rod ratio (which equals more horsepower and torque) and a good compression ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-15-2002, 09:19 PM
6 packin's Avatar
6 packin 6 packin is offline
This account disabled due to bad email address!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Under my car!
Age: 48
Posts: 1,551
Default

The 6 pack rods are heavy duty and just plan heavy! The stock "LY" rods will be fine and you will benifit in the Rev department. Remeber also the crank is matched to those rods. If you run the lighter LY rods without balancing the crank severe vibration and premature bearing failure will occur! Its easy to balance the heavy 6 pack crank for lighter rods. Hard to go the other way standard crank to use with heavy rods. I would just run them save some money. The power differance will be negligable. Also you will have a piece of mind knowing the bottom end is up to what ever you can dish out!
__________________
68 Coronet
69 Super Bee......new 500 cid comin soon!
73 Duster witha missing 440/727
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-15-2002, 09:23 PM
deadhorse66's Avatar
deadhorse66 deadhorse66 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LaCenter, KY
Age: 42
Posts: 482
Default

Yabut...if he wants to benefit from the lighter pistons, he might as well have a lighter rod and get the quicker revving!! If you use stock rods, the light weight pistons aren't going to help much of anything.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-16-2002, 05:13 AM
phoenix phoenix is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: calgary
Posts: 70
Default Rods

Use "LY's", commonly known as stock rods. But find some with small balance pads up top, usually means more meat elsewhere where it counts, Plenty strong enough, same rod bolt as the 6-pack "CLUBS"!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-16-2002, 09:57 AM
dirty dan's Avatar
dirty dan dirty dan is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Rockingham,nc
Posts: 1,027
Default Opinions

everyone has one.
So here is mine too.
The sixpack rod was a good intention gone bad.
They were intended to strengthen the bottum end .
How ever ,the end result was an over weight rotating mass.
This slows the speed at wich the engine can wind up and down.
But even worse,it puts more stress on the bearings.
When you install after market pistons .
I would very highly recommend the engine be ballanced.
In fact if it were mine it would be.
Haveing said that,wich rod you need would depend on what you intend to use the engine for.
For a street car turnning no more then an ocational 5500 RPM.
You would do well with the factory rod ((non 6pack))
For an engine Turnnig 5600 -6500 ,you should at least have a set of h-beams.
For an engine turnning 6600-the moon you should have aluminum rod.
A pocket full of money and at least one spair engine.
Just my opinon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-16-2002, 07:02 PM
stick4406's Avatar
stick4406 stick4406 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 268
Default rods....

I remember seeing an article a couple years back that HerbMcCandless wrote and he mentioned that he thought the LY rods would handle 550-600 horse prepped right.I'm glad to see the general concensus on the 6bbl rods being too heavy,they are.Probably better off leaving those big rods to the resto crowd.You can probably pay for half of a new set of eagles .It all equates down to bob weight....I believe that the trw six pak replacement pistons were over 800 grams,thats almost 2 Ross,Arias or J>E> pistons.Lots of energy wasted to get everything moving...Stick
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-16-2002, 08:09 PM
dirty dan's Avatar
dirty dan dirty dan is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Rockingham,nc
Posts: 1,027
Default Re: rods....

Quote:
Originally posted by stick4406
I remember seeing an article a couple years back that HerbMcCandless wrote and he mentioned that he thought the LY rods would handle 550-600 horse prepped right.I'm glad to see the general concensus on the 6bbl rods being too heavy,they are.Probably better off leaving those big rods to the resto crowd.You can probably pay for half of a new set of eagles .It all equates down to bob weight....I believe that the trw six pak replacement pistons were over 800 grams,thats almost 2 Ross,Arias or J>E> pistons.Lots of energy wasted to get everything moving...Stick
800 grams?
I would have thought them hevier.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-16-2002, 08:55 PM
stick4406's Avatar
stick4406 stick4406 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 268
Default 800 grams.....

The trw pistons, are the 800 grams I was referring to. I wasn't typing clearly- The rods I would imagine would be measured in pounds(!!!!!!) Honestly I'm not sure on the weight of the rods but the whole combo is prehistoric technology.
Stick


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-17-2002, 05:44 PM
phoenix phoenix is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: calgary
Posts: 70
Default 6 pack piston

TRW L2355 SIX PACK piston and pin weigh 1,075 grams. Standard 6 Pack rods are around 900+ grams??
Standard "LY" Rods are about 840 grams, but what's mis leading here is that the small end of the LY's only weighs in at around 225 grams as opposed to the 6 pack "CLUBS" small end closer to the 300 gram mark sometimes.
DITCH THE CLUBS!!!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-18-2002, 10:30 AM
dirty dan's Avatar
dirty dan dirty dan is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Rockingham,nc
Posts: 1,027
Default Re: 6 pack piston

Quote:
Originally posted by phoenix

DITCH THE CLUBS!!! [/B]
Thats it.
Sell them to someone how thinks they need them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oil choices peg leg Diesel & Turbo Diesel Chat 3 05-27-2009 12:14 PM
Cam choices usdart Ram Truck Chat 8 07-15-2005 01:59 PM
cam choices? brent vendsel Performance Talk 3 02-08-2003 01:40 AM
Shock Choices BlownDakota Dakota Truck Forum 16 01-29-2002 09:05 PM
Gear choices Kevin_Rants Dakota Truck Forum 14 10-14-2001 03:03 PM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
. . . . .