Eagle threads resemble Fram filter threads. People who have used either with success will likely continue to use them until they personally run into trouble. Then they likely will not.
Those who have their mind set on a particular product will likely buy it regardless. Most of us (myself included), inquire about a certain product already have our minds made up. Forums are a great way for mass reassurance.
I personally have no ax to grind with Eagle. The crap I have seen were going into a motor other than mine. I also could care less where it is cast or machined. As long as the quality is there.

 

Just as a comparison, everyone here I am sure has heard of Manley. They have been in the performance parts business for as long as I can remember. Guess where their H beam rods come from? And if you look at them don't they look identical to the Eagle rod other than they have a MANLEY logo etched into the steel. They are chinese as well, I sorta giggled when a customer insisted on using a set of Manley rods in his LS6 engine because as he said "they are American made"......go figure eh? I guess its called out sourcing as most American businesses are doing these days to make more profit on their bottom line. Personally for me, its Callies, Lunati for cranks, Lunati, Oliver or Howards for rods.

 

I haven't used Eagle, but thought they were equivalent to SCAT which I have two engines with similar stuff that you are looking at in the other line.

Couple of comments:

My balanced SCAT kits were balanced until I had to either clearance the piston skirt for counterweight clearance or grind on the rod for cam clearance. So another balance was in order-I would have just bought their unbalanced kit in the first place in retrospect. Note, I had both kits in hand assembling two engines nearly at the same time...so couldn't learn from my mistakes as I went...

Secondly, I've always read .040 piston to head clearance is ideal...yes less is better, but you start getting really critical on stuff before things start impacting each other. My 400 was zero decked with a .039 FelPro gasket-no issues. My 350 is not zero decked as my super small combustion chamber on the LT4 heads would have pushed it to nearly 12.4 to 1! So it sits at 11.9 with a not ideal quench...it is also reverse cooled with a big cam so...no issues.

One other thing is I would not be grinding on a new set of AFR heads. Air flow is one thing that I would not want to mess with-spend a bunch of money for something so optimized...don't mess it up-and you won't know unless you make some trips to the flow bench. I would suggest using the head gasket to fine tune your CR...either use off the shelf like Fel Pro or go with a custom Cometic gasket. By the way, I think it would be good data to have your new AFR's bench marked on a local flow bench-gives you concrete data on which to plan-I thought it was worth the money for my combos...piece of mind at the very least.

Good Luck.

 

Like I stated earlier, we use a bunch of eagle kits. here are some pix of a few. I have a ton more. ALL of them required NO mallory to balance. Even a 4.25 BBC stroker, we bought it unbalanced, and it took very little removal to get it right
First, LS2 403. We have 3 more of these kits coming. 2 are sold, the third will be up for sale



Second, 540 BBC. 4.25 stroke, NO MALLORY to balance



Third, picture of an eagle crank. Notice the lightening holes drilled THRU the rod throws. This combined with the proper placement of the counter weights allows "neutral" balancing without the need for mallory



All of our engines, rotating assemblies go thru a complete check. ALL dimensions. Journal diameter, taper, fillet radius, rod side clearance, etc. Big end, small end diameters on the rods. The only thing we see consistently is the big ends are a little tight.

 

Mine not only required no mallory to balance, but with 445g. rods and 400g. pistons, my machinist was able to remove 3 lbs. from my 3.80" stroke Eagle crank, bringing it's weight down to under 46 lbs. It's completely neutrally balanced and is as smooth as a sewing machine.

 

3 pounds? What did he do, cut off a counterweight? lol...
Sometimes when you spit out X # of parts in X amount of time, some stuff gets screwed up. I got a set of pistons one time, from a reputable company, one piston was .005 over size. Again, this is why you CHECK EVERYTHING.
Blueprinting an engine is nothing more than making sure all tolerances are within spec. check, check, and re-check.

 

So you advocate sacrificing quench for an exact CR number. I stress just the opposite. I guess that's what makes a horse race

 

FWIW<,,,,My machining guy rates the "budget" totating assemblies like this:

1. SCAT
2. Eagle
3. Ohio Crank

 

Not at all. He was able to do so because of the lighter weight of the pistons and rods. While I didn't see the operation, the affected counterweights were turned down to reduce their weight. This guy's a racer. He and his father have done machining for area oval and drag racers for years. They know what they're doing and I have complete faith in them. Their work for me has always been exemplary and always checks dead on. I think they spend as much time explaining to me all they've done as they do on the work. I consider them a God-send for the things I am unable to do.

And if an engine's well thought out from the beginning, you should be able to hit a SCR goal within a tenth of a point or two anyway and still optimize quench.

 

That comment wasnt directed towards you, corvette kid. It was directed at the others posting about dimensions that were off.
I was only being sarcastic about the 3 pounds being removed.....

 

C4Techie: Ok...I'm not a 'techi', but I do like engines.

I enjoy reading pretty much any engine article I can get my hands on. From what I have gathered from these experts, .040 is the number to shoot for. Less and you run the risk of collisions (backed up with your quote of Chevy Power-.005 is a nice pad) and more you start to loose the effect of quench. It has been more than a couple times, I seen where folks keep it simple and specify a zero deck block with the seemingly standard SBC headgasket thickness of .039 to .041 (usually Fel Pro is the choice) offers. Based on this, I shot for .040 for the clearance-worked like a champ as far as I know (ie my engines didn't and haven't blown).

Concerning the cylinder head grinding: most who read this board are not the variety that pick up a set of aftermarket cylinder heads and then set about grinding on them or even have the facilities of cc'ing the chamber with a buret, etc. I'm certainly not one of them. I would rather spend the money on buying an off the shelf product and know they are as good as I could get. In other words, I put my faith in AFR, etc far more than my own or even the corner shop for working their magic...although I do recommend a third party flow bench to confirm the numbers of a new head.

CR: My 381's setup was based on a new shortblock and previously run CNC LT4 heads (equipped with a 54.6 cc chamber). Adding a stroked crank and slight overbore...I was limited to the decking of the block for a .016 piston in hole and .039 gasket thickness. Sure if I had been able to select a proper cc chamber head...ideal, but I'm not buying another set of heads to get the 'ideal' quench-it certainly isn't that important and certainly not enough to keep me in my comfort zone at 12.4+ CR...My factory LT4 came from the factory with a .025 in the hole piston height and .049 gasket-not much quench there and it has been known to run fine with a 10.8 CR and 'mild' cam.

I think quench can get over emphasized...CR is more important...sort of like the deal with rod/stroke combos...longest rod is best...people were doing expensive things just to say they were running long 6 inch rods, etc...waste of money at the 'mild' combo levels. Just ask Joe Sherman.

You are correct...million ways to skin a cat. Essence of hot rodding, right?

 

Guys. Thanks for the posts. It was enjoyable to read. It seems like the thing to do is drop the piston in the hole approx. 0.005 and with a head gasket of .039 would give me a CR of around 10.8, and a squish of .044.

.044 seems like a healthy number and so does 10.8-1 CR.

 

Well...I won't reply with a snappy comeback...since this thread has turned into immaturity and personal attacks, I will no longer post to it.

I've always thought the forum was a place to air ideas, suggestions, and experiences...apparently not everyone thinks that way.

I'll apologize to 88BlackZ-51 for having this discussion sink to this level.

Well it appears C4 Techie has deleted his degrading posts so will clarify that half of the discussion is now present...

 

why wtf? what's up?

 

No need to apologize to anybody. Some people think because they can spout some cool sounding phrase of the minute they snatched off the 'net, that they are some how above others. Just because something like quench is or isnt held to "ideal" specs, doesnt mean a combo wont perform well.
We arent building NHRA prostock motors here. The difference we're talking about as far as .005/.010 changes in quench, on a 11.0:1 motor ar virtually nil.
The biggest advantage to a tight quench, is resistance to detonation AT HIGHER COMPRESSION RATIOS.
Care to argue with me, C4techie? Talk down to me? I have built literally hundreds of engines, of all makes, and models. Can post pictures, dyno results and so forth.
You come on here and talk down to someone who is building a 10.something to one motor as if .010 diff in quench will make 100 HP less.
The same goes for the original arguement about eagle vs scat. While I have all the respect in the would for PETE K, saying eagle threads look like FRAM filter threads....? I have yet to see any pictures posted by anyone supporting scat, that show internally balanced strokers requiring no mallory,having lightened journals, superior machine work, etc. Not saying they're not out there. Just saying I PERSONNALY have seen more SCAT cranks BREAK than any other manufacturer. And I PERSONNALY have seen very consistant machine work from eagle.
This forum is about voicing opinions, and helping others. But, it shouldnt be done in a degrading manner, especially about something as trivial a .010 diff in quench.
Sorry for the rant..... Back to your regularily scheduled programming
And sorry to 88blackz-51

 

http://www.callies.com/crankshafts/compstar.htm

Everyone has, or is building a 383 it seems.

Compstar crank and rods for a 396 is what I went with.

Prices were very reasonable for a 3.875 stroke crank.

 

I did not realize that my comment about fram relating to eagle was degrading. It certainly was not my intention.
I personally have had problems with eagle, therefore I stray away from them.
I was simply trying to make the point that those are happy with a product will typically continue to use it. Until(if ever) that product disappoints them.
To me, it relates a similar point of view as was discussed in the Fram filter threads.
If my comments offended anyone, I would like to apologize. It certainly was not intended.

 

Not at all Pete. I wasnt refering to you as being degrading. I was questioning the "look like fram threads." When I read it I went out in the shop and carefully examined 2 diff cranks. Didnt at all mean that you were sounding degrading. I have a great deal of respect for you, as most on here do. Just sounded strange, hence the ...? at the end of that sentence.

 

This thread sounds like an old EFI/CFI tune.

 

It truly sounds as if you are talking down to people. Apparently not just to me. And again, I question the difference in .010 of quench in a 10.5:1 motor. You're splitting hairs. Because it in vogue. Will it improve performance in this particular app.? Maybe. Substantially? Probably not. Now, jack the compression up to close to 12:1, with a small chamber and a flat top and zero deck, then yeah, quench becomes critical. I dont think anyone on here is "beyond" learning. And again that comment sounds like your talking down to people. Last line of your post is def. degrading.....